Too bad Disney decided to pull the plug on the website. True, there wasn't a whole lot of information, but it was fascinating to see the photographs of the resort area before and after the beautification project (which was the City of Anaheim's doing more than Disney's, but still).

It was also interesting to see those glimpses of Disney's plans for further resort expansion, like the second parking structure and the transportation system linking up the parks and the parking areas. I can't help but wonder, given the boosts in attendance over the last couple of years and the hotel construction boom that I've seen in the Anaheim Resort area, whether or how soon at least that part of the Resort expansion plan would come to fruition...  

well, i think Jim either forgot to mention or just does not know that WDI is already working on plans on a third gate.  The parkis already in blue sky development.

Also, he forgot to mention the real truth of why Disney is determined on not allowing Suncal to build low income housing.

First of all it goes against the plans for the resort but most importantly is that there are already another three developers that are hoping Suncal gets away with changing the resorts zoning.  This would allow them to push for their plans of more housing in other areas directly next to the third gate land to build more houses.

They would argue that SunCal was allowed and so should they.  This would really destroy the resorts look and have any third gate surroudned by houses.

It had nothing to do with guest feeling guilty.  That is ridiculous

I really liked the pictures from the old website.

I am hopeful for a refreshed DCA and a third park someday.  

As micky said, it has nothing to do with a fear of guests having a guilt trip.  Disney simply wants everything exactly as they would like it, and they would prefer a hotel on that property.  (Its an RV park now...)

However, this isn't exactly a case of Disney wanting to avoid a precedent.  There are two other developments in the Resort zone that were already moving forward with plans that Disney did not originally object to.  Only when they decided they wanted to opposed the SunCal development did they reverse their position on the other developments.

It certainly is odd.  And for a company that is supposedly so savvy about public relations, they are taking a pretty big hit by opposing this development in a city that, like many others, desparately needs more housing.  Sueing the city hasn't exactly helped their image either.  They're coming across like a bully in all of this, and that's unfortunate.  

Jim, you said that Disney owns the site, thirdthemepark.com, right?

Well, if you do a domain registry search, you can see the site is owned by a Chris Manos from Littleton, Colorado.

Apparently back when the site was active this was an issue among online Disney fans. So I guess my question is, who is Chris Manos?

Housing and tourist areas simply do not mix. If tourists from around the country travel to Disneyland and see its surrounded by houses, it would lead them to believe that the park is less a worldwide tourist attraction than a local amusement park, ruining the park's isolation and making it less attractive to tourists. It is clear that tourists and residents do not mix well, as most of the major tourist attractions in the U.S. are devoid of much housing (ie Las Vegas strip, Times Square in New York, the Mall and surrounding areas in Washington). Plus, housing in a recreational areas ties up space that could be used for more hotels and attractions, and in the long run may rob the city of Anaheim of more tax revenue. The city shouldn't cave in, but it should not want to crusade against Disney. After all, Disney can always begin investing less in its Anaheim and just be content with what it already has, instead of trying to lure new tourists to the area.

Also, if housing is built near the Resort area, then Disney will have to deal with the concerns of these new residents. Noise, traffic, and utilities will all become a concern, as new residents will inevitably complain about just about everything happening on Disney property. And with dense developments as condos, there will surely be enough voting power that can force city politicians to come down harder on Disney than they have in the past. Disney is not opposed to new housing in Anaheim, as it would undoubtedly bring new business to Downtown Disney. Disney is just opposed to the housing being right next door to its operations, because of the headaches and the loss of opportunity it will create.

Walt Disney bought up all those acres in Florida not only to keep tacky motels from springing up, but to also have complete political and developmental control over its property. This episode clearly shows how important that control is.

I agree with pretty much everything that Ctman said.  But, if it is low income housing that would be built, then Downtown Disney may not be helped so much.  Also, as a consumer, I'd rather have more wealthy housing or hotels nearby than low-income housing.  I'm not trying to be rude or elitist, but I'm just saying...

I just finished taking a victimology class, and there is a higher rate of crime in low-income neighborhoods.

I also loved seeing the pictures from the website.  Disney must do a good job of keeping pictures after they're done with a site- 98% of the time I use archive.org, the pictures are just red X's.

Honestly, I think the reasons Disney wouldn't want a low income housing development built right next to where they ultimately plan to build their bright, shiny new theme park are fairly obvious.

The fact is that low income housing is not really the question to Disney -  and really not to the developer except as a tool to change the attention from the real issue. The developer wants to develop 1,500 units in a small area. Of which 255 are intended as "low income" (and in this case low income is those making under $90,000 per year). The rest are the luxury condos sold at "market will bear" prices. And those 255 units are replacing 275 units in the mobile home park that currently exists in the space planned. Anaheim has plenty of room for low income housing in other areas of the city even nearby.

It is unfortunate that some people have fallen for the developer's hype, making Disney sound like a bad guy for asking (with the overwhelming support of the city's Chamber of Commerce, by the way) that  the city abide by their legal agreement know as the Anaheim Resort Plan.

BTW, to give you an idea of the developer's tactics, they brought up WESTCOT as something Disney planned and then presented it as if Disney had intended to back out of it and replace it with DCA. Which as those here know, was actually forced by "not in my back yard" citizens in the city of Anaheim. And that action was one of the reasons why the Anaheim Resort Plan was originally created.

You would also think, just down the street is the Platinum Triangle area. A mass area designated for mixed-use. This area was setup for growth, which included thousands of homes. Why not just build out there? One reason: The land out there has already ballooned significantly to the point that developers are beginning to look at the cheaper, empty plots of land around the Anaheim Resort area.

From my understanding, the SunCal project alone had 225 units out of a 1500 units designated for low income housing. Considering there is already a waiting list for low income housing, those who want to move in to such a place probably won't even have a chance to get in. I'm not sure what the minimum requirement per housing project in Anaheim is, but 225 units will not be a huge impact to those searching for low income housing as long as there are the thousands of others willing to pay the premium for it.

swmike: My understanding is that Disney owned the thirdthemepark.com site for a while, but once they pulled the plug on the site they let their rights to it lapse. AFAIK, Chris Manos has no affiliation with Disney - he's prbably just hoping that someday Disney or someone else will pay him for the domain name at some point.

As far as the other comments on Disney vs. Suncal: The more you look into this thing, the more it looks like nobody's really being all that honest about their intentions. Suncal's not focusing on building condos for the low-income workers who keep the Anaheim Resort running (and goodness knows, those folks could use some decent housing near their jobs), and Disney's got no definite plans to build on the Fujishige site anytime in the forseeable future (or at least in the timeframe that Anaheim politicians would care about).

It'll be interesting to see whose side the Anaheim voters take in this mess. The NIMBY contingent is still out there, and if anything, they're less happy now with Disney than when they helped shoot down Westcot; there may also be enough low-income voters who will buy into Suncal's (and the other developers' - don't think they'll sit on the sidelines during this vote) promises to get Disney's initiative shot down. Still, don't count Disney out - if they could excite Long Beach and Anaheim politicians and residents with their phony DisneySea vs. Westcot "competition" a few years ago, they just might be able to pull enough people over to their side this time.

I hope they do get to build more, I mean just looking at the before and after pictures, you know that Disney actually beautifies the area so much.  It makes a lot of sense to keep the low-income housing farther away, because wouldnt those low-income families..with children.. be sad they couldnt afford to get in there?  I sure would be.  I live in a small town in Ontario Canada, and I make like under 30,000 a year. So I could live in low-income in California, eh? Man, SWEET! Get me a green card, NOW! hahahaha

Today's article has been very interesting. I hope that Disney wins this one. Disney isn't the bad guy here. Now as for plans for what to build on that property:

How about what Tony Baxter had planned for that addition to Disneyland that never happened? Or how about Blizzard Beach West? (Keeping in mind that Knotts has it's water park right down the road). Then again that "interactive park that Jim mentioned? Or maybe revisit "Disney's America"? I could go on an on...good idea I have Roller Coaster Tycoon 3. It's much cheaper than the real thing, and for those that complain, I just drop them in a virtual lake LOL

I read on another site that another reason for Disney fighting the Suncal proposal is because of the bond that the city of Anaheim floated to create the Resort area. This bond was suppose to be paid of with hotel bed taxes. Since DCA didn't do so well Disney didn't end up building the additional hotels that they had planned, and many other hotels were scrapped as well. Instead people started building condos do to the huge rise in housing costs. If the hotel bed taxes don't raise enough money by a certain date then Disney has to start chipping in to pay off the bond. Disney wants that area to build more hotels instead of condos to help pay off the bond so that they aren't on the hook to help pay it off.

What's the acreage for DCA compared with the 52-acre strawberry fields? DCA isn't tiny, but it's a smaller park than Disneyland and they'll have a harder time expanding in the future without tearing down old attractions.

I don't buy the argument about the third park's guests "feeling guilty." That's silly, Jim. Disney would build a berm and surround the park with fences topped with razorwire. Disney just wants to control the land for development. I'm not sure whether that's necessarily evil, because that's a resort area. Why is Suncal proposing to build low-income homes in a hotel and shopping district? I agree with the commenter who said there is something both sides aren't telling us.

I thought the "botique" park idea was part of the old managements strategy and that it would not happen. IMO this is a bad idea its totally different then Seaworlds Discovery Cove, they have to hire animal trainers, not minimum wage CM's and Im sure there are high insurance costs involved when dealing with live animals. These things justify the high cost per person, also they can probably take in way fewer guests than a theme park could. Besides they are already installing intereactive attractions in the other parks and they dont seem to warrant a premium, I would rather ride Haunted Mansion or Pirates before Buzz anyday. A botique park that just offers rides, (even EEE never seen before stuff) is just lame.

I live in Vegas and whoever said that you don't find housing along the Las Vegas Strip is entirely wrong. The latest "craze" in Vegas is the surge in High Rise Condos right smack amongst the hotel/casinos. One of the more well known ones being the "Trump" tower. Yes ... they're not low income (price is ranging from 1 to 3 Million).

Off strip in the local vicinity, you have these downtown areas, shopping districts with condos upstairs. These are going for a million as well. And I know of a few of them going up arround town. They are designed to give you that big city feel where the shop owners as well as the shoppers, live right above the shops.

I could see some of these going up right around Disneyland... with perhaps even a Monorail stop involved. Build a people mover and you'll have gold.

Yes ... I agree that normal mid to lower income housing doesn't really belong right in the middle of a resort/convention center area... but then again.... Disney built "Celebration" on their Florida property.

Then again ... if these "low income" condos were being used as "time shares" I doubt the mouse would complain.

I just don't get this "Boutique Park". Logistically, it doesn't make much sense to me. Seeing as Disney has always been about family entertainment (especially Disneyland itself), and seeing as most average families won't be able to get into this park because it will be out of their cost range, what's the point in building it? Won't the park recieve flac for being too costly? I don't think a headline reading "Disney Opens Snooty Park" is that farfetched. I dunno...seems way un-Disney to me.

If it does come to pass, it'll be full of Japanese businessmen...

A couple of comments.

I'd hardly call Celebration lower income housing.

Don't trust a developer. There's a bottom line financial reason for building these units where they are proposing. They're not in it to house the poor, trust me.

I know it's been over 50 years, but still, shouldn't Anaheim thank it's very existence to Disney and keep them happy?

RLuke is correct, there is precedent for this type of housingn near a resort area.

There is no good or bad side to this. Disney has tried several sketchy political ploys along the way, and is as guilty of overhyping it's points as the low income housing proponents.

Several mentioned "houses".  This will not be houses but condos.  To tourists it won't look much different than a hotel, and certainly it will look more appealing than a mobile home park, which is there now.  

"Affordable housing" is a relative term.  The 225  out of the total 1500 units will have some kind of restrictions applied to them to make them more available to LOWER, not low, income residents.  There is no need to worry about slums and poor children crying because they can see a Disney parking lot but they can't go.  (an example of Hype from the "Disney is right" crowd)

The area in question is on the edge of the resort zone and almost bumps up against the 5, so whatever is there is not going to be smack in the middle of Resort District.  There's currenly a parking lot across the street.

Anaheim was a city long before Disney ever came.  Yes, Anaheim owes its resort component and most of it;s fame to Disney, but that doesn't mean they need to let Disney do whatever they want with land that Disney doesn't own and is not attempting to buy.  It's best for both sides to cooperate and work things out.

I'm not saying the answer is easy, but Disney can't expect a city to halt development based on some blue sky plans that Disney may or may not ever act on, and some Chicken Little stories about how a condo development that will probably have some 7 figure units in it will be a blight on Disney's magic.

Without Disneyland Anaheim would basically be Santa Ana

Correct me if I'm wrong, Raidermatt, but wasn't Anaheim just a bunch of orange groves before Disney came?

From the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce website:

"The city was incorporated in 1876 with a population of 881. By 1920, the population had risen to 5,526, an agricultural community as tightly knit as small towns can be. In 1887, the construction of the Santa Fe depot linked Anaheim’s citrus growers with the East, providing vital markets for their golden crops.

A local tradition, which began in 1924 and was recently restarted again is the Anaheim Halloween Parade. At the height of its popularity, over 150,000 spectators would view the parade along the downtown streets and from La Palma Park grandstand. "

It was a farming community, yes.  And of course it would not be a tourist destination were it not for Disneyland.  But like all the other cities throughout Southern California, it does not owe it's very existence to Disneyland.

My point is they (Disney, Anaheim, the developers, etc.) need to work together on these issues, and not resort to intimidation, hyperbole and lawsuits.

RaiderMatt,

The lawsuit was regarding whether Anahiem councilwoman Lori Galloway, whose company does PR business for a division of the developer, was eligible to vote on the issue or whether it was a conflict of interest. The court decided it wasn't. Whether that would still hold given the way she's practically been a spokeperson for the developer is another question. I, as a Anaheim citizen, will certainly never vote for her after this.

I noted some of the hyperbole in my earlier comment. The fact is that the developer is selling it on the basis of low income housing to a portion of the populace, when "lower income" (those making up to $90K/year) is barely over 15% of the properties and is unlikely to be even in the price range of those that it is being publicized the most to.

Also check out the polls on the issue - consistently 80% of the Anaheim populace is on the SOAR side of the issue, rather than the developer's.

Diznyfan: If Disney were to open a boutique park, it doesn't necessarily follow that they'd do an animal park a la Discovery Cove. If they were serious about this, I imagine that they'd turn WDI loose and let them use one of the really amazing concepts that the suits shoved straight into the archives because they were sure the throughput would never justify the cost. With the prospect of guests who want to pay $200 a person or more, they might be willing to do something that makes the projects they've done for Tokyo look positively lame by comparison.

Linklewtt: Frankly, considering how Disney has gotten into the habit of regularly jacking up prices and cutting back on the little extras that made the parks & resorts and the vacation packages so special, I'd doubt that they'd be all that upset by people complaining about the boutique park being too costly. If there's enough interest in a boutique park to justify the expense, they'll cry a few crocodile tears as they haul bags of money to the bank.  

Granted, Disney helped make Anaheim world-famous, but it wasn't like the city didn't exist before Walt came to the orange grove; remember Jack Benny's old "Anaheim, Azusa, and Cucamonga" gag? There'd still be an Anaheim if Disneyland hadn't been buit - it would be just another LA/OC suburb that people zip through as they travel on the I-5 that they don't give a second thought about.