In this article on the OC Register website on Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger's first comments on his company's attempt to control a 26-acre lot his company doesn't own.
After some standard talking points blather, Iger gets down to cases:
"But we don't believe that the property that's being talked about is property that should be developed for housing. We just don't believe it's what's called recreation- or business-friendly, nor would it throw off as much in taxes as the businesses that could go into that place."
Iger's opinion about what the property should be used for is duly noted, and it is duly noted the Disney corporation doesn't own the property. Disney-ites will respond that SunCal options, but doesn't own the property in question. But SunCal is footing the cost of that property and the option is de facto owner in the context of this battle. Disney has no legal claim, yet seeks to control what the property will be used for -- and the duly elected Anaheim City Council, via due process, amended the general plan to allow for residential development on that parcel.
The referendum is a continuation of Disney's effort to ensure the property -- which Disney does not own -- is developed in accordance with its wishes, notwithstanding the actions of the city council. Disney and it s SOAR organization have every right to pursue a referendum, but let's remain aware of why they are going this route.
There's another disturbing sub-text to Iger's remarks: that a how a property is used should be determined primarily by what will maximize tax revenues, and not what the property owner would like. That view accord primacy to the desires of government officials over the desires of property owners.
As this battle moves forward into the next phase, it is important not to let those points get lost amidst the chaff of the Disney PR offensive.
