The OC Register editorial page, which has (in my opinion) a mixed record of getting it right when it comes to Anaheim, does get it right regarding the proposed development agreement between the City of Anaheim and Disney that would continue the prohibition on a gate tax in order to green-light a $1 billion investment by Disney on the Resort Area:
Nearly 20 years ago, the city entered into a contract with the park operator not to impose what has been called a “gate tax,” or a direct tax on ticket sales, at Disneyland. That agreement is nearing expiration, and Disney would like to see it renewed, in return for a commitment to build $1 billion or more worth of improvements in the parks or on adjacent Disney properties.
Anaheim’s City Council should support this proposal. It’s good for the local economy and renews a commitment from Anaheim that low taxation improves the business climate and economic vitality of the community.
Also it sends an important message that any targeted tax against Disneyland – or any other business – be it a gate tax or any other, would be unfair.
What is likely to make some people uncomfortable, however, is a provision in the agreement that stipulates that, if a gate tax ever is imposed – whether by a future city ordinance or by ballot measure – the city would have to reimburse Disney for the full cost of the tax. If passed by the council, this agreement would be in effect for 30-45 years.
This particular provision, while raising eyebrows at first impression, is actually the only assurance Disney would have that the contract with the city would be upheld if the company makes a considerable capital investment.
You can read the entire editorial here.
“Also it sends an important message that any targeted tax against Disneyland – or any other business – be it a gate tax or any other, would be unfair.”
Actually, the important message being sent is quite a bit different. The bigger you are, the fewer taxes you pay.
Disney– no taxes for expanding
Hoteliers– no taxes for expanding
Car Dealerships– no taxes for expanding
—————————————————————————————-
Homeowners– taxes for expanding
Small business owners– taxes for expanding
While a gate tax may or may not be right for Anaheim, this proposal has nothing to do with a taxes’s merit or lack of merit. Let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that this is a vote about freedom of enterprise and the benefits of lower taxes. This is about control. Period.
Your statements are simply not true, Ryan.
Fine. Replace “no” with “reduced.” It was a simplification and I stand by it.
In either case, there’s substantial inequity in Anaheim. At some point, rules regarding taxation no longer apply, and that line is based on size. That’s not what this country is supposed to be about.
You just get more inaccurate and ahistorical as you go along, Ryan. I know it isn’t easy being a Taitbot apologist on this issue, but your blind loyalty is…blind.
It’s a lot easier than being a nameless shill risking nothing to defend the . . . who are you defending again?
Anyway, nice rebuttal. Name calling goes a long way to prove both your point and your superiority.
So it’s OK for Cynthia Ward to claim a membership of ANONYMOUS activists, including a guy like you who doesn’t even live in Anaheim. But, not OK for internet posters comment. You guys are great, Ryan. DO YOU BELONG TO CATER? What about Dr. Jose Moreno, is he a member of CATER?
Are you ASHAMED of being a member of CATER? Now that same sex marriage has evolved maybe the term “in the closet” can be used for Cynthia’s make believe cadre of cowards!
Step out of the closet first, chief. Then we’ll talk.
We’ve all learned a lot from your conduct on this blog, Ryan. And as I recall, you’ve already copped to being a hypocrite. Just be candid: if Tait were taking the opposite position and supporting continuing the gate tax moratorium, you’d either comment in support of him or keep silent. Not in a million years will you ever criticize Tait publicly. if you don’t want to be tagged as a Taitbot, then don’t act like one.
Yes, I’m a hypocrite.
I’m also a sinner.
Are you claiming that you’re not?
Seems that perfect individuals like yourself have no reason to hide behind a hood of anonymity.
Oh, wait. That’s not right . . . Why the hood then?
I make mistakes. I’m not afraid of them. You shouldn’t be either.
Ryan, I’ve noticed you only attack commenters you disagree with for using pseudonyms. You never go after Randy Roddy. You’re an opportunist, not a defender of principle.
Randy is a rock star.
Again, thanks for attacking ME and not my argument. Makes you look strong. Like bull. A principled bull who charges with ad hominem rage.
Anyway, I’m not exactly sure why I’d go after Randy– who is AWESOME. We opportunists have to stick together, dochaknow.
“I’m not exactly sure why I’d go after Randy…”
Because you contend it is cowardly to use a pen name. But it’s obvious you don’t really think that because you only make that criticism of commenters you disagree with. You’re dishonest, and a self-admitted hypocrite, and there’s no reason for anyone to take your opinion seriously.
No, I said it’s cowardly for YOU to use a pen name.
You, buddy.
If folks what to ignore me because I claim to be a hypocrite, that’s fine with me.
Personally, I’d be a little more concerned with an individual who claims the opposite. Particularly folks, like you, who risk absolutely nothing to spout their opinions. Perfect anonymous writers? Yeah, that’s someone I really want to put my faith in.
You want to be taken seriously? Give us a reason. Being a human being is a good start.
But, again, thanks for attacking ME and not my argument. You’re really coming up roses today.
Your keep proving my point, Ryan. You apply a double-standard: one to those you agree with, and another for those you disagree with.
What does Randy Roddy “risk” to “spout his opinions”? Don’t try to answer; you might fracture something if you tie yourself any tighter into a pretzel.
“But, again, thanks for attacking ME and not my argument.”
Somebody call the WAAAAAA-mbulance!