It Could Be Three Parks and You’re Out
I haven’t attended any planning sessions (wasn’t invited), haven’t crunched the numbers (don’t know how), and don’t know much about the theme-park business (not my bag, baby). Still, I must ask:
Does Anaheim really need a third amusement park?
Imagineering minds want to know.
You’ve probably heard of the Disney Co.
Around Anaheim City Hall, the company is referred to as “one with which we occasionally do business.” Everywhere else, the company is referred to as Anaheim’s shadow government. If the company insisted that council members dress in animal costumes at meetings, they’d do it.
And why not? The company put Anaheim on the map when it opened Disneyland 45 years ago (picture the city without it) and has a sister park set to open early next year. The company has put lots of money into the city’s pockets and even let Anaheim attach its name to its baseball team--after the city graciously agreed to chip in $30 million for stadium improvements.
The company now has designs on a third park not far from Disneyland and the upcoming California Adventure. It owns the land and is in an expansionist mood in its theme-park division. The Times reported over the weekend that while Disney’s theme parks accounted for about 26% of the company’s revenues last year, they represented 42% of its profits.
No wonder Mickey wants to go, go, go.
The only problem, if you want to call it that, is whether Anaheim is up for a third park within walking distance of the other two. If a third park would involve as much hassle as the construction did for California Adventure, I’d say forget it.
But mine is the short view. Disneyland thinks in terms of generations, not months or years, and it must be convinced Anaheim can sustain another park.
It Should Be City’s Choice
I won’t claim knowledge I don’t have. I just wonder what Anaheim’s level of knowledge in such things is.
Maybe over the years its city officials have become experts in the amusement-park business. Or is it, as I suspect, its officials defer to Disney’s expertise and rely on its numbers and promises?
Only an idiot would question Disney’s track record. The company is world-class and has already left a historic mark on 20th-century family entertainment.
It just seems a bit premature to be talking about a third park for a venue like Anaheim (that’s not an insult) before the second park has even opened for business.
Would it be too nutty to see how California Adventure does before going ga-ga over the as-yet unnamed or detailed third park?
Already, though, Disney is sprinkling its fairy dust around. It has a Web site making allusions to the third park being Winnie the Pooh’s “forest” or, perhaps, a giant home for its “Little Mermaid” characters.
Sounds pretty enchanting on paper.
Disney wants it--or, at least, it says it does now--because it wants to extend its lure to destination tourists. It still pictures Anaheim as the kind of resort town that Orlando has become with Disney World.
OK.
That does not conform to my vision of Anaheim, but it’s just an opinion.
I can easily picture a boffo third amusement park across Harbor Boulevard from Disneyland, and I can also look 20 years down the road and picture a white elephant and empty hotel rooms and restaurants built for a park that never caught on.
As a junior partner in the Disney Co., Anaheim City Hall is probably too close to the trees to tell if there’s a forest here. Disney has taken it for a nice long ride these last 45 years, and the city probably figures why jump off now.
The Disney people are inviting public comment on their third-park idea. That’s nice to hear, because this seems like the ideal time for the city of Anaheim--and I’m talking about the people, not just City Hall--to let Disney and the rest of us know exactly what kind of city it wants to be.
If Anaheim residents want a third amusement park, go for it.
But go for it because you want it, not because Disney wants it.
*
Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com
