Miscellaneous / A Brawl In Mickey's Backyard

A Brawl In Mickey's Backyard

Autor:  Maxi  06 August 2011
Words: 747   |   Pages: 3
Views: 7734

Affordable housing should be available to any working family that needs it; but nobody said it has to be across the street from your employer. A Brawl in Mickey’s Backyard is a discussion case that combines a factual zoning issue with an emotional affordable housing issue. In this paper, I will discuss the market and nonmarket stakeholders as well as possible solutions to the dispute.

Market stakeholders are people or companies that conduct financial transactions with another company (Lawrence, Weber. 2010). In this discussion case, the primary market stakeholders would be the employees of Disneyland and the tourists that visit the park. In 2005, Disneyland employed approximately 20,000 people and supported over 65,000 jobs in southern California (Disney. 2005). It is estimated that 15 million people visit Disneyland each year (Deioma, 2011).

Nonmarket stakeholders are people or groups who, although they do not engage in direct economic exchange with the firm, are nonetheless affected by or can affect its actions (Lawrence, Weber. 2010). The nonmarket stakeholders in this discussion case would be the city council, the people of Anaheim, and SunCal. The city council has voting power on the zoning issue. The people of Anaheim can influence the city council and also benefit from the $225 million in taxes that Disneyland generates in southern California (Disney, 2005). SunCal is a developer that wants to build condos for a hefty profit but is willing to designate 15 percent, 225 units, to below-market-rate rental apartments.

The issue at the core of this conflict is SunCal wanting to build condos on land that has been zoned specifically for tourism related industries or Disneyland expansion. SunCal offered to allocate 225 units of their proposed 1,500 to below-market-rate rental apartments. This offer by SunCal could be viewed as simply a way to garner support for their zoning exemption. Their offer also brings an emotional response from the public and distracts from the financial facts that future park expansion or tourism would provide. The financial impact of expansion would exceed that of building condos. Affordable housing is obviously needed in this area but may not be the best use of this land. Once a house is built, it doesn’t generate additional jobs. If Disneyland was to expand, that would lead to increased tourism and jobs for the local economy.

There are other possible solutions to the emotional issue of affordable rent. The 225 proposed apartment ...