In April, Anaheim City Councilman Stephen Faessel echoed the sentiment that Disney’s success translates to city benefits before voting on a massive Disney expansion. “There seems to be a lot of concern that we’re not seeing everything,” Faessel stated. “I’m not sure whether I need to see everything. Every time that there’s been Disney investment, the city benefits.”
Ahead of the vote on DisneylandForward, Disney’s name for its nearly $2 billion expansion plan, the company gave Anaheim a nine-page executive summary of an economic impact report from Cal State Fullerton’s Woods Center for Economic Analysis and Forecasting. The summary aligned with Faessel’s belief, projecting a “dramatic increase in tax revenue” for Anaheim, potentially doubling Disney’s current $244 million fiscal contribution.
However, council members did not review the full report before unanimously approving the expansion. Disney and Cal State Fullerton withheld the complete report, citing it as Disney’s “exclusive property.” An agreement between Disney and Cal State Fullerton Auxiliary Services Corp., disclosed later, revealed the extent of Disney’s control over the study, which was described on the DisneylandForward website as “an independent economic analysis.”
Disney’s Influence and Control
The contract clarified that Disney owned the report, referred to as the “work product,” indefinitely. This ownership included all related materials such as research, questionnaires, and databases. This control has drawn criticism from public records experts.
“It’s ironic that Cal State Fullerton is citing the ‘strong public interest served by protecting the integrity of academic research’ while hiding the report from the public,” said retired public records attorney Karl Olson. “Cal State Fullerton’s attempt to hide the report itself casts doubt on it.”
While the payment details were redacted, Woods Center co-director Anil Puri revealed in an earlier article that Disney commissioned the report for $150,000. The contract allowed Disney to request revisions within 15 business days of receiving drafts and demanded the final report be delivered after incorporating Disney’s comments.
CSUF economists also signed over any rights to challenge Disney regarding how the company used the study. “What’s key is that Disney controls everything,” said John Crompton, a professor at Texas A&M University. “That’s a reasonable thing for them to do. They paid for it.”
In 2018, CSUF received a $75,000 grant from Disney for a study that found the Disneyland Resort generated an $8.5 billion economic impact on Southern California. That report was also not publicly released.
The Debate Over Transparency
Disney spokespersons did not answer detailed questions about the DisneylandForward study. “We were free to study any impacts deemed appropriate under the contract,” Puri stated. However, Crompton noted the forecasting model used could be manipulated to produce desired results. “I am in no position to criticize the Disney study because there’s no methodology I can look at,” he said. “But it’s interesting that it’s Disney who provided the input data.”
Anaheim officials did not commission their own study on the project. “No economic impact report was required for the project,” said city spokesman Mike Lyster. “The economic benefit of turning parking lots into visitor attractions is obvious.”
John Pelissero of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics stressed the need for independent analysis by the city. “There has to be a level of independent analysis done by the city when it is considering major policies that largely benefit one corporate landowner,” Pelissero said. “As a public official, you can’t simply accept the arguments presented by Disney.”
After the final approval of DisneylandForward in May, Disney sent celebratory mailers to residents, touting new themed lands, rides, and an additional $202 million in tax revenue for Anaheim within 10 years. The expansion would also create thousands of new construction and hospitality jobs.
Crompton suggested Disney could have released the full report for transparency. “It’s unfortunate that economic impact studies are allowed to not be transparent,” he said. “When they’re not transparent, it arouses people’s suspicions, rightly or wrongly.”