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

flynnibus

Premium Member
All of that still requires tangible objectives and desires. This isn’t a situation where a real issues arose and the rhetoric got out of control. Most of the half hearted pretenses have been lies. They’re not actual issues that Disney can address to satisfy a concern or problem. What are these things that could be on the table? Shouldn’t it be easy to name a few? How do they actually solve the issue and not just become a temporary concession for the next “problem” that arises?

Again, you're focusing on the 'offer' phase instead of the "feeling them out" phase of a negotiation. They could also readily float ideas without committing to them in these kinds of behind-the-scenes chats.

Both sides know the current state is not possible to be the end state. Both sides know there is room for collaboration to make the desired changes either easier or harder. The next phases will be very hard for the GOP to do unilaterally and come out clean. This makes it ripe for concessions.

Even when you are dealing with a purely emotional (not rational) outburst, you can still try to work out what might appease or calm them.. and the more you can do that on your terms, the better.

Disney is no noob... they will find ears that are willing to talk.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Again, you're focusing on the 'offer' phase instead of the "feeling them out" phase of a negotiation. They could also readily float ideas without committing to them in these kinds of behind-the-scenes chats.

Both sides know the current state is not possible to be the end state. Both sides know there is room for collaboration to make the desired changes either easier or harder. The next phases will be very hard for the GOP to do unilaterally and come out clean. This makes it ripe for concessions.

Even when you are dealing with a purely emotional (not rational) outburst, you can still try to work out what might appease or calm them.. and the more you can do that on your terms, the better.

Disney is no noob... they will find ears that are willing to talk.
I’m not just focusing on the offer. Even if the feeling out stage what are these subjects to address? What ideas could be floated?

The unworkable end state doesn’t matter to those who pushed throw the law. They intentionally avoided that discussion. If it gets tossed out in court it’s just another platform for whipping people up, now against activist judges going against the people to protect the special interests of woke corporations.

Calming an emotional outburst still typically involves addressing the cause. Disney is almost certainly not going to do that.

I’m asking for information and being told I’m just being ridiculous and missing the picture. If the bigger picture is there it should be easy to describe. What are these issues that could be a place for compromise? What offering could meaningfully resolve the situation? These aren’t hard questions to answer if they exist.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I’m asking for information and being told I’m just being ridiculous and missing the picture.

No, you are trying to corner people into naming specific concessions and when they don't you flush the very premise that contact is possible because
- no one is reporting on it
- no one is naming the specific points being discussed

None of us have to be accurate in what they are floating to be correct that engagement is not only possible, but likely.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
It's not all of Florida though, it's the current majority legislature and governor. Those will both change over time. Disney can take an active role in speeding up or slowing down how fast that change happens if it wants, or just wait it out.

Different time horizons.

It only can't be fixed if they don't think it will ever change. Otherwise, it's just how hard is it to wait it out for that change.

I don’t even think it requires the people to change, right now it’s advantageous politically to go after Disney but after the election in November the same people who voted for it will have to face the reality of what dissolving RCiD really does, and that’s when the real negotiating (and/or backtracking) will begin.

My guess is the same people who publicly voted against Disney (for campaign reasons) will quietly vote to undo it all after the election.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
No, you are trying to corner people into naming specific concessions and when they don't you flush the very premise that contact is possible because
- no one is reporting on it
- no one is naming the specific points being discussed

None of us have to be accurate in what they are floating to be correct that engagement is not only possible, but likely.
Generally subjects should be identifiable. Something. Anything.
 

gsimpson

Well-Known Member
I am genuinely curious. Yes it is amusing that for years the left has been trying to get rid of RCID and the right has been protecting it and now they have flipped sides but apart from both sides trying to claim some undiscernible high ground I have a simple question? Why should Disney operate under a different set of laws than anyone else in the state - say Universal Orlando? Them having their own governance is an awfully handy way to save money and equally importantly save time. When Imagineering designs a new attraction/building it sometimes takes months and on occasion even years to get it through the planning and permitting phase of Orange County. Disney just gives the plans to themselves and stamps them approved and hands them back to themselves. (I AM NOT saying Disney cuts corners but since they are the only ones looking over themselves that is a question that is interesting especially with the current Disney "every penny is ours" management style) When Universal Creative plans a new attraction after they finish the design it has to go through Orange County's various commissions and processes and for all but the most simple attractions it then goes back to Creative to be modified and submitted again (and again, and again). Why should Disney be given this advantage in perpetuity?
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I am genuinely curious. Yes it is amusing that for years the left has been trying to get rid of RCID and the right has been protecting it and now they have flipped sides but apart from both sides trying to claim some undiscernible high ground I have a simple question? Why should Disney operate under a different set of laws than anyone else in the state - say Universal Orlando? Them having their own governance is an awfully handy way to save money and equally importantly save time. When Imagineering designs a new attraction/building it sometimes takes months and on occasion even years to get it through the planning and permitting phase of Orange County. Disney just gives the plans to themselves and stamps them approved and hands them back to themselves. (I AM NOT saying Disney cuts corners but since they are the only ones looking over themselves that is a question that is interesting especially with the current Disney "every penny is ours" management style) When Universal Creative plans a new attraction after they finish the design it has to go through Orange County's various commissions and processes and for all but the most simple attractions it then goes back to Creative to be modified and submitted again (and again, and again). Why should Disney be given this advantage in perpetuity?

There are a lot of reasons -- for one, it's much better for Orange/Osceola County taxpayers because they don't have to foot the bill for everything in the RCID.

Also, Disney isn't operating from a different set of laws than anyone else in the state; there are tons of special districts. RCID is far from the only one.
 
Last edited:

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I am genuinely curious. Yes it is amusing that for years the left has been trying to get rid of RCID and the right has been protecting it and now they have flipped sides but apart from both sides trying to claim some undiscernible high ground I have a simple question? Why should Disney operate under a different set of laws than anyone else in the state - say Universal Orlando? Them having their own governance is an awfully handy way to save money and equally importantly save time. When Imagineering designs a new attraction/building it sometimes takes months and on occasion even years to get it through the planning and permitting phase of Orange County. Disney just gives the plans to themselves and stamps them approved and hands them back to themselves. (I AM NOT saying Disney cuts corners but since they are the only ones looking over themselves that is a question that is interesting especially with the current Disney "every penny is ours" management style) When Universal Creative plans a new attraction after they finish the design it has to go through Orange County's various commissions and processes and for all but the most simple attractions it then goes back to Creative to be modified and submitted again (and again, and again). Why should Disney be given this advantage in perpetuity?
Nobody flipped sides. There was no strong effort to get rid of the District in Florida. It was largely a non-issue.

You’re entire description of processes involved in building are just completely wrong.

Neither Walt Disney Imagineering nor Universal Creative develop and sign the architecture and engineering documents that are used for permitting. That is done by third-party architects and engineers who, as state-licensed professionals, are obligated to follow state law.

Different rules apply to different places. That isn’t new or unusual. No projects at Universal Orlando Resort North Campus are submitted to Orange County because it is located in Orlando, so submissions are to the City. Universal Orlando Resort South Campus is in unincorporated Orange County which means projects there are submitted to the County and have to follow slightly different rules. Even if Reedy Creek Improvement District did not exist, Disney’s All Star Resorts would follow slightly different rules than Cabana Bay because they’re in Osceola County.

Universal Orlando Resort North Campus and South Campus are zoned as planned developments. Since receiving that designation they pretty much do not have to seek zoning or development approval for their projects. There is no submitting to various city or county commissions for approval. They submittal to the relevant building department pretty much no different than Disney projects.

Lastly, Disney does not submit to themselves. Disney is not the only owner with projects in the District. Projects are submitted to the District. Plans are reviewed by District employees, not Disney employees. The District is known for being strict, and they have no problem telling Disney what to do. They send drawings back for revision just like every building department. Yes, the District enforces a different building code but that code must meet the minimum standard set by the Florida Building Code (The EPCOT Building Code also predates the Florida Building Code and the state requiring local governments enforce a building code). The fire department enforces the Florida Fire Prevention Code just like every other fire department. Even if the District was cutting corners and rubber stamping Disney projects, a building permit is not absolution; the architect, engineers, contractor and owner are all still liable if a project does not conform to codes and the standard of care (which can easily be more stringent than codes).
 
Last edited:

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I am genuinely curious. Yes it is amusing that for years the left has been trying to get rid of RCID and the right has been protecting it and now they have flipped sides but apart from both sides trying to claim some undiscernible high ground I have a simple question? Why should Disney operate under a different set of laws than anyone else in the state - say Universal Orlando? Them having their own governance is an awfully handy way to save money and equally importantly save time. When Imagineering designs a new attraction/building it sometimes takes months and on occasion even years to get it through the planning and permitting phase of Orange County. Disney just gives the plans to themselves and stamps them approved and hands them back to themselves. (I AM NOT saying Disney cuts corners but since they are the only ones looking over themselves that is a question that is interesting especially with the current Disney "every penny is ours" management style) When Universal Creative plans a new attraction after they finish the design it has to go through Orange County's various commissions and processes and for all but the most simple attractions it then goes back to Creative to be modified and submitted again (and again, and again). Why should Disney be given this advantage in perpetuity?
There are over 1,800 special tax districts in the state of FL. It’s not just Disney getting a “special advantage”. If you want to compare Universal to Disney, how many miles of roads does Universal have on their property? How many acres of preserved wetlands? Are the 2 the same just because they both operate theme parks? A RCID setup wouldn‘t be much of an advantage to Universal. When Universal decided they needed a new road to connect to their new park they got Orange County to foot half the bill for it. When Disney decided they wanted a new overpass near MK they got RCID to pay for it (no money from the county) and through tax payments the vast majority of the cost was passed through to Disney. How is that saving them money? Keep in mind Disney pays the exact same tax rate on their properties to Orange or Osceola County as Universal pays to Orange County but Disney receives far less services from the counties. The taxes paid to RCID are in addition to the county taxes so if anything Universal is the one saving money by not having a RCID type setup.

Why does Disney want to keep RCID? Because they maintain control over the quality of the services provided. It’s not to cut corners on zoning, permitting or planning. They don’t need to wait for the county to fix a pothole or repave a section of road. They control stuff like the level of EMT services provided to guests and the cost charged the customer (nothing if you need an ambulance ride to the hospital from WDW). The other benefit is they can do a project like the parking garages at Disney Springs and finance it with municipal bonds that don’t show up on the books of TWDC. That was a much bigger benefit when Disney was a much smaller company and carried only a small amount of debt on their books. Ever since the Fox acquisition the billion of debt carried by RCID is pretty immaterial overall.

The politicians would like you to believe that Disney has an “unfair” benefit that allows them to pay less taxes at the expense of FL taxpayers, but none of that is close to supported by facts. If anything the opposite is true and eliminating RCID would actually be a tax savings for Disney.
 

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
I highly doubt formal negotiations are taking place just yet. But Disney has something like 40 lobbyists in Florida who have known all of the prominent Florida politicians for years. There is no doubt they are bickering back and forth trying to figure out what a deal may look like when formal negotiations do begin.

Except Florida does have term limits, so some are no longer in the Florida Legislature.
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
Care to summarize since it’s behind a paywall?
Some highlights from the Financial Times article:
  • Early on, Disney had an opportunity to sign a letter protesting the Parental Rights in Education Act. Several companies such as Apple and Amazon had signed this letter.
  • Now fired Disney head of corporate affairs Geoff Morrell advised Disney CEO Bob Chapek not to sign.
  • Instead, Morrell recommended working through Disney's "formidable team of 38 lobbyists in Florida" to "soften" the bill.
  • In the past, Disney had been used to getting its way with Florida legislators but this time they were "surprise[d] to see that Disney’s efforts to water down the bill were not working."
  • Former CEO Bob Iger made matters worse by retweeting President Biden, who called the bill "hateful".
  • As a result of Disney's lack of public action, the considerable goodwill Disney had with its LGBTQ+ employees was damaged.
  • Chapek went on a “listening tour” to various company locations to try to repair that damage.
  • DeSantis used Disney's belated public statements to attack the "woke" Disney. DeSantis said, Disney is “going to criticize the fact that we don’t want transgenderism in kindergarten and first grade classrooms . . . that’s the hill they’re going to die on?”
  • The $100K Disney donated to DeSantis is chump-change compared to the $50M he has collected elsewhere. In other words, Disney has no bargaining leverage with DeSantis at the moment.
  • "Chapek has been in course-correction mode ever since."
  • Chapek fired Disney's head of tv Peter Rice to strengthen Chapek's position within Disney. (Rice is popular and was viewed as a possible replacement to Chapek.)
  • The Board strengthened Chapek's position further by backing Chapek in this firing.
  • GSU Professor Anthony Kreis, who specializes in civil rights and politics, is quoted as saying, “The issues around Disney are going to get litigated ad nauseam" during the campaign, ... "There’s no winning strategy here for them.”
  • A former Disney executive is quoted as saying, “In a short period of time they managed to p*** off both the left and the right.”
 
Last edited:

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Except Florida does have term limits, so some are no longer in the Florida Legislature.
In a way the term limits make the lobbyists even more powerful since the lobbyists themselves have no term limits. They become the constant in the political system. A continuous influx of new blood needing help with the lay of the land and also needing money for re-election without name recognition. Not saying I’m opposed to term limits at all.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Some highlights from the Financial Times article:
  • Early on, Disney had an opportunity to sign a letter protesting the Parental Rights in Education Act. Several companies such as Apple and Amazon had signed this letter.
  • Now fired Disney head of corporate affairs Geoff Morrell advised Disney CEO Bob Chapek not to sign.
  • Instead, Morrell recommended working through Disney's "formidable team of 38 lobbyists in Florida" to "soften" the bill.
  • In the past, Disney had been used to getting its way with Florida legislators but this time they were "surprise[d] to see that Disney’s efforts to water down the bill were not working."
  • Former CEO Bob Iger made matters worse by retweeting President Biden, who called the bill "hateful".
  • As a result of Disney's lack of public action, the considerable goodwill Disney had with its LGBTQ+ employees was damaged.
  • Chapek went on a “listening tour” to various company locations to try to repair that damage.
  • DeSantis used Disney's belated public statements to attack the "woke" Disney. DeSantis said, Disney is “going to criticize the fact that we don’t want transgenderism in kindergarten and first grade classrooms . . . that’s the hill they’re going to die on?”
  • The $100K Disney donated to DeSantis is chump-change compared to the $50M he has collected elsewhere. In other words, Disney has no bargaining leverage with DeSantis at the moment.
  • "Chapek has been in course-correction mode ever since."
  • Chapek fired Disney's head of tv Peter Rice to strengthen Chapek's position within Disney. (Rice is popular and was viewed as a possible replacement to Chapek.)
  • The Board strengthened Chapek's position further by backing Chapek in this firing.
  • GSU Professor Anthony Kreis, who specializes in civil rights and politics, is quoted as saying, “The issues around Disney are going to get litigated ad nauseam" during the campaign, ... "There’s no winning strategy here for them.”
  • A former Disney executive is quoted as saying, “In a short period of time they managed to p*** off both the left and the right.”
I think this about sums up part of the situation. There were certainly missteps by Disney. That doesn’t excuse the actions of the Government one bit.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I can’t see the actual story but I know we talked about the big sell off on RCID bonds that resulted in the price dropping well below par. Are they saying the bond prices are going back up? Could be a sign that the financial community views that there will be a positive outcome for the district.
 

Vacationeer

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
  • GSU Professor Anthony Kreis, who specializes in civil rights and politics, is quoted as saying, “The issues around Disney are going to get litigated ad nauseam" during the campaign, ... "There’s no winning strategy here for them.”
Who is the ‘them’ to which there’s no winning strategy?
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
Who is the ‘them’ to which there’s no winning strategy?
Quoting that part of the article:

Chapek will need all the support he can get. With the midterm elections looming in November, issues including race, abortion, guns and LGBTQ rights will dominate the debate on the left and right. This means the image of “woke” Disney is likely to remain in the political spotlight, says Anthony Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University.​
“The issues around Disney are going to get litigated ad nauseam” during the campaign, says Kreis, who writes about civil rights and politics. “There’s no winning strategy here for them.”​

My interpretation is that Professor Kreis is referring to the political war that Disney has been drawn into, even though he uses the word "litigation". With the country so deeply divided, political battles might be won and lost, but there's no end in sight for the political war that Disney has gotten itself into.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom