PDA

View Full Version : Anaheim weighs more housing or pleasing Disney - LA Times, 11/5/06



Darkbeer
11-05-2006, 05:57 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-disney5nov05,1,5942343.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

QuikQuote: 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.

samkj
11-05-2006, 06:17 AM
I'm not familiar with the surrounding areas. Could someone tell me where exactly this is planned?

nightdesigns
11-05-2006, 07:24 AM
I'm not familiar with the surrounding areas. Could someone tell me where exactly this is planned?

Lower right hand corner of this map http://members.shaw.ca/getbak/dlr.jpg

samkj
11-05-2006, 08:15 AM
Thank you. I thought that might be it when I looked at Google Earth.

olegc
11-05-2006, 10:36 AM
i'm with Disney on this one. Low cost housing right there is a nice idea - but it either will turn into high cost by the time the plan is done (see Tustin, CA. Marine base issues on that) or will lead to a lot of social crime and exactly the stuff Walt never wanted around the parks. It would be a magnet for that and hard to keep away. Zone it for entertainment and leave it at that.

Tinkermommy
11-05-2006, 10:41 AM
While I'm all for affordable housing, I'd have to side with Disney on this one!

In my county, developers have built in the neighborhoods of an outdoor shooting range, a flood control channel, railroad tracks, a poultry farm and a truck-fueling station (separate developments, I hastily add).

People have bought the new houses, signed the "I know about this problem" forms, and then sued over the noise, the stink, the traffic, etc. They don't always win, but it becomes an expensive, ugly, PR-intensive fight.

If the problem area developed AFTER the houses were built, I could understand. But this, I don't get.

I'd hate to find out Disneyland has to close at 10 every night or can't do fireworks because somebody built houses over the back fence...just my opinion.

pisces
11-05-2006, 11:00 AM
I think that Anaheim Councilwoman needs a lesson in Urban Planning.

I agree with Disney, and there should be a separation between housing and the Resort district.

I didn't know that Florida had a whole buffer zone created around WDW. I bet it's nice. It's nice to have those transitions between what is 'Resort' and what is 'City'.....and some people have complained they don't get enough of an immersive experience when at Disneyland, because the City keeps encroaching.

The buffer zones, and transitions create a sense of anticipation.

Anyway, there's lots of vacant land in Buena Park....that whole parking lot from the Buena Park Mall. Stanton, Cypress, Garden Grove have vacant land. I'm not sure why Anaheim has to be the one to build housing.

I remember when Harbor Blvd was really bad. There were no palm trees or foliage lining the surrounding streets. There was no good neighbor program. Disney really changed the area for the better. And this is how the City of Anaheim repays them?

Sad.

briangl
11-05-2006, 11:30 PM
I would be willing to bet the developer will build a few lower income units to get past the planning board and then cram the rest of the development with $500k - $2m condos to maximize their profit. I don't think Disney has much to worry about. THe site is too valuable to build an eyesore.

chrisaustx
11-06-2006, 11:06 AM
This is the piece of property that all the "Disney" experts on here said would be the new water park. This is the strawberry fields property off Harbor Blvd, Disney obviously did not own this property. There is a ghetto area next to Disneyland, by the Disneyland Hotel with section 8 housing. There is another ghetto area next to the Mickey and Friends parking structure off Ball Road, which has a cinder block fence hiding it. One of the worst streets in Anaheim is hid behind the strawberry field property, so if anything, a new development in this area will help, not hurt. Anaheim does want to build a new road to destroy the ghetto area behind the strawberry field and demolish the cheap apartments and the trailer park back there. There is a street behind the strawberry fields that I would never drive down, it looks like a third world country, according to Anaheim Police records, a car is stole from this area nearly every night. Disney should be complaining about the remaining ghetto areas near the resort and try to get rid of the ghetto area near Katella and Harbor.

chrisaustx
11-06-2006, 04:17 PM
I drove around the backside of the Disneyland Castmember parking lot today around 330pm. I saw KABC, KNBC and KCBS doing news stories about the condo project to be built by Disneyland. The condo project will destroy the dumpy trailer park, the dumpy apartments and the strawberry fields. The contention from the neighbors are that the substandard housing will be demolished and be replaced by expensive condo's. If you look on the KCBS, KABC and KNBC television news websites tonight, you should see the story about this massive project to destroy the cheap apartments and trailer park.

chrisaustx
11-06-2006, 10:05 PM
I can't find an online link to the story that was aired on KABC at 6pm tonight, about the dispute between Disney and the City of Anaheim, concerning the re zoning of the Anaheim Resort to residential. The main beef from Disney is that the trailer park residents and dumpy apartment residents, may be allowed to rent low income units in the new housing which will be built. Disney does not want the low income people to return to the Disneyland area, once the trailer park and dumpy apartments are torn down. They are planning to put in thousands of housing units from Haster street to the strawberry fields off Harbor Blvd, eliminating the trailer park, dumpy apartments and run down motels. I think the main beef from Disney is that they want the low class people gone from the new projects that are going up.

thmar
11-06-2006, 10:11 PM
i'm with Disney on this one. Low cost housing right there is a nice idea - but it either will turn into high cost by the time the plan is done (see Tustin, CA. Marine base issues on that) or will lead to a lot of social crime and exactly the stuff Walt never wanted around the parks. It would be a magnet for that and hard to keep away. Zone it for entertainment and leave it at that.

Definately agree with you!!

briangl
11-06-2006, 10:37 PM
Maybe Disney and the City could compromise. They could build three or four Tower of Terror rides and expand them a little so they could house apartments as well. :)

pisces
11-07-2006, 01:26 PM
There is a ghetto area next to Disneyland, by the Disneyland Hotel with section 8 housing. There is another ghetto area next to the Mickey and Friends parking structure off Ball Road, which has a cinder block fence hiding it. One of the worst streets in Anaheim is hid behind the strawberry field property, so if anything, a new development in this area will help, not hurt. Anaheim does want to build a new road to destroy the ghetto area behind the strawberry field and demolish the cheap apartments and the trailer park back there. There is a street behind the strawberry fields that I would never drive down, it looks like a third world country, according to Anaheim Police records, a car is stole from this area nearly every night. Disney should be complaining about the remaining ghetto areas near the resort and try to get rid of the ghetto area near Katella and Harbor.

I'm familiar with that area. A lot of those homes are really tiny tiny 1920s Bungalows, that have fallen into disrepair.

So, doesn't it make more sense to fix up, and invest in the existing neighborhood......and make it the best it can be.....rather than ignoring what's already there, and to go off and build........more cement!

You can never have too much open space, and greenery. If the City of Anaheim really claims to care about its poor the way it says....then build them a huge, lush, green park on that land...while redeveloping and re-investing in housing that already exists.

That area would be great as a beautiful park-like meadow with huge trees.

And that would satisfy Walt's original vision, of a buffer zone surrounding the theme park, just like what Orlando has.

If there's one thing crowded/urban cities with urban problems DON'T need....it's more cement!

The City of Anaheim can barely take care of, and provide for, many of it's existing residents......but now the nit-wits on the Anaheim City Council want to bring in even more residents.....more pollution, more eyesores, and more cement!

Klutch
11-07-2006, 03:32 PM
The City of Anaheim can barely take care of, and provide for, many of it's existing residents......but now the nit-wits on the Anaheim City Council want to bring in even more residents.....more pollution, more eyesores, and more cement!

What they really want to bring in is more tax revenue and they won't get it with a park. In fact, a park would cost millions to build and millions more to maintain. On top of that, the city would have to pay to put multiple police officers in the park to keep it from becoming a shanty town, open air drug den and/or gang turf.

Housing developments bring in property taxes, more people who pay sales taxes and more kids who bring in more federal and state education dollars.

I agree, a park is always preferrable to more development. As usual, the problem is who wants to pay for it? People who demand more "open space" and "green space" should put their money where their mouth is. If they think it's so essential to slow down development, they can buy land and not develop it. They can buy land and donate it to the city with an endowment to maintain a park. Until someone puts up money, development will almost always trump open space. Of course, this would require people with millions of dollars and that sure leaves me out. :D

snappy
11-07-2006, 04:01 PM
Money talks and Disney yells, "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

kiwifuz
11-07-2006, 08:03 PM
I'm familiar with that area. A lot of those homes are really tiny tiny 1920s Bungalows, that have fallen into disrepair.

So, doesn't it make more sense to fix up, and invest in the existing neighborhood......and make it the best it can be.....rather than ignoring what's already there, and to go off and build........more cement!

Unfortunate but that seems to happen everywhere. Seems people want to live in icky places that look identical to the neighbors'.

I'm just thinking that this will definitely happen. I think every where you go concrete is filling up empty spaces. :(