Caio Cezar Lima Toth
Dr. Harmon
MNGT 3370.793
March 12, 2014
Discussion Case I – A Brawl in Mickey’s Backyard 1. What is the focal organization in this case, and what is the main issue it faces?
The focal organization in this case involves SunCal’s plan of building around “1.500 condominiums, with 15 percent of the units aside for the below-market-rate rental apartments.” This idea would help many people that were living in that area, including Disney’s workers that could not afford the high renting rates to keep their houses, families and current jobs. However, even having the support of many citizens, the developer (SunCal) also suffered a great opposition, especially from Disney, since the 26-acre that the company arranged to buy was seen as a possible site for expansion of the resort/park. An illustration of this objection is when one of Disney’s representatives argues that “Anaheim and Orange County have to address the affordable housing issue, but Anaheim has to protect the resort area. It’s not an either/or.” 2. Who are the relevant market and nonmarket stakeholders in this situation? * Market Stakeholders * Disney * SunCal * Disney’s Employees

* Nonmarket Stakeholders * Anaheim Council * Anaheim Community (citizens, protestors) * Disney’s Employees
P.s. Disney’s Employees are part of both kind of stakeholder since according to the book “ Market Stakeholders are those that engage in economic transaction with the company…Employees contribute their skills and knowledge in exchange for wages, benefits and opportunity for personal satisfaction and professional development” (8). However, they are also one of the most affected “community” groups of Anaheim city because “Housing in Anaheim was expensive, and many of Disney’s 20.000 workers could not afford to live there…Only 18 percent of resort employees lived in Anaheim. Many of the rest commuted long distances by car and bus to get to work” (23).
3. What are the various stakeholders’ interests? Please indicate if each stakeholder is in favor of, or opposed to SunCal’s proposed development. * Disney: had the interest of preserving the resort area arranged by SunCal as the company sees it as a site for future expansion. Therefore opposes SunCal’s proposal. * SunCal: as any company in the market, SunCal had an economic and profitable interest by proposing the construction of buildings/apartments in the 26-acre area. In addition, the company would designate 15 percent of the units aside for the below-market-rate rental apartments, thus giving people a most affordable option of living at Anaheim. * Disney’s Employees: has an economic interest in not only their work environment but also when it comes to their living conditions outside of the company. As they suffer with the high renting rates at Anaheim, they see SunCal’s proposal with good eyes. * Anaheim Council: had not only social but also economic interests since it should work to the city economic growth but with social fairness against its citizens. Moreover, the council would have the “final answer” to that issue. * Anaheim Community (citizens, protestors): had social objectives and economic fairness in regards the living conditions and rental rates for Anaheim citizens. Thus, they were also favorable for building of affordable housing. * Backer forming the “Coalition to Defend and Protect Anaheim”: as the other supporting groups described above, they were also favorable to affordable housing next to the theme park, since in their point of view it would “enable many families to live near their places of work and thereby reduce commuter congestion on freeways”. * Government Officials forming the “Save Our Anaheim Resort District”: had the interest of preserving the resort area, therefore opposed to SunCal’s proposal. 4. What sources of power do the relevant stakeholders have? * Disney: had the voting power, since the land arranged by SunCal was within the resort land designated by Anaheim to the company, which is almost 5 percent of the city area. * SunCal: had the informational power and data of the high renting rates, employees’ salaries and other difficulties people were facing to keep their life in the city. This power could be used to persuade the city council to approve their proposal * Employees: had both economic and informative powers. The first one could be exercised through a strike or a slowdown, by refusing to work until they approve SunCal proposal thereby facilitating their living conditions. The informative power (data) by the way can be used to persuade the employer and city council to approve the proposal. * Anaheim Community: as the employees had, the community also had both informational and economic power, since it could not only boycott the use of the Disneyland park, but also can use this data to justify their support for the SunCal proposal. * Anaheim Council: had the political power of approving or disapproving SunCal idea, however it would not be an easy decision because as the book said “In the early 1990s, the city had designated two square miles adjacent to Disneyland as a special resort district…”, and Disney can exercise the rights for this land. 5. Based on the information you have, draft a stakeholder map of this case. What conclusions can you draw from the stakeholder map?

According to the book, “The five-person city council was split on the issue.” This illustrates that even though having more supporters, as we could see in the map above, the idea of more affordable housing was not unanimous between the council members. Moreover, this occurred because Disney (the objector) has a kind of “ownership” of that land. As said before, “In the early 1990s, the city had designated two square miles adjacent to Disneyland as a special resort district…” Thus, the company plays a big whole in regards that issue. 6. What possible solutions to the dispute might emerge from dialogue between SunCal and its stakeholders?
As we could see from all of the questions discussed above and the whole case study, the decision that needs to be taken by the council is not an easy one. There is no doubt that SunCal proposal has many merits since it would facilitate the living conditions of not only Disney’s employees but also citizens in general. However, Disney’s objection needs to be also put in consideration, since the land arranged to SunCal’s project was designated to the company years ago and they are not willing to get rid of it. Therefore, a possible solution to that dispute would be reconsidering the idea of arranging that particular region and focusing on territory that is close but not within Disney’s resort area. Moreover, if keeping the affordable housing but in a different territory, SunCal would get rid of that kind of dispute with Disney and would still have a great support of the nonmarket stakeholders that were already favoring its idea, thus enhancing their chances of success.