News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
el_super said:
There is a a closer analogy with the DisneylandForward initiative. That's a case where Disney is asking the city government to basically abdicate their responsibility toward zoning and planning to allow Disney to build whatever they want.

I understand there is a difference between a duely elected city government and the board appt by the governor, but it still sets this precedent that a corporation can work to elect a friendly government with the purpose of setting up the corporation to act without the input of the electorate. I do not care for that idea at all.
Click to expand...

That's not dissimilar to how things already work. That's the biggest reason corporations spend so much money lobbying -- so that elected officials will do what they want.

The big difference, though (and you alluded to this), is that in this specific scenario Disney essentially is the electorate. That makes it hard to apply to basically anywhere else.
 
BaconPancakes

BaconPancakes

Well-Known Member
el_super said:
There is a a closer analogy with the DisneylandForward initiative. That's a case where Disney is asking the city government to basically abdicate their responsibility toward zoning and planning to allow Disney to build whatever they want.

I understand there is a difference between a duely elected city government and the board appt by the governor, but it still sets this precedent that a corporation can work to elect a friendly government with the purpose of setting up the corporation to act without the input of the electorate. I do not care for that idea at all.
Click to expand...
And I don't like the precedent of a state going after a corporation for enacting their 1st amendment rights but here we are.
 
kong1802

kong1802

Well-Known Member
Riviera Rita

Riviera Rita

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
FutureCEO said:
Should Disney get away with this - probably not. It sets a bad example for the future.

It's like Hyatt getting bought out by Marriott and at the last minute Hyatt coming up with something through their lawyers saying your can't fired anyone for five years.
Click to expand...
Is the Anaheim Resort District a bad example for the future? What about the new Universal Orlando Resort South Campus?

This wasn’t something snuck in at the last minute. It was a process started before the state revealed their plan and rushed it through the legislature. It was the state that was trying to be sneaky and wasn’t paying attention.
 
Figgy1

Figgy1

Premium Member
Chi84 said:
The articles are all over the internet today. The governor is going to have to respond somehow.
Click to expand...
1680206104412.png
 
el_super

el_super

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
That's not dissimilar to how things already work. That's the biggest reason corporations spend so much money lobbying -- so that elected officials will do what they want.
Click to expand...

There is a difference here, albeit a subtle one. Disney isn't asking that the zoning requirements for the resort district be changed to a new specific, they are asking the city to give them a blanket approval for whatever decisions they may or may not make in the future.

So instead of commiting to build another 5,000 hotel rooms or a third park, Disney could just convert the land entirely into parking lots or a golf course. I am uncomfortable with the idea that Disney can build whatever they want with no direct input from the government or residents. even though I generally know Disney isn't planning to abuse this in any real dangerous way.

I do acknowledge it is different in that Reedy Creek was never a real government and was setup specifically to avoid having to deal with a resident government. I still don't like the idea of a corporation exempting itself from an actual government.
 
Thebrerrabbit

Thebrerrabbit

Member
JohnD said:
There are plenty of people in the State of Florida who wouldn't be sad to see Disney go whether administrative offices or theme parks, including those on the left and environmentalists. And not just because of this bill. But because of the growth and sprawl that Disney brought to central Florida. Seeing Florida going back to being known primarily for its beaches, rivers, springs, and oranges would be perfectly fine with many people. I realize that's a sentiment and not a likely scenario.
Click to expand...
What a dumb comment
 
DisAl

DisAl

Well-Known Member
If Disney ejected themselves from RCID does that mean they are now under the purview of the local governments and their codes and permitting systems? If so they may have jumped out of the skillet and right into the fire.
 
Spokker

Spokker

New Member
Riviera Rita said:
Going after a corporation because it simply didn't agree with them is also unacceptable. That is the sign of a wannabe dictator.
Click to expand...
States provide and remove privileges, benefits and incentives from companies because they agree/disagree with them all the time. Government, after all, picks winners and losers, and Disney receiving a benefit is a de facto punishment against its competitors. This benefit/privilege may have been wise when the land was undeveloped, but today it's a lot harder to justify.

I previously tried to provide some examples of CA removing benefits and privileges from companies/people they disagree with, but I seemed to have run into a word filter and the post was filtered.

Regardless, Florida is perfectly within its right to elect representatives and leaders that will remove privileges from companies when the voters don't like what they are doing. It's no different from government creating a benefit for solar panel makers or punishing an oil company. They did not try to place Disney below any other company, only remove some privileges they no longer want to offer a company that goes against the values of their voters.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom