Originally Posted By fkurucz <<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.>> Why? Is their money more special than other taxpayers money? Or do they deserve special treatment solely because they are big? I am not saying that the city should be antagonistic towards Disney, but Disney should be able to pull its own weight without a handout. If there is a market for more hotel rooms why should taxpayers subsidize them? Do they really need a $133,000 subsidy PER ROOM? It sounds to me like they are asking the taxpayers to foot the entire bill. This is nonsense, and it has to stop.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "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." Wouldn't a true free market mean that there are no sales tax revenues? If the market was truly allowed to be free, then it would have the restrictions (and benefits) placed on it by any taxes? I think it's only fair that businesses that pay extra can benefit a little more when their time of need comes. "Are they really any better off because of DLR?" I don't know if DLR really helps their lives any, but without DL, I highly doubt that Anaheim would have a professional baseball team, a professional hockey team, or one of the world's biggest convention centers. I can't help but think that between those 4 things, at least one of them leads to some direct benefit to the citizens of Anaheim. "This is nonsense, and it has to stop." I also feel like it's nonsense to have as high a hotel tax as they do in Anaheim. I'm ok with paying a little extra, but a $20 addition to my one-night stay at the DLH seems like a little much, especially considering that along with the basic room rate, you also pay for a 'resort fee' and parking, which seem to me like they should be included in any hotel stay, but I know that's not standard practice in a lot of places.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Without DLR, Anaheim would still be selling oranges and be an LA suburb with no tax base and enormously high property taxes. When you guys see tax breaks to Disney you see handouts. I see established jobs and stability for that community. Even with breaks, I'm sure that they pay more taxes then any of us can even imagine. BTW, did you send back your tax rebate that W. gave you a little while ago. I'm thinking that is one handout that is acceptable.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Why? Is their money more special than other taxpayers money? Or do they deserve special treatment solely because they are big?<<< In the words of Sarah P. "Yup, you betcha!" How can you possibly compare "other" taxpayers money, especially amounts, to what Disney either pays or generates. The amount of tax that Disney generates in one day alone would blow the mind. If you would like to pay the same amount in, then you also would be eligible for a tax break. And I would support it.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<I also feel like it's nonsense to have as high a hotel tax as they do in Anaheim.>> Well, the corporate welfare money doesn't grow on trees, right?
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<BTW, did you send back your tax rebate that W. gave you a little while ago. I'm thinking that is one handout that is acceptable.>> While I think that it was a bad idea, at least almost everyone got one.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<I don't know if DLR really helps their lives any, but without DL, I highly doubt that Anaheim would have a professional baseball team, a professional hockey team, or one of the world's biggest convention centers. >> Again, what's the big deal here? Are these venues restricted to residents of Anaheim? Plus to add insult to injury, I wouldn't be surprised if Anaheim residents subsidize these venues as well. You know, from an outsiders perspective, Anaheim doesn't look all that different from its DLR challenged neighbors. You make it sound like the streets in Anaheim are paved with gold. The truth is that once you get a few blocks away from the resort area it looks pretty much the same as most of OC, which is to say, dreary.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<The amount of tax that Disney generates in one day alone would blow the mind.>> Whatever... We have a government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation. So much for "We the people...". The corporations call the shots and we peons had best get used to it.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Wake up and smell the coffee. As evil as they appear to be without those awful corporations, you wouldn't have a place to live or food to eat or a car to drive, etc. etc. As much as we hate them, without them we live on the land. Doable, but, a hard life that I for one would rather not have to do. Even Joe the Plumber has to buy his toilet parts from someone. That would be those evil corporations.
Originally Posted By fkurucz So your answer is to roll over and play dead? Just because they are big and powerful doesn't mean that they are entitled to welfare. But as long as we behave as "We the sheeple" then I suppose that we shouldn't complain.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Sometimes life isn't as simplistic as we think it should be. We have to learn to live within the boundaries of the game until we can find a better way of doing it that has the same end result. Just eliminating something doesn't solve the problems completely. By taking care of one, we can easily create other even more serious problems. Ideal thinking is fine as long as everyone remembers that we are complex people living in a complex society that has long since outgrown it's ability to just fix itself through simplistic ideals. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We must be very mindful of that reaction. Many times it is far more serious then the action. Welfare is the act of giving aid with no return on investment. Corporate bargaining, to be successful must have a return that makes it a real possibility. If it isn't mutually worthwhile you can bet it won't happen. It needs to be a win - win.
Originally Posted By bean Before somepeople jump into conclusion by just reading the article they really need to look into what is really going on. Disney is not going to benefit from this. From what i have been reading it all has to do with money being used to cover the cost from building a three star hotel to a four star hotel. The money would bassically go to the construction companies and nthe operator of the hotel, Disney does not benefit from it. It all comes down to Galloway creating hoopla right before the elections. She needs to be in the spotlight and make people think she is doing it for them
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Corporate bargaining, to be successful must have a return that makes it a real possibility.>> The problem, as so many studies have shown, is that this is seldom the case. << The money would bassically go to the construction companies and nthe operator of the hotel, Disney does not benefit from it.>> Its still corporate welfare.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<Sometimes life isn't as simplistic as we think it should be. We have to learn to live within the boundaries of the game until we can find a better way of doing it that has the same end result.>> And what are the chances of that happening as long as the big boys get to ransack treasuries across the country? Hmmm.... this is turning into a World Events thread.
Originally Posted By bean <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/galloway-pringle-disney-2207125-four-bring" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/arti...ur-bring</a> follow up story about situation
Originally Posted By Darkbeer From the above link, here are some comments from Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle. >>Pringle believes Galloway's take (and, by proxy, mine as well), on a potential $120 million tax break for the owners of a pair of luxury hotels near Disneyland is "a very unfair portrayal." First, Disney would only be the operator of the hotels. The tax break would go to the owners. So it's unfair, he says, to characterize it as a tax break for Disney. Second, the tax break – over 10, 15 or 20 years, depending on the scenario – would bring something to the community that business wonks like to call "value-added." This is a term business wonks use when there's some perceived but not easily quantifiable benefit to doing something that requires an initial expenditure that iseasily quantifiable. A term non-business wonks, like Galloway, sometimes call "pie in the sky." Pringle says there's no shortage of three-star hotels in Anaheim. What the city needs – to increase its cachet, to bring in a higher-spending breed of investor and tourist – are more four-star hotels. Right now, it has just one, the Grand Californian at D-land. Adding the nearly 900 four-star rooms at two new hotels would bring up a key statistic investors look at – the average room rate. So even if the city forgives fully half of the bed tax it would normally assess the four-star operators (this is the $120 million), by helping jack up the city's average hotel room rate, these four-star properties would bring so-called value-added to the city by attracting a new (higher) class of investors in other local businesses. "To say you're not going to support anything if Disney is involved in it is not right," Pringle told me. "(It smacks of) retribution against Disney for fighting high-density residential in the resort area. "I believe she has changed in the four years since I supported her last," Pringle said, "and that is disappointing."<<
Originally Posted By bean thanks Darkbeer, i should have thought about posting some key elements from the article.
Originally Posted By pitapan16 When you guys see tax breaks to Disney you see handouts. I see established jobs and stability for that community. Even with breaks, I'm sure that they pay more taxes then any of us can even imagine." -Well, I never felt that paying taxes was patriotic. And when I pay taxes I feel like I'm paying for waste and corruption. So extensive taxing is something I do not support for ANYONE. Being a middle class American does not allow enough time or status to REALLY know whats going on as far as governmental and corporate corruption go. With that said in the perfect world Tax breaks would be given to company's like Disney when and ONLY when it makes since for the people of whom the city is spossed to represent and obviously Disney, for which they'd be getting a break to lure opportunity and good growth. It's obvious for anyone to see Disneyland is a jewel to have in any city, despite its few cons like smokey fireworks and loud booms for those who get irritated easily. Anaheim jobs are built around the hospitality and entertainment industry directly because of Disneyland. In a much bigger way, look at how Walt Disney World transformed Central Florida and created, despite its flaws, a 21st century community where people could work and live.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer I was reading the latest at the No on Galloway Blog <a href="http://noongallowayanaheim.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://noongallowayanaheim.blogspot.com/</a> And came across these comments by Mayor Curt Pringle made in April of 2008. <a href="http://www.redcounty.com/orange-county/2008/04/anaheim-council-gopers-approve/" target="_blank">http://www.redcounty.com/orang...approve/</a> >>I appreciate all of the Anaheim talk on the Blog over the last few days about our incentives for four/five star hotel properties. I would like to share my perspective on this. It is always interesting that some wish to immediately be negative about what they hear on one issue, and from that, seek to claim that their interpretation of the situation defines conservatism or proper government management. I know there are opposing views, but one point of non-agreement does not define an entire political philosophy. The city of Anaheim takes great pride in its Resort district. It is an important economic engine to our city. We have fought hard this year to preserve it! Even with 20,000 hotel rooms in our city, new hotel development is vigorous in Anaheim. At this moment in time, nearly 1500 new hotel rooms are under development in Anaheim. Many other developers are coming to the city expressing interest in developing hotels. So we have seen in managing for our city’s future that many additional hotels are necessary. But in all cases, except the current construction of the 250 room expansion of the Disney Grand Californian, all of the new hotels are three star properties. The current market conditions allow for the development of three star properties in our city, even with their current high property and construction costs. But in planning for the future of Anaheim, we have considered how we could grow the Resort district, both in number of rooms and the average nightly rate. We do not need to do anything to encourage three star properties. But four star properties and the additional construction costs that are required to get these properties to that level are much higher and they may not be built at the current cost of construction. Four star properties can add to our opportunities to bring additional conventions to Anaheim and can assist in the growth of the Resort area. On Tuesday’s agenda, we voted to provide a potential tax reimbursement to hotel developments if they seek to build four star properties. Our plan would be to require the full 100% of the bed tax be collected on the three star property equivalent rates. But we would consider, based on need, if we would reimburse for the first 10-15 years, the additional amount of taxes collected from the three star rate equivalent to the four star rate. We are not reimbursing what the market will provide – in this case a three star property. But we see the value in growing the Resort for the long term. And a mix of high end hotels, even with higher construction and development costs, will insure that we have the mix of properties that will continue to grow the Resort. At the council meeting, I respect that Councilmember Harry Sidhu wanted to delay this discussion for a few months in order to get more information. And I also respect that Councilmember Lorri Galloway joined with HERE (Hotel Employee/Restaurant Employee Union) in opposing this plan. The HERE representatives were the only ones who spoke against this proposal. I see a similarity in the council action on Tuesday, to when, in the Legislature, we provided a manufacturer’s tax credit on the purchase of new manufacturing equipment or when we provided an R&D tax credit to encourage more high tech research firms to locate to California. Some people didn’t like any type of tax credit or incentive programs. And I can respect that. But with these incentives in Anaheim, I feel we are taking steps today to prepare for the long-term fiscal health of our city. Sometimes planning for the long term is not seen by everyone in the short term. But I will hold Anaheim’s fiscal position up as an example of a fiscally responsible and secure government even in these economic times. This year we have made a mid-year budget reduction of 2 ½%; we have maintained a 13% general fund reserve and are truly in a strong budget position. I will proudly match our city’s planning and budget position to any other local government from Rancho Santa Margarita to Riverside. <<
