The other notable half-truth from Bill Leonard's May 13 "Reader Rebuttal" is a favorite arrow from the Disney Corporation's quiver of spin:
The city stands to lose $4.6 million per year in tax revenues if housing is allowed at the site.
That figure comes from a 2005 city-commissioned study of the suitability of allowing residential development in outlying portions of the Anaheim Resort District. It's a study the Disney forces quote or condemn depending on whether it fits their purposes.
In Leonard's letter, it is taken totally out of context.
Here is the section from which the $4.6 million figure is lifted (from page 6 in the PDF. "Site 3" refers to the SunCal-optioned lot):
15. Conversion of Site 3 means foregoing future Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues which could total $4.6 million annually. However, these revenues may not occur for 15 or 29 years or more; the losses may not be experienced until the supply of avialable land for new hotel rooms is nearly exhausted, which could be 24 to 55 years from now (depending on the future growth rate of the hotel demand). Without a hotel on the site, other existing hotel or hotel sites will accommodate demand that otherwise would have been accommodated on Site 3.
Residential uses generate significantly less revenue than hotel uses; however, development of condominiums could attract some second home/visitor activity that will help stimulate economic activity. New development will also help to upgrade the immediately surrounding area, which could benefit from additional economic activity. The revenues from this development would be experienced in the near-term, due to strong demand for residential uses.
"The city stands to lose $4.6 million..." isn't really an accurate representation of the above section, is it?
