What Do YOU Think: Is Anaheim Ready for a Disney Themed Special Election?

In case you haven’t seen it in The Register yet, negotiations between developer Suncal and theme park owner Disney over a mobile home park that will either be a new housing development with a couple hundred affordable housing units or a “third gate” leading to another Disney theme park and not-so-affordable timeshare units. As we’ve discussed before, this has been a quite a contentious issue in Anaheim. And now that negotiations have ceased, it looks like both sides are on their way to battling it out at the ballot box.

So do you live in Anaheim? And if so, are you ready for an all-out special election campaign over the zoning of the Anaheim Resort District? Oh yes, and if the election were held today, would you vote for or against the Disney-backed “Save Our Anaheim Resort” initiative that would forbid the City of Anaheim from amending the resort master plan for items such as housing projects?

I want to know what YOU think about the collapse of negotiations over the Disney-Suncal dispute in Anaheim, and what you’re thinking about a likely special election that will have to resolve the matter. So come on now, you know what to do. Go ahead. Make my day. Fire away! 🙂

  33 comments for “What Do YOU Think: Is Anaheim Ready for a Disney Themed Special Election?

  1. August 7, 2007 at 11:23 am

    This has been a ridiculous attempt to cause more problems within the city by the developers to produce more income for themselves. I call it GREED, not fair trade, by SunCal. The people who need affordable housing will never see it and the current residents will have to eat the backlash of insufficient funding if the City Council goes ahead with the rezoning.

  2. Donna Reinbold
    August 7, 2007 at 11:31 am

    Housing projects are a shortage in Anaheim? Please! If you think there is a shortage of affordable housing in Anaheim, try driving around the downtown area! We’re not talking Newport Beach, here. Where do the poor hotel workers from Newport live? Are they demanding housing within the city they work? Whoops! There, that’s how easy it is to get off subject on this issue. This is not an affordable housing issue. SunCal would like you to think it is, because that makes them the David to Disney’s Goliath. 200 affordable units within a huge complex will have little impact on the poor, although it’s a step in the right direction. The problem is, the step should be taken outside the Resort District. There are so many building projects within Anaheim right now. Why have those developers not been required to provide a portion of their units to affordable housing? The Resort Area is such a relatively small area of Anaheim; this zoning change doesn’t make sense. Leave the Resort Area free to expand to the tourist trade, and build housing in areas already zoned for housing. SunCal’s deceptive slap to Anaheim, in the guise of helping the working poor is so transparent – most of those who live and work in Anaheim can see right through it! (Unless you’re on SunCal’s payroll!)

  3. Not a Mousehead
    August 7, 2007 at 11:46 am

    Lynne: Either get your facts right or get a new set of talking points.

    If SunCal or any other developer builds housing on the site, the zoning overlay requires that 15% be affordable to low and very low income families. So if housing gets built, a chunk of it will be affordable unless Disney gets their way.

    I’m not sure what you mean by insufficient funding. Are you referring to the so-called “lost” bed tax on a hypothetical hotel that according to the city’s independent analysis, some as-yet unknown developer might want to build on the site in 25 to 50 years? No, the sky is not falling.

    And finally, does anyone really believe that Disney is not motivated by greed just as much as SunCal is?

  4. Jim
    August 7, 2007 at 11:51 am

    I suspect that a compromise to Suncal was to build 1400 homes rather than 1500. Housing of any kind simply does not belong in the Anaheim Resort Zone as there is no infrastructure to support it. We need to focus on the reality of the suspicious nature of how this zoning change was even considered without a site plan submitted by developer nor why an environmental impact study was waived for the zoning change. The excuse was that the city equates hotel use the same as residential. I wonder what medication they are on to come up with that explanation. Anyone can see that with homes that you will need a new school to be built, taxpayers will have to pay for the staffing of that new school. Police and fire will have to be increased and other infrastruture will have to be improved to support homes at that location. With the Gene Autry Extension being authorized and the widening of Haster, we will probably see a greater interest by a hotel at that location.

  5. Andrew Davey
    August 7, 2007 at 11:52 am

    Lynne and Donna-

    I get your point. I understand what you’re trying to say. However, I recall that when Disney first proposed WESTCOT (now the CA Adventure expansion) in 1994, they promised Anaheim some 500 affordable housing units. And what have they delivered since 1994? Nothing. If Disney had kept its word all along, and Anaheim had been better in holding Disney accountable (as well as all the developers putting up expensive units in downtown and the Platinum Triangle), Anaheim wouldn’t have such a nasty conundrum today.

    While this affordable housing crisis isn’t all Disney’s fault, the company does deserve some of the blame here. They only pay their workers so much in wages, yet they don’t want any nearby housing for their workers. This can’t go on forever. If Disney can’t work out a deal with Suncal, then the city should do SOMETHING to bring affordable housing to the area. And while this development isn’t the panacea, it’s a start.

    Just my thought.

  6. Not a Mousehead
    August 7, 2007 at 11:58 am

    I guess the minions are out in force today.

  7. August 7, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    Wow — the Disney/SOAR blog commenting brigade is out in force today!

    “Jim” has already done his duty over at the OC Register story’s reader comments, as well.

  8. Jim
    August 7, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    Disney paid the city $5,000,000 in lieu of building the 500 homes as they are not in the business of homebuilidng here in California. You should direct your inquiry as to why the city did not use that $5,000,000 to build housing somewhere nearby. This misinformation that Disney did not fullfill their obligation is just that, misinformation by Suncal. Another piece of misinformation is that the land in question will not be developed for another 25 to 50 years. Well, Disneyland is 52 years old and all but a few parcels are not yet developed. The Resort grows every year and if we remove land from the resort district for such growth, then we are providing the incentive for Garden Grove to continue putting in Hotels to service the resort zone when those hotels should be being built in the Anaheim Resort Zone and not in Garden Grove.

  9. Not a Mousehead
    August 7, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    Repeat after me:



  10. August 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Andrew is correct about this “Disney kept its promise” business. Disney?SOAR chants that phrase like a mantra, but it’s not true. Does anyone think the city would have floated a $500 million infrastructure improvement bond and built Disney their gigantic parking structure in exchange for California Adventure?

    Disney was playing it’s favorite game: give us what we want or we’re going to leave. At that time, the threat was to build the second gate — DisneySea — in Long Beach.

    Disney did the same thing to Anaheim a few years later — letting it be known the Angels, which they were planning to buy, might end up in another city unless the city negotiated a new stadium deal. The city gave away the store — but hey, we still have the Los Angeles Angels!

  11. Andrew Davey
    August 7, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Not a Mousehead- Haha! This is why I love you. You know your stuff AND you know how to make us laugh. You rock. 😉

    Matt/Jubal- So Jim’s been hanging out at your place and at The Register, too? Cheese louise, I guess you’re right! Welcome to The Liberal OC, all SOAR Brigaders!

    No really, we welcome ALL POINTS OF VIEW here, so they might as well stay and try to prove all of us wrong (which I don’t think is happening, but let’s allow them to keep trying).

  12. August 7, 2007 at 12:11 pm


    That 25-50 year number comes from a city-commissioned study — and in case you’ve forgotten, your side is happy to quote that study (out of context) when it suits your purpose, but when it doesn’t somehow the study is unreliable.

    If the hotel market in the Resort District is so hot, then why do the two newest hotels require millions in tax subsidies for the first five years? If more hotels rooms are needed, why not increase the per-parcel caps on hotel rooms in the Resort District? Caps, I might add, that didn’t exist prior to the formation of the Resort District.

  13. Not a Mousehead
    August 7, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    That’s crazy talk, Jubal. Why would anyone in their right mind want to take away Disney’s government-enforced quasi-monopoly?

  14. Andrew Davey
    August 7, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    Matt- Good point. Yes, what about those per-parcel caps?

    Not a Moushead- Haha again! And just think of what will happen to Disney’s government-enforced quasi-monopoly if SOAR passes!


    Just think “Reedy Creek”… And tremble!

  15. Jim
    August 7, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    Matt Cunningham aka Jubal is paid media consultant for Suncal. He admits this. He is a principal in the firm Pacific Strategies. I don’t think that he even lives in Anaheim, but maybe he does. I have nothing against him, but you should be aware that he is just one on Suncals paid minions. You will also find him on the ocblog.net.
    I am a 22 year resident of Anaheim and homeowner. I had to retire due to a health disability and MY sole income is from Social Security. Unlike Mr. Cunningham and Diane Singer (who does live in Anaheim) I am not paid by anyone. I joined SOAR because I knew that this was not about housing, but about a developer who is going to flip this land for an outrageous profit at the expense of the Anaheim Taxpayers just like they did over in the City of Orange at Riverbend where they got the zoning changed and sold it to two very good builders called Centex and Lennar.
    Suncal by the way does not own the land in question, they only have an option to buy. They can walk away, but with probably a 100 million at stake, you can bet your sweet bippy that they will put up one heck of a fight using every trick in the book to make you believe that Disney is a burden on Anaheim. My appogies to Dick Martin for using his line.

  16. Jim
    August 7, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    Gee, the figures are from a city commissioned study? Kind of like having the fox guard the hen house. I am not a big fan of studies. I remember in the late 1960’s a very prestigious firm called the Stanford Research Institute publised a study on LAX that the airport would not have to be upgraded until the year 2010. Guess what, within ten years they were already building an upper deck to the airport which virtually doubled the size. So much for studies.
    You don’t think Garden Grove is giving away the keys to the city for the Hotels that are going in there? I actually read the report by CBRE Consulting Inc. and you do not have a clue about the impact of the Resort on our city, but then again, I am not paid by Suncal like you are to support them in their quest to build housing where it does not belong.

  17. Not a Mousehead
    August 7, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    “So much for studies.”

    How is the CBRE study any different from the other two studies you criticized in the same post? The fact that you apparently agree with it does not make it any more objective or reliable than the city-commissioned study that you don’t happen to agree with.

  18. boring
    August 7, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    Seems to me that this is an open and shut case…Disney could have bought the land over the years and develop it their way…but oops, they didn’t and another private party did.

    Simple enough!

    Let Sun-Cal build their homes.

  19. Not a Mousehead
    August 7, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    Why buy the land if you can control development without laying out the cash? Hail Disneyheim!

  20. Andrew Davey
    August 7, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Why buy the land if you can control development without laying out the cash? Hail Disneyheim!

    How very true. Disney doesn’t own this land. It’s a privately owned mobile home park. And so far, all the residents in the park who have spoken with me like the idea of MORE affordable housing units here than what’s there now. And so far, it doesn’t seem like the mobile home park owner is objecting much to Suncal buying this property to redevelop. So why should Disney thwart the will of everyone else involved, especially if this isn’t Disney’s property to start with?

    Good point, NaM. 🙂

  21. Jim
    August 7, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    The reason is that the CBRE Study is dealing with facts. Actual figures of income received. The city study is nothing but a guess based upon what whomever did the study perceived in 2005 as to how and when that land would be utilized. The study on LAX that I am familiar with only because I read it, and it was based on the PERCEIVED growth at that time. If Disney were to announce that they were going to build a third gate, I think that even you would have to concede that the land would be utilized within in a very short period of time. Other factors, of course, could come into play that as of this moment would not even be considered that might also have an impact on the land at Haster & Katella.. Crystal Balls studies really don’t give you much insight into what will happen on any given parcel of land. I remember the problems the homeowners in Buena Park had when Knotts put in coasters and rides that looked down into their back yards. It was quite a stink and I don’t want that to happen here. That land should be utilized for the expansion of the resort. Our city is about 68 square miles in size with the annexation of the Irvine Ranch Land that now goes to the Riverside County Line. So far 2500 homes are being built there and not one is going to be affordable. Lori Galloway said “Nobody wants affordable housing in their neighborhood” I guess that her response is that maybe if we stick in the resort zone, maybe no one will notice. How about we put some in her neighborhood. We have plenty of places to put in housing and affordable housing. Why would put any kind of housing n the Resort Zone. What’s next ? A Casino on that Indian Land on the Rivers of America in Disneyland! I’m sure I can find some land down at the end of the runway at John Wayne Airport where you can put affordable housing. However, the airport is not in Anaheim so that will never happen.

  22. Jim
    August 7, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Ssince you are all so down on Disney, how about we spin off the Resort Zone into its own City and they get to keep all of the Revenues? Oh, gee look at all the $$ we would be losing out on if we did that.

  23. Andrew Davey
    August 7, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    But Jim, that’s kinda what Disney WANTS to do with SOAR. It basically wants to strip Anaheim of all regulatory powers over the entire resort area, effectively making the resort area into a “mini-city” where none of the Anaheim residents and small business have a say over governance.

    Don’t believe me? See what Disney did to ORANGE AND OSECOLA COUNTIES in Florida:


    That’s what they now seek in Anaheim, as the city council is FINALLY showing some independence.

  24. Not a Mousehead
    August 7, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    It’s not intellectually honest to characterize ideas you like as facts and ideas you don’t like as “Crystal Balls [sic] studies.” For the right price, facts are just as easy to manipulate as projections, and I’ve seen plenty of dubious facts thrown around by people on your side of the debate (including several that have already been debunked on this blog). What was it that Mark Twain said about lies, damn lies, and statistics?

  25. Not a Mousehead
    August 7, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    Jim: On a lighter note, your earlier “you can bet your sweet bippy” remark had me laughing for the first time all day. I gotta remember that line.

  26. Jim
    August 7, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    Andrew and guys, I have some issues with Disney over handicapped parking and other things I don’t care for but the issue at hand is not about Disney or even housing. I am aware of what they did in Florida, but hey the place was freaking swamp. I don’t think Florida is complaining one bit about what Disney has done to the Orlando Area. I can guarantee that it would have have become the top destination on the Right Coast if they had not done what they did. If you think Disney is trying to take over, then you probably believe that UFO’s really did land at Roswell. Protecting your interests does not equate to a conspiracy to take over Anaheim.

    You also have to remember, that it was the council that started this problem, otherwise we would all be happy as clams watching the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim on the Telly. Don’t forget that Anaheim sued the Angels over the integrity of the name Anaheim, probably due to the fact that Arte Moreno flunked Geograpy 101. Disney sued the city to protect to protect the integrity of the Resort Zone and personally what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    If you think that Disney wants to control the resort, I would have to say that it would be fair to say that they are only protecting what was agreed to by the council representing the citizens and businesses of Anaheim in 1994. In essesance this was a contract between the two entities. When you break or change a contract, both parties must agree to a change, otherwise you have committed a breach of contract. This is basically what the City Council did when they changed the resort general plan on April 24th with getting the approval of the businesses of the Anaheim Resort Zone of which Disney is just one of the businesses that compromises the Anaheim Resort Zone..

    After I graduated college in 1967, I did real estate feasibility studies for some local builders in Los Angeles and I never ran across a situation such as this where zoning was changed without a site plan or an EIR being required by the planning or zoning commission. I really have to wonder how many hands were greased for this to have happened.

    Well, I have to go off to plan for the OC Che Guevara meeting. I hear they are planning to ask Rush Limbaugh to speak. Should be a real barn burner of a meeting. lol.

  27. August 7, 2007 at 9:32 pm

    Unlike Mr. Cunningham and Diane Singer (who does live in Anaheim) I am not paid by anyone.


    I disclose that relationship in every single post on Red County/OC Blog — so you’re not breaking any news here.

    As for Diane, she’s is not paid anything. She’s involved because she thinks you and the rest of the Disney/SOAR folks are wrong.

    But don’t let that stop you from repeating another untruth — that is the SOAR way, after all.

  28. August 7, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    Gee, the figures are from a city commissioned study? Kind of like having the fox guard the hen house.


    Your friends at SOAR were quoting that study like it was going out of style until it was made clear your group was quoting it out of context. Then, suddenly, the study became unreliable.

    And for a guy who’s wary of the fox guarding the hen house, you put a lot of trust in a study done by a company that consults for Disney.

    It would be nice if you SOAR folks could keep your stories straight.

  29. August 7, 2007 at 10:21 pm

    but about a developer who is going to flip this land for an outrageous profit at the expense of the Anaheim Taxpayers just like they did over in the City of Orange at Riverbend where they got the zoning changed and sold it to two very good builders called Centex and Lennar.


    You really need to ask the Disney/SOAR consultants to do a better job on the anti-SunCal research they furnish you with — because you have no idea what you are talking about on the topic of Riverbend. I was the community outreach consultant on that project. I also live in the adjacent neighborhood.

    For starters, it was called Del Rio when it belonged to SunCal, which was the master developer. The merchant builders re-named it Riverbend.

    SunCal didn’t “flip it.” They spent several years entitling the site — which was a sand-and-gravel operation — prepping it, putting in the infrastructure, getting it ready for homebuilding. When that was completed, the parcels were sold to Centex and Lennar, who proceeded to make a holy mess and exhibited little concern about the impact of their activity on the neighboring homeowners.

    There had been at least two prior attempts to develop the site since 1990. Both had failed in the face of strong community opposition. SunCal put together a development plan that incorporated community concerns. SunCal set aside approximately 25% of the site for a public sports park and greenway. SunCal — at its own expense and under no requirement to do so — replaced the broken down fence of the neighboring condo complex with a block wall (matching Del Rio/Riverbend’s) that enhances that community’s security and reduces the traffic noise they suffered from Glassell Street.

    Throughout the entitlement and development phases of Del Rio, SunCal actively sought input from residents in the surrounding neighborhoods, regularly communicated with them on the status of the project and responded to neighborhood concerns about the impact of site preparation.

    Perhaps that’s why — unlike previous attempts by others to develop the site — not a single resident spoke against Del Rio at any public hearing. In fact, dozens of neighboring residents spoke in favor of the project.

    Now, instead of an empty, ratty 73-acre eyesore, we have a very attractive residential development, and will soon have a very nice public park, greenway and trails. The project is funding needed street improvements in the area.

    But don’t just take my word for it, Jim. I’ll be happy to give you a tour, show you pictures of what the site used to look like, introduce you to neighbors who can tell you what they think of SunCal.

    But then again, I don’t want to puncture that Disney/SOAR Fantasyland.

    If you’re looking for a corporate big bad wolf to vilify, you might take a look at the one your flacking for.

    Remember back in February, when Disney pulled their last-minute intimidation tactic on Lucille Kring, the “Hey Lucille, we think you have a conflict — you don’t want to vote and get prosecuted do you. That was real nice springing that sleazy tactic minutes before the council meeting.

    Or how about when one of your SOAR people — the community affairs guy from Boeing — left a message for Councilwoman Lorri Galloway saying Boeing was going to have stop donating to the Eli Home for battered women because of Lorri’s support for the SunCal project. Very classy.

  30. August 7, 2007 at 10:24 pm

    In essesance this was a contract between the two entities. When you break or change a contract, both parties must agree to a change, otherwise you have committed a breach of contract.

    Hate to break it to you, but Disney “broke the contract” the year after it was signed. Remember Westcot? THAT is what Disney promised in exchange for the resort District formation — not California Adventure. Do you think the City of Anaheim agreed to provide all those goodies for Disney in exchange for California Adventure.

  31. Andrew Davey
    August 8, 2007 at 8:34 am


    Again, good point. What happened to those promises made in 1994? What happened to the WESTCOT deal? And what the heck happened to those 500 affordable housing units promised then?

    Disney got everything it wanted out of WESTCOT, but what did Anaheim get out of the deal? Not any affordable housing. If Disney had kept its word then, we wouldn’t be in this conundrum now.

  32. August 8, 2007 at 9:52 am

    What happened to the WESTCOT deal?

    Westcot’s downgrade into California Adventure didn’t happen in a context-free zone — according to this article, there were multiple factors at work:

    Disney was confronted by an effective, organized community opposition effort in the form of “Anaheim HOME” (also, the contemporaneous shellacking Disney was taking for their proposed Disney’s America in Virginia doubtless made them particularly sensitive to community response and media image);
    EuroDisney, expected to be a great success, had just opened as a colossal money-losing flop;
    Disney didn’t actually own all of the land that it had included in its Westcot plan (most notably Melodyland and the Fujishige strawberry fields), and thanks to — yes — arrogance, didn’t stand a chance at acquiring it.

    As far as the 500 affordable housing units — correct me if this is wrong, but this Register article says that Disney, with the city’s agreement, gave $5 million in lieu of building housing. Should the city have asked for more? Should the city have spent the money differently? Probably so to both, but that’s a different story.

    (Interesting side note: according to the Wikipedia article on Disney’s America, Disney briefly considered buying and retheming Knott’s Berry Farm!)

  33. Jim
    August 8, 2007 at 4:12 pm

    I do believe that I did recognize the fact that you so stated that you are compensated by Suncal, though I might not have been as polite as I should have been recognizing that you are paid by Suncal to do what you do.

    I will try to address your comments regarding River Bend or Del Rio as the Suncal Website still shows it as. I actually live just West of River Bend in Anaheim West of the 57 freeway. I have visited the site as have five of my immediate neighbors who have all commented how crowded that project is. I will address that issue shortly.

    I met with Councilman Mark Murphy of the City of Orange and he briefed me on the history of the Suncal Project and he had nothing but glowing remarks for Suncal and did give me the history of the project which you did bring up, but my point was not to trash the development, only to bring up the point that Suncal will most likely not build this development and just flip this land to builders such as Centex and Lennar which are both fine homebuilders. I think if you look at my earlier comment, this was my intent. I’m sure Mr. Murphy will confirm our discussion and I will be seeing him in about 2 hours from now over at Hart Park.

    As I live close to River Bend, if you go down Lincoln it is still dirty as the RJ Noble Co is not cleaning up the dirt that the trucks drop on Lincoln, and with the completion of River Bend, we will have to contend with close to 1,000 additional cars coming down Lincoln as I suspect that very few of the people will want to go up Glassel to reach the 91 parking lot. The gravel pit is not in the City of Orange, so they have no control and River Bend also was not until the city annexed the land to the east of the gravel pit that RJ Noble no longer needed.

    Now we can address River Bend vs. the Katella Haster location. You mentioned how great it was that Suncal dedicated so much land to open space, etc. Since I have developers in my family in N. California, I know that 25 to 30% of any project is always utilized for infrastructure, road, parks, etc. Suncal might have added an extra acre to the pot, but they did not really do anything that any other developer would have to have done.

    Now we get down to the math lesson. I will be conservative, even though I am not, and say that only 25% for each location is or will be utilized for infrastructure. At River Bend, you have 73 acres, deduct 25% and you come up with 54.75 acres that is being built on. If you take the 603 homes that they are building at River Bend and divide by the number of acres you will come up with 11.01 homes per acre and it might be nice, but it is still crowded.

    Now lets go to the Haster & Katella location in the Resort Zone. It is 26.3 acres give or take a few feet. Deduct 25% for infrastructure and you end up with 19.725 acres to build 1500 homes. Divide the 1500 homes by 19.725 acres and you come up with a total of 76.045 homes per acre. I know that in my letter that was published in the register that you said that I was incorrect by using a total of 77 units per acres, but that was what the city planning staffer said and I have since confirmed that total as being 77 units per acre. As I was being generous in my infrastructure total, I have to assume that the Anaheim Planning Staffer was more accurate by saying 77 units per acre. This by the way would be the highest density of any any development of its type in the OC.

    Math Lesson Concluded.

    I notice that you and others bring up the past Disney errors, but you have to remember that Eisner ran the company back then and even though he was successful to a point, he had one heck of an ego problem and Disney like any company or person can make a lot of mistakes.

    Hindsight makes great press and I notice that many of the comments deal with a lot of shoulda, woulda, coulda and has no bearing on the issue at hand which is a zoning change to put in residential housing in an area that is not conducive such land use.

    I took up Mr. Hernandez’s offer and went do to revisit the site and found that homes there would have two hotels looking down on them on two sides, Gene Autry extension on the South and the Disney Propery and some apartments to the West along with a soon to be widened Haster. I do know that the nearby area has gang problems so why would we build more homes to acclerate that problem. Also, as a consumer would you really buy a home in a development next to a gang infested area along with 225 low income units? If we keep that location for future expansion for the resort zone, then the taxpayers in the long run will win out. With 1500 homes, I don’t see Suncal willing to build a new school and fund to staff the school forever or pay for addition fire and police that will be required to service that area as it will no longer be within the resort zone for which Disney pays the the City $5 million each year for Fire, police, etc.

    Next the interesting Mrs. Kring, An admitted long time friend of Larry Elfund and his business partner. Yes, Disney pointed out that there might be a conflict of interest since she had signed a letter of intent to open a wine bar in the resort zone and once she does that she will have a conflict of interest according to the State Web Site. As an Attorney, Mrs. Kring could have ignored Disney, but chose to query the state to see if there was a conflict of interest and as we know, they said that there was none, but Disney was correct in bringing up the issue as it was an issue that did have to be defined. In the short term it probably helped Mrs. Kring, but the ruling also implies that she will have a conflict of interest if she does in fact open the wine bar.

    I would like to see where it was a requirement that Disney build a project called Westcot in exchange for the resort zone, but again that is ancient history and this is now.

    As for Boeing, what they do has nothing to do with SOAR or Disney. They can choose to contribute or not to contribute to whomever they want to and I think that they were correct in telling her why, even though I might not agree with their reasoning for punishing the Eli Home, but then again gossip is cheap and I would be very interested in you contacting Boeing for a comment on your comment.

    Lets get off the dump on Disney bandwagon. Everything from Florida to Virginia, to Westcot is being mentioned. Those these may be valid points, they really have no bearing on the issue at hand which is an improper zoning change. You can bring all kinds of Disney Transgressions, but it simply does not change the issue at hand.

    Well, got to run. Lets chat later when you can all comment on the issue at hand and forget about Disney.

Comments are closed.