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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The new development agreement has to come after the new comprehensive plan and any changes to the zoning regulations. I don’t think we should expect it any time soon because otherwise you largely get the agreement they just killed.

A development agreement locks in the existing regulations. So if the board changes the regulations to require more development review that gets locked in. If they institute impacts fees and/or alternatives then those become part of the agreement.

The whole issue of affordable housing was/is a sham because under state law affordable housing is now special. It can now be built by right in a variety of zoning districts such as commercial and mixed-use (most of the buildable land of the district). So even with a development agreement, affordable housing can be built at Walt Disney World.

The federal lawsuit is a lousy contingency. If the district makes changes to the comprehensive plan and regulations that Disney doesn’t like and doesn’t want to lock in an agreement then Disney is still stuck having to follow the changes they don’t like in the meantime. Restarting the federal suit cannot pause changes to the local regulations.

Yeah…they lost. At least academically speaking

The good news is not much is going on anyway…I doubt they’ll interfere with bobs trailer park going up on river country

Chatting with Miami/Tallahassee lobbyist & attorney.

The word up there is that this was entirely done so DeSantis wins on paper and saves face, while after all is said and done, Disney gets what they want: control (via a likely friendlier and more competent board)

We shall see. This is easy politics and who’s to say the next carpet bagger won’t try the same stunt again?

What do you (or anyone) make of DeSantis pointing his finger at "Burbank" specifically on this. He seems to suggest that Disney "Orlando" wasn't a problem for him but "Burbank" specifically was.

I thought it was odd that he tried to "separate" Disney "Burbank" from Disney "Orlando". Is it possible that Burbank was giving DeSantis the finger and at the same time "Orlando" management was sending him messages for an olive branch?

Or,..."Mr. DeSantis....we don't agree with Burbank either, we understand your complaints,..please go easy on us down here." In other words,...Disney was playing "good cop \ bad cop" on him?

I dunno,...I just wonder why he separates Disney into two camps like that.

I also do wonder what the back-channel talk has been like between "Burbank", "Orlando" and DeSantis to reach where we are today.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

His tone is so conciliatory and out of character I didn't believe he'd said that until I watched it.

I still say that was “negotiated”

 

[GoneViral]

I still say that was “negotiated”

Oh, it 100% was. If DeSantis had won anything, he'd have been unbearable. That's his brand. Since he had to capitulate, this is what we got instead.

I wonder what was on Martin Garcia's phone...

 

[GoneViral]

…six flags has the rights to Arkham asylum

But I do love the idea of Harley Quinn as a Disney Princess.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I get that. It will be public record and will be done legally.

I'm just saying Disney and Desantis have already pre-hashed it out. The rubber stamp committee will go through their motions after the fact.

Are you suggesting they have not had conversations on what changes they would like and whether he will fight it or not?

I don’t doubt they’ve talked but I do doubt that it’s anything but capitulation. Any agreement has to follow what exists. So any concession to Disney has to be something that already exists, which means it’s not really a concession.

They also could have just agreed to amend the existing development agreement. That would have given Disney protection until a new agreement is reached if there was serious negotiating involved. Now, if there is a change and a deal is not reached then Disney has no recourse, they just have to deal with whatever the district decides.

 

[GoneViral]

Chatting with Miami/Tallahassee lobbyist & attorney.

The word up there is that this was entirely done so DeSantis wins on paper and saves face, while after all is said and done, Disney gets what they want: control (via a likely friendlier and more competent board)

That's readily apparent. That guy just went on a hot microphone and talked about giving Disney a land carveout.

 

[BrianLo]

I dunno,...I just wonder why he separates Disney into two camps like that.

It's an about face to onboard his constituents to how dramatic the language needed to change. Stopping making the golden goose itself the boogeyman and just make the dissociated Californian executives the problem. Something to be uncontrolled and ignored. Soon that will melt away and it will all just be about how great WDW is for the state and how great their relationship is.

I think if they hadn't come to a mutual understanding his tone wouldn't be so conciliatory. If they just dropped this last second due to the proxy fight, I think there would be way more gloating.

I don't really support that this is related to the proxy fight directly, it's a bit too last second in the voting process and really Peltz or Wall Street haven't seemingly cared much about this issue. It also feels like this has been in the works for a number of months with how quiet things have been recently from either party.

I don’t doubt they’ve talked but I do doubt that it’s anything but capitulation. Any agreement has to follow what exists. So any concession to Disney has to be something that already exists, which means it’s not really a concession.

They also could have just agreed to amend the existing development agreement. That would have given Disney protection until a new agreement is reached if there was serious negotiating involved. Now, if there is a change and a deal is not reached then Disney has no recourse, they just have to deal with whatever the district decides.

Perhaps, I get being worried about the worst case scenario. But the language is such a dramatic change today that I think both parties seem to want to work collaboratively. Disney's biggest protection in this whole manner is that hurting WDW hurts Florida. Not that this stopped it from happening, the whole thing was a bit idiotic and not thought through to begin with on the part of the governor.

 

[flynnibus]

The whole purpose of a development agreement is to prevent change. There’s no point in having one that allows zoning changes.

Not so. It's purpose is to have a contract between the established authority and the other party... including limits, or other special provisions that apply to that development. It doesn't exclude change that both parties want.. as they can simply undo and create a new agreement as well.

It prevents unexpected or one sided change.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Perhaps, I get being worried about the worst case scenario. But the language is such a dramatic change today that I think both parties seem to want to work collaboratively. Disney's biggest protection in this whole manner is that hurting WDW hurts Florida. Not that this stopped it from happening, the whole thing was a bit idiotic and not thought through to begin with on the part of the governor.

Why would the tone not change if Disney is now kissing the ring?

Why could they not work collaboratively on an amended agreement?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

But I do love the idea of Harley Quinn as a Disney Princess.

I like the idea of getting Margot Robbie to do…pretty much anything she wants…so how do we lock this down?

 

[Chi84]

The new development agreement has to come after the new comprehensive plan and any changes to the zoning regulations. I don’t think we should expect it any time soon because otherwise you largely get the agreement they just killed.

A development agreement locks in the existing regulations. So if the board changes the regulations to require more development review that gets locked in. If they institute impacts fees and/or alternatives then those become part of the agreement.

The whole issue of affordable housing was/is a sham because under state law affordable housing is now special. It can now be built by right in a variety of zoning districts such as commercial and mixed-use (most of the buildable land of the district). So even with a development agreement, affordable housing can be built at Walt Disney World.

The federal lawsuit is a lousy contingency. If the district makes changes to the comprehensive plan and regulations that Disney doesn’t like and doesn’t want to lock in an agreement then Disney is still stuck having to follow the changes they don’t like in the meantime. Restarting the federal suit cannot pause changes to the local regulations.

There are a lot of “ifs” there that I wouldn’t expect to happen given a settlement agreement. What you’re saying goes contra to the entire purpose of a settlement.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There are a lot of “ifs” there that I wouldn’t expect to happen given a settlement agreement. What you’re saying goes contra to the entire purpose of a settlement.

He doesn’t trust the “government” side of this…and it’s a valid concern

 

[Cliff]

Does anybody here truly believe that DeSantis and the rest of the Legislature are "anti-WDW"?

Did anybody ever believe that DeSantis hates WDW as a large tourist destination, taxpayer and large Florida employer?

No,...he always valued the positive "potential" of WDW to the economy of the state. I'm sure he values Universal now just as much! This whole "fight" was always just a temporary spat! WDW needs Florida! WDW on it's own is literally almost 1/3 of ALL the company's profit. Yes WDW is THAT important to the entire company. Yes,...WDW is extremely important to Florida too! That was never a financial question or doubt by anybody.

WDW will ALWAYS get what it want's from the State of Florida and CFTOD too! YES!...If Disney wan'ts to build a new fifth gate?...CFTOD will absolutely assist them!!! Why? Because when WDW builds hotels stores and attractions,...Florida benefits. DeSantis and the legislature benefit! Florida benefits!

So,...CFTOD will watch over Disney's shoulder every day but they WANT Disney to make money so that EVERYbody wins.

It's time to drop all the CFTOD fear. WDW will be fine for the future!

 

[GoneViral]

I like the idea of getting Margot Robbie to do…pretty much anything she wants…so how do we lock this down?

I think WBD can sell/merge on either April 8th or the last day of April. I'll switch my votes to Peltz if he can make that happen! (No, I won't.)

 

[MR.Dis]

Sorry, but I have to gloat. Go back about 800 pages and I stated The State of Florida always had the right to take over the District. My quote was "that ship has sailed" as far as Disney ever getting it back. The bigger thing here is I stated it is in both the State and Disney best interest to work together. Disney is at it's heart a corporation that wants to make money, and WDW is the biggest moneymaker for Disney. The State's best interest is to have a healthy WDW as it is the biggest employer in the State and is one of the highest tax payers in the State (if not The highest tax payer). I am just happy that cooler heads prevailed to stop these law suits. My Opinion is the new agreements will be satisfactory to both parties as again it is in both parties best interest. As someone who has visited WDW at least 2 times a year for the last 25 years, I look forward to clearing the decks for some exciting new developements thru out the property.

 

[Chi84]

His tone is so conciliatory and out of character I didn't believe he'd said that until I watched it.

The other thing didn’t work for him.

 

[James Alucobond]

LOL. Florida is now solidly Red. I can’t wait to hear your complaints about the next Solid Conservative Governor.

This isn’t even a conservative issue. Yes, the inciting incident was about conservative legislation, but what actually happened should be deeply concerning to both parties because it can be abused by either side of the aisle.

 

[Chi84]

Sorry, but I have to gloat. Go back about 800 pages and I stated The State of Florida always had the right to take over the District. My quote was "that ship has sailed" as far as Disney ever getting it back. The bigger thing here is I stated it is in both the State and Disney best interest to work together. Disney is at its heart a corporation that wants to make money, and WDW is the biggest moneymaker for Disney. The State's best interest is to have a healthy WDW as it is the biggest employer in the State and is one of the highest tax payers in the State (if not The highest tax payer). I am just happy that cooler heads prevailed to stop these law suits. My Opinion is the new agreements will be satisfactory to both parties as again it is in both parties best interest. As someone who has visited WDW at least 2 times a year for the last 25 years, I look forward to clearing the decks for some exciting new developements thru out the property.

Because of the settlement agreement, we’ll never know whether the State of Florida had the “right” to do what it did under the circumstances that occurred. That issue will not be litigated unless Disney revives the federal suit.

 

[mkt]

LOL. Florida is now solidly Red. I can’t wait to hear your complaints about the next Solid Conservative Governor.

No one is disputing that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There are a lot of “ifs” there that I wouldn’t expect to happen given a settlement agreement. What you’re saying goes contra to the entire purpose of a settlement.

That’s exactly what makes this odd. The settlement doesn’t actually settle the areas of concern. In fact it does the opposite and now opens them up.

If a company and a union were engaged in a collective bargaining contract dispute, would you not find it odd of the union if they announced that they’ve agreed to just let the previous contract expire, will be giving up recently won benefits and will negotiate a new contract in the future? Under what circumstances would you advise someone to completely drop an existing contract in favor of a potential future contract? Even in a truly honest situation where both parties are acting in good faith that seems unwise.