By declining tax breaks, has Disneyland offered Anaheim a peace treaty?

Could a bureaucratic dispute over construction details actually put the relationship between the Walt Disney Co. and the city of Anaheim on firmer footing?

A blowup over Disneyland’s development plans had been brewing for some time. In recent months, city leaders and critics of the global entertainment giant expressed growing concerns about tax-favored status certain Disney construction deals had gotten from previous councils.

At the same time, Disney’s own employees – amplified by the local community – raised voices about the theme park’s pay levels. In November, Anaheim voters will decide on a proposition that would raise the city minimum wage to $18 an hour for corporations getting tourism-related tax incentives such as Disney was expecting.

Then came this summer’s drama over Disney’s plans for a four-star hotel at Disneyland’s gates, a concept the city originally wanted so badly it offered tax incentives worth up to $276 million. When the city questioned the legality of the incentives, Disney last week quickly put the project on hold.

Just about everybody expected a lengthy fight. But almost as suddenly, Disney seemingly extended an olive branch, of sorts.

“Good friends will not always agree; however, the current level of animus is unprecedented and counterproductive,” Disneyland president Josh D’Amaro wrote to city leaders on Tuesday.

The letter said Disney wanted out of the incentivized hotel plan. Plus, the company wanted to end another development-related pact that blocked any city tax on Disneyland tickets.

Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait, a frequent Disney critic, called the letter “a serious shift in attitude. I’m very excited about it. I want them to know we appreciate it.”

But it remains to be seen whether D’Amaro’s stated distaste for what he called an “adversarial climate where there should be cooperation and goodwill” is simple business logic, a negotiating tactic … or an honest request for some civility.

All bottom line?

Fact: The Happiest Place on Earth makes big money.

Running the mega-resort may seem like a financial no-brainer, but history tells you it’s an expensive proposition with numerous risks, significant volatility and hearty competition. So Disney watches the dollars carefully.

The city once desperately wanted to add four-star luxury resorts to its tourism portfolio. Disney agreed in 2016 to build a 700-room complex near the theme park’s entrance. In return, the city promised to return 70 percent of the hotel taxes collected over the resort’s first 20 years of operations.

Late last year, Disney made changes to the hotel plan – seen as major revisions by some city leaders and minor ones to the company. The city told Disney the financial aid was gone with the revised plans. Disney punted.

Disney critics claimed the company was not worthy of what in essence was to be 20 years of tax rebates. Hotel supporters pointed out the city lost out on its share of the taxes.

Note that Disney would have spent in the ballpark of $500 million on its new luxury hotel. The construction tab for, say, a less-ritzy three-star hotel might be half that amount. Rough math suggests city coffers would do better with a four-star hotel, even after the cost of incentives, in the long term.

Of course, one person’s dubious handout is another person’s savvy business incentive.

But Disneyland officials say they’re now rethinking their entire hotel strategy in Anaheim, where they own three lodgings. That retooling includes opening up the contentious hotel site, at the west end of Downtown Disney, to any and all possibilities.

Playing hardball?

Disney has a long-running reputation as a tough negotiator no matter the business venue.

The company has often bristled at its public critics, protective of its wholesome image, and is also known to aggressively protect the interests of its shareholders, too.

So, when this major hotel project was thrown a financial twist, it may be perceived as somewhat bratty – at a minimum – to instantly halt plans, as Disney did. And when the company added that it’s now back-to-the-drawing-board on Anaheim hotels, that adds a little bite to the pullback.

Yes, it may be simple business math.

Folks other than Disney have made a significant investment in more hotel rooms in the theme park’s neighborhood. Countywide, 72 hotels are either under construction or in the planning stages. So minus incentives, Disney may see a better use for the site, financially speaking.

And this timeout comes just less than three months before Anaheim voters may approve a minimum wage hike for certain tourism companies.

Disney recently announced deals that raised wages of umerous unionized and on-union low-paid workers to at least $15 an hour, three years ahead of the state’s minimum wage hike to that level.

But could Disney be using the hotel dispute to help keep future wages in check, with a less-than-subtle message that future investments are at stake?

Call for civility?

It would be nice to think there’s still a place for adult conversations in politics.

Disneyland boss D’Amaro has been on the job for just five months. And three members of Anaheim’s city council face re-election. Mayor Tait can’t run again due to term limits.

How much of a political truce has been started is already up for debate. Anaheim Councilman Jose Moreno, a tax-break critic, told my colleague Alicia Robinson that he’d be more convinced of Disney’s sincerity if the company minimizes involvement in city elections.

“It’s not simply pulling the subsidies, which is huge — it’s that you withdraw from contributing to the body politic, which has become toxic,” said Moreno, who’s running for re-election.

Nevertheless, there will be relative fresh voices in this relationship, no matter how Disneyland recalibrates its priorities.

D’Amaro and Disney will have to gauge the new council’s wishes as well as the populace’s attitude.

Look, once an issue becomes a “flashpoint for controversy” as D’Amaro wrote, it’s hard to shake that rap. And the company must understand that it can probably do more to improve the quality of Anaheim life without busting its bottom line.

City leaders, on the other hand, will have to figure out what they truly want from Disney. They cannot forget that no matter what’s said publicly, Walt Disney Co. is still a high-profile, publicly held corporate giant with a bottom-line agenda. Yet Disney, despite its global wealth and a hefty share of the city’s economy, cannot be asked to fix all the municipal ills.

Like it or not, Anaheim is in the tourism business in a big way. And Disneyland isn’t going anywhere.

The company can’t simply relocate the theme park to a friendlier municipality, though it could slow its pace of reinvestment in the resort. It’s got a world’s worth of cities that will gladly take those investment dollars.

How does this odd couple maximize this challenging relationship? Talking, not shouting, might be a start.

Lansner: Disney had no choice but to pull back plans for Anaheim luxury hotel