« Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- August 30, 2007 | Main | Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- August 31, 2007 »

August 30, 2007


Karl Rove


Maybe you should ask Curt Pringle and Harry Sidhu their take on your analogy. If I recall, it was Pringle who was given credit for the anti-Kelo initiative in the city and was lavished great praise for it.

But your analogy brings an interesting perspective to the debate at hand.

larry gilbert

As a member of the Institute for Justice's Castle Coalition I had the opportunity to meet Susette Kelo and the Cristofaro victims from New London, CT last summer.
During that weekend we learned of the proposed project which included more than just a resort hotel as you highlighted above. Pfizer had plans to build an R&D facility, a conference center, retail offices and a park on the property.

While I strongly opposed that "taking" it is relevant to include the entire project scope.
Let me also point out that I sat next to Curt at a luncheon in the hotel. The Mayor was an invited guest speaker at the conference where he was commended for the non use of "eminent domain" in the city of Anaheim. His plan, to avoid engaging in E.D., can be found in the Institute for Justice "toolbox."


Sorry. No sale.


Why am I not surprised? Anyone reading these Disney threads know your in the tank for Disney, Zenger. I can't believe a libertarian like Norby appointed you to the county planning commission.


I only wish I were in the tank. Big bucks! However I am not.

BTW, Wallace, who are you named after - George, or that claymation character?



I don't think your on the D-land payroll. But your comments on this blog are usually pretty fair and objective, but on this topic you've been uniformly pro-Disney and anti-SunCal, and from my perspective it isn't so cut and dried. Even if you disagree with what SunCal wants to do, I'd think a libertarian like you would object to Disney's initiative and have a word or two about self-described conservatives like Pringle and Sidhu who embrace something they would oppose anywhere else. But you haven't said a thing.

Not like you. So I wonder.

David Michael

I am confused.

Didn't the owners of the Mobile Home Parks land ask for the change in zoning and be included in the commercial/tourist zoning requirement of the newly formed Anaheim Resort Area over 10 years ago.

So since the land owners wanted the zoning change, what is wrong with requiring them to keep to the request they made?

David Michael

Let me add a couple of more things...

Nobody has asked or required the Mobile Home Park owner to sell their land, neither the government nor any private entity.

SunCal did approach the Mobile Home owners and entered into an agreement that would allow, at a FUTURE date to buy the land at a certain price. When SunCal entered into that agreement it FULLY knew that the land was in the Anaheim Resort Area, and that it WASN'T zoned for housing.

As I understand it, and is my PERSONAL opinion, SunCal saw a chance to make a MAJOR profit by trying to switch the land from the Resort Zone use of commercial use (worth about $2 million per acre) and convert it to residential use (worth about $5 million an acre), and then an additional profit on either building the project itself, or selling the rights to others.

But SunCal CLEARLY knew the zoning rules when they made the deal, and was HOPING for the zoning change. It was not guaranteed, in fact the Zoning Commission turned them down. Only after political pressure did the project get moved to the City Council, who overruled the Zoning Comission decision.

If the Mobile Home parks never made the request to join the Resort Area, than I would be in favor of the project in general (though I think it is too high-density and should be LESS units per acre), but since the current owners ASKED for the zoning change to commercial, I have no problems with folks requiring it to REMAIN the current zoning use, and it has NOTHING to do with eminant domain.

David Michael

So where did the SPAMbot user come from?

Or do we not want to talk about SunCal and the current land owner, which is the heart of the matter and try and change the subject?

David Michael

Let me correct one typo, in my post (that got buried due to the Hotel guide issue) I said this...

>>SunCal did approach the Mobile Home owners and entered into an agreement that would allow, at a FUTURE date to buy the land at a certain price. When SunCal entered into that agreement it FULLY knew that the land was in the Anaheim Resort Area, and that it WASN'T zoned for housing.<<

What I should have said is that the Property owners of the 2 current Mobile Home Parks agreed with SunCal to sell the land at a Future date at a certain price.

The individual owners of the Mobile Homes at the site, which rent the land from the property owners did not make any sort of deal with SunCal. They basically pay a monthly rent to the property owners to keep their units at the site. And of course will be displaced if the city council's goes through. (And why doesn't that get talked about, displacing hundreds of families from current affordable housing? Where will they go, and how much will they get for being forced to relocate?....)

David Michael

Let me just say one BIG THANKS to all that run the OC Blog, and that includes Jubal (aka Matt).

You got rid of the off-topic Asian Hotel stuff (over 10 posts, which I referred to as the SPAMbot above), but left my posts up.

I know I mainly disagree with Jubal on the SunCal proposed housing, but you have been very fair in letting folks express their opinions (IF they are not rude, violate the board's rules, or just are dumb, as the Asian Hotel posts were).

Thanks for allowing an open discussion on the matter, and here is hoping that a lot of folks respond to what is being discussed, from all sides of the issue.


Okay, Wallace. Your second post was civil - thanks for the kind words - so I'll respond. Since the beginning I have characterized both sides as wanting to manipulate local gov't for their own ends. Nothing evil there - just life in human society.

I harbor no ill will to SunCal either. Land speculation is as American as baseball. A steroid-sized land flip is no worse than a Barry Bonds homerun - to conclude the metaphor.

I do object to the monstrous density implied in the zone change and have always said so.

I do object to the City Council's apparent sidestep of CEQA - an onerous collection of regulations, but state law nevertheless - and laws to which all private citizens are required to adhere. So govevernment ought to as well, n'est-ce-pas?

I have always objected to city councils that confer vast increases in property value with very little concommitant return to the citizens who get to deal with the impacts created. In a political deal it's always wise to throw us curs a bone.

And I do object to the supposed provision of "affordable housing" as some sort policy accomplishment.

At the very outset of this contretemps I made it clear that I am not fond of masterplans; and as I rule I mistrust referenda. But I've also opined that if the public has come to mistrust their reps first loyalty then they should have the ability yank the chain. Nobody is going to exercise the recourse of "ballot box zoning" unless they're really fed up with what the council majority is doing. Of course Disney is funding the SOAR operation. Without public support I don't think it wouldn't get very far.

What baffles me is why some people think I should be even-handed in doling out criticism to both sides - like I was some sort of journalist or disinterested public policy group. I think I am being even-handed - playing the devil's advocate (if nothing else) on a blog dedicated to going after Disney. Seems to me like the system is working!

BTW, I am not a Libertarian (or even libertarian). I have become something of a Grover Cleveland Republican in my middle age.

Long-time politico


You also seem to have become an accomplished painter.


Aw shucks L-tp, you're making me blush. But I don't do houses or signs!

west of Euclid

"While I strongly opposed that "taking" it is relevant to include the entire project scope."

Curt signed the ballot argument Jubal's quoting. You should remind him of the scope.

larry gilbert

west of Euclid.
Are you indicating that the mayor is not practicing what he preaches? While you reference my thread I cannot respond on behalf of Curt. Perhaps he will read this post and jump in if he feels moved to do so.

The comments to this entry are closed.