Skip to content

Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan: Development, Decline, and Reinvestment

I have attached my name to a letter supporting the proposed extension of the City’s Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement with Disney, page which is an agreement that would refund any tax revenue the City might collect from the sale of Disneyland admissions tickets to Disney. While this is not a planning issue, viagra this is a matter of public debate that I’ve decided to lend my support to, pulmonologist so I thought this was a good opportunity to follow through with my plan for this site by explaining why I support extending the Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement.

The current Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement was adopted when the City approved Disney’s California Adventure and the related improvements to the Resort. The Agreement is between the City and Disney in which the City agrees that, in the event the City levy a specific tax on tickets to the City’s entertainment venues (i.e. Disneyland, Angel Stadium, and the Honda Center), the City would refund the tax revenue collected on the sales of Disneyland admission to Disney. This agreement expires in 2016.

In broad strokes, the current agreement up for adoption between the City of Anaheim and Disney at Tuesday’s Council meeting provides for two extensions to the current Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement. The first extension would extend the Agreement for thirty years, from 2016 until 2046. In exchange for the City agreeing not to collect additional taxes from tickets to Disneyland, Disney would commit to investing $1 billion into Disneyland and California Adventure by the end of 2017. The second extension would extend the Agreement for an additional fifteen years, from 2046 until 2061. In exchange, Disney would commit to investing an additional $500 million into the parks by the end of 2045. Combined, this is an amount greater than what Disney invested when they remodeled California Adventure and built Cars Land a few years ago.

If the City of Anaheim levied a tax on admission to Disneyland, it could raise millions of dollars for the City every year. My best guess is about $20 million per year, in current dollars at current park attendance levels.

On the other hand, we’ve seen what an investment of this magnitude can do to the demand for Anaheim’s tourism industry. Already, due to Disney’s investment in Cars Land and California Adventure, the City has seen its receipts from Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase by about $15 million. We are also seeing a building boom in the Resort with eight hotels currently under construction, which will further increase the TOT. Once this building boom is done, I expect we will see a total increase of tax revenue to the City greater than the revenue we could get by taxing admissions tickets. This is the direct result of the type of investment Disney is committing to make again.

In order to make such an investment, Disney needs to have as much assurance as possible that they will see a return on the investment greater than they would get if they invested elsewhere. The extension of the Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement is one such assurance that they will be able to get the full value of the increased demand their investment will create. I do not believe Disney will make a $1.5 billion investment in Anaheim without the extension of the Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement, if the Agreement isn’t approved, Disney can be more sure of the return on their investment if it happens at one of their other parks.

Additionally, I do not believe the City will levy a tax on Disneyland tickets for the foreseeable future. While council districts might change that (and let’s be honest, that’s what Disney fears), I would expect Disney could successfully counteract any push for an additional tax in the future. So I don’t think the City is giving up much with this new agreement.

I trust that Disney will use their newly acquired properties, Star Wars and Marvel, to do something spectacular in the Resort. I expect they will not wait until 2045 to invest the additional $500 million, but instead will invest it in the next few years. This way, the City will have 45 years of benefitting from the additional tax revenue this investment will bring to the City. An additional $20+ million a year in TOT, sales, and property taxes for 45 years is of greater benefit to the City than reserving the right to levy a tax on tickets at some point in the future, on the off chance that such a tax would be approved. And that increased tax revenue due to Disney’s investment is the reason I’m supporting the extension of the Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement.
I have attached my name to a letter supporting the proposed extension of the City’s Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement with Disney, page which is an agreement that would refund any tax revenue the City might collect from the sale of Disneyland admissions tickets to Disney. While this is not a planning issue, viagra this is a matter of public debate that I’ve decided to lend my support to, pulmonologist so I thought this was a good opportunity to follow through with my plan for this site by explaining why I support extending the Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement.

The current Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement was adopted when the City approved Disney’s California Adventure and the related improvements to the Resort. The Agreement is between the City and Disney in which the City agrees that, in the event the City levy a specific tax on tickets to the City’s entertainment venues (i.e. Disneyland, Angel Stadium, and the Honda Center), the City would refund the tax revenue collected on the sales of Disneyland admission to Disney. This agreement expires in 2016.

In broad strokes, the current agreement up for adoption between the City of Anaheim and Disney at Tuesday’s Council meeting provides for two extensions to the current Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement. The first extension would extend the Agreement for thirty years, from 2016 until 2046. In exchange for the City agreeing not to collect additional taxes from tickets to Disneyland, Disney would commit to investing $1 billion into Disneyland and California Adventure by the end of 2017. The second extension would extend the Agreement for an additional fifteen years, from 2046 until 2061. In exchange, Disney would commit to investing an additional $500 million into the parks by the end of 2045. Combined, this is an amount greater than what Disney invested when they remodeled California Adventure and built Cars Land a few years ago.

If the City of Anaheim levied a tax on admission to Disneyland, it could raise millions of dollars for the City every year. My best guess is about $20 million per year, in current dollars at current park attendance levels.

On the other hand, we’ve seen what an investment of this magnitude can do to the demand for Anaheim’s tourism industry. Already, due to Disney’s investment in Cars Land and California Adventure, the City has seen its receipts from Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) increase by about $15 million. We are also seeing a building boom in the Resort with eight hotels currently under construction, which will further increase the TOT. Once this building boom is done, I expect we will see a total increase of tax revenue to the City greater than the revenue we could get by taxing admissions tickets. This is the direct result of the type of investment Disney is committing to make again.

In order to make such an investment, Disney needs to have as much assurance as possible that they will see a return on the investment greater than they would get if they invested elsewhere. The extension of the Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement is one such assurance that they will be able to get the full value of the increased demand their investment will create. I do not believe Disney will make a $1.5 billion investment in Anaheim without the extension of the Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement, if the Agreement isn’t approved, Disney can be more sure of the return on their investment if it happens at one of their other parks.

Additionally, I do not believe the City will levy a tax on Disneyland tickets for the foreseeable future. While council districts might change that (and let’s be honest, that’s what Disney fears), I would expect Disney could successfully counteract any push for an additional tax in the future. So I don’t think the City is giving up much with this new agreement.

I trust that Disney will use their newly acquired properties, Star Wars and Marvel, to do something spectacular in the Resort. I expect they will not wait until 2045 to invest the additional $500 million, but instead will invest it in the next few years. This way, the City will have 45 years of benefitting from the additional tax revenue this investment will bring to the City. An additional $20+ million a year in TOT, sales, and property taxes for 45 years is of greater benefit to the City than reserving the right to levy a tax on tickets at some point in the future, on the off chance that such a tax would be approved. And that increased tax revenue due to Disney’s investment is the reason I’m supporting the extension of the Entertainment Tax Reimbursement Agreement.
In order to create vibrant and prosperous communities, remedy
residents need to feel ownership of the planning process that shapes the built environment around them. One of the best ways to create a sense of ownership is to open a real dialog about planning decisions. To feel a sense of ownership, cheap members of the community need a way to provide input into overarching planning goals and objectives, viagra sale
as well as specific projects, and to see that input implemented.

As a newly appointed Planning Commissioner in Anaheim, I am going to do what I can to open that dialog about planning issues within the City. Prior to each Planning Commission meeting, I hope to have a chance to discuss my thoughts on items before the Commission (especially the controversial items) and to provide a forum for discussion. While I may not agree with everyone on any specific topic, I will always listen to any reasoned and considered argument in favor or opposition to a project or policy.

I will only be one vote among seven on the Planning Commission. Even if this discussion here is compelling, there is no guarantee that
Note: This is part one of my posts regarding the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan. I will update this note with links to the remaining parts as they are written and posted.

Next Monday the City of Anaheim is bringing forward the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan for consideration by the Planning Commission. The Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan sets out goals and policies to revitalize the industrial portion of Anaheim, viagra buy north of the 91, troche between the 57 and Imperial Blvd.

During its initial development starting in the 1950s through the 1980s, visit this Anaheim Canyon was home to many of Orange County’s aerospace companies. The area was anchored by Rockwell and then Boeing, and had numerous other smaller and support companies located throughout the area. However, towards the end of the Cold War, many of those aerospace companies moved out the Anaheim Canyon and the area started to decline. Over the next 20 years, the area continued its decline as the building stock aged and the public facilities and rights-of-way were neglected. The final signal of decline happened in 2006 when Boeing shuttered its plant entirely and moved the remaining 4,000 workers to their facility in Long Beach.

While Anaheim Canyon declined, other industrial areas in Southern California were created and grew. Many technology companies moved to or were founded in the Irvine Business Corridor, and logistics, warehousing, and fulfilment companies found fertile ground in the Inland Empire, especially in Moreno Valley. Anaheim Canyon had lost its competitive edge. It was cheaper for developers to build on greenfield sites outside of Anaheim than it was to demolish the existing buildings within the Anaheim Canyon. Companies looking for a home could move into newer buildings, with nicer surroundings, at a comparable price elsewhere.

As Anaheim Canyon has continued to decline, real estate prices have followed a similar trajectory. At the same time, the land in the other industrial centers has been largely built out and real estate prices there have increased. Anaheim Canyon now has a price advantage over some of the other industrial centers in Southern California. It is now possible to purchase real estate within Anaheim Canyon for demolition and redevelopment at a comparable price to greenfield development elsewhere. We are already starting to see this redevelopment on some parcels within Anaheim Canyon and the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan intends to capitalize on this competitive advantage and maximize the value of the area for the City, as well as businesses, residents, and employees in the area.

Over the coming decades, nearly every building with the Anaheim Canyon will be demolished and rebuilt. The Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan is the template from which the new buildings will be drawn. The Specific Plan must create the appropriate conditions to encourage and ensure a vibrant industrial area of Anaheim.

In following posts, I will look at the ways the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan will encourage redevelopment of the areas and some places where the Specific Plan may be improved.

Published inAnaheim Canyon