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

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Taking sex out of those responsibility might even be dangerous.

Kids of 5 are dealing with the subject of sex. Not in the way us adults do, but they have their own sex related things. Dont you guys have the stork myth aswell?

A school can be a place of guidance instead of silence. This bill creates a line between what can and cant be discusses / teached. What is teachers get so afraid of the bill, they avoid the topic at all cost, even when it's necessary?

I truly believe countries that are more open about discussion on sexuality, gender, sex, drugs, alcohol (etc.) are better off and have better outcomes for their youth.

Countries that treat such topics as taboo and off limits reap what they sow.
 

Club34

Well-Known Member
Years past, Disney attempted to refrain from politics. Unfortunately, they involved themselves and publicly took a side. Disney should never be involved in politics. They are a company who caters to a wide variety of individuals from both sides of the political spectrum. Why alienate half of your populous and state officials? Chapek (Paycheck) is reviled by most cast members...perhaps he should have addressed the employees by stating he supports Gay rights, etc and called it a day. If one actually reads the bill, it's not unreasonable and never states or insinuates "Don't say gay" .

They didn't get involved in politics? How else did they get the sweetheart tax district?
 
Last edited:

RunningKoen

Well-Known Member
I truly believe countries that are more open about discussion on sexuality, gender, sex, drugs, alcohol (etc.) are better off and have better outcomes for their youth.

Countries that treat such topics as taboo and off limits reap what they sow.

Discussions about any adult topics are a situation where kids can learn views of others and how to deal with those. React decently, listen and understand, or try to reason. Broaden their own view or convince someone else of their own view.

The school is a melting pot of social themes and stories. The view of just parents and family is often too small and like minded.

The fact that parents cannot (fully) influence that element of a school is a big win and a good thing. I firmly believe that exposure to different views is essential in growing up.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Discussions about any adult topics is a situation where kids can learn views of others and how to deal with those. React decently, listen and understand, or try to reason. Broaden their own view or convince someone else of their own view.

The school is a melting pot of social themes and stories. The view of just parents and family is often too small and like minded

And it can all be done while remaining age appropriate. 😍
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Years past, Disney attempted to refrain from politics. Unfortunately, they involved themselves and publicly took a side. Disney should never be involved in politics. They are a company who caters to a wide variety of individuals from both sides of the political spectrum. Why alienate half of your populous and state officials? Chapek (Paycheck) is reviled by most cast members...perhaps he should have addressed the employees by stating he supports Gay rights, etc and called it a day. If one actually reads the bill, it's not unreasonable and never states or insinuates "Don't say gay" .
We are WAY off the grid here…so I’m not gonna post it…

But have you seen the hearings or read any of the comments from Baxley on this?

There is no ambiguity in the context of what is or is not the Intent of that bill.

But you have to want to understand it. Not just swallow the coverage of it.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Years past, Disney attempted to refrain from politics. Unfortunately, they involved themselves and publicly took a side. Disney should never be involved in politics. They are a company who caters to a wide variety of individuals from both sides of the political spectrum. Why alienate half of your populous and state officials? Chapek (Paycheck) is reviled by most cast members...perhaps he should have addressed the employees by stating he supports Gay rights, etc and called it a day. If one actually reads the bill, it's not unreasonable and never states or insinuates "Don't say gay" .
It didn't all start with a mouse, it started with Walt. Walt endorsed Dewey in 44' even having him hold a rally at the Studios. That is one of many examples. Imagine if a Disney CEO tried to pull that off at WDW.
 

AdventureHasAName

Well-Known Member
Thank god we have the courts to spell that out.

The basis of the proection gov employees get under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 comes from the court interpretation of what retaliation is under the first amendment. That’s why these civil rights cases are important references to the court’s view of the 1a even under these constrained conditions such as employment.

You are basically trying to say retaliation isn’t prohibited by the 1a because it’s not explicit- and the courts have long disagreed with your belief
No, I'm saying "retaliation" means something more specific in civil law than it does in its general definition (that you'd find in Webster's Dictionary). That is because in civil law, "retaliation" is defined by statute. And the statute you referenced (Title VII) doesn't apply to First Amendment law; it is applicable only in certain employer/employee relationships. There is no employer/employee relationship between Disney and the State of Florida.

Section 1983 at least applies to everyone (not solely employment law). Unfortunately, for our purposes, legislators are immune for actions taken within their scope of legislative authority, introducing, debating, and voting on legislation; it is absolute immunity (see Tenney v. Brandhove). So Disney would have no one to sue for a violation of its civil rights.
 
Last edited:

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
It didn't all start with a mouse, it started with Walt. Walt endorsed Dewey in 44' even having him hold a rally at the Studios. That is one of many examples. Imagine if a Disney CEO tried to pull that off at WDW.
Walt contacted the treasury (fbi before the fbi) and said communists were encouraging his artists to unionize in the 1930s…of course the fact he had them work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week had nothing to do with that.

He testified before the McCarthy hearings…on the McCarthy side…


This myth of “apolitical disney” is simply a Myth…and it’s gone both directions over time
 

AdventureHasAName

Well-Known Member
The fact that parents cannot (fully) influence that element of a school is a big win and a good thing. I firmly believe that exposure to different views is essential in growing up.
That's swell, but when it comes to an individual child, if the kid's parents' opinion of what their child should be exposed to differs from your opinion, the parents' wishes should rule. Similarly, when it comes to the entire pool of children, if your state legislature's opinion of what the children should be exposed to differs from your opinion (as outlined in legislation), the legislature should control.
 

TimeTrip

Well-Known Member
Is that true? And if so how much? I previously asked about property taxes and was told that they wouldn't pay portions of those taxes if the county didn't provide those services to the property covered by RCID. E.g. schools, roads, infrastructure, sanitation, police, public spaces, other services. If they just dont't pay those portion of taxes to the county and it goes to RCID, then it's just going to another entity that provides those services. Not necessarily paying more.

Of course they could choose to pay a higher rate to RCID for better services in which case yeah they'd be paying more, but from what I understand so far it's not like they're being double taxed on these things.
I decided to look into this out of curiosity. For example this is the property tax info for the magic kingdom.


The tax owed for various ad-valorem items to the county is 5.9 million for the 2021 year. There is NO exemption listed. The listed items cover schools (local/state), general county, city of bay lake, library and 3 to the south Florida water management district.

IN ADDITION, a tax was paid to the RCID in the amount of 5.7 million.

So it sounds like to me that Disney is paying property taxes to cover services they probably don't use such as schools and libraries. Unless I'm misreading things. The millage rates look right in line with the rates I have on property in orange county. I just have some different line items because of the location (e.g. St John's wmd instead of south Florida)
 

hopemax

Well-Known Member
Well bringing this very much back to WDW, this gives Disney yet another reason to make significant cut backs to WDW going forward. I am hearing this is already concern about the future.
Honestly, between this, the pandemic operational environment, the post-pandemic operational environment, the China elephant in the room, I'm struggling to see WHY The Walt Disney Company would continue to want to be an operator of theme parks? Regardless of how this settles, FL showed the cards they are willing to play. They don't like CA's cards either. We know at various times the idea of selling the Theme Park operations has come up. No one in Burbank seems to be committed to solving the operational issues or even understanding them. There is no champion for Parks & Resorts, and when everything was going more or less like clockwork, the profits made it worth the operational pain, but is that still true? Especially if the parks are maxed out to the point they have to have a reservation system. Growth potential has to be limited, outside of forever raising prices or massive investment.

Why not start working on a long term strategy to divest from this part of the business? Shrink operations at WDW to the point where someone is willing to take them. I'm thinking things like the water parks, golf (both types), Ft. Wilderness, non-attached to anything resorts like All-Stars, Port Orleans. All the things that made WDW a resort and not just parks + place to sleep. It feels, like they have been moving that way post-pandemic anyway. Just wind them down instead of future investment. When the opportunity arises, sell off the bits that specific entities might have an interest in like Disney Springs, Flamingo Crossing to some property group; sell the Resorts to hotel operators, etc. Sell or long-term lease land, collect the licensing fees, but let the rest be someone else's headache.

What is the argument for keeping them long-term at this point? Money, but they can make money multiple ways. Nostalgia, but TWDC doesn't concern itself with such things.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
That's swell, but when it comes to an individual child, if the kid's parents' opinion of what their child should be exposed to differs from your opinion, the parents' wishes should rule. Similarly, when it comes to the entire pool of children, if your state legislature's opinion of what the children should be exposed to differs from your opinion (as outlined in legislation), the legislature should control.

That’s why these things should be taught and allowed, based on state determined education guidelines, with the options to opt out. Much like it’s always been.

As opposed to draconian laws and blanket bans such as what started this mess.
 

AdventureHasAName

Well-Known Member
That’s why these things should be taught and allowed, based on state determined education guidelines, with the options to opt out. Much like it’s always been.

As opposed to draconian laws and blanket bans such as what started this mess.
The law in question calls for the creation of new state-determined education guidelines related to these issues. It's part of the law that was enacted.
 

thehowiet

Wilson King of Prussia
Honestly, between this, the pandemic operational environment, the post-pandemic operational environment, the China elephant in the room, I'm struggling to see WHY The Walt Disney Company would continue to want to be an operator of theme parks? Regardless of how this settles, FL showed the cards they are willing to play. They don't like CA's cards either. We know at various times the idea of selling the Theme Park operations has come up. No one in Burbank seems to be committed to solving the operational issues or even understanding them. There is no champion for Parks & Resorts, and when everything was going more or less like clockwork, the profits made it worth the operational pain, but is that still true? Especially if the parks are maxed out to the point they have to have a reservation system. Growth potential has to be limited, outside of forever raising prices or massive investment.

Why not start working on a long term strategy to divest from this part of the business? Shrink operations at WDW to the point where someone is willing to take them. I'm thinking things like the water parks, golf (both types), Ft. Wilderness, non-attached to anything resorts like All-Stars, Port Orleans. All the things that made WDW a resort and not just parks + place to sleep. It feels, like they have been moving that way post-pandemic anyway. Just wind them down instead of future investment. When the opportunity arises, sell off the bits that specific entities might have an interest in like Disney Springs, Flamingo Crossing to some property group; sell the Resorts to hotel operators, etc. Sell or long-term lease land, collect the licensing fees, but let the rest be someone else's headache.

What is the argument for keeping them long-term at this point? Money, but they can make money multiple ways. Nostalgia, but TWDC doesn't concern itself with such things.
I too wonder if that is where this will eventually end up. If TWDC had a buyer that would meet their price, I suspect they would take it in a heartbeat. It’s something that has been entertained in the C-Suite previously, it would be foolish to think it wouldn’t ever be in the future in my opinion. Right now though, I think they hold off until they figure out their whole new/old media challenges.
 

AdventureHasAName

Well-Known Member
A year after the law goes into effect.
Yup. And it says that until those guidelines are created and implemented, the topic should just not be discussed in class instruction. And this is all a very simple solution to halting the classroom instruction of a topic where the legislature feels the topic is not being properly handled in all public school classrooms in the state and some teachers and administrators either (a) weren't aware, or (b) didn't care.

When you have a fire, you put the fire out first and then figure out how to prevent fires from happening the same way in the future.
 

Archie123

Well-Known Member
what sexaulity talk is there to discuss to a 5 year old??????

answer: nothing, zilch, nada


adult themes such as sex/sex preference talk and 5 year olds don't mix

bye bye

I like how brainwashed people are to think that there is this huge push in kindergarten to teach five-year-olds about sex. It’s almost comical to see how naïve people are.

“Today boys and girls we are going to learn about body parts that rhyme with Dolores.” (Thanks Seinfeld)
 

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

Back
Top Bottom