Originally Posted By Darkbeer More Drama... <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/disney-pringle-galloway-2202115-developers-million" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/arti...-million</a> >>Why would Disney/Pringle go after Galloway? Well, she did lead the effort to build affordable housing for resort workers in an area Disney/Pringle wanted to see tourist-friendly development. That was a big knockdown fight – but Galloway believes that's not the main reason she's now a target. After all, Disney ultimately got what it wanted. Galloway is now telling me (yes, that prescient columnist was me all along!) that Disney now wants to build two four-star hotels next to Disneyland and wants Anaheim taxpayers to give the company a $120 million tax break to make it happen. Galloway, as Disney might expect, says she won't vote for it. Disney, her theory goes, has only Pringle and Harry Sidhu as secure votes and needs a third vote. (Councilman Bob Hernandez isn't going to vote for it either, but he's not up for re-election. Councilwoman Lucille Kring owns a business in the area and can't vote on it.) So, the theory goes, Disney needs Eastman to win. The two hotels, with a total of nearly 900 rooms, have been discussed since spring. And Disney was reported then to be talking with two hotel developers about partnering.<< MUCH more at the link... (And a BIG surprise , Al Lutz was once again right about the AGW hotels...)
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Is it wrong for Disney to go after tax breaks? I go after tax breaks. I'm sure many reading this thread go after tax breaks. Why shouldn't Disney? Disney is in the business of creating an entertainment destination. I don't see why they should have to be forced to build affordable housing.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros The article seems a little one-sided, given that it only mentions that Disney doesn't want affordible housing for its workers, when they completely failed to mention that it was in an area that had been zoned as part of the Resort District, where the businessed have higher taxes and fees to help support the nicer signs and landscaping the area gets. Does that make it right for Disney to not need to pay as much in taxes? I doubt it, but with the rates that Disney's currently filling their rooms in their other 3 hotels, I'm pretty sure that they would make up the difference to the city pretty quickly. Between the taxes that they would pay on those hotel rooms and everything else those extra 900 sets of people would be spending on, I really don't think there's that big of a need for more tax money in the Resort District.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Obviously Anaheim, like many cities in California, has a housing problem. I agree that the City council and mayor should be doing more to address the issue in that city, however, it appears that this is becoming more about political jockeying than any real effort to help the tourist workers who need affordable places to live.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 I have no problem with tax cuts for Disney, IF that's what they were looking for. Had Disney not really been in talks about tax cuts, I can only imagine the reason is because Disney has a strategy and is just playing their cards to the best of their relationship with the community. Nobody really pays taxes because they feel it's glorious and patriotic do they? lol. Including big business.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 Interesting column. But I feel differently than those who posted with remarks against Disney and what they call "corporate welfare." Disney would be in the right to ask the City for tax cuts for resort expansion. I beleive they've done that all along, and to me it makes since. It all really breaks down to numbers and risk, and since we don't know numbers, we can't really asses this fairly. Heck, I remember reading about how lucrative Dallas and other cities had once made Disney If they would choose their city to build a resort in.
Originally Posted By fkurucz << Merced CA Wed 10/22/2008 9:01a Is it wrong for Disney to go after tax breaks? I go after tax breaks.>> Its one thing to take advantage of favorable portions of the tax code, and quite another to ask for a special break just for you. Why do megacorps that make billions of dollars in profits need corporate welfare? <<It all really breaks down to numbers and risk, and since we don't know numbers, we can't really asses this fairly.>> Good heavens! Are we that brainwashed? I for one am sick and tired of socialism for the rich (i.e. privatize the profit, socialize the costs).
Originally Posted By pitapan16 I go after tax breaks.>> Its one thing to take advantage of favorable portions of the tax code, and quite another to ask for a special break just for you. Why do megacorps that make billions of dollars in profits need corporate welfare?" -Do you have a problem with corporate or personal wealth? Why should'nt they ask for a special tax cut?
Originally Posted By Park Hopper Much as it pains me to bring up Reganomics, the trickle down theory might actually work in this scenario. Disney is going to be investing quite heavily in Anaheim, in the next decade and the city will no doubt benefit from it big time in the long run. It will mean more jobs (albeit most of them on the lower end of the pay scale) and an increase in spending within the city of Anahiem which will lead to more tax revenue. Greasing the economic wheels doesn’t seem like such a bad idea to me.
Originally Posted By bean without those hotels that are planned gardenwalk would sit empty along three large plots of dirt that are not collecting any room tax.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 It will mean more jobs (albeit most of them on the lower end of the pay scale) and an increase in spending within the city of Anahiem which will lead to more tax revenue." -True, lol. More jobs, but most of them in the minimum wage range. AKA, pretty sucky.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 Now that I think of it, they would'nt all be that bad, just the lower end stuff. Plus,epecially great If your into hospitality and people.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Garden Grove have been offering very similar tax breaks the last few years, and has had a lot of new upper scale hotels being built, with the new Sheraton Garden Grove being the latest to open. It is a competition to get the new business to build in "Your" City.....
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost No tax breaks is an enticing battle cry. I don't believe in "bailouts" or come to the rescue type economic breaks either, but, when a corporation generates as much local revenue as they do, you treat them like a rich uncle. Granted, Disney isn't going to pull up stakes and move Disneyland to some other small orange grove, but, the money that Disney is solely responsible for filling in Anaheim's bank account with, does deserves some "special" treatment. All of those that abhor minimum wage jobs should try the lifestyle caused by no job wages. No one is forced at gunpoint to work for anyone. If you have the education and the drive to do better, then what's stopping you. Nothing really! Quit whining and get a better paying job. Simple! If you don't have the education, get it. If you don't have the drive, then just wait around for the world to make it a better place, without the effort.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Do you have a problem with corporate or personal wealth? Why should'nt they ask for a special tax cut?>> I have nothing against wealth as long as it is EARNED. What I have a BIG PROBLEM with is billionaires extending their hands out for a tax payer funded hand out. I am against socialism for the rich. They don't need it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Garden Grove have been offering very similar tax breaks the last few years, and has had a lot of new upper scale hotels being built, with the new Sheraton Garden Grove being the latest to open. It is a competition to get the new business to build in "Your" City..... >>> Maybe so for the third-party hotels, but it seems unlikely that Disney would build its next DLR hotel in Garden Grove or anywhere else other than Anaheim. That doesn't mean that Disney should not see what it can get in terms of tax breaks, but they really are in a different position than other hotel operators as far as having a choice of cities.
Originally Posted By fkurucz I find it hipocritical when big business, which loves to quote the virtues of "free markets" when it is convenient will strong arm cash strapped communities into providing them with corporate welfare. Of course they always promise that the communities will more than make it up with aggregate sales tax revenues. Yet study after study shows that these promises are usually hollow, whether it be new stadiums, shopping malls, etc. In our local town we have our own shyster who promised the world in exchange for tax breaks, which he got. The mall he developed did not produce the tax revenue he promised. I saw the business plan he pitched to outside investors (he is smart enough to not actually have an ownership stake in the mall). In the business plan he substantially exagerated the median household income out here (by about 20K). Unbelievably, he got more tax $ approved to subsidize an expansion, even though phase 1 still has vacant store fronts (its been open for a few years). Fortunately the investors wised up and slammed their wallets shut and phase 2 is lost in limbo. He also developed an auto mall nearby (again, subsidized with tax $). Only 4 dealers took the bait. They are now operating out of some very nice facilites that under the current auto sales market they cannot afford. I expect at least one of the dealers to fold within a year, especially if Chrysler goes out of business. Of course he promised them that their sales would grow if they moved to the mall (as if more buyers would magically materialize). Instead they have substantially decreased sales and huge fixed costs that they didn't have at their old, probably paid for, dealerships. Other dealers did not take the bait and stayed put, and from what I hear they are very glad of that decision. Anyway, a few years ago this developer was revered as a god in our community. He even had streets named after him. Not so much today. The only headlines his firm makes is when they lay people off. The rumor mill has it that he is looking for greener pastures out of state.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Without Disneyland, Anaheim wouldn't be much of a city.>> I wonder if the average city resident really cares. Would their lives be worse if DL had been located in Santa Ana or Fountain Valley? Are they really any better off because of DLR?
