Introduction
With disregard to any particular opinions and point of views, the event surrounding Disney’s American theme park offers both interesting and compelling lessons business corporations, policy makers and citizen activist groups. This paper seeks to evaluate and examine the Disney America Theme Park controversy by identifying the predominant actors and stakeholders, listing the problems of each major individual stakeholder group and lastly to provide my objective opinions on how I, as a strategic thinker, would have handled the case for the good of the company and the surrounding environment .
Major Stakeholders
Proponents
- Disney
Opponents
- Environmemtalists
- Preservationists and Historians
- Commuters
Divided Positions
- Local Communities
- Federal Government
Disney World
After determining that the site was perfect for the theme-park criteria, Disney embarked on rigorous campaigns to bring the local business community on board. It also formed a good relationship with the Virginia Board of Trade so as to lobby the Virginia legislature and gain their support .
According to Disney, the project was advantageous to the local community since it would create 12,000 new jobs, in both the construction and operational phases, with 3,000 of these jobs being permanent jobs. Additionally, the project would be a great educational tool to the American public regarding their history. While responding to concerns raised by environmentalists, Disney directed them towards their environmental compliance record of its park and other operations in California, a state renowned fo its stringent air quality standards throughout the United states .
The Governor for Virginia at that time, George F. Allen, was a great supporter of the project mainly due to the financial advantage that it would bring to the state. These included 19,000 new jobs and $47 million annually in new taxes. He also emphasized the need for new roads and improvement of existing ones which would occur if the project was a success .
Environmentalists
The efforts to protect the site from development was spearheaded by a arrengton, Virginia group called The Piedmont Environmental Council. They argued that surburban sprawl was a big threat to the hilly, rural landscape of the Blue Ridge Mountains with the rapid growth of roads, malls and condominiums. Which would increase the noise and air pollution.
Preservationists and Historians
Among the prominent historians who opposed the project included David McCulough, a biographer, narrator and Pulitzer award winner, Shelby Foote, a civil war scholar and members of the American Historical and Southern Historical Association. Many feared that the Disney project would trivialize and misinterpret the historical events that took place on the site when they are being showcased alongside thrill rides and actors .
Commuters
Concerns arose throughout the metropolitan D.C area that the Disney American theme park would worsen the already bad traffic situation in the area.
Federal Government
Officials from Virginia and Prince William County were of the opinion that the approval or disapproval of the project should not involve the Federal Government, this was largely because the park was to be located approximately 2 miles from the battlefield. Nonetheless, arguments in support of Federal jurisdiction pointed out that they would be involved in the form of environmental legal action, citing the park’s impact on Interstate-66, the battlefield status as a National Park and Clean air act standards .
Local communities
Most of the local property owners did not approve the development of the project while others were more open to the possibility of additional job opportunities. Prince William and other members form the local Chambers of Commerce anticipated the impending tourism and business growth. Some members of the business community, such as hotel and restaurant owners opposed the project, claiming that disturbing the rural characteristic of the area would affect the existing tourism negatively .
In the September of 1994, despite the existing state support and approval of the proposed project by the local planning board, Disney withdrew its plans to carry on with the project. In my opinion, this move was too drastic, sudden and unexpected. It risked to damage Disney’s public image, ruin the good relationship that the company had managed to establish with the Federal and local government .
Formulating a Plan B Approach
Disney’s top management and officials should have considered an alternative method to deal with the situation instead of making the rush decision to halt the project. For instance, since the overriding concerns were the increasing cost of delaying the project and Disney’s Public image, the top management should have brought the opponents of the project to the table and figure out a way forward with them. This would show them that Disney does take their concerns seriously and would like to address them. It would also show them that the park was a great idea and benefit to many people, and instead of vehemently opposing it, they would, together, try to find a way to get Disney out of the possible mess it had found itself in. furthermore, the Peidmont Environmental Council had already announced that it would not oppose a different strategy provided it did not contribute to sprawl in the area .
Conclusion
The unprecedented opposition caught Eisner and Disney’s top management by surprise and left Governor Allen puzzled. The project caused an uprising from citizens representing major diverse interests, the opposition was skillful in tackling Disney and well funded. The case therefore provides lessons to activists, business entities and policy makers: sometimes the greatest challenge is the will of the people .
References
Fehr, Stephen C and Hsu S Spencer. "The fly in Walt Disney’s formula; painstaking site selection didn’t anticipate ferocious opposition." Washington Post 31 July 1994: B-1.
Orlando Sentinel. "Disney saw a long fight; bad press, legal fears sand park."." Roanoke Times and World News 30 September 1994: A-1.
Spayd, Liz and Paul Farhi. "Eisner ended Disney plan; chairman saw park fight harming company’s image." Washington Post 30 Sept 1994: A-1.
