Originally Posted By SpokkerJones ""Disneyland should be a positive guest experience for everyone - not just an after work hangout for immature thirty five year old man boys who want to stalk female face characters and snap photos of new construction work while they clog up pathways cynically trashing the latest in-park developments"" At the very least, the man boys should pay more. The annual pass makes their per visit cost very, very low, and I tend to think that more happiness is created when you enable a person to visit Disneyland once than when you enable a person to visit Disneyland 50 times. In essence, I would raise the price of annual passes and lower the price of one-day passes.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Can a family in the fallout zone for the fireworks North of the park afford to visit Disneyland for even one day? Probably not. The 20 or 30-something cynics, a group I belong to, find a way to visit 50 or more times a year. Something isn't right in that scenario.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Funny you mention the neighborhoods just north of the park Spokker. After forgetting which direction I wanted to go, I had to pull a U-turn in a neighborhood cul de sac off Ball Road literally in the shadow of the Disneyland parking structure the other day. The 1950's tract homes there were neat and tidy, and rather stylish looking with fresh paint and upgraded lighting and garage doors. The driveways were all parked with shiny late model SUV's, Dodge Chargers or Nissan Altimas. Kids in hip clothes played in the street on new looking bikes. The lawns were all green and mowed, and flower beds and street trees were well tended. It wasn't a cul de sac in Newport Coast by any stretch, but it certainly wasn't the gritty, scary neighborhood I was expecting. Except for the 21st century cars and clothes, it looked rather idyllic and 1950's Pleasantville. I'm thinking the neighborhoods directly around Disneyland aren't quite the cesspit they've been made out to be. And I absolutely love the term "man boy" to describe the superfan APs visiting Disneyland bi-weekly. I had to chuckle at that one.
Originally Posted By MoondoggieCA ""Disneyland should be a positive guest experience for everyone - not just an after work hangout for immature thirty five year old man boys who want to stalk female face characters and snap photos of new construction work while they clog up pathways cynically trashing the latest in-park developments"" That is a quote from 1954? Where did that quote come from exactly?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "It wasn't a cul de sac in Newport Coast by any stretch, but it certainly wasn't the gritty, scary neighborhood I was expecting." Poor doesn't necessarily equate to scary or even gritty. I biked through those neighborhoods every day for a year, often at midnight-1AM after a late shift. The further you head North on Citron the better the neighborhoods look, but the neighborhood closer to Vermont St. is less appealing (more likely to find graffiti and stuff), but by no means scary, and definitely on the poorer side of Anaheim's demographics. Fireworks fallout definitely suppresses property values here, but of course, Disneyland was there first. Still, I think my point was made.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones What you have in Anaheim are a lot of people who may be poor, but have respect for their property and the property of their neighbors. So poorer neighborhoods actually end up looking rather nice, all things considered.
Originally Posted By TP2000 If "poor" now means owning a 3 bedroom tract home that is in good repair and with attached garage, with a two year old Charger or Explorer in the driveway, and new bikes and trendy clothes for the well-fed kids safe enough to play in the street, then the "poor" in SoCal are doing pretty darn good! Ha! Personally, I would peg them as solid working class folks, more than "poor". Again, it wasn't Newport Coast, and it wasn't glamorous. But it was a happy little street with apparently happy families living there. Don't know the street name, but this was a little cul de sac type street off Ball Road, wedged behind the TraveLodge right across from the parking structure, and definitely in the fireworks fallout zone since it was so close to the back of the park. You hear so many derogatory names for the neighborhood around Disneyland, like "Anaslime". I'm thinking they were confused with Stanton, which does have some rather unsavory looking sections. Or the folks who give Anaheim a bad name are just terribly sheltered or provincial and don't have a good grasp on what true slums and ghettos are really like.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Some of you have a funny definition of "poor". n Next time you're in San Francisco I'll take you to the Tenderloin and show you what poor really looks like.
Originally Posted By TP2000 Hans, no thanks. Last year at this time I spent a weekend in San Francisco in a fun boutique hotel near the Tenderloin. I strayed two blocks the wrong way one afternoon and it wasn't pretty.
Originally Posted By DlandDug North of Disneyland is a rather nice area. Try driving just to the west, however. It's quite a different story.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>For a large majority of the APers in the park, when averaging out their daily cost, they may even be paying LESS than a visitor in 1955 had to shell out.<< Hmm. In 1955, admission was $1.00. Rides and meals cost extra. $1.00 adjusted for inflation is $8.16 today. If the "average" APer is paying $300 a year for admission, they are getting into Disneyland about 55 times a year in 1955 dollars (about once every week and a half). Rides are now "free," but then, APers are either spending all their time gaming the FastPass system or stalking face characters while waddling about on the ever crowded paths. (It's hard to keep track of the most recent hyperbole.) Meals, of course, are much higher priced today, especially adjusted for inflation. So, unless an APer is going to the park more than every week and a half or so, they are paying about the same as the average 1955 guest. (Unless, of course, a buffet is involved. Then all bets are off.)
Originally Posted By oc_dean As I continue to read comments about hatred toward people who own APs .. may I suggest, those who do, direct your dislike to Disneyland MANAGEMENT ... For they are the ones who created this monster. They are out for profit ... and will pack the park to the rafters in the name of MONEY !!!
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "As I continue to read comments about hatred toward people who own APs" Talk about hyperbole. I don't think anyone has stated or insinuated that they "hate" APs.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I don't think anyone has stated or insinuated that they "hate" APs.<< One barely needs to read between the lines to see the hatred here and in other threads.
Originally Posted By avatarmickey115 Too all that say APers are horrible people, (yes, ive seen it. dont act like nobody's said it before on here) you dont seem to understand the other side of the story...if you lived as close to Disneyland as i do and loved it just as much as you do now...which im sure is a lot if you come on these boards...then wouldnt you want a pass? would you want to shell out 97 dollars everytime you wanted to come to the parks? im sure if u lived 30 minutes away you'd want to come more than twice a year. So think about it...they kind of HAVE to have an annual pass system or else theyre parks would be a ghost town on every weekday during the off season. Yes, now with APs they are still pretty low crowds, but without those APs, they would just be loosing money...well, just not making what theyd like to... So please, stop baggin on the APers. Hate the Disney company for making these things! Although i do think the monthly payment is kinda unfair. Why cant the out of state people pay for their group of park-hopper tickets on a monthly payment system? that just doesnt seem right to me. Also, i think they should just get rid of the SoCal passes...just have a deluxe, premium, and a premiere.
Originally Posted By YumaJohn Now, of course I would have an AP if I lived close enough to justify it. It makes total economic sense. However, seeing as it costs me a MINIMUM of $1000, just to go to Disneyland, (YumaJohn don't live in Yuma no more) it is annoying to put up with the crowds. As was stated above, I think that the prices on AP's should be priced much higher. I am curious just how much people would be willing to pay. If the AP was twice the cost it is now, Disney would make the same amount with only half as many people buying AP's, unless the APer's are spending substantially in the parks. Is this the case? I bet the Mouse knows. I feel like i'm starting to ramble here but one more point. Are APer's keeping out of towners from coming to the parks? I would have to say that they are not.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "One barely needs to read between the lines to see the hatred here and in other threads." The comment about man children? Those are jokes. I went to Disneyland over 50 times in one year. I'm not ashamed of it but it is pretty funny and stupid when you think about it. Yuma John makes a good point. It costs almost $100 for one person to visit the parks for one day. It costs less than $200 to visit a hundred times in a year, if one so desires. The prices for the different kinds of ticket media are way out of whack. In the grand scheme of things, my 51st visit in a year is much less important than a child's first ever visit.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub I think the crowds keep many visitors from the parks. As a matter of fact everybody I know does not understand why anybody would go to Disneyland for a family vacation because of the cost and crowds and they think I am crazy so I don't even tell anybody I am going again. Most people I know plan family vacations to Hawaii or ski trips and wouldn't even place DL as an option to consider because of the crowds. So yes it does keep vacationers away. And not to be rude but those are the people that are dropping big time money.
