Review: A Brawl in Mickeys Back Yard

Balancing the responsibilities of a business and how its actions affect its employees, customers, and business partners can be tricky at time and not fair to all. In the case of Brawl in Mickeys Backyard (Lawrence & Weber 2011), two corporations, Walt Disney and SunCal, are battling for prime real estate in downtown Anaheim. Both companies want this land for different projects, but at the same time, have the same interest to make money for their company. The main focal company in this debate is SunCal, while Disney is considered a company, they are looked at as a stakeholder because stakeholder refers to a person or group that is affected by an organization’s decision or operations (Lawrence & Weber 2011), while at the current time (with no housing being built yet) Disney is merely a nonmarket stakeholders. This of course could change if housing is built and Disney and Suncal, now operating inside of the resort area, are conducting business with each other. Do to the fact that no houses were built all parties involved are considered nonmarket stakeholders to SunCal. These nonmarket stakeholders are Disney employees who stand to gain from the subsidized lower income housing. The city of Anaheim, who’s choice to change the zoning of the resort area to allow for personal family dwellings or can choose to deny the request. As well as other companies in the resort area who would lose building space as a result of the housing development. All of these current nonmarket stakeholders could change to market stakeholders if this housing track is built. A market stakeholder differs from a nonmarket stakeholder in that the market stakeholder is not just affected by the company’s actions, but are engaged in economic trade with a company (Lawrence & Weber 2011). I think that it should be pointed out that Disney was not the only company debating the building of these housing projects inside of the resort area, and in fact according to an article by Fred Bernstein of The New York Times, Disney agreed that more lower end housing needed to be built in the Anaheim area just not inside of the resort area (Bernstein 2007), which with the correct dialog with all stakeholders involved is a possible solution to this complex issue. Disney was merely the largest and according to the case study employed the most people in this area (Lawrence & Weber 2011). For me this sounds like the best bang for all parties involved. The city having a revenue tax base of over 80 million a year coming from the resort area alone (Bernstein 2007), does not want to lose, degrade or diminish that area and its intended purpose. However, still having an ethical responsibility to tend to the tax paying citizens in that area, should find and obtain affordable housing given the current market rate of $600,000 for a single family dwelling far out of the reach of many of its locals. Other solutions could be for SunCal to redevelop other areas inside of Anaheim that are not up to current housing standards. Have the city rezone those areas as lower family income. Finally the employees of Disney who were used as a focal point of debate regarding big corporation’s not caring for the health and welfare of its employees could walk off and demand better pay and benefits. Just as any corporation responds to its customers by adjusting its prices for goods and services, they will reply to its employees in the same fashion. If all of its employees walked off the job a strong unified message would be sent to its corporation headquarters. Employees could seek extra hourly wages or even location pay because the cost of living is so high in that area. Given the complexities of these issues there will more than likely never be an answer to satisfy all stakeholders involved. What should be sought is a resolution to where all stakeholders meet in the middle and to benefit the majority of stake holders as possible. The best solution would be for SunCal to be awarded the permits from the city to revitalize some of the underdeveloped areas for single family dwelling in the Anaheim area.

References:
Fred A. Bernstein (2007). A Housing Plan Turns Disney Grumpy. The New York Times retrieved online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/business/yourmoney/20natreal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Lawrence, A. T. & Weber, J. (2011). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy (13th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. ISBN: 978-0-07-813715-0