A Lot Riding On Anaheim Housing Vote

[hobie16]

From LA Times

The council tonight may approve a big development -- including cheaper units -- that Disney strenuously opposes.

A proposal to build housing near Disneyland has escalated into a battle of wills between the entertainment giant and key Anaheim officials, who once could be counted on to follow Disney's every lead.

Although some Anaheim City Council members see the project as a way to add needed housing to Orange County's second-largest city, Disney says it would disrupt the tourist environment and street scene it has worked hard to create outside the gates to Disneyland and California Adventure.

Tonight, the council is expected to choose sides and vote whether to permit 225 apartments and 1,275 condominiums in the resort district. The area, directly across the street from where Disney may build a third amusement park, includes a site recently rezoned for upscale hotel-condominium projects, to which Disney has not objected.

The debate has left council members in an awkward position: whether to please Anaheim's biggest employer and biggest tourist draw or create housing, including low-cost residences for the resort district's workforce.

"People are really rallying hard," Councilman Harry Sidhu said of the behind-the-scenes lobbying. "I've never seen anything like this. The troops behind the resort district, they are woken up."

In a last-ditch attempt to derail the proposal, Disney officials sent an "urgent" e-mail to community leaders asking them to "help save the Anaheim resort area" by calling council members or attending tonight's meeting.

Anaheim's resort district has been greatly reshaped over the years. Hotels, upscale restaurants and tourist-friendly entertainment centers such as Downtown Disney have replaced the tacky retail outlets and cheap motels that once dominated the area.

Last month, the Anaheim Planning Commission unanimously rejected the housing plan, but some council members have expressed support for it. The debate pits lower-cost-housing advocates against Disney, which has publicly worried about the environment outside its gates since the days of Walt Disney.

Sidhu was one of four council members who voted to pave the way for the project in August; Mayor Curt Pringle was the lone opponent. But Sidhu is now searching for a compromise, proposing a boutique hotel and restaurants at the front of the 26-acre parcel off Katella Avenue with condominiums and low-cost apartments in the back.

"I'm looking for a solution," he said. "There's got to be some kind of happy medium. This would help create kind of a resort atmosphere and still allow residential and affordable housing."

Sidhu said he would ask for a delay so his colleagues and city staff would have more time to study his proposal.

Disney has maintained that the dispute is not some referendum on lower-cost housing but about maintaining a 13-year-old plan that has revitalized the 2.2-square-mile resort district, more than doubled annual bed tax revenue and accounted for nearly half the city's general fund.

"Residents and tourists have different needs that are not always compatible," Disney spokesman Rob Doughty said in a recent e-mail on the subject. "Tourists like to stay up late and make noise, while residents need a quiet night sleep so they can get up to go to school and work in the morning."

Lower-cost-housing advocates have argued that the plan for the resort district is antiquated and that building more hotels would exacerbate the city's shortage of cheaper housing. The project, developed by SunCal Cos., would replace about 300 mobile homes. Hundreds of apartments are also nearby.

"This whole issue about what's compatible doesn't make sense," said Eric Altman, who represents a coalition of labor unions and community groups. "There're people living on that site now, and I don't think there's any glaring incompatibility with people living there and other functions that go on."

[GMC]

I've been following this one in the newspaper, and frankly, it should go to tourism, it's on the north side of ball road, so it's not in the "range" of the "anaheim resort" however, there's plenty of housing in Anaheim, and we don't NEED anymore. Besides, it's just north of TDA, if I'm thinking of the right place, not prime living location, there's rancid traffic, fallout from the pyro shows, I live a few blocks north, and I can hear any number of things that happen in the park (fantasmic, pyro, parades, trains, twain,) granted some of these things have to be happening on a quiet night, but imagine that mixed with being at ball and harbor, and the 5... Yeah no good. Anaheim's vision was for that to be resort related, and I disagree with the idea of developing it for residencies.

[darph nader]

It's kinda weird. What one person calls 'afforable' housing,someone else,calls low income slums. Hell, when we were there in Sept,my friend grabbed a rental catalog. HOLY SHIT,what they ask for a 'mini' one bed room apartment there,you could get a 'nice' 3 bedroom house here in Tucson. I guess 1 mans 'affordable' is the DONALDs slum. :mad:
Like my bil says "working mans payments".
Apparently,Disney doesn't want their 'underlings' to have a 'life'. Just the suits. :(

[LittleDollClaudia]

Considering the fact that (3!!) condo complexes have gone up in the past 6 months in the area, do we really need to fight about more housing? Of course, if you want to pay a gazillion dollars to have a view of McDonald's, knock yourself out. My question with this is, if we have ALL this new housing, where's the school to accommodate the new neighbors? Or are the kids going into the Disney sweatshops to make those $80 jackets for .50 a day pay? There's an edumaction for ya, Johnny!!!

[PattyA]

Or are the kids going into the Disney sweatshops to make those $80 jackets for .50 a day pay? There's an edumaction for ya, Johnny!!!

But Mr Government...Those are not kids, those are "little people".
"we are equal opertunity employers!"

**Would not surprise me.**

[AlpineDL]

For all the hype, I thought this had something to do with the strawberry field or that area. North of Ball... that's just weird.

[LittleDollClaudia]

Council vote stymies housing near Disneyland
Published: 2/14/2007 2:37:02 PM


ANAHEIM, Calif. (AP) - An amendment that would clear the way for the development of 15-hundred condos and apartments Anaheim in the shadow of Disneyland has been at least temporarily derailed.

The Anaheim City Council's two-two vote last night sustained an earlier vote by the city's planning commission to reject the proposal.

It's not immediately clear whether the project can be brought back before the City Council.

Disney officials have said the development would disrupt the tourist environment and street scene it has worked hard to create outside the gates to Disneyland and California Adventure.

But the proposal's backers say Orange County's second largest city is in dire need of more housing.

They say the low-cost homes included in the proposal are especially necessary to house the resort district's work force.

So we are safe...for now.

[hobie16]

From LA Times

In Anaheim, even the tie goes to Disney.

A pitched battle between housing advocates and Disney officials turned into a political convention of sorts Tuesday. Low-wage employees — a few near tears — and well-connected business types — many wearing red "Save the Anaheim Resort District" stickers — vented over the future of the city's tourist neighborhood.

Although the council indicated last year that it supported the idea of bucking Disney and approving a large residential complex with low-cost units near the gates of Disneyland, that support dissolved into a 2-2 council split by evening's end — a tie that meant the housing plan was dead.

In its place, the land in the resort district — adjacent to acreage where Disney has toyed with the idea of a third amusement park — can now be developed as a hotel-condominium project.

The proposed development had become a sore spot between some city leaders and Disney brass, who said housing would be inappropriate in the tourist-serving quarters around Disneyland and California Adventure. And the hours leading up to the vote underscored the stakes, with last-minute lobbying by Disney officials, calls from lawyers to the city and well-orchestrated campaigns from both fronts.

The council split was created when Councilwoman Lucille Kring suddenly excused herself from the proceedings.

Kring said she had received a phone call from City Manager Dave Morgan that afternoon, asking if a wine shop she planned to open in the nearby GardenWalk retail complex was within 500 feet of the proposed residential project. If so, she would be unable to vote because of a Fair Political Practices Commission ruling.

But after her husband measured the distance, she said she felt assured that there was no violation. It was well beyond 500 feet.

Hours later, after she met with Disney representatives about her intentions on the project, Kring said the city attorney told her she still might have a conflict. She said City Atty. Jack White said he had received a late-hour letter from Disney attorneys, citing a 2001 case in Truckee in which a council member was advised not to vote on a housing development because it was within three miles of his wine and cheese store, the only such specialty store in the scenic Sierra Nevada town.

"He strongly advised me to conflict out or I could face civil or criminal repercussions," Kring said. "I decided not to take that chance."

Councilman Bob Hernandez was startled by the ruling. Hernandez, who along with Lorri Galloway voted for the project, said White's decision might have "chilling implications" on Kring and future council candidates.

"If that stands, Lucille won't be able to vote on anything to do with the resort area or anything to do with the city," Hernandez said. "I think that decision is unreasonable. That means that anybody who owns a business in the city shouldn't run for City Council."

The recently elected Kring, who replaced low-cost-housing advocate Richard Chavez, would have been the swing vote. Kring said she had not decided whether she was going to support the proposed housing development — a 1,500-unit project on 26 acres at Haster Street and Katella Avenue.

Kring's abstention became significant when Councilman Harry Sidhu changed his stand of six months ago when the council voted 4 to 1 to permit the housing development.

Back in August, Sidhu said the 225 low-cost units and 1,275 condominiums made sense because it would replace about 300 mobile units that had been on the property.

Sidhu was searching for a compromise Tuesday. A day earlier, he had proposed a boutique hotel and restaurants at the front of the parcel and low-cost apartments and condominiums in the back. But with no compromise option available, Sidhu voted against zoning that would allow for the residential project. Mayor Curt Pringle also voted against the housing plan.

He said it was important that the city continue growing in the resort district, "which is where the money to our city comes from."

"We're going to kill our golden goose," he said. "We have to look to the future."

During the council meeting, nearly three dozen business leaders, school district officials and community activists spoke against sprinkling housing in the midst of the resort area.

An official with the Carlsbad-based International Music Products Assn. intimated that he might have to take his 85,000 conventioneers and their spending elsewhere if potential Anaheim hotel sites were used for residential projects.

Kevin Johnstone, director of trade shows for the music association, said his group recently spent $1.2 million at the Anaheim Hilton, not to mention another $53,000 at the hotel's Starbucks.

"We're running out of exhibit space at the Convention Center and hotel space in town," said Johnstone, whose annual convention is the largest in Anaheim. "We need to protect the ability of the resort to grow."

About 75 people who identified themselves as low-wage earners who work in the resort district attended the meeting and spoke in favor of the low-cost-housing element of the project.

Lori Condinus, a 42-year-old switchboard operator at the Anaheim Hilton, was one of the few who spoke. A Riverside resident, Condinus spoke of her four-hour daily commute, necessitated because of the lack of affordable housing in Anaheim.

She said the monthly rent on a one-bedroom apartment in Riverside is $800, about $400 less than the cheapest place she could find in Anaheim.

"All of us have worked hard to make this resort district what it is today," she said.

"If we are good enough to work here in the resort, why aren't we good enough to live here?"

[Belgarion42]

Lori Condinus, a 42-year-old switchboard operator at the Anaheim Hilton, was one of the few who spoke. A Riverside resident, Condinus spoke of her four-hour daily commute, necessitated because of the lack of affordable housing in Anaheim.

She said the monthly rent on a one-bedroom apartment in Riverside is $800, about $400 less than the cheapest place she could find in Anaheim.

I'll grant that "affordable housing" is hard to find around Disneyland, but if the criteria is a 1-bedroom apartment for less than $1,200 a month around here, then she's not looking hard enough. I just did a quick search on Move.com and found two 1 bedrooms within 2 miles of DL. One was $860 and the other was $985.

And for the record, I agree that mixing housing into what’s supposed to be a tourist/entertainment district has some inherent problems. I don't think it would have worked out.

[BirdMom]

The area in question is adjacent to K-Lot, south of Katella and bordered by Haster Street. On the channel 4 news, they showed the mobile home park that is directly across from K-Lot as being the parcel of land in question.

I would also agree that low-income housing has its own problems related to the tennants. Because I live in a different neighborhood now, I don't approach the Downtown Disney/Hotel area from the west anymore but I can remember the huge problems that the hotel had in the 80's with some of the residents of the crap apartments that are/were (don't know if they're there anymore) behind the hotel. The area used to be referred to as Felony Flats - some of the residents were regular shoplifters at the hotel shops (Disney merchandise with no controlled access gates - a godsend to the crooks), or they'd grab purses and wallets from distracted guests wandering the property. Then there were their little darlings. I think the only amenities the apartments had were laundry rooms and garages, so they used to send their little brats to the hotel swimming pools during the summer. I don't have anything against anyone wanting their kids to have a good time - but they should have been using the parks and recreation swim time at Loara H.S. Here were guests paying big bucks for their rooms and extras, and the local brats were out there misbehaving because they were unsupervised and had a poor command of the English language. That is one of the reasons that the hotel pools now must be accessed with room card keys. We also used to tell the guests not to walk through that area at night if they wanted to go for a pizza or something away from the Park/Hotel area. Then of course, there was the parking lot problems - cars getting broken into, and you could pretty much bet it was someone with a drug problem who lived in F.F. I remember one of my former cast mates being scared for her grandmother, because the woman lived in the gated condos on the other side of Cerritos from the F.F. apartments, and you would often hear gunshots at night if you were trying to get to Euclid via Cerritos.

I hate to be one of those NIMBY people, but the city shouldn't solve the housing problem by putting those with a propensity to cause problems near the resort area. They might consider putting low income housing nearer what they consider the industrial area out near Kramer/Glassell and La Palma. There is a lot of open land near the railroad tracks off of Orangethorpe - don't know if Southern Pacific owns it, but it would remove temptation or at least delay it by forcing the thieves to ride bikes or take the bus to their target areas. I mean, you know that no one is going to want to spend 3/4 of a million for a house right next to the railroad tracks. The incompatibility issue would be the same as it was with F.F. - I'm sorry, I'm old and cynical and I just know there is going to be a very small proportion of the criminal element mixed into the law abiding types who live in low income housing. And how good is security in K-Lot anyway? Are there cars being broken into? Anyone come back on the shuttle to find their windows smashed or their CD player/radio missing? Frankly, I'd worry about having the wrong sort of people living next to an area that I'd have to walk late at night.