peter11435
Well-Known Member
Admittedly I haven’t read all 186 pages of the new bill. But I thought someone on here said that it removed the districts ability to levy tolls and I thought that might include parking fees. Like I said I wasn’t sure.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It depends on their competency. They might do something stupid like try to order Splash Mountain reopened , but that seems incredibly unlikely. Just to start they’re committed by law to spend money on changing the name and reviewing the districts standards, including the use of state standards. Those actions will just burn up money for no real purpose but they’re not good grounds for legal action. Just deciding to review safety compliance could be done in ways to cause serious operational difficulties but all under the guise of safety.
mightynine
Well-Known Member
Uh-oh.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
and that’s just a reality of the fun can of worms they’ve opened…
NotCalledBob
Well-Known Member
I assumed this was Disney's way of downplaying the issue.
Most casual observers reading the news would have no idea who Vahle is.
If Iger, had weighed in it would have made meatier headlines. Not in their favor.
Just a small regional change. Nothing to see here, move along.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
100%
Dan Deesnee
Well-Known Member
Let's be honest here. Can prices really go much higher before attendance is meaningfully impacted? Can the time to complete an attraction really take any longer?
Universal is in part of a district called The Orlando Community Redevelopment Agency and look! Rides are done in 2 years! Prices are better than Disney across the board! Etc, etc...
The sky is not falling. In 5 years I imagine we'll look back and see that nothing really changed from a guest perspective.
Universal is in part of a district called The Orlando Community Redevelopment Agency and look! Rides are done in 2 years! Prices are better than Disney across the board! Etc, etc...
The sky is not falling. In 5 years I imagine we'll look back and see that nothing really changed from a guest perspective.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
The bonds would only prevent the revenue from being the source of repayment for the outstanding debt. They could charge to park and designated the funds for maintenance (even if they decide to do a crappy job maintaining them).
Surely the Florida legislature won't change a law to the governor's whims.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
They’ve shown a willingness to haphazardly change laws they disagree with or conflict with their agenda regardless of the impact and logic behind the changes.
Notypeo
Member
There’s been some talk about litigating now versus litigating later, after the Board does something egregious. But the time to have a big First Amendment fight is now, and that’s not the path the company’s taken.
As to future litigation, I think a lot of developers and municipal professionals assume that any land use approval process is going to end in litigation. Not because every application ends up in court, but because unless everyone’s on the same page from the outset the process works backwards from the possibility. “Does the site plan comply with the ordinance” is another way of asking, “will our decision hold up in court.”
Of course, assuming the company wants to avoid the political fallout from any litigation with the Board, it’s operating with one hand (or more) tied behind its back. The hope seems to be that the Board will be easygoing and cooperative. That’s an awful big assumption.
As to future litigation, I think a lot of developers and municipal professionals assume that any land use approval process is going to end in litigation. Not because every application ends up in court, but because unless everyone’s on the same page from the outset the process works backwards from the possibility. “Does the site plan comply with the ordinance” is another way of asking, “will our decision hold up in court.”
Of course, assuming the company wants to avoid the political fallout from any litigation with the Board, it’s operating with one hand (or more) tied behind its back. The hope seems to be that the Board will be easygoing and cooperative. That’s an awful big assumption.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s amazing how a district that’s only concerned with the city’s transit infrastructure and has nothing to do with anything inside the parks doesn’t interfere with things inside the parks! Wow!
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Whether he formally resigns or not who do you think will be running the state day to day while he’s in other states campaigning? Either way the LT Governor will be in charge.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The leaders of both houses have publicly expressed a willingness to change the law so that DeSantis would not have to resign the governorship.
flynnibus
Premium Member
One spokesman statement is not a true view of Disney’s strategy and end game.
I think there is still more to cone
mightynine
Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
But why suddenly say something so quickly? They went months without saying anything.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
That statement was parsed and revised and signed off at the highest of levels. It explicitly says they are “focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework.” As stated, that does not signal an immediate or imminent plan to challenge the framework, but rather a concession to it.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Nah…they’re gonna let it roll.
A lot of unrelated things have happened in the last 10 or so have lined up against them…unfortunate too
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
Because ’no comment’ doesn’t really work in this situation. They have to project an image of being ready and adaptable.
It was a calming statement - for a company that needs to provide an image of continuity to ensure the market doesn’t start panicking.
I read it as ‘we can keep moving forward and keep operating’ — more than them laying down.
Obviously it’s not a declaration of war… but I don’t think they have laid out their entire strategy in that simple prepared statement