Disney’s Economic Value to Anaheim in Context; No Company Gives More to Anaheim Charities

157 Comments

1. MONEY GRAB!

2. Well, OC child poverty is around 18 percent child poverty pretty moved below the national average of except housing is more expensive. Anaheim child population is mainly Latino and probably less than most cities with mainly Latino kids. In most cities in Ca and Texas child poverty for Latino kids is above 30 percent. Reading Pew Hispanic study on Latin America where more folks are making 5,000 a year in Mexico about 25 percent and maybe 35 percent by the next decade, Anaheim child poverty rates will dropped as kids parents are less immirgrant. In fact a lot of the new housing in Anahiem are condos where most of the buyers are not Latino. There are large tract houses being sold again in Anaheim not the Hills and mainly of the buyers are Asian. The economy in Anaheim will changed from the service mainly now to more factory, call centers, health, fiance in the future. there is a lot of growth in Anaheim faster than LA on this. Interesting enough the same is happening to Santa Ana where the border areas nearer Westminster are getting more Vietnamese, so its possible to both Anaheim and Santa Ana could have a shift away from being so Latino in 10 years and 2nd and 3rd generation Latinos moved to the Inland empire for better housing and job opportunities.

3. New townhomes are coming to Anaheim, California this fall. Join the CAVA VIP interest list and stay up to date with the latest Watt News as our community unfolds. This is the second group of housing and not everyone that moves there is Latino since an Anglo father mention that his son moved there from Santa Barbara. Anaheim still has the gang banging like the man who was recently killed by taggers but in 2013 its violent crime was lower than the average of 212 where its was 182. La is about 250 and Houston Texas is a high 512. Anaheim needs to work on this being lower crime than many cities over 300,000 but the old gang banger stories will pop up like the recent murder. maybe having more charter schools or magnet schools like Oxford will help to keep non-Latinos in the city when they have kids.

4. You have made a compelling case that Disney is making boatloads of money through the Disney Resort. In fact, they are so in demand that they can raise their price for admission 34%. Guess what: making that much money requires employing people. They don’t get points for doing what is necessary to make their business run, and to be able to justify $100 per person admission. That is just tortured logic. What is also tortured logic is the argument that charitable justifies giving a thriving, successful business as Disney tax breaks it doesn’t need to create jobs it is already creating to make the record profits it already making. Disney should be applauded for its charitable giving, If it is charitable. You are using it as an justification to give them an unprecedented 45 year tax break that they don’t need. That makes the “charitable” giving more of a sheen of public relation Payola.
   The irony of this conversation is that your very argument is in trickle down economics justifying a maSsive tax break for a company that simply does not need any public support.

   • When are you people going to quit saying that Disney is getting a tax break. The consumer pays this tax. An entertainment tax is a fee on any form of service that is designed to provide consumers with leisure activities. This term normally applies to activities like attending movies, carnivals/fairs, sporting events, restaurants with live entertainment, concerts or other events designed to provide pleasure. Taxation rates can vary between 2 and 17%. Had the council voted against the Disney proposal this tax would have been applied city wide.

     • The consumer does not necessarily pay the tax. Disney could — and probably would — absorb it. Disney has been raising its prices by about $3-4 per year, waiting to see when attendance would start to slide. If a 3% gate tax were passed, then would either have to forego the next year’s increase into their own pockets or make do with a double increase that year. It’s not at all clear that they would do the latter. So, money that would be going to the City will instead stay with Disney under this proposal. That is a subsidy. To the extent that it’s not a tax break, the difference is merely technical.

       As for this: “Had the council voted against the Disney proposal this tax would have been applied city wide” — what are you talking about? THERE HAS BEEN NO PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE. Implementing a gate tax would still have required a 2/3 vote of the residents. That Disney is fighting it so hard suggests that it recognizes that at some point Anaheim is likely to be poor enough — thanks largely to this City giving away future income — that they might well pull off such a vote.

       The corollary of there being NO CURRENT PROPOSAL is that no such proposal has been structured. It is possible, for example, that a 3% surcharge would apply ONLY TO TICKETS OF $40 OR MORE. Such a tax would thus NOT apply to “any form of service.” You’re making up a straw man to attack when in fact a gate tax could be done quite intelligently so that it would only affect — and only MILDLY affect — only the largest venues.

       And again — THERE IS ALREADY A SALES TAX ON ADMISSION TO DISNEY WORLD. So we can be pretty sure that it’s not the end of the world. They just want to keep more of their money — and, from there perspective, to hell with Anaheim except for a (relatively) little good-PR- and tax-write-off generating charity.

       • If you pass an entertainment tax, it would apply to movie theaters, music venues, and Angels/Ducks/LA Kiss games in Anaheim. If its a dollar per ticket for Disneyland, that’s a drop in the bucket…but add a dollar to movie theaters and that becomes a problem for theater operators.

         There is no entertainment tax or gate tax proposal — structured or otherwise — in Anaheim. Does Anaheim really need it? That sales tax in Florida for Disneyworld and Epcot also applies to Universal Studios and other entertainment venues in Orlando. Florida’s state sales tax is 6% and the sales tax can reach 7.5% depending on local county sales tax. You can’t say there’s a special 6.5% sales tax on Disney admission that when that tax applies to every purchase in greater Orlando.

         • Lord, give me strength.

           If you pass an entertainment tax, it would apply to movie theaters, music venues, and Angels/Ducks/LA Kiss games in Anaheim. If its a dollar per ticket for Disneyland, that’s a drop in the bucket…but add a dollar to movie theaters and that becomes a problem for theater operators.

           Look, do you understand that (1) an entertainment tax could (and almost surely would) be written as a “luxury tax” applying only to tickets above a certain threshold — my guess is $35-40 — and (2) that it WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE A FLAT FEE but could instead, as in Orlando, be a percentage of the value of the transaction? In the latter respect, an entertainment tax would not be a surcharge, as you imagine, but would instead be like EVERY OTHER SALES TAX AROUND!

           There is no entertainment tax or gate tax proposal — structured or otherwise — in Anaheim. Does Anaheim really need it? That sales tax in Florida for Disneyworld and Epcot also applies to Universal Studios and other entertainment venues in Orlando. Florida’s state sales tax is 6% and the sales tax can reach 7.5% depending on local county sales tax. You can’t say there’s a special 6.5% sales tax on Disney admission that when that tax applies to every purchase in greater Orlando.

           Well, now we’re getting somewhere. Again, a gate tax IS A SALES TAX. It’s a sales tax like the ones you pay on restaurant food, cars, diapers, dishwashing liquid, etc.

           What happens in Orlando is that admission tickets ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE SALES TAX. In Anaheim, admission tickets ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SALES TAX. In other words, here we are addressing A SPECIAL EXEMPTION OF A CATEGORY OF PURCHASE from the sales tax. And it may be that at some point in the next 30-45 years the City might decide that THIS CATEGORY OF PURCHASE — which is essentially a sales tax on a luxury good — WILL NO LONGER BE EXEMPT!

           No one is arguing that Anaheim should definitely do it right now. (I think that I’m just about the furthest along that path, and that is because I understand how badly Disney has screwed the City on the Parking Structure, the Convention Center, ARTIC, and soon the Streetcar — and I think that some of that money has to start flowing the other way.) The question is whether, at some point during the next 45 years, during which Anaheim is expected to become both browner and poorer, a future Council and electorate SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION!

           That’s ALL that this is about — protecting the prerogatives of civic leaders who may be dealing with financial straits in 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, 2050, 2055, up through 2060. Do we, or do we not, tie their hands by making such a choice ineffectual?

           Do you get what we’re discussing now?

           • and a sales tax is a regressive tax that hurts the poorest among us on a regular basis; should we start taxing food too since we all eat. Are you familiar with the concept of a mortgage counselor? What am I saying, of course not.

             What about the economic impact of Disney’s $1.5 billion investment? You act as if there’s nothing to mention. Read the KPMG report please.

             You’re worried about things that might happen, but not something that will happen. And if things get that bad, Anaheim can pass a city wide sales tax which is the same regressive tax that hits everyone equally and Disney would be subject to paying on the sale of food and merchandise.

             • and a sales tax is a regressive tax that hurts the poorest among us on a regular basis

               No, not all of them. A “luxury tax” — a sales tax on goods and services about a certain generous value, is NOT regressive. Do you understand why? It’s because it taxes luxuries — and poorer people can’t afford them. Do you really think that a yacht berth tax in OC would be regressive because it would be a sales tax?

               should we start taxing food too since we all eat.

               Are you familiar with the concept of a mortgage counselor? What am I saying, of course not.

               This is a miserably stupid non-sequitur. But, since you asked, I’ve owned houses in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Both had mortgages. Was there a point to that?

               What about the economic impact of Disney’s $1.5 billion investment? You act as if there’s nothing to mention. Read the KPMG report please.

               They were going to invest that money ANYWAY because there was money to be made by doing so. As for the KPMG report, it’s pretty useless. You can watch how the “expert” got taken down during Council questions of him to get some idea of it, but the largest problems are (1) that it tries to repeal the Law of Diminishing Returns by assuming linear effects and (2) that it fails to account that very many of those jobs it supposedly creates are outside of Anaheim, so applying the multiplier solely to Anaheim is insane.

               Do you understand what I’m saying there? I went beyond mere slogans, so if you’re confused, just send up a flare.

               You’re worried about things that might happen, but not something that will happen. And if things get that bad, Anaheim can pass a city wide sales tax which is the same regressive tax that hits everyone equally and Disney would be subject to paying on the sale of food and merchandise.

               THAT WOULD BE regressive. A sales tax on entry to Disneyland, adding a negligible cost to visiting families here on an expensive vacation, would not be regressive. It’s stunning that you can’t tell the difference. You’d expand your understand if you’d spend one month living like a poor person, but the prospect would no doubt terrify you.

               You don’t get the concept of a luxury task. Indescribable.

               • Furthermore: LUXURY TAX, LUXURY TAX, LUXURY TAX!

               • Hate to break it to you Greg, but the 99% go to Disneyland far more often than the 1%. The luxury tax hurts middle class and poor families. It’s a tax you’d never have to pay because you simply can’t afford to go based on your “earnings”.

               • Hadn’t seen this before. Quite an argument there.

                 Let’s apply a 3% gate tax to a family of 5. Right now, for one-day admission, they would pay about an additional $15, on top of the almost $500 they already pay for tickets, plus parking, plus food and drink, plus swag. (I’d conservatively estimate that as another $200 unless they’re planning on starving and parching themselves.) If they aren’t local, you add to that the cost of (usually) plane travel, or lots of gas for cars, or rentals, and hotel, on which they are paying 17% tax.

                 That extra $15 — to pay for parks, and police, and pensions, and debt service on the $200 million Convention Center (of which $20 million went to the General Fund so that they could announce a $10 million surplus), and annual operation on award-winning ARTIC after Natalie Meeks lied about projected ridership figures and likely commercial occupancy in order to get it approved (largely at Disney’s behest) — is barely going to be noticed in the overall cost of the trip. And if it IS going to break them, then we have big problems coming because Disney is likely to raise its ticket prices $3 or $4 apiece for next year — just as it has done on average for each year in the past couple of decades.

                 Are you writing for the benefit only of people who can’t do math?

               • Greg — my daughter just turned 16 last week; Saturday, we took her and a few of her friends to Universal Studios; a single day ticket is $95. We had a total of eight. Factor in a nice lunch at the Hard Rock and a quick dinner for the way home and it was a sweet sixteen to remember.

                 Did you know the West Coast version of the Wizarding World of Harry Potter is coming next Spring? Do you know how much competition it will bring to Hollywood versus Disneyland? Did you know how much the attraction bit into Disneyworld attendance in Florida? Did you know there’s no entertainment tax or gate tax at Universal? And you’d like to make Disneyland a little more expensive with a luxury tax that middle class and lower income families would pay. 1 percenters typically don’t attend theme parks. When Harry Potter comes to Universal in Hollywod, watch Dinseyland attendance take a hit.

5. What’s the sequel to this – Republican billionaires who can toss out a couple hundred thousand to charities without noticing, but spend most of their fortune and time making sure they pay as little as possible into the US and state treasuries, give more to charities than you and I do? GOOD liberal!

   • Vern, Mr. Iger is a Democrat.

     I believe there was a time when he ponder a run for public office. Tell me Vern, why is it you and your peanut gallery so against anyone who makes money? Why do you belittle those who give to charity? Especially charities that benefit the Latino community? If it’s a problem, there are other places to donate to with charities that welcome every penny.

     Perhaps if your own personal financial situation wasn’t so grim, you’d have a different outlook.

     Tell me Vern, how is your 401k doing? Are the investments socially sound? Or are you counting on taxpayers to see you through your golden years?

     • I realized from the start you would completely fail to understand my comment; the intended audience is those of your readers with brains, I know there are a few.

       • And you completely failed to get the point of the post Vern. And I am not surprised

       • OK, my long sentence probably outlasted your attention span; long sentences ARE a vice of mine. I’ll try that one differently:

         Now that you have written a story about how it doesn’t matter that much that Disneyland has managed to save itself from a Gate Tax for 45 years because they already give what seems (to regular people like you and me) to be a LOT of money to charities (for which of course they receive tax breaks, good publicity, etc…)

         … you may want to follow up with an appropriate SEQUEL on the same theme, e.g.

         BILLIONIAIRES who also give (what to you and me seem like) HUGE sums of money (but are nothing to them) to charities, for which they also receive tax breaks and good publicity…

         …and who ALSO, just like Disney, put a LOT of effort into making sure they pay as little taxes to federal, state and local coffers as possible, and vote & support Republican politicians as the most likely to make that happen.

         Just that that would be a very appropriate and sensible sequel to what you’ve written here.

         And also how funny it is that you still call your blog the Liberal OC.

         • The sequel is a concept that seems to be elusive to you; the economic development the Disney expansion will add to Anaheim’s economy for decades. You were able to read the amount of money spent outside of the park that’s tied to park tourism. That number will increase and with it new jobs from entry level to high paying skill-based jobs. The best path out of poverty is education and job training, but if there isn’t a place to get hired, then what. Diamond made revenue to Anaheim’s future of being browner and poorer; why not browner and richer? Or a s the assumption as Latino populations expand, they only bring poverty? I don’t believe that for a second.

           • Those studies are next to worthless. And you’re in no position to judge them, because you’ve already decided that if they support your views, they must be right. And you won’t even listen to a detailed critique of them. To a bullshitter, everything looks like bullshit.

             • KPMG studies are worthless? You really have no clue, do you? And I’ll guess since they contradict what you believe to be true, you dismissed them out of hand. Did you even read the report? I’ll guess no

               • Yes I did. And I saw the author flailing as he tried to answer questions about it, too, as the proclaimed value of the report shrank by the minute. Watch the damn video.

                 I didn’t say categorically that KPMG reports are useless, but that this particular report (while better than the CSL Report) was lousy. You apparently think that if it says KPMG on it, it MUST be good. Well, if you have a client who wants a hack job, and you think that no one will be paying much attention, you provide a hack job and pocket the cash. (I admit that it was more obvious with CSL.) People like you who judge solely by brand names are easy to rip off: “But I paid so much for it, how can it be bad?”

               • I don’t place a lot of value in the brand name that CATER has, nor any value in the brand name of Greg Diamond Esq. I saw the video; the speaker could have been smoother, but it doesn’t diminish the report’s findings. You prejudged the report before you read it for what it represented which is the opposite your point of view. People like you, who come to meetings with their minds already made up, will dismiss anything that contradicts their (in this case, your) clients POV. When you attack the report as it is, perhaps you ought to remind everyone that you’re doing so because your highest profile client has a position on the issue. I don’t have a client in this fight at all; you do. So of course you’ll do everything you can to knock the report because you have to.

               • Great point, Dan.

                 As you’ll recall, the majority approving this deal supported by this report had already made up their mind concerning their vote before attending the public hearing. Evidence of their prejudice includes multiple media outlets including multiple quotes.

                 Should the vote be invalidated because, as you put it, these council members dismissed anything that contradicted their point of view?

                 Also, still waiting on your explanation that Anaheim has voted time and again to reject a gate tax. You kinda left that unanswered in favor of attacking Greg.

               • any discussion of an Anaheim Gate Tax has been quickly quashed. I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge Pierogi is plural as well as singular, and my “burgh” friends call Bull on your claims. Thanks for posting again during the working day. I’m sure your employer gets great value from your service

               • Learn to read, Dan.

                 I didn’t ask if they were quickly quashed. I asked if it was voted on. You said it was, time and again. I’ve asked you to support that (time and again) and you’ve failed to do so, preferring personal attacks and misdirection, including two more examples in your last reply . . . one of which isn’t even on this thread and the other is just malicious for the sake of being malicious.

                 Now was it voted on or not? Failing to answer simple questions while slinging insults might lead your readers to form conclusions about your state of mind.

                 Finally, you don’t have friends in the Burgh. Come on now.

               • My cousin works for the Pittsburgh Press; I have friends who teach at Carnegie Mellon. There’s never been support for an entertainment tax in Anaheim; it’s been discussed over the years and even Cynthia referenced something about it 1996. A specific vote, no. A poor choice of words on my part. Happy now?

               • I don’t place a lot of value in the brand name that CATER has, nor any value in the brand name of Greg Diamond Esq.

                 That tickles. But thank you for the testimonial from Bizarro Earth.

                 I saw the video; the speaker could have been smoother, but it doesn’t diminish the report’s findings.

                 Are saying that you saw his presentation, or that you also saw his fumbling around for answers to legitimate questions? By the way, why do you think that the report was NOT made readily available to the public before the meeting? Do you think that perhaps they were afraid of the questions we might be able to ask if we had had a few days to investigate and prepare?

                 You prejudged the report before you read it for what it represented which is the opposite your point of view. People like you, who come to meetings with their minds already made up, will dismiss anything that contradicts their (in this case, your) clients POV. When you attack the report as it is, perhaps you ought to remind everyone that you’re doing so because your highest profile client has a position on the issue. I don’t have a client in this fight at all; you do. So of course you’ll do everything you can to knock the report because you have to.

                 I didn’t have the opportunity to “prejudge” it because I couldn’t read it until after his presentation. I’m always open to the possibility that an Anaheim-commissioned report is fair and sound. But that tends not to happen if they seek out a report that is essentially PR to sell a proposal — rather than being fair and sound. Did you read about the document soliciting the CSL Report that Cynthia found? I suppose it doesn’t matter — as you’ll soon demonstrate, you have already prejudged it.

               • But thank you for the testimonial from Bizarro Earth

                 You have inspired me; I doubt you know anything about Bizarro World but I’ll address this later

               • I don’t know what the “Press” is, but your cousin needs to get out more.

                 Now that we’ve established you’ve pulled the vote idea out of your rear end, let’s move onto this new side car you’ve fabricated?

                 There’s no support for a gate tax? Ever?

                 I’d love to see you support that.

                 At BEST, that’s argumentative.

               • The Post Gazette, specifically…you know, the Press?

                 Oh, there’s been support for a Gate tax in Anaheim? Please point out when there’s been support for such a tax Ryan.

               • Well, which is it? The Pittsburgh Press or the PG? Better make up your mind and stick with it.

                 You made the claim, Dan. Demanding that I prove the converse as a defense to support your claim is not supporting your claim. It’s how a seven year old gets out of an argument.

                 Now let’s see some support to demonstrate there’s never been support for a gate tax in Anaheim.

               • I said Press as in Press; he works in journalism, you know Media is not just a town in PA. I should have finished with the word Corps. The Paper is the PG. If he worked in Boston, I would have said the Boston Press. Actually the burden of proof is on you to say there was historical support for a gate tax in Anaheim.

               • Ryan, 1992 Mayoral race in Anaheim. Mayor Fred Hunters comes out for a Gate Tax. His opponent, Tom Daly, is against it. Daly wins. The police union also supported a gate tax in the 1990s as well. Daly, a Democrat, beats Hunter 57-43%, and stays Mayor for 10 years. There have been discussions about a gate tax for more than 20 years. Good enough or do you want to split hair some more Mr. Pierogi.

               • Well, which is it, chief?

                 You just provided several examples demonstrating there HAS been support for a gate tax at one time or another.

                 Yet you still claim there’s never been support for a gate tax. Your own evidence undermines your claim.

                 I wouldn’t call that splitting hairs. I’d call that you really having absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

               • I provided two — not a few and not several — two. And neither item was ever elevated beyond a proposal…no vote, just talk. And support for a gate tax cost Hunter his seat

               • So are you retracting your claim or not? You still seem a little conflicted. I’ll sum up for you.

                 Voted, time and again . . . Nope.

                 Never been support for a gate tax . . . Nope

                 Let’s get back to that other little bomb you dropped on this thread while attempting to demean Greg.

                 Should the vote be invalidated because, as you put it, these council members dismissed anything that contradicted their point of view?

                 Really hope you go 0-3 here.

               • Voted time and again for Daly for mayor who is on record against a gate tax

                 Police Association and CATER supporters represent a small group in favor of a gate tax

                 Should the vote be invalidated? No, the council acted appropriately in holding a public hearing on the Disney deal and voted accordingly.

         • Business expansion is always a risk Vern. There’s no guarantee of success. Walt Disney took a risk when he opened the park in Anaheim. Gene Autrey took a risk moving the Angels to Anaheim. what’s the biggest risk you’ve ever taken?

           • Are you joking? OF COURSE an expanding business can have a “guarantee of success” if they build it into the contract. You need look no further than the current Poseidon contract proposal to see how that works.

             • Not in the entertainment industry; Disneyland counts on people walking through the gate every single day. Plays fail, movies fail, restaurants fail…in your case, logic does.

               • Oh, so I’M wrong because YOU forgot to add a critical qualifier to the assertion that I found absurd. I accept your implicit apology.

               • the conservation is about Disney. Duh

   • The Asians and non-immirgrants will demand a different job market its happening. Disneyland is expanding to China which means less folks here even with Star Wars. Virtual Reality could have a negative effect on Tourism, people watched things at home. Granted, Disney is going to VR. In fact Anahiem could dropped from 54 percent Latino to only 45 percent Latino in the next decade as redevelopment drives out some immirgrants and native born. Its happen in LA County in Echo park more white and El Montle more Asian. I predict more Asian in the next decade..

6. Anaheim is a small cog in the entire Disney operation. And it’s not trickle down economics because there’s no tax to give a tax break on? Does anyone else remember how run down the area was in 1997-98? Disney has no obligation to give a dime to charity. But they do and more than anyone in Anaheim. They also employ people and not everyone who works at Disneyland is a minimum wage employee. They also offer job training programs to help their employees advance. Bet there is no such program at Tait & Associates.

7. How much revenue would the city be getting if Disney weren’t there?

   • C’mon Hackett, you know Disneyland ain’t going anywhere.

     And they were totally going to invest that billion dollars in their Anaheim properties whether they got that gate tax exemption or not. That was given away for NOTHING.

8. No it’s not Vern, but neither is a proposal for a gate tax. Anaheim has voted no time and again. I realize you and Greg can’t afford Disneyland but you fail to grasp the amount of money out of owners spend outside of the park. You both have no clue how business works and reinforce the notion all our party wants to do is tax anything that moves.

   • I wouldn’t be flaunting my business acumen if I were you.

     I don’t recall Anaheim ever voting on a gate tax, let alone time and again. Evidence?

     • Anaheim has never had an entertainment tax ever. And my business runs just fine thank you; how goes commenting on the blogs while you’re supposed to be “working” going for you? Do you hit gambling sites too?

       • Learn to read, Dan.

         I didn’t ask how your business is running.

         I also didn’t ask for the history of an entertainment tax in Anaheim.

         I also didn’t ask you to weigh in on my personal time, schedule, or choice of recreation, but thanks for the defamatory swipe.

         I did ask you to support your claim that Anaheim has voted no time and again on a gate tax.

         Try again. Let me know if you’re still confused.

         • quashed by the council in 1996 I believe. there’s been over overtures over the years that have never seen the light of day. Not exactly going to the polls, but quashed nonetheless.

           • Was it voted on in 1996 or are you referencing the 1996 contract?

             • Come on, Ryan. He has no idea whatsoever.

           • DC: “[N]either is a proposal for a gate tax. Anaheim has voted no time and again.”

             RC: “[S]upport your claim that Anaheim has voted no time and again on a gate tax”

             DC: “[T[here’s been over overtures over the years that have never seen the light of day.”

             GD: “If these ‘votes’ have never seen the light of day, how do you know about them?”

             GD: “Oh, and can you point to the particular vote where the City Council rejected a gate tax in 1996? Bonus if you can tell us in what document the moratorium on a gate tax appears.”

9. Reading this was very entertaining, because yesterday I read an article defending “El Chapo” on very similar grounds: his extensive charitable works in Sinaloa.

   (For the record, I strongly prefer Disney to El Chapo. I have to say that because I know a couple of writers here who will assert that I’m equating them.)

   Judging huge recipients of public benefits by the fraction that they return to the commonweal as charity (both a write-off AND a marketing expense!) is the sort of thing that only makes sense to a “PR professional.” (And, I suppose, certain drug lords.)

   • Comparing Disney to a drug lord and saying you’re not equating sounds like something a “lawyer” might say.

     • Yeah, I thought that the logic might be a bit too subtle for you.

       It so happens that El Chapo is in the news and people are writing about him — and making the same argument that you make about how charity washes away sin. It’s comical.

       I don’t equate them, as a perceptive reader would have noted. Sinaloa generates a lot more violent sin then Buena Vista.

       • what’s comical is your logic. So perhaps Disney should halt all charity in Anaheim? You’re critical of what they’ve done and do. If they turn off the spigot, that would make you happy wouldn’t it? How much does Tait & Associates contribute to charities in Anaheim again? https://theliberaloc.com/2015/02/11/call-for-anaheim-businesses-to-give-should-start-with-tait/comment-page-1/

         • I hate to say this, but you’re starting to sound unhinged.

           Why would I want Disney to cut off all of its charitable activities in Anaheim? I don’t even want El Chapo to cut off his charitable activities in Sinaloa. I mean, at least it’s SOMETHING.

           However, I don’t give Disney much credit for giving back a small percentage of what they have used their political power to squeeze out of Anaheim’s current and future commonweal. The Mickey and Friends parking structure, the financial burdens and benefits of which are routinely misreported, is a good example. Would you like some reading material on the subject? Cynthia has some relevant public records requests, if so.

           • I’m unhinged? I’m not the one posting comments to blogs in the wee small hours of the morning counselor. I’m not the one who parrots everything that comes out of the mouth of a conservative mayor while professing to be a Democrat? Are you really? Honestly, I’m not the least unhinged, but you clearly are.

             • What frightens you about people who don’t keep the same hours as most people do? Can you imagine there ever being a good reason for it?

               You exhibit a desperate yearning not to be unconventional, perhaps because you don’t want to stand out as odd. It’s quite sad, really.

               And you project your “parroting” onto me. I can defend every single instance where I’ve agreed with Tait, generally on his anti-corruption agenda. I’ve certainly explained my views at a great enough length that it’s clear that I understand and have thought through those issues. You, on the other hand, rely on slogans and blandishments. We just established in the comments on the Disney gate tax that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

               • greg, I put in my share of late nights and early mornings; my clients are global and thank goodness for Skype. You’ve been booted from party leadership, a number of Democrats in OC want little to do with you, and you’re far more about self promotion that social justice. You are a clown shoe. Big, silly, and not to be taken seriously by serious people. And you think you have me figured out? You believe what you want sweet cakes, I’m not the one filing for dues forgiveness or admission based on financial hardship

               • Smart of you both to change the subject and to go with insults. One might almost forget that you didn’t address the brunt of my comment. So who else do you call “sweet cakes”?

           • well Greg, you often belittle anyone that does any charitable giving at all. Are you sill mowing lawns for anyone that can loan you money for some family-related medical expense?

             • “Are you sill mowing lawns for anyone that can loan you money for some family-related medical expense?”

               Do you mean this as a joke? Or do you really believe this?

               • Satire counselor. Since you make up so much stuff about me, I’m just returning the favor

               • Your understanding of satire is on par with your understanding of luxury taxes.

               • And satire is satire even if the subject of said satire doesn’t get it

               • All right — explain how that was “satire.”

                 (This is gonna be good.)

           • Unhinged? Hahahaha. You mean like you get unhinged to search for David Vasquez? You’re a failure Diamond.

             • This Pinky is deep. What I mean is, he’s got his pinky deep up inside there.

               • Orange is the New Drunk, Nelson.

             • In my opinion, ghostly spirit, “Vasquez” is pretending to be someone (and perhaps even something) that he is not, the former to shield himself from the repercussions of his online behavior and the latter to acquire supposed credibility that he does not deserve. So … am I not supposed to be bothered by that?

               May I remind users here that I’m actually arguing with someone using the name of a small digit. That’s because that’s what the owner of this one-proud site wants.

10. Oh God, we had to hear the same nonsense about the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, another alleged “economic engine” (why is it that every Pringle client is an economic engine?).

    The billionaire Arte Moreno hands out few hundred thou in local charity and thinks he deserves hundreds of millions in return. What a deal. Only an idiot would buy into that crap. Arte’s “charity” couldn’t even buy him a third rate utility infielder and we’re supposed to give him whatever he demands?

    And what does Arte really contribute to the Anaheim economy? A few hundred lowest wage jobs handing out peanuts and parking cars. What a deal.

11. I have it on good authority that Greg’s most recent disparaging remarks against incoming ED Erik Taylor could be the finishing touches on Greg’s inglorious tenure as a DPOC CC member.

    First, some are claiming that the ONLY reason Greg sits on the committee is because of his failed SD32 run (I don’t know if this is true. I heard he was also elected not simply and “EX-Officio” member of the Central Committee). If so, it’s clear that Greg’s LOSS for the party was for personal gain (so I am told). That frosts some people who believe this.

    Second, While largely absent at many events, when present, he often attempts to overtake conversations, repeatedly corrects minor errors and “lectures” others. I was told plainly: “This isn’t why any of us are here”. Greg’s interpretation of the bylaws are so “OUT OF TOUCH” and “OVERLY ENFORCED” that it sometimes becomes impossible to conduct normal business.

    Thirdly, He has openly and publicly disparaged a number of party officials including (but, not limited to: Chairman Henry Vandimier, Jose Solorio, Lou Correa, Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido, Anaheim Councilman Jordan Brandman, Anahiem mayoral candidate Lorri Galloway, Santa Ana City Councilmember Vince Sarmiento, Former Garden Grove mayor Bruce Broadwater, Orange Mayor Tita Smith, Former Chairman Frank Barbaro. In addition, he has “badmouthed” members of the committee and party in person, including a disparaging insult to LA County Chairman Eric Bauman (relating to Janice Hahn).

    Lastly, many feel that he has begun to disrupt progress by holding down others, who are generally well liked. it is clear to see who these are without getting personal. In the realm of bad taste, Greg has recently begun to invoke the words of the late party stalwart Mike Kinslow, in an incredibly salacious manner. This seemed to be the “last straw” with even his allies.

    Greg is done. Well done. I am told. Despite reservations by some to “let him die quietly and be gone”, some feel he is so toxic to the processes and progress of this important time that they “WANT HIM GONE NOW”.

    In Greg’s defense, Neil Young said: “It’s better to burn out than to fade away”.
    Unfortunately this is real life, and in Greg’s case a wasted one.

    • It w as SD29. My fear is Diamond will run for Ling Ling Chang’s assembly seat in order to retain his DPOC central committee seat.

      • Hey, I hadn’t thought of that! That might just work! Thanks!

    • I don’t mind saying again — in fact, by now I’ve grown sort of fond of saying it and failing to get a good response — that I do not believe that Mr. “Vasquez” is who he claims he is, nor that he is even entitled to present himself as Latino for the greater credibility on some issues he claims to possess. But, I could be wrong — and, whether he is a Democrat or not he certainly does seem to be in close touch with some of the more Nixonian elements of my party. So again: if anyone associated with DPOC has had ANY association with “David Vasquez” under that name, please let me know. I doubt that there is much that I could do to hurt him even if I wanted to take on that sort of headache; my interest here is in exposing a liar who has found out a way to claim greater credibility than “Pinky” (not that that sets a high bar.

      Now to address the latest spittle-inflected tranche of invective:

      I have it on good authority that Greg’s most recent disparaging remarks against incoming ED Erik Taylor could be the finishing touches on Greg’s inglorious tenure as a DPOC CC member.

      I didn’t disparage Erik Taylor at all. Never met him, never talked to him; never seen his resume. As he was not yet working for DPOC, I presume that keeping his identity as the new candidate for Executive Director from the members of the Central Committee was not HIS doing, but that of the Chair and his advisors. That’s what I criticized. And they deserved that and worse.

      First, some are claiming that the ONLY reason Greg sits on the committee is because of his failed SD32 run (I don’t know if this is true. I heard he was also elected not simply and “EX-Officio” member of the Central Committee). If so, it’s clear that Greg’s LOSS for the party was for personal gain (so I am told). That frosts some people who believe this.

      Well, yes — just like the only reason that Henry Vandernier sits on the committee is because he is the alternate to Jerry Tetalman, who lost (a lot worse than I did) to Darrell Issa in CA-49. Those are the rules for ex officio membership on the committee. I had previously been elected to my position but that appointment ended at the same time that my ex officio role began.

      Second, While largely absent at many events, when present, he often attempts to overtake conversations, repeatedly corrects minor errors and “lectures” others. I was told plainly: “This isn’t why any of us are here”. Greg’s interpretation of the bylaws are so “OUT OF TOUCH” and “OVERLY ENFORCED” that it sometimes becomes impossible to conduct normal business.

      See, this is where “Vasquez’s” probable effective anonymity becomes a real problem. First, none of that would be a basis, according to the Bylaws, for removal from office. Second, my interpretation of the Bylaws in various areas is not only appropriate, but was widely accepted prior to the beginning of 2014 when the Chair was pushed into a Nixonian “purging of the opposition.” He does not like to be criticized, especially when he is incompetent or wrong. And he has shown how vindictive he can be with committee assignments and the like, which is why people are afraid to stand up to him. They just hope for the best. (They don’t get it.)

      Thirdly, He has openly and publicly disparaged a number of party officials including (but, not limited to: Chairman Henry Vandimier, Jose Solorio, Lou Correa, Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido, Anaheim Councilman Jordan Brandman, Anahiem mayoral candidate Lorri Galloway, Santa Ana City Councilmember Vince Sarmiento, Former Garden Grove mayor Bruce Broadwater, Orange Mayor Tita Smith, Former Chairman Frank Barbaro. In addition, he has “badmouthed” members of the committee and party in person, including a disparaging insult to LA County Chairman Eric Bauman (relating to Janice Hahn).

      This may shock some people, but there is no requirement that Central Committee members not disparage party officeholders or other party officials. (There are some exceptions for when an endorsed candidate is engaged in a campaign — as Jordan Brandman did when he endorsed two Republicans against DPOC-endorsed Jose Moreno for the Anaheim City Council in a huge last-minute hit piece.) Remarkably, the party does — at least on paper — value free speech and the ability to cast dissenting views.

      As for the others, let’s address them case-by-case:

      NOTE: I’ve decided to do this part of my reply over on Orange Juice instead of doing it here. The host here doesn’t let me post links to there, so you’ll have to go poke around there yourself.

      Lastly, many feel that he has begun to disrupt progress by holding down others, who are generally well liked. it is clear to see who these are without getting personal. In the realm of bad taste, Greg has recently begun to invoke the words of the late party stalwart Mike Kinslow, in an incredibly salacious manner. This seemed to be the “last straw” with even his allies.

      First, I can only presume that “Vasquez” does not know what “salacious” means. He’s either being misinformed or making stuff up himself.

      Second, “progress”?

      Finally: Mike was a good friend of mine, and we helped each other in our law practices as well. He asked me while I was visiting him in the hospital, and I agreed, to help ensure that the cases he had taken got properly placed after his death. They were all placed — most arranged by his wife, two by me.

      I did say that Mike, who had planned to run against Henry Vanderbilt for Chair this year, had asked me to ensure that he didn’t run unopposed, (This was true and he didn’t mind people knowing it.) I told him that I would make sure that he had an opponent. When no one else stepped forward, I did so myself at literally the last minute. And I told them that I was doing so to honor my pledge to Mike. If someone has a problem with that, to hell with them.

      Greg is done. Well done. I am told. Despite reservations by some to “let him die quietly and be gone”, some feel he is so toxic to the processes and progress of this important time that they “WANT HIM GONE NOW”. In Greg’s defense, Neil Young said: “It’s better to burn out than to fade away”.
      Unfortunately this is real life, and in Greg’s case a wasted one.

      So we’re to believe that they have the votes to remove me — without valid cause, not that that mattered to them last time — but that no one is willing to say it to “Vasquez” under their own name. Democrats who are reading this — this sort of political tactic should make you puke. See you at the meeting to remove me from the Committee, if anyone ever really has the gall — and lack of brains and heart and respect for the rules — to try.

      I would like to invite my fellow DPOC members to look at this and other previous screeds of “David Vasquez” and compare them to my participation here. The point of all this is to make other Democrats afraid to openly criticize party activities and especially party corruption, for fear that they will end up being treated like me. Is that what you wanted or expected when you became a politically active Democrat?

      • excuse me, but didn’t you trash Lorri Galloway, the DPOC endorsed candidate for mayor, fearing her presence in the race would prompt a Lucille Kring election to mayor? Haven’t you openly suggested Jordan Brandman be indicted? You’re hardly one to complain about Jordan.

        • I said that she wasn’t running a serious campaign — because she wasn’t, as her expense forms prove — and that she was going to finish third. And yes, I was very nervous about electing a racist and frankly proto-fascist like Kring as Mayor over Tait.

          It turned out that I was wrong — Galloway finished with 20.4% of the vote to Kring’s 19.4%. In my defense, at that time no one had expected Kring’s campaign to blow to smithereens quite as badly as it did. Achieving that took a lot of hard work — none of which you did.

          I don’t recall when I said that Jordan should be indicted. Was it about the $25,000 make-work contract from Tom Daly that he failed to turn in (despite getting the money for it) and then tried cribbing from Wikipedia — before ultimately (on information and belief) being shamed into having a plausible (though by no means $25K value) report ghostwritten? If that’s what your talking about, then yes I probably did. Do you need me to explain why?

    • What’s this “Vasquez” dude talking about? I read that Erik Taylor piece, short and sweet, and no attacks in it at all. Hasn’t “Vasquez” written this same damn comment before, about some other piece of Greg’s? Wow, Greg, it sounds like you are gonna get thrown out of the Central Committee OVER AND OVER AND OVER!

      Can I watch?

12. This is a Republican blog, right?

    • “Channeling Orange County’s Right-Wing Noise Machine,” you betcha!

      • said by the man who praises a conservative Republican mayor and defended a disgraced Republican council candidate; are you sure you’re a Democrat?

        • If Tait is “conservative,” so is Jimmy Carter. Putting aside social issues (which we have not much discussed, but which mostly don’t come to the Council), he’s a mostly libertarian opponent of wasteful spending — a category from which he excludes providing significant support to the needy. Now if you want to talk “the wrong kind of conservative,” you have your choice of Murray, Kring, Eastman — and in some unfortunate ways, Brandman as well. I consider anti-corruption to be a hallowed Democratic Party value. Don’t even pretend to agree.

        • I don’t know of any “disgraced Council candidate” that I’ve defended. What are you talking about?

      • spoken by the person who defends the conservative Republican mayor of Anaheim, and a disgraced failed Republican council candidate. Are you sure you’re a Democrat, Diamond?

        • “spoken by the person who defends … a disgraced failed Republican council candidate”

          I still cannot think of a single “disgraced failed Republican council candidate” than I have defended. Give me a better hint.

          • Well, Vanderbilt’s porn mustache was a LITTLE disgraceful, but he got rid of it, and also he didn’t fail. I have no clue either.

            • Pettibone. You are both clueless.

              • Huh? As I remember it was a guy called Dan Chmielewski who covered himself in disgrace in that episode. What did we miss?

              • Why is being falsely accused of something, by a confederate of an election opponent who was involved in a conspiracy to exhume deleted court records that were either already inaccurate or newly falsified, the least bit disgraceful? Given your own complicity, I would ask you whether your conscience is at all bothered by what you did (and are apparently intent on still doing), but asking you about your guilty conscience assumes facts — or at least an entity — not in evidence.

                • DOES it now? Golly gosh. Then, if you’re right, I guess that that non-public-figure can sue me over it. I’ll watch my mailbox.

                • Well, you shout defamation at the drop of a hat while having zero proof of any such conspiracy. Btw, everything I’ve written about Mr. Pettibone was well after he withdrew from the race. Perhaps instead of relying on his masterfully crafted withdrawal and apology letter, you might apply some in depth questioning to him of what happened with not only his first spouse, but his second one as well. But you totally bought what an honorable classy guy he was…did Tait ask that of you? How about Mrs. Tait? You’re a tool of Tom Tait and his minions Greg.

                • Greg: “Does it now… Golly gosh.. etc.”

                  Looks like Dan’s doing it again: Writing lame comments then taking em down while leaving people’s reactions up making no sense. How professional. I wonder what he said and why he regretted saying it; we’ll never know.

                • Don’t worry, Vern. I usually back up his and Matt’s nightly, just in case they pull this sort of stunt.

                  I don’t think that the chronology presented above is correct, but I’ll have to check my notes. And if it was all after the fact, that in some ways makes it worse. Defamatory either way.

                • Thanks for backing us up I think?

            • Do you live in Anaheim or HB these days Nelson? Loved your comments at GG. But you drink more than water, don’t you

13. Greg is the most ignorant, selfish person around. Clearly and repeatedly Mr. Vasquez said he is NOT affiliated nor involved with the DPOC. Yet Diamond’s first words are that this guy was a “party insider”.

    • “Vasquez” is always talking about how he “has it on good authority that” blah, blah, blah. That suggests access to inside information, which makes him an “insider.” You, despite your name, might not be one. You are definitely keeping me off my balance with all of your secret, host-approved, identities.

14. Greg,

    I have only posted under my given name (which may or may not be indicative of my ethnic background A$$HOLE), used one EMAIL ADDRESS, ONE COMPUTER ever.

    Yet, you want to lump me in to some imaginary opposition force that has it in for you. The reality is, I like politics, I enjoy debate and certainly lean liberal (although as I age and MY children grow, admittedly, like most Americans, Californians and Employed individuals, I gravitate to a middle ground).

    Many of my friends, are your colleagues are the source of my information. Sometimes I feel like I am them about how they drone on about how offessive you are. I am just a bystander.

    I WILL ADMIT, I AM SOMEWHAT OF A JERK FOR PICKING ON YOU. YOU SEEMED DESERVING, BEGGING FOR ATTENTION AND FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, I WAS RIGHT. YOU ARE AN ATTENTION STARVED MENTALLY ILL INDIVIDUAL.

    I would debate you publicly, virtually, or wherever but, frankly you SCARE me. You have threatened to FIND ME, SUE ME DO SOMETHING ELSE WHICH I CAN’T REMEMBER all over an innocuous internet post.

    Simply put: I think you are CRAZY. Like REALLY F%$King CRAZY. I will leave it to your brethren in the Orange County Democratic Party to decide what’s best to do with you.

    All I ever did was post an opinion. YOU turned that into a BLOG WAR, DEBATE and THREATENED TO “FIND ME AND SUE ME”. I get it Dr. Koo koo.

    I will leave you with this: I will make sure EVERY Democrat from Bangor, ME to San Ysidro, CA knows how CRAZY, VINDICTIVE, MEAN SPRITED AND UNSTABLE YOU ARE.

    Good Luck getting a job, winning an election, cashing a (welfare) check or anything else. And when you wonder why: LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

    • David… You’re hardly alone in your assessment. http://www.breamatters.org/no-friend-of-brea/

      • Oh look — another liberal commenter on “Liberal OC.”

        • Liberal? Hardly. Let me know when you and your OJ buddy (Vern is it?) decide to honor the first amendment and unblock me on your scandalmongering sites.

          • Ah, old Dick Clark, from the Land That Irony Forgot.

            Not knowing Brea, I let Greg decide who deserves to comment from there. He had SOME reason to ban you, I forget what.

            • I’ll email you the comment that broke the camel’s back.

              After years of being a generally recognized crank, this guy’s the Planning Commission appointee — sorry, NOMINEE — of Steve Vargas, who recently dropped the appeal of a judge’s finding that he stole $1570 from a veteran’s charity, for which the judge slammed him for $5000. Last I noticed, he was still defending Vargas’s innocence and proclaiming his virtue. Maybe the abandonment of the appeal will have changed his tune — but I doubt it.

            • Deserves to comment? You pass the buck to Mr. Diamond? Few people better prove my point than you two. LOL!

              • Of course he “passed the buck” to me. I’m the one that banned your raggedy, sold-out, nasty, addled hindquarters.

                If you think that I violated the First Amendment in doing so, they I suppose you are entitled to sue me on First Amendment grounds. You can easily find my address. But oh, don’t throw me into THAT bre’r patch!

                (No one explain to this goofball what would happen.)

          • Look at the name of this site, you dolt. “Liberal.” (And it did used to be, before it was sold to its present owner.) Actually, I’m glad that you’re here, helping to mark the slide of our host into your type of irresponsible and maniacal tea-baggery.

            Here’s a two-question quiz on Constitutional law:

            (1) Does the First Amendment apply to private blogs?

            (2) Does the First Amendment apply to unlawful speech such as defamation?

            Have someone competent feed you the answers if you need to.

          • First Amendment? Man, you’re very ignorant. Either that or very funny. Or both.

            • Randy… ignorant or funny? What part of free flow of information, of censoring opposing views do you not understand? Pile on if you wish, you obviously are cut from the same cloth. Cheers.

              • This would be a lot more fun if we could put money on it.

                • You can’t afford to put money on anything. Will you borrow it from your wife or in-laws?

                • Lots of people are willing to stake a sure thing. But I doubt if your friend Rick Clark would pay up.

        • You’re a liberal Diamond? Tait fan, Pham fan, Vanderbilt fan, Pettibone defender. The only thing liberal about you is your waistline

          • Yeah — they’re all honest and forthright. Brandman, Pulido, Solorio, Daly — not so. Correa is honest, he’s just way too conservative and way too bought. But if push came to shove I guess that I’d have to prefer him to Brandman because of his honesty. There’s nothing illiberal about valuing honesty in government. Now, if I had to choose who I wanted to make policy on abortion rights, then I’d probably choose Daly over Tait, etc. But that’s not generally a local issue. One nice thing about local vs. state/national politics is that honesty matters comparatively more than ideology on social issues.

            • Who died and put you in charge of determining who is honest or not? You’re not honest about a number of things. Let’s start by having you describe your office. Moo, it’s not the kitchen table but is the desk in a spare bedroom no one uses or in the living room? Do tell

              • Moo???

                • Just accept the gift of his comedy gratefully, Vern.

              • Wait — someone had to DIE to put me in charge of determining who is honest? I’d feel terrible if that were true. Luckily, I’ve never claimed to be “in charge” of determining honesty; I just present my opinions and their rationales, including evidence where available.

                You’re the one who falsely claimed — with great certainty — that my office is on my kitchen table. I appreciate that you are backing away from that allegation now. I’m confused, though, by why you say that YOUR having been (now admittedly) wrong makes ME “dishonest.”

                Why should I tell you exactly where my office is just because you bellow at me? Just in principle, what the hell motivates that sort of question? That is very, very weird on your part. “Moo.”

                • I typed “Sooo” and autocorrect on the new iPad changed it. Pretty funny. Actually, I am still convinced it’s your kitchen table. It’s you, with great insistence, who says it’s not. You keep talking about your office for your solo practice. You work from home. Nothing wrong with that as long as it’s dedicated space; I loved my home office until it got too small. But the room was just that…an office. I’ll offer you a heartfelt apology if it’s not the kitchen table, but post a photo of your office online…a nice wide shot so everyone can see the couch or the bed that’s in the same room.

                • That you’re “still convinced” of something you’ve never seen and have no reason to believe speaks volumes.

                  I live with a Filipina wife and three Filipina daughters. The idea that our kitchen table would be regularly used for anything other than meals is absurd.

                  As to the hoop you’d like me to jump through, I must decline — and respectfully decline the invitation to jump through any and all other hoops you might dream up for the rest of the decade. I’ll just toss this into the “things that you also must think are satire” pile.

                • Like the hoop he dreamed up for every Anaheim Latino he happened to know – they must immediately CONDEMN the senseless gang-on-gang violence that led to the death of Ximena, or Dan Chmielewski decrees they are complicit, because they are Anaheim Latinos! Moo.

                • Vern, I asked that of Latino candidates running for city council. Not every Latino. Are you toasted again?

                • Hoop?

                • Vern, please rephrase. Apparently our host is not familiar with the term “making someone jump through hoops.”

                • calling a candidate for city council and asking their reaction is jumping through hoops?

                • It was them and Gustavo and Gabriel – all of the Anaheim Latinos you know. “Do you condemn gang violence?” An offensive and dumb question.

    • I’m still trying to find one person associated with DPOC who admits to knowing you under your “given” name. I doubt that I ever will.

      The icons illustrating your account often shift — as opposed to those of most commenters here, myself included —which I believe our host can (if he were so disposed) confirm means that you’re not using one email address.

      If you are (unnecessarily and blatantly) lying about this — then there is no reason to think that you’re not lying about the rest. So now our host can verify whether you are lying about using only one email address — and, if so, who your icon/avatar keeps changing. Really, it’s like you WANT to be caught. Maybe persistant lying and defamation gets boring for you after a while.

      • Your host is telling you to stick your request to reveal commenters email addresses and IP addresses right up your butt

        • I see that you failed to understand what I wrote. I’m not asking you to reveal identifying information about “Mr.” “Vasquez.” I’m asking you to confirm (as I believe you have before) that the geometrical logos you assign to accounts go along with one’s email address — so that, if the logo next to the name of “Mr.” “Vasquez” changes (sometimes literally from comment to comment) it shows that he is using different email addresses. And, if that’s so, that prove that his gratuitous statement to the contrary is a lie.

          I recognize that you may not want to cooperate. And I recognize why.

15. “Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics pulled the data from confidential Disney financial records and public information from the city of Anaheim and some nearby counties. The consulting firm used the IMPLAN modeling system, based on the theory that when new money enters a community, much of it is re-spent in the local community”

    I love how we are not permitted to SEE these documents, we are only told about their results. For years we were told that CBRE had done a study that showed the 5% of the City representing the Resort generated 50% of the General Fund. When I finally got a copy, it turns out it didn’t say that. CBRE knew the Resort didn’t fund half of city revenues, even on a gross. When the City FINALLY stopped to calculate the cost/benefit of the Resort following YEARS of setting official policy by repeating that unsubstantiated claim of 5% makes 50%, not even a QUARTER of Anaheim’s GF comes from the resort. Coupled with the City offering ‘schlock-house” generated reports to justify the predetermined outcome of the Council majority, the ability to “trust them” with results absent the actual report is not likely.

    The credibility drops IMMEDIATELY when I hear they used the IMPLAN model. Do you know who else used it? CSL. I have the receipt, CSL paid $350 to get an IMPLAN data set for Orange County, in order to calculate the amount they claimed fans would spend outside Angel Stadium. That was their “industry data” that let them NOT do any primary research tied to Anaheim or the Stadium, so I’m not real confident that anyone else using the model is any better.

    “The resort also accounts for nearly a third of Orange County’s $9.6 billion tourism market and generates $370 million in state and local tax revenues.”

    And yet…is there ANYTHING that tells a tourist escaping the
    sameness of the Resort and headed into the “real Anaheim” that “gee, tourism has clearly been GREAT for Anaheim, CA.”

    No? No visible benefit to Anaheim that sets us apart from surrounding communities that lack the “economic engine?” How is that? Could it be…that the structure of the last deal with Disney, the deal that was supposedly “extended” on July 7, SUCKS BACK EVERY NICKEL GENERATED BY THE DISNEY PROPERTIES above the 1995 baseline?! Ya think? That’s right, the 96 agreement that included the original gate tax exemption requires ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of sales, property, and bed taxes from Disney property over the 95 base to be diverted back out of the General Fund and into bond payments, to fund an expansion of the Convention Center not yet paid for, but now declared obsolete, public street repair and improvements, undergrounding of utilities, getting West Street to dip below the Lego Store (LOVE that stupid dragon) AND…WAIT FOR IT… the “Public Parking Agreement” that was supposed to offer citizens “Shared Revenues” for the “Shared Parking” with Disney providing a shuttle between the Convention Center and the PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY now known as Mickey and Friends, whose revenues don’t show up in the Budget, and when was the last time your car was directed to the Mickey structure for the CONVENTION CENTER? But wait! When we are done PAYING for the enormous structure, we SIGN IT OVER TO DISNEY.

    So, to recap, when it comes to the increased revenues from Disney’s profitable operations, Anaheim is no better off than we were in 1995. But we enjoy all the IMPACTS of a high population of low wage workforce, impacts dismissed by the initial EIR by…wait for it…Brandman and Associates.

    And when we have finished investing the ONE AND A HALF BILLION in paying off the bonds, we sign over the biggest asset in the real property agreement. AND we don’t even get the advantage of a huge boost in property tax, because the structure we own and pay for (for now) sits on Disney owned dirt (and a land lease with VERY VERY VERY fortunate people who once owned a strategically placed campground, and held out against the lawyers!) Thanks to Prop 13, Disney still pays mice nuts for property tax, even on improved property and Anaheim sees nearly none of it. So tell me again about the benefits of having all this money flow through Anaheim? The key is that it flows THROUGH and fails to stop to stay here for any length of time, much like the increasing short-term occupancy of “new neighbors” now flipping about every week.

    But WAIT! There is EVEN MORE!
    At the meeting RIGHT AFTER the gate tax agreement, Anaheim was treated to the VERY FIRST accounting of those 90s era bonds. WHY we negotiated the real property agreement with Disney without reviewing the outcome at the 20-year mark, granting an extension NO LONGER TIED to the “consideration” offered the City by Disney in the first deal, well how do you NOT come to the conclusion it was all a done deal? So as we just coincidentally got a recap on the condition of the bond balances AFTER it was too late to ask Disney to rework the bond agreements, we discovered that we are OVERPAYING the bond funds, the 100% of taxes diverted to the bonds was a good way to make sure they were covered in the early days, but expanding revenues and refunding/defeasing in 2007 smoothed the payments, and we now OVERPAY the fund by $10MM a year. The Trustee, US Bank National Association, enjoys the use of Anaheim’s money, which is now stacked up to about $80MM, will drop to $50-something million when this year’s maturities are paid out in September, and $10MM more will be added this year. The City’s projections for the next 5 years actually surpass that. Oh and there doesn’t seem to be interest paid on our money that US bank is using while waiting for the next series of bonds to mature and be paid out.

    Now would it not have been ideal to know the tax exemption was tied to the bonds, and the consideration was NOT Disney’s $1B investment in the 2nd gate, the consideration swapped for the exemption was Disney’s offer to float the bond payments if their construction of the 2nd gate failed to draw enough tourists to generate the taxes to pay the bonds. Anaheim got a potential crack at good money in the future (from non-Disney surrounding hotels…at least the ones NOT giving their tax base back to the hoteliers) and there was no downside. I would sign that deal tomorrow, and I cannot blame the 1996 era leadership for taking the deal, In fact, the bond genius who structured the agreement was called out for ‘deal of the year” by Bond Buyer. That does NOT match the claim on July 7 that the investment in the parks was the consideration. Does it? So what did Disney give in exchange this time? Oh yeah, funding plans that they have documented and publicized since the early 90s, as if they WOULDN”T have done this without the deal…brought to us by the same people who insist Arte Moreno is taking his team to Tustin.

    AND…wouldn’t it have been nice to know prior to the July 7 agreement that we had finally hit a point where the lease-back payments exceed the bond obligations, and we could ask Disney to RESET the agreement so the taxes diverted from Disney property cover the now-predictable cost of the bonds, and let the remaining $10MM and growing surplus come to the General Fund to cover the cost of making Anaheim the world class city it should be? Gee, imagine that, $10mm a year, NO NEW TAXES on ANYONE, no gate tax, no increase in bed taxes or a parking tax…and NOT borrowed with more bonds our grandkids have to repay! The only one losing in this scenario is the investment bank that no longer gets to use Anaheim’s money for free…and while I feel for Wall Street’s impoverished condition, I do, really…I’m thinking kids should play soccer on a surface that does not fill their lungs with DUST because there is dirt where grass is supposed to be! (NO it is NOT from the drought, unless Anaheim Hills is somehow exempt from the wrath of Mother Nature, the lack of decent grass for playing fields in the flatlands is a deferred maintenance problem, because the GF may be spent equally over the City, the Hills is covered in a patchwork quilt of CFD’s and HOA’s so the money can be spent on parks instead of parkways. In flatlands, developed prior to the sustainable endowment thinking, the GF has to cover EVERYTHING. More in the General Fund and less in the trust account of a Wall Street banking firm seems like a good idea. Disney has no incentive to let us rework the bond agreement. When we overpay, it gets their parking garage paid off that much sooner, and into their ownership that much sooner. So Disney doesn’t just turn their backs on Anaheim with their refusal to commit to a gate tax, they want us to sacrifice needlessly with surplus payments covering their bennies faster, while our city continues its downward spiral that COULD BE HALTED if Disney was not in such a hurry to get their hands on the garage they already derive all the traceable revenue and parking spaces from!

    BITTER? Why would you think that?

    • TLTR

      • Cynthia, don’t bother with this guy. Trust me on this one. The only thing interesting about him is that most people of his stripe and discernment have the brains to use a pseudonym so that they can’t be associated with that they’ve written.

    • Cynthia… you might consider finding a new writing coach. The Diamond School of Bloviation has it’s limitations.

      • That’s as opposed to the Rick Clark school of bloviations, which has no limitations.

        • Seriously Diamond, that’s all you’ve got? What a vacuous response.

          • Oh! Would you prefer he elaborated?

            Damned when you’re terse, damned when you’re prolix…

            • Awe, how nice of you to step in for your buddy. First you ban whomever he says and now you try your hand at damage control. You’re going to need a bigger boat.

              • “You’re going to need a bigger boat.”

                Did you really just mean to compare yourself to the killer shark in Jaws? The one who ultimately dies from a huge explosion of compressed gas?

                OK, maybe you do understand “witty repartee” after all. You just don’t understand how to aim it so as not to blow off your own foot — and your mouth, where it is firmly embedded.

                • Missed the mark again Diamond. I likened Vern to Quint, the down-and-out skipper of his own little boat, who was the one consumed by a task greater than his reach… bigger than his boat.

                  Remember to keep that foot of yours elevated, it won’t throb as much.

                • Robert Shaw’s Quint needed the bigger boat to fight the killer shark. Roy Scheider’s Sheriff uttered that line after first seeing the shark come up to the boat. Vern was aiming for you. In this analogy, you are the target of Quint’s fire — hence, you are the shark. (You certainly ain’t Roy Scheider.)

                • and you’re no Robert Shaw

          • Mr. Clark: that was just a trifling example of “witty repartee.” I suppose that I should apologize: I should have realized that it would therefore be unfamiliar to you, and that what is unfamiliar to you would invariably frighten you.

            • Your repartee only rhymes with witty.

              • This is oddly like having one’s table manners critiqued by a baboon. But I am happy that you think that my writing is pretty.

                (Seriously, that was almost clever of you, in a juvenile way.)

                • Dude… your sh*t is weak.

                • Language people…..

16. I suspect when asked about Greg Diamond most would shrug and say:

    “No Comment”.

    • Most would say, “Greg who?”

      • Looks like you’re as much of an expert on internal Democratic Party of Orange County politics as you are on Brea politics. (In both cases, you just need someone with money to tell you what to think.)

        Anyway, keep on adding your touches to this “liberal” publication.

        • Greg who?

        • Greg, you are no expert on the DPOC, and you don’t have any money so I guess you can’t tell Mr. Clark what to think either.

          • This is fun, Dan. Thanks for letting us do this here. Could you fetch us some nachos?

            • Nachos! Good hangover food, huh Nelson? Bet your girlfriend Donna makes them with lots of cheese