The Happiest Place on Earth is getting a little more expensive.

Starting Wednesday, Anaheim’s Disneyland Resort is increasing pricing on most of its park tickets for attendees 10 and older. The price of its lowest-tier offering — a one-day, one-park ticket for a less crowded weekday — will remain the same at $104. (Disneyland Resort ticket prices vary depending on the day and consumer demand.)

Pricing for all other one-day, one-park tickets on more popular days as well as multiday one-park tickets will increase between 5.9% and 6.5%. For instance, the highest-priced one-day, one-park ticket now will cost $206, up $12 or 6.2% from its previous price of $194. A two-day ticket will cost $330, up $20 or 6.5%.

Disneyland officials said pricing is continually adjusted to balance demand, optimize attendance and reflect the value attendees get at the parks.

“There is nothing like a visit to Disneyland Resort,” Disneyland Resort spokesperson Jessica Good said in a statement. “We always provide a wide variety of ticket, dining and hotel options, and promotional offers throughout the year, to welcome as many families as possible.”

Disneyland Resort also is increasing prices for its Magic Key annual pass program, which is currently only available for renewal and paused for new sales. (Disneyland officials said another opportunity to join the pass program will open up later this year.)

Prices for the four different passes increased by either $100 or $125. For instance, the lowest-priced Imagine Key now will cost $599, up $100. The next level pass, called the Enchant Key, is now $974, an increase of $125.

Magic Key pass holders get additional perks, such as being among the first to ride the new attraction Tiana’s Bayou Adventure and getting a special gift in honor of the ride’s opening. They’ll also get a bigger discount on the Lightning Lane Multi Pass, formerly known as the Genie+ line-skipping service, during certain times of the year. That service also increased in price from $30 to $32 for attendees who prebuy the perk.

Parking prices will remain the same.

The pricing increases come as the Walt Disney Co. faces weakening consumer demand at its parks unit.

Long the engine that bolstered the Burbank media and entertainment giant’s coffers, Disney’s so-called Experiences division reported operating income of $2.2 billion, down 3% from last year, in its most recent quarterly earnings report. That division includes Disney’s theme parks, as well as its cruise line, merchandise and travel and leisure services such as its Aulani resort and spa in Hawaii.

Disneyland officials said the company has continued to invest in its parks to increase value for guests, including seasonal celebrations, special character interactions, food offerings and a new queue at the Haunted Mansion that is set to debut soon. They said consumer satisfaction with the parks remains high.

L.A. County’s Board of Supervisors took its first major step Tuesday toward buying Gas Company Tower, one of the most prominent office skyscrapers in downtown Los Angeles.

The looming purchase could move workers and public services out of existing county offices, including the well-known Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, which dates to 1960. The building is one of roughly 33 county-owned facilities that engineers say are vulnerable to collapse during a major earthquake.

The supervisors voted 3-1 to let the county’s Chief Executive Office move forward with the purchase, which they said cannot exceed $200 million. The board will need to vote again before the deal is finalized.

Supervisor Janice Hahn voted against the purchase, telling her colleagues she was concerned about the fate of the downtown civic center if the Hall of Administration shut down. The building is named after her father, longtime Supervisor Kenneth Hahn.

“I know there’s a tendency to jump on real estate deals,” she said. “We have to think bigger.”

Supervisor Hilda Solis abstained from the vote, saying she wanted to see “a more comprehensive and practical plan” to address the county’s aging buildings before giving her support. She also noted that the county had already sunk about $25 million into a plan to make the Hall of Administration seismically safe and still had several buildings downtown in need of upgrades, including Men’s Central Jail.

“I want to make sure that we know exactly what we’re getting ourselves into before committing any funding to this purchase,” she said.

The proposed price is a deep discount from the building’s appraised value of $632 million in 2020, underscoring how much downtown office values have fallen in recent years.

After selling last year for $110 million, Union Bank Plaza on Figueroa Street sold again recently for just $80 million, or $114 per square foot, according to real estate data provider CoStar. Another downtown high-rise tower at 777 S. Figueroa St. recently sold for $120 million, or $115 per square foot.

At $200 million, the county would get the Gas Company Tower for about $137 a square foot, still a bargain by historical standards.

“All these prices are a massive discount from only three years ago, when 915 Wilshire Blvd. traded for over $500 a foot,” said real estate broker Kevin Shannon of Newmark, who helped arrange the Union Bank Plaza sale to the Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust. “The world has changed.”

It makes sense for entities like the county and the Carpenters Pension Trust to buy their own buildings because they can lock in their occupancy costs long term, Shannon said.

The 52-story tower at 555 W. 5th St. was widely considered one of the city’s most prestigious office buildings when it was completed in 1991. It has nearly 1.5 million square feet of space on a 1.4-acre site at the base of Bunker Hill.

In recent years, the downtown office market has turned against landlords as many tenants reduced their office footprint in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, when it became more common for employees to work remotely.

Last year, the owner of the Gas Company Tower, an affiliate of Brookfield Asset Management, defaulted on its debt and the property was put in receivership, in which a court-appointed representative took custody of the building to help creditors recover funds they lent to Brookfield. The building has about $465 million in outstanding loans.

Elevated interest rates have weighed on prices by making it difficult for building owners to refinance debt and pushing them into quick sales or foreclosures. Some downtown L.A. office tenants have left for other local office centers including Century City over concerns that the streets are less safe than before the pandemic.

Southern California Gas Co. said last month it is planning to move from its longtime headquarters in its namesake tower, where it has been a primary tenant since the building was completed, and move a block north to another skyscraper, at 350 S. Grand Ave.

The utility signed a long-term lease for nearly 200,000 square feet on eight floors in the Grand Avenue building on Bunker Hill often known as Two California Plaza, its new landlord said, and is expected to move by spring 2026 after building out the new offices. The Gas Company will also have an office on the ground floor to serve customers.

Other major tenants in the Gas Company Tower include law firm Latham & Watkins and accounting firm Deloitte.

The building is in good condition with “a remaining useful life” of no less than 35 years, according to a recent property condition report prepared for the current owner that was obtained by The Times.

The report also said the tower and parking garage need about $1.3 million to address urgently needed repairs and deferred maintenance. Additional long-term costs to maintain and modernize the properties were estimated at about $48.7 million over 12 years. Projected costs include roof repairs, refurbishing air conditioning systems and updating the elevators.

Seismic engineers are conducting an “in-depth evaluation” of how the building would respond in a major earthquake to determine whether the Gas Company Tower, the fifth-tallest member of the downtown skyline, has vulnerabilities that need to be addressed, an L.A. County spokesperson said last month.

“Those issues are exactly what we are exploring through our due diligence,” the county said in a statement. “Without getting ahead of the work currently underway, one factor is assessing how this building would perform compared to the performance of the Hall of Administration, and the respective costs of each approach.”

If you are wired into the flow of campaign news — as I am, for my sins — you will be inundated this week with reports of a new analysis of the fiscal impact of the economic proposals of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

Long story short: Trump’s would be much worse in terms of increasing the federal debt than Harris’. According to the study issued Monday by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Harris’ policies would expand the debt by $3.5 trillion over 10 years, Trump’s by $7.5 trillion.

These are eye-catching figures, to be sure. They’re also completely worthless for assessing the true economic effect of the candidates’ proposals, for several reasons.

One is the committee’s single-minded, indeed simple-minded, focus on the direct effect of the proposals on the federal deficit and national debt. That’s not surprising, because (as I’ve reported in the past) the CRFB was created to be a deficit scold, funded by the late hedge-fund billionaire Peter G. “Pete” Peterson.

For instance, the CRFB has been a consistent voice, as was Peterson, in campaigns to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits on the preposterous grounds that the U.S., the richest country on Earth, can’t afford the expense. (Peterson’s foundation still provides a significant portion of the committee’s budget.)

This focus on the national debt and the federal deficit as a linchpin of economic policy dates back to the 1940s among Republicans and the 1970s among Democrats. Throughout that period it made policymaking more austere and left the country without the resources to combat real economic needs such as poverty while increasing inequality.

The harvest, as economist Brad DeLong of UC Berkeley has noted, was the rise of a policy that failed everyone but the rich. Trump would continue that policy; Harris would continue the Biden administration’s effort to return the U.S. to a government that serves all the people.

Another problem with the analysis is that the candidates’ proposals are inchoate — as the committee acknowledges. The committee cobbled together their purported platforms from written policy statements, social media posts, and dubious other sources and then absurdly claimed that its effort helped to “clarify [the] policy details.”

The worst shortcoming of the CRFB’s analysis is that it’s hopelessly narrow. Its focus is on the first-order effects of the individual proposals on federal income and spending, without paying much attention to the dynamic economic effects of those policies. Would the policy spur more growth over time, or less?

The committee estimates the direct cost of Harris’ proposal to extend and increase the health insurance subsidies created by the Affordable Care Act and improved by the Biden administration at $350 billion to $600 billion over 10 years; but what would be the gains in gross domestic product from reducing the cost of healthcare for the average household?

The committee barely even acknowledges that this is a salient issue. It says that in some of its estimates it accounts for “dynamic feedback effects on revenue and spending,” but also says, “we do not account for possible changes in GDP resulting from the candidates’ policies.”

The committee’s treatment of Trump’s tariff proposals demonstrate the vacuum at the heart of its analysis. It treats the income from Trump’s proposal — a 10% to 20% tariff on most imported goods and 60% on Chinese imports — as a revenue gain for the federal budget. Economists are all but unanimous in regarding tariffs as a tax on American consumers, however — in other words, a tax transferring household income to the Treasury.

The committee writes: “Such a significant change to trade policy could have economic and geopolitical repercussions that go beyond what a standard tax model would estimate.” As a result, “the true economic impact is hard to predict.” Thanks for nothing.

Uncertainties about the details of the candidates’ proposals resulted in laughably wide ranges in the committee’s fiscal estimates. The effect on the deficit and debt of Harris’ proposals is estimated at zero to $8.1 trillion over 10 years. For Trump’s plans, the range is $1.45 trillion to $15.15 trillion. What are voters or policy makers supposed to do with those figures?

The CRFB also reports a “central” estimate for both — $3.5 trillion expansion of debt for Harris, $7.5 trillion for Trump — but doesn’t say much about how it arrived at those figures, other than to say that sometimes it just split the difference between the high and low estimates, and sometimes relied on estimates of the individual proposals by the Congressional Budget Office and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

I asked the CRFB to comment on the shortcomings listed above, but haven’t received a response.

Despite all that, the CRFB analysis showed up on the morning web pages of major newspapers and other media coast-to-coast on Monday, as though its conclusions were credible, solid and bankable. (Here at The Times, we passed.)

Consider the CRFB’s treatment of Trump’s deportation policy, which he has called “largest deportation program in American history,” affecting at least 11 million undocumented immigrants and millions more who are in the U.S. legally.

The committee says that might increase the deficit by anywhere from zero to $1 trillion over a decade, with a middle-of-the-road estimate of $350 billion — “chiefly,” it said, “by reducing the number of people paying federal taxes.” It also cites unspecified “additional economic effects of immigration.”

The CRFB might have profited from reading an analysis of the deportation proposal produced in March by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which was also funded by Pete Peterson but, staffed by economic eggheads with a wider intellectual horizon, tends to take a more intelligent approach to economic policy.

“The immigrants being targeted for removal are the lifeblood of several parts of the US economy,” the institute observed. “Their deportation will … prompt US business owners to cut back or start fewer new businesses, … while scaling back production to reflect the loss of consumers for their goods.”

The institute cited estimates that a deportation program in effect from 2008 to 2014 cost the jobs of 88,000 U.S. native workers for ever one million unauthorized immigrant workers deported. Arithmetic tells us that, in those terms, deporting 11 million immigrants would cost the jobs of about 968,000 U.S. natives.

“The disappearance of migrant workers … dries up local demand at grocery stores, leasing offices, and other nontraded services,” the institute reported. “The resulting blow to demand for all workers overwhelms the reduction in supply of foreign workers.”

The institute was a lot more free-spoken than the CRFB about the effect of Trump’s proposed policies on economic growth. Considering only the deportations, tariffs, and Trump’s desire to exercise more control over the Federal Reserve System, it concluded that by the end of Trump’s term, U.S. GDP would be as much as 9.7% lower than otherwise, employment would fall by as much as 9%, and inflation would climb by as much as 7.4 percentage points.

An overly sedulous focus on deficit reduction as economic policy has caused “real harm [for] the nation’s most vulnerable groups, including millions of debt-saddled and downwardly mobile Americans,” economic historian David Stein of the Roosevelt Institute and UC Santa Barbara wrote last month. When it became Democratic orthodoxy under Presidents Carter and Clinton, the party pivoted to “‘Reagan Democrats’ and suburbant white voters at the expense of the labor and civil rights movements.”

As the federal government pulled back, “state budgets were ravaged,” Stein wrote. State and local services were slashed. The efforts to control federal debt forced households to take on more debt.

The deficit scolds are still at it and still have vastly more credibility than they deserve. That’s clear from the CRFB’s analysis and the alacrity with which it was republished as “news” Monday. Efforts to turn policy back to the point that it benefits everyone, not just the rich, still have a long way to go in this country.