Pro, Con Views of Proposed Disneyland Resort

So the Walt Disney Co. and city of Anaheim agree that funds are needed to upgrade the run-down areas surrounding Disneyland (“Disney Plan Won’t Put Bite on Taxpayers, Anaheim Says,” April 21).

Of course, they also concur that, without the additional tax revenue generated by the Disney Resort project, these infrastructure improvements may never happen.

I tend to agree with the latter part of that statement: Improvements may never happen. After all, Anaheim and Disney have previously contributed little to the theme park’s immediate neighbors. Wait--I stand corrected. Anaheim tried to foist the Katella Redevelopment plan on us a few years ago, threatening to take our homes by way of eminent domain.

And the tourism industry, of which Disneyland is the primary source, created slums in the Jeffrey Lynn and Haster/Orangewood areas through the employment of predominantly Hispanic, manual laborers at the barest minimum wage.

Poverty creates problems, and we see them here in abundance: drugs, gangs, children with too little food, too few clothes, inadequate supervision at home, and insufficient preparation for their overcrowded neighborhood schools.

The Disneyland Resort may be great for the local economy, but is it good for the people working in that economy, the men and women laboring long hours in the tourist industry only to live in destitution?

I truly want to believe that Disney and the city of Anaheim will take care of their own and upgrade these neighborhoods, but--are you listening Jack Lindquist and Tom Daly?--actions speak louder than words.

JACQUELINE A. MAHRLEY

Anaheim