Originally Posted By liveforvacations Good points alexbook! We have uniformed security guards in our grocery stores and we don't live in a high crime area. I think it is good that Disneyland attracts a diverse group of people and I think if we are going to judge people, we should do so on their behaviour. We should not assume that because someone has tattoos or is dressed less conservatively that they will behave badly. I have seen more "very nicely dressed people" behaving badly than the ones with tattoos etc. By the way, I do not have tattoos but I am a stroller-weilding parent and although I encourage my children to have fun, I ensure that they are respecting other people's rights and space. I also try very hard not to run my stroller into people and apologize prefusely when I do so.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I'd say that either you haven't been paying attention or you must live somewhere much nicer than Anaheim.<< We always hit the Vons for goodies when we visit. I just didn't recall the security guard from previous trips. But you are right that where I live is much, much nicer than Anaheim, and much less expensive! If not for DLR, Anaheim would be just another wretched Orange Co town.
Originally Posted By nemopoppins Good points liveforvacations! We were never big on strollers for our kids, but if my walking children ever bumped someone by accident and were unable to apologize, I would do it for them. Kids are just learning. I've been bumped by adults just as much as, if not more than, by kids and I rarely notice offense even when they don't apologize. That's just how crowds are.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-disney5nov05" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/pr intedition/california/la-me-disney5nov05</a>,1,5942343.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california >>Rarely has Disney failed to get its way on setting the tone for the area outside the gates to Disneyland and California Adventure. The housing dispute is one of those occasions. When Disneyland's 50th anniversary celebration recently closed, park officials turned their attention to their neighborhood, specifically to a 25-acre parcel between California Adventure and the area where a third park may someday be erected. When Disney officials learned that a developer was planning to put in housing — including low-cost homes that park and hotel workers might use — they lobbied hard against the project. They called City Council members an hour before the meeting, spoke out against the plan at the meeting and later met privately with council members. Councilman Richard Chavez said he was "disturbed" that Disney thought a last-minute phone call could influence his decision. Disney officials said their attempts to derail the project were caused by the developer, SunCal Cos., "circumventing" the city's planning process, which includes environmental and traffic studies. The SunCal project, which would replace about 300 mobile homes, still has hurdles to clear before ground is broken. <<
Originally Posted By pleddy36 I'm so tired of those people that blame everything on the "day trippers" or "annual passholders". What makes you think WE are the problem? I'm much more inclined to think it's you vacationers that think you own the place because you've saved your money for 6 months and flew out here. Don't blame the crowds on us APers. I can bet that if a line is long, there arent many APers on it. We know we can come back another day and ride that ride. Waiting on a long line and wasting time is not something we do.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>What makes you think WE are the problem?<< Its not that you are a "problem". Its just that since you are the main demographic for DLR, DLR will be tailored to please you, as opposed to out of town visitors. For this reason DLR will always be a different kind of experience than WDW. WDW caters to tourists, DLR caters to locals. That's all. And no, I don't think I own the place. But if it doesn't cater to me, then I will be inclined to go elsewhere (why shouldn't I). I'm not asking that DLR give locals the cold shoulder. Rather I recognize that locals "own" DLR and that will not change. My only beef is the the Disney Co wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want a "resort" but they also want a day tripper's destination. To a degree the two incompatible.
Originally Posted By fkurucz FWIW here in Colorado we are contrarians. Most people I know who do Disney vacations go to WDW and not DLR. This is in spite of the fact that WDW is father away is more expensive. I suspect that the reason for this is that WDW is perceived as the "resort" and DLR is not.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Don't blame the crowds on us APers.<< FWIW, it is my understanding that on any given day half the guests are APer's. They might not be in the stand by line on Splash, but they are in the park.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "My only beef is the Disney Co wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want a "resort" but they also want a day tripper's destination. To a degree the two incompatible." I agree with this - sort of. DLR is a big draw for both locals and tourists, however I highly doubt that Disney was trying to transform DLR into WDW, as many posters have asserted over the years. Beside it being physically impossible, the southern California market is completely different, as you pointed out. I firmly believe the primary reason a park the size and scale of DCA was built is because of the kind of demographic that DL attracts. A park the size, scale, and cost of Westcot would have likely put DLR into a financial tailspin. I believe Disney is attempting to invest in long-term growth opportunities by tapping into a market (tourists) that was woefully underserved in that particular market (southern California theme parks) without breaking the bank. Given the overall results from what limited information is available, I would say that they have succeeded in attaining that goal. Just try to imagine what DL would be like today without the 2001 expansion.
Originally Posted By Socrates How does Disneyland compete with places like Las Vegas and Hawaii without becoming a destination resort? Socrates "The unexamined life is not worth living."
Originally Posted By Westsider "Affordable housing" is $300,000? So this "affordable" condo could maybe be inhabited by a 30 year old theme park manager making $45,000 or $50,000 a year? That's the type of person that could afford that 300 Grand condo, assuming they qualify and pass the waiting list. There's not a single hourly CM in Anaheim who could afford that type of "affordable" housing. Even a married couple, both hourly CM's, couldn't afford that. Only the lower tiers of park management could afford that "affordable" house. Disney's hourly CM's make between 8 and 15 bucks an hour, with the vast majority in the 8 to 11 dollar an hour range. You could maybe get a dozen CM's all living together smashed in that tiny 2 bedroom "affordable" condo to make the monthly mortgage payment. Otherwise, your looking at low level management who would be in those "affordable" houses in Anaheim. Just a reality check for all the nice folks who were envisioning hourly CM's living in these new housing units.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>"Affordable housing" is $300,000? So this "affordable" condo could maybe be inhabited by a 30 year old theme park manager making $45,000 or $50,000 a year?<< Considering that the mortgage, insurance and tax bill for said condo would about $2000 per month I would say that 50K a year wouldn't cut it, unless banks have become very loose with qualifying requirements. It used to be that the monthly bill couln't be more than 30% if your gross pay. That would require an annual income of 80K. Of course banks play games, like using a artificially low "teaser" rate to get people qualified. But eventually that bill will be $2000 per month, which is about 50% of said manager's gross pay. That doesn't leave much to live off of, unless this person takes boarders.
Originally Posted By Nobody From the original article: "...a proposed 1,500-home development with 200 affordable units..." To be sort of fair, I believe it is to be a mix of condos and apartments. They are probably not including the $300,000 condos under the affordable umbrella. also, I can't help but think that there are some mobile home owners wondering why this topic only has two choices.
Originally Posted By Westsider >>"They are probably not including the $300,000 condos under the affordable umbrella."<< Betcha they are. There are other new developments in Anaheim that offer up a small portion of their units as "affordable housing". Instead of selling the small two bedroom condo for $600,000, they sell a small number of them to qualified buyers for $300,000. And that is the "affordable housing" the developer offers to pass muster with the City Council and the Zoning Commission. 300 Grand = Affordable in Orange County now. And yah, even a manager making $50,000 a year couldn't afford the "affordable" condo in some cheesy Anaheim development. I'd like to know who the person is that can afford the $600,000 condo with tiny closets and no view and thin walls and one parking space. You'd have to make $100,000 a year just to get in to a cornball little condo unit like that in OC. But move to Houston or Kansas City or Cincinatti and that $100,000 salary gets you a big 5 bedroom home in the suburbs. Of course, you are stuck living in the suburbs of Houston, but at least you have a house.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Yeah, I'll bet the $300,000 units are considered below market rate, or "affordable". Real estate in major metropolitan areas of California is unbelievably expensive.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >> But move to Houston or Kansas City or Cincinatti and that $100,000 salary gets you a big 5 bedroom home in the suburbs. Of course, you are stuck living in the suburbs of Houston, but at least you have a house.<< Many places in "flyover" country are much nicer than you might think (I do agree that I would pass on Houston).
Originally Posted By fkurucz >> I'd like to know who the person is that can afford the $600,000 condo with tiny closets and no view and thin walls and one parking space.<< Why do you think that Las Vegas and Phoenix have been growing so much?
