Anaheim stands at a critical juncture with a project that dramatically alters the city’s economic and physical landscape. The proposal on the table, DisneylandForward, is touted as a driver of growth for our local economy. However, there are troubling issues that can’t be ignored ahead of the crucial April 16th vote: after sailing through the Planning Commission with minimal deliberation (with the exception of questions raised by Commissioner LuisAndres Perez) our City Council seems willing to justify documented negative impacts based on “benefits” confirmed by only a 9-page Executive Summary of what was promoted as a comprehensive economic impact study by CSUF’s College of Business and Economics. This isn’t just an oversight; it represents a failure to represent the interests of the citizens they serve.
A Statement of Overriding Consideration allows City leaders to determine that the benefits in DisneylandForward outweigh the documented negative impacts of the project. Yet the justification for those benefits is found in the CSUF “economic study” that turns out to be nothing more than an Executive Summary, or in Disney’s obligations to minimize impacts largely required in the existing agreements already in place between Anaheim and Disney. In exchange, Disney will get 40 more years to develop the same hotel rooms and theme park space they asked to develop in 1996 but have yet to complete. The big change is where the development will take place, by encroaching into existing residential neighborhoods with the more passive land use of hotel rooms exchanged for intrusive theme park development near the homes of Anaheim’s citizens.
The sudden revelation that our City Council’s momentous decision is moving swiftly forward without full transparency is unsettling. A public records request brought to light that the City of Anaheim never received the full study from CSUF’s Business School that both Disney and Anaheim referenced. This situation points to a concerning pattern of blind allegiance to Disney, rather than a steadfast commitment to representing the interests of Anaheim’s residents. It’s a troubling sign when the due diligence expected of elected officials is replaced by shortcut decision-making.
The gravity of the current situation demands immediate attention. Pushing a project of such scale through the approval process without comprehensive public scrutiny isn’t just reckless—it’s an affront to the principles of due diligence and basic good governance. The fact that the City Clerk has verified that our elected officials were given nothing more than a cursory overview to inform their potentially transformative choices should provoke collective indignation.
Supporters of the project may argue that a brief Executive Summary is sufficient for this decision, but our own city’s recent history says otherwise.
In 2013, the City Council voted to give Arte Moreno development rights to the Stadium parking lot for $1 a year, in a hasty decision following a holiday weekend, without advance notice. Ironically, that determination was based on a 13-page “economic study” from a group financially tied to the Angels, using the same data aggregation program that CSUF claimed to use for their study on Disney’s impact to Anaheim’s economy. When finally buttonholed by former Mayor Tom Tait, the “industry experts” responsible for the report admitted to using no actual research based on Anaheim or Angels Baseball. The negotiation became so tense that Arte Moreno dropped the deal, and the relationship between the Angels and Anaheim was badly damaged.
In 2019, the same month DisneylandForward reportedly began the planning process, former Mayor Sidhu pushed another deal through for Angel Stadium, based on the misinformation that City Council was only extending the terms to negotiate with the team, when in fact the entire lease for the Stadium was reimposed to the benefit of the Angels. Discovering that the Mayor had misled his Council colleagues for his own expectations of political gain prompted the remaining leaders to cancel the agreements, leading to a threat of litigation from the team owner that continues to this day.
Anaheim’s relationship with Disney stands in similar peril, as residents are raising the alarm after only now uncovering the facts not made public in the earlier “public outreach” conducted by Disney. Despite frequently trumpeting our partnerships with Anaheim’s “economic engines,” City Hall has a long history of blowing up talks with those principals, almost always caused by a lack of transparency that becomes exposed toward the end of negotiations.
This isn’t about delaying action–it’s an appeal for clarity and meticulous evaluation. The request here isn’t for additional time for the sake of it; rather, it’s a demand for the due diligence and accountability that should be inherent in the governance process. Effective leadership requires more than reliance on an Executive Summary, and documents provided by the beneficiaries of the agreements—it’s built upon a foundation of detailed scrutiny and transparent, robust, public discussion and debate.
When did we decide to trade scrutiny for speed, especially with a decision that will impact our city for generations to come?
Anaheim’s support for DisneylandForward relies heavily on documents ordered by, and funded by, Disney, including the appraisal to determine the price Disney will pay the City of Anaheim for the loss of our public roads. This introduces the impression of conflict of interest to negotiations that determine our community’s future for the next 40 years, an especially foolish move considering recent FBI investigations revealed wiretaps indicating lobbyists and at least one Disney executive had input on writing Mayor Sidhu’s scripts for City Council meetings.
Residents have raised the alarm-and been dismissed-regarding traffic impacts that are not being addressed in the studies for DisneylandForward. The Closure of Magic Way was not studied until citizens made it a contentious issue, and then the new studies contradicted previous statements made by Disney and Anaheim staff. Funds from the sale of public streets appear to be funneled into an as-yet undefined “East-West Connector” system between our sports venues and the resort, which primarily benefit those special interests, and not available for citywide transportation projects.
Theme park uses will be added to the section of property at Katella and Walnut, where only one entrance gate for deliveries already impacts traffic and safety on Walnut Street, but no provision has been made for safe delivery of increased supplies when the theme park is completed.
The lost opportunity to complete Gene Autry Way to connect Haster to Harbor and into the Convention Center leaves the existing overpass as a “bridge to nowhere,” after taxpayers paid over $60M and roughly 100 affordable homes were lost to the project. DisneylandForward is simply not creating a viable plan for Anaheim’s future, and our elected leaders appear to be rolling with that complacency.
City Hall’s labeling of our concerns as simply ‘anti-Disney’ is not only inaccurate, it’s an unfair simplification that disregards genuine issues. Such a mischaracterization simplifies complex concerns, making it all too convenient to overlook them. Our elected officials (especially those who campaigned on restoring transparency at City Hall) must remember that listening to the voices of their constituents is a fundamental aspect of their role. The necessity for community members to invest countless hours into records research, and to file requests for information outside of our own day to day lives shouldn’t be what prompts our council members to fulfill their responsibilities– that should already be a given.
City leaders have now offered another Open House on April 10th at the Downtown Community Center, prior to their vote on April 16th. But one more opportunity to pedal misinformation while refusing to slow down and examine the genuine concerns of constituents isn’t public information, it’s propaganda.
The council’s role is not to passively endorse predetermined plans but to critically evaluate and act in the best interest of the community. Anything less is unacceptable, shameful, and unworthy of those who wish to remain in public service.
Anaheim deserves better. We deserve leaders who will fight for the full picture, who won’t cave to pressure, and who remember that their first responsibility is to us, the people who live, work, and raise our families here—not to a corporation, no matter how enchanting its promises are.
Carolina Mendez is a 25 year old community organizer born, raised, and living in Anaheim. Her professional experience has enabled her to support and lead organizing efforts for progressive change across local, state, and national stages.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
