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

[WoundedDreamer]

Can you substantiate this?

I think Bob said they had tried to negotiate before that?

I believe he said Disney should move on, not come to the table. Not settlement talk, just declaration of victory and the other side should give up. The words move on and settlement are nothing alike.

From an August 2023 Interview:

Sullivan: And I [asked] whether he had spoken with Disney CEO Bob Iger

Gov. DeSantis: I have not, but –

Sullivan: Would you?

Gov. DeSantis: Yeah, yeah. No, I would.

(Explains the Disney-Florida fight)

….

So I would just say just as a parent, look, my wife and I, we got married at Walt Disney World, okay, so it’s not like we’re opposed. I mean, we’ve appreciated working with them over the years. But I would just say go back to what you did well. I think it’s going to be the right business decision and all that. But where we are today, you know, we’ve basically moved on. They’re suing the state of Florida, they’re gonna lose that lawsuit. So, what I would say is drop the lawsuit, you know, you have the state that even CNBC ranks as number one of all 50 states for economy, we lead the nation in new business formations, unemployment is incredibly low, great fiscal posture, people are bringing capital into Florida. This is a great place to do business. Your competitors all do very well here, Universal, Sea World, they have not had the same special privileges as you have. So, all we want to do is treat everybody the same and let’s move forward. I’m totally fine with that. But I’m not fine with giving extraordinary privileges, you know, to one special company at the exclusion of everybody else.

 

[Chi84]

From an August 2023 Interview:

Sullivan: And I [asked] whether he had spoken with Disney CEO Bob Iger

Gov. DeSantis: I have not, but –

Sullivan: Would you?

Gov. DeSantis: Yeah, yeah. No, I would.

(Explains the Disney-Florida fight)

….

So I would just say just as a parent, look, my wife and I, we got married at Walt Disney World, okay, so it’s not like we’re opposed. I mean, we’ve appreciated working with them over the years. But I would just say go back to what you did well. I think it’s going to be the right business decision and all that. But where we are today, you know, we’ve basically moved on. They’re suing the state of Florida, they’re gonna lose that lawsuit. So, what I would say is drop the lawsuit, you know, you have the state that even CNBC ranks as number one of all 50 states for economy, we lead the nation in new business formations, unemployment is incredibly low, great fiscal posture, people are bringing capital into Florida. This is a great place to do business. Your competitors all do very well here, Universal, Sea World, they have not had the same special privileges as you have. So, all we want to do is treat everybody the same and let’s move forward. I’m totally fine with that. But I’m not fine with giving extraordinary privileges, you know, to one special company at the exclusion of everybody else.

But can you substantiate your statement about him offering to “come to the table” or negotiate a settlement? There’s nothing in that statement that says anything close to what you claim.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Universal, Sea World, they have not had the same special privileges as you have

Which one of those two built the town from the swamp up?

Neither exists without Disney going first.

But let’s give more football teams free stadiums.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

But can you substantiate your statement about him offering to “come to the table” or negotiate a settlement? There’s nothing in that statement that says anything close to what you claim.

He agreed to negotiate if approached, he suggested everyone get back to business, and he said Disney should stop fighting. It's not like he suddenly had a personality switch. This has been his stated view since August 2023. He said he was unwilling to concede on giving Disney RCID back, which they have not. It's all there. The framework he was willing to negotiate.

I do wonder if Disney decided to keep the lawsuits going despite knowing they'd likely settle, because it was bad for DeSantis. It'd be clever... That could explain their behavior over the last year.

 

[Chi84]

He agreed to negotiate if approached, he suggested everyone get back to business, and he said Disney should stop fighting. It's not like he suddenly had a personality switch. This has been his stated view since August 2023. He said he was unwilling to concede on giving Disney RCID back, which they have not. It's all there. The framework he was willing to negotiate.

I do wonder if Disney decided to keep the lawsuits going despite knowing they'd likely settle, because it was bad for DeSantis. It'd be clever... That could explain their behavior over the last year.

But the words you quoted don’t support what you’re saying about him agreeing to negotiate if approached.

 

[mikejs78]

He agreed to negotiate if approached

No, he didn't.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Which one of those two built the town from the swamp up?

Neither exists without Disney going first.

You're not wrong about this. I do think of the RCID as having a been a vestigial organ of sorts. At the time it was important to Walt Disney World's success, but as things have evolved it became less important. That doesn't necessarily justify its removal, but I'm optimistic about Disney's ability to navigate things moving forward.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

No, he didn't.

What would Iger and DeSantis talk about other than a settlement and moving on?

It does sound like an awkward phone call, though.

 

[Chi84]

What would Iger and DeSantis talk about other than a settlement and moving on?

It does sound like an awkward phone call, though.

No. Politicians, especially ones who are lawyers, are very good at limiting their answers to only the question asked. He was asked if he had spoken with Iger and said no. He was asked if he would talk to him and he said “Yeah, yeah. No, I would”

There’s reasonable no way that answer can be stretched out to become an offer to engage in settlement negotiations regarding the lawsuit.

Maybe he meant he would talk to Iger to tell him there’s no way he would ever settle the lawsuit so Disney should just give up.

 

[Dcgc28]

You're not wrong about this. I do think of the RCID as having a been a vestigial organ of sorts. At the time it was important to Walt Disney World's success, but as things have evolved it became less important. That doesn't necessarily justify its removal, but I'm optimistic about Disney's ability to navigate things moving forward.

Honestly it’s going to be business as usual moving forward. Florida needs Disney and Disney needs Florida. It was inevitable that it would pass in some sort. The real winners here are the state of Florida and Disney because they’re going to go back to printing money with each other.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

No. Politicians, especially ones who are lawyers, are very good at limiting their answers to only the question asked. He was asked if he had spoken with Iger and said no. He was asked if he would talk to him and he said “Yeah, yeah. No, I would”

There’s reasonable no way that answer can be stretched out to become an offer to engage in settlement negotiations regarding the lawsuit.

Yeah, but doesn't that run counter to the "he refuses to talk to Iger" narrative? And what would they talk about? It had to be over a settlement agreement. He was already willing to talk and move forward back in August of 2023. I guess it's a difference in interpretation.

 

[Chi84]

Yeah, but doesn't that run counter to the "he refuses to talk to Iger" narrative? And what would they talk about? It had to be over a settlement agreement. He was already willing to talk and move forward back in August of 2023. I guess it's a difference in interpretation.

But what you’re proposing isn’t a reasonable interpretation. It’s reading way too much into “Yeah, yeah. No, I would” when asked if he would talk to Iger. The interviewer didn’t ask about or even mention the lawsuit or negotiations in his question.

 

[Batman'sParents]

I know you are asking someone else but from my point of view, it looks like Disney got a lot of what they wanted while being realistic.

• They are getting a known Disney friendly appointed to head up the district.
• They are reverting to the 2020 plan which is what RCID already had in place.
• They get direct input on any changes made to that plan.
• The district is giving up one of the big ways it had to mess with Disney in the form of the mitigation credits, conceding that Disney owns them and promising to not impede Disney.
• The original law that caused all this has been altered to account for the concerns many, including Disney had.
• They did not have to cede any creative control to the state in terms of promises on types of content.
• They are not giving up their ability to restart the federal appeal (which is rare to see in a settlement).

As for that last point, I know some people think an appeal of the federal lawsuit is a long shot but the judge handed out a very unusual dismissal in this case, relying on his personal misinterpretation and application of another ruling. Further the 11th circuit has been rather busy over turning this particular judge of late including similar decisions he made on other questionable Florida laws. Why anyone thinks this ruling is safe vs. the others is a mystery to me. That doesn't mean Disney was guaranteed to win in the end but there was a VERY high probability the suit could be either restarted to address specific concerns and language or the ruling itself be tossed out to allow the case to proceed.

Now, what does Disney lose? Basically, the ability to elect their local government and by extension the ability to control it more directly. That is certainly a big one and I am sure they are not happy with it but Disney is being realistic and pragmatic. Even if they won the federal suit, it would be a colossal mess to try and restore everything and meanwhile the state could just keep passing more and more laws until eventually they get one to stick to accomplish the same goal.

At the end of the day, while this isn't an across-the-board win, it isn't bad either and certainly frees them up to finally start moving forward. Meanwhile they can continue to lobby and who knows what happens down the line.

Maybe this isn't very satisfying to those of us who are not fans of executive overreach but some kind of settlement was always the most likely outcome.

This is spot on. I would also add even that absent TWDC preceeding with the suit that allows for restoration of the original legislation, this settlement is the most realistic to settle the lawsuit. The only ways that RCID gets restored is via an act of the legislature or restoration from the courts. While both shouldn't be ruled out, the first one is highly improbable and has it's own tangled web of issues and the second one, is time consuming. Working out a direct settlement that requires little legislative input with CFTOD and can offer immediate remedies to the district, state, and the TWDC was the most pragamatic path.

 

[Bullseye1967]

But what you’re proposing isn’t a reasonable interpretation. It’s reading way too much into “Yeah, yeah. No, I would” when asked if he would talk to Iger. The interviewer didn’t ask about or even mention the lawsuit or negotiations in his question.

Yeah, but doesn't that run counter to the "he refuses to talk to Iger" narrative? And what would they talk about? It had to be over a settlement agreement. He was already willing to talk and move forward back in August of 2023. I guess it's a difference in interpretation.

It is his interpretation. Who made you in charge if it is reasonable or not? He agreed you have a difference of opinion. Not taking a side here, and I know your experience, but he is entitled to think what he wants. There are no hard cold facts in this exchange, because none of us know what happened behind the scenes. He took one take from Ronnie's statement and you took another.

 

[Bullseye1967]

It is obvious to all that the mouse forced the state of Florida to capitulate on every point and forced them to win on almost everything they wanted. I don't blame Disney for settling because they needed to move on., but as far as what they were looking for in state court, they got a tiny portion. Sometimes you make the best of what you can get.

 

[Stripes]

The delay in the federal suit also makes it much more likely that DeSantis will be gone when the ruling is overturned and there won’t be any political willpower to take Disney on again.

 

[GimpYancIent]

The only people that walk away with anything tangible from this legal squabble are the attorneys.

 

[mkt]

The only people that walk away with anything tangible from this legal squabble are the attorneys.

Only the bosses. The ones doing the actual work just get a normal salary.

 

[Dcgc28]

I've not really kept up with this thread as it moves to fast, but just a quick one....are we seeing this as more of a win for Disney, Ron or both coming out ok?

They’re both doing fine. Florida continues to make money. Disney continues to make money. Desantis may have a small win because they changed the name from Reedy Creek and they changed the Fire Department name. That’s about it honestly. Disney is still going to move with more or less impunity in the state.

 

[mmascari]

But where we are today, you know, we’ve basically moved on. They’re suing the state of Florida, they’re gonna lose that lawsuit. So, what I would say is drop the lawsuit,

That’s not an invitation to talk settlement. He declared victory and told Disney to just move on with the new structure in place. I have no idea how you can interpret this as an invitation to talking about any compromise. The statement you posted is exactly what I said, thanks for finding it for me.