« Janet Nguyen Count-Up: 53 Days Of Evading The Law | Main | Tom Harman On Big Criminal Alien Roundup »

June 07, 2007



Thanks for posting the city report. I have seen the cable ad numerous times that uses the 50% figure and I assumed it was true. The city study you posted uses 3 different methodologies and ends up with 44%,39% or 21%. Each of these are less than the 50% that has been claimed but which one most accurately describes reality. Well I have been told over and over that the resort area contributes 50% to the general fund which finances police and fire. The money that is available to police and fire is net of pre encumbered resort expenses. Therefore the number that makes the most sense is the 21% figure. I am surprised that these folks have played so fast and loose with the facts. I might have supported Disney's position,but not now.

Anaheim H.O.M.E.

We discussed the article with Sarah this morning. She stated that the city of Anaheim report is considering that all of the TOT tax as coming from the resort area. In fact, many of Anaheim's hotel are located outside of the resort area. They are used by non-resort area business travelers and the very poor that must pay the TOT tax.

When corrected for the non-resort TOT income, the bottem line is that the Disneyland resort area is a tax burden on Anaheim residents.

Anaheim H.O.M.E.

Proof read: hotels and bottom.

colony rabble

Thanks for posting the link, as a research specialist, I much prefer reading the report than a reporter’s interpretation of it. The report clearly admits to assumptions and gaps. “as stated before, there are many different assumptions that can be made in the calculation of the impact of resort revenue to the city. I would recommend that a firm that specializes in these types of studies be retained for a full and complete analysis.”

I have done government reports, and trust me, that is CYA for “this information is incomplete and nobody should go making decisions based on this! Get a pro in here!” In fact, the study is a staff report, which means your “not even close enough for government work” is based upon, well, government work. You could turn yourself into butter thinking about that long enough.

Whose numbers do we want to trust? We all know darned good and well Disney has an army of bean counters tracking every nickel that runs through the Resort, where it came from, where it went, and how likely it is to return with more nickels next year. Or, I can trust numbers from a statement that says, “as you know, we do not track revenue and expenses geographically, or by specific business or residence. Therefore, each of the spreadsheets attached makes certain assumptions about the revenue generated to the City.” Hmm….highly paid bean counters, or “assumptions”? Where to put my trust? Thanks, I’ll stick with SOAR’s numbers.

In the end, Galloway’s demand for a staff report is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, brought to us by the mistress of slight of hand, to distract us from the fact that putting housing into an area with no schools, parks, or grocery stores is just a bad idea. Is SunCal going to create those services to support the additional residences they want to put in there? We don’t know, because there is no project, therefore, no mitigation report. But if residents in need of infrastructure move into the Resort, the area will certainly become the drain on finances Frank Elfend wants us to believe it is. I am standing by SOAR.


If you go to the very end of the report that the city manager made, he aknowledges that the figures that he uses are subject to interpretation and on page 8 recommends that a professional firm be hired to make a report. The City can play the numbers game all it wants, but you also have to consider that areas outside of the resort area are indirectly impacted by the business of the resort which is not even considered in the report by the City Manager. You can probably have 100 reports done and you will get 100 different answers. Even if it turns out to be 44% which was the high figure in the City Managers report, housing does not fit into the resort zone. The Anaheim Resort is where you take your family, you don't raise them there. The article by the register is misleading and even the council will admit to the importance of the Anaheim Resort Zone to our city. So why are we allowing developers to influence three council members? The last thing we need is another Knotts Berry Farm where housing was allowed across the street. I think that people forget all of the complaints from that area that arose over the noise, traffic and the rides that looked down into their backyards. We have over 65 square miles outside the resort were housing can be put. Let's keep the resort a resort.


Do any of the percentages include the free disney passes for the councilmembers and their families? Or all the private invitations to Club 33? Or use of Disney hotel space for non-political (yeah right) functions?

If Disney's economic impact is not significant to Anaheim, why don't they urge them to move out to Irvine or Valencia? Build a bunch of low and moderate housing and all will be great in Anaheim.

Funny how just 14 months ago Anaheim council and mayor invited all the electeds from OC to the Resort to meet the new GM and tout the economic impact of Disney and the positive aspects of the Resort Zone. Speaker after speaker could not say enough about all Disney did, especially beyond basic business. How they continually give and support the community and those less forutnate. Has all that has stopped now that they are the "Evil Witch"?

The comments to this entry are closed.