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

[Chip Chipperson]

I really don't understand this. Can the state limit, or even want to limit, how much Disney invests in Florida? If Disney were to spend 18 billion would the be punished for that?

No, the agreement isn't a cap, it's a minimum and the actual requirement ($8B over 10 years, with the remainder over the 10 years after that) is less than the company has already stated they intend to spend. It is just a way to give Disney the agreement that the District had previously challenged while also making it look like the District's Board got a "win."

 

[flynnibus]

I really don't understand this. Can the state limit, or even want to limit, how much Disney invests in Florida?

No - it was a horrible interpretation that I was hoping people would have just skipped over... but here we are.

We should all know the basics here. Disney made a commitment to spend 8 billion as part of an agreement.

There is no cap... there isn't even a punishment to NOT doing it. It just means the District would have reason to terminate the agreement.. which is a toothless thing anyway since you wouldn't know if they had spent it until the end anyway. It's just a promise as a means to justify the agreement and provide the requirement of the benefit to the district for why they are even doing the agreement.

It's pretty much a meaningless commitment - Disney's public investor messages have far more consequence and weight behind them.

 

[danlb_2000]

No, the agreement isn't a cap, it's a minimum and the actual requirement ($8B over 10 years, with the remainder over the 10 years after that) is less than the company has already stated they intend to spend. It is just a way to give Disney the agreement that the District had previously challenged while also making it look like the District's Board got a "win."

Thank you for the clarification, I didn't see how the original statement could have been right.

 

[el_super]

Despite what others believe, Disney will never gain total control of the district again-as I stated above neither party will support such a move.

That's true. It would have been terrible optics for Disney to draw a hard line position that a corporation should have that kind of power. At least not outright.

But as Anaheim proves, even without the district in name, Disney will still wield immense political power and get what they want. Maybe they will end up paying a little bit more for it in the end.

 

[eddie104]

Disney lost big tim

Yea that’s very debatable.

Because at the end of the day they still got what they wanted.

 

[flynnibus]

Yea that’s very debatable.

Because at the end of the day they still got what they wanted.

But they didn't GAIN anything... yet they lost tons... spent millions.. and are not in a better position than when they started. So what do you suggest was their prize and 'got what they wanted'?

'At the end of the day' - Disney lost an incredible level of control and direct influence over a significant element of their operation. They also now have a court history ruling against them. They are paying for District operations that are setup in a manner THEY didn't choose.

How does one look at this and say... 'we got what we wanted'?

 

[eddie104]

If by 'got what they wanted' to mean they got the Govenor to stop squeezing their throat? Yes they did.

But they didn't GAIN anything... yet they lost tons... spent millions.. and are not in a better position than when they started. So what do you suggest was their prize and 'got what they wanted'?

'At the end of the day' - Disney lost an incredible level of control and direct influence over a significant element of their operation. They also now have a court history ruling against them. They are paying for District operations that are setup in a manner THEY didn't choose.

How does one look at this and say... 'we got what we wanted'?

They are billion dollar company so loosing a couple million is not crazy for them.

 

[Cliff]

View attachment 792615

Disney won nothing - They got a cease fire appeasement by promising to start giving back to the politicians and promising to spend money in florida. The state gave up nothing... and still has the court decisions on the books supporting their action.

Disney lost big time... they are just trying to focus on 'getting back to normal'

Stop being negative. Who's side are you on anyway?

 

[flynnibus]

They are billion dollar company so loosing a couple million is not crazy for them.

Maybe - but you still haven't listed anything they gained or are better off from where they started though... nor addressed the other things they have lost.

Name one thing that is better now for Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

Stop being negative. Who's side are you on anyway?

This a place for objective reasoning. If you have lines to tow... you're gonna get called out for the non-sense it is.

 

[flynnibus]

I wonder if Disney will somehow extend an olive branch to the Firefighters and get them their perks back... or if the district will quietly pivot back on the topic for everyone.

 

[Stripes]

I wonder if Disney will somehow extend an olive branch to the Firefighters and get them their perks back... or if the district will quietly pivot back on the topic for everyone.

According to the district it was an inappropriate perk to begin with. So I don’t think the firefighters will be getting their Disney perks back. They’re SOL.

 

[flynnibus]

According to the district it was an inappropriate perk to begin with. So I don’t think the firefighters will be getting their Disney perks back. They’re SOL.

Well, according to the district MANAGEMENT it was - who are no longer there. And the new management has already showed they are willing to to deals that contradict prior discord and agendas and the two parties are collaborating behind closed doors. (which ironically - that's the biggest thing the GOP HASN'T fixed about the prior district... because now they are part of the gang).

Which is why I poised the question... will Disney turn back to its former employees and try to fight to make it happen?

 

[Stripes]

Which is why I poised the question... will Disney turn back to its former employees and try to fight to make it happen?

They were never Disney employees. Disney may allow the district employees to purchase the old passes again with their stipend. But unless the district changes how they calculate the stipend amount, it will never be the same perk.

 

[Stripes]

Bear in mind, Disney only sued once the district and the state came after the development agreement. Now that a development agreement is back in place (one that is very favorable to Disney) there’s no need to continue the lawsuits as Disney sees it. Bad PR in this age of incredible polarization with little benefit to the business.

Disney can once again build whatever they want without government interference. The new administrator has a great relationship with Disney and worked with DeSantis in the past to carve out exceptions in legislation so that new laws wouldn’t apply to Disney. She has basically done their bidding for years.

 

[flynnibus]

They were never Disney employees. Disney may allow the district employees to purchase the old passes again with their stipend. But unless the district changes how they calculate the stipend amount, it will never be the same perk.

I know they weren't truly employees - I think after 1200 pages we wouldn't be challenging that slang I used. Their benefits here were because Disney gave it to them.. and Disney was hands on in the arrangement.. as well as hands on with the District's management. They were not true employees - but they were in effect, serving at the behest of Disney and Disney calling the shots in this matter.

Now that we are past the obvious...

Yes, the tax liability has to be addressed since the cat is out of the bag so to speak... but Disney can just gross people up to cover the expense too. It's just a matter of what they want to pay for... and we've already heard how big of a deal it was to those who were getting the benefit.

All of this is moving around the elephant in the room.. which is you have hundreds of rank and file employees who weren't part of this anti-disney campaign... but got dragged along with it... and now that their two-faced leaders have done the 180 to tow the new business mandate... I wonder if they will address the employees who lost through this.

 

[lazyboy97o]

All of this is moving around the elephant in the room.. which is you have hundreds of rank and file employees who weren't part of this anti-disney campaign... but got dragged along with it... and now that their two-faced leaders have done the 180 to tow the new business mandate... I wonder if they will address the employees who lost through this.

The firefighters in particular did decide to get involved and oppose Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

Bear in mind, Disney only sued once the district and the state came after the development agreement. Now that a development agreement is back in place (one that is very favorable to Disney) there’s no need to continue the lawsuits as Disney sees it. Bad PR in this age of incredible polarization with little benefit to the business.

Ehh.. the lawsuits were already done. And of course Disney only sued after the state attacked the developer agreement... they can't sue for a contract being violated before it was Disney made a pre-emptive strike at the district level with the developer agreement... they fired the first shots.. just not in court.

Disney can once again build whatever they want without government interference

No, Disney still has to deal with the district, and whomever the state decides to sit there.. and all the 'how can they make life worse for disney' points are all still the same. Nothing that happened since RCID was torn down touched anything in the comprehensive plan that was in place and the only portion of the new developer agreement that really matters is it locks in new land management minimums for the property as a whole. Disney basically promised 8 billion dollars and capitulating in return to ensure they get to define the new TBD comprehensive plan like the old days... with their interests at the forefront.

Everything else is still as it was with the new District in power... the difference now is right now you have District management that is cooperating with Disney. It's just an example of how far things can swing based on the District's board... they can be completely antagonistic, or they can be completely submissive... all within the same structure.

Disney gets to lock up the master plan for the property - but everything else is still at the whim of the Governor because he can swap people to do whatever he pleases.

The new administrator has a great relationship with Disney and worked with DeSantis in the past to carve out exceptions in legislation so that new laws wouldn’t apply to Disney. She has basically done their bidding for years.

And her job is only as secure as the Governor in office's latest itch. The anti-Disney stance of the last year plus was not because a rogue guy was hired as the district administrator... let's not forget that. Those people were just yes-men who were replaced just as fast as they were put in place when the agenda changed. That risk hasn't changed.

 

[flynnibus]

The firefighters in particular did decide to get involved and oppose Disney.

Yes I know - which is why I said Disney would be the one to extend the olive branch... the act to initiate and signal a wish to reconcile...

Disney knows full well what the union did and the sides they chose... but Disney also knows the union isn't going anywhere... and they know the union has egg on it's face.

When your opposition is knocked down and deflated... being the one to help them back up is often a strong way to reconcile and move beyond the past transgressions.

 

[Stripes]

Ehh.. the lawsuits were already done. And of course Disney only sued after the state attacked the developer agreement... they can't sue for a contract being violated before it was Disney made a pre-emptive strike at the district level with the developer agreement... they fired the first shots.. just not in court.

. After the new district took over at the beginning of this mess, Vahle put out a statement that Disney sought to work with the new board on very friendly terms. Disney’s goal was never to continue this fight.

No, Disney still has to deal with the district, and whomever the state decides to sit there.. and all the 'how can they make life worse for disney' points are all still the same. Nothing that happened since RCID was torn down touched anything in the comprehensive plan that was in place and the only portion of the new developer agreement that really matters is it locks in new land management minimums for the property as a whole. Disney basically promised 8 billion dollars and capitulating in return to ensure they get to define the new TBD comprehensive plan like the old days... with their interests at the forefront.

Everything else is still as it was with the new District in power... the difference now is right now you have District management that is cooperating with Disney. It's just an example of how far things can swing based on the District's board... they can be completely antagonistic, or they can be completely submissive... all within the same structure.

Disney gets to lock up the master plan for the property - but everything else is still at the whim of the Governor because he can swap people to do whatever he pleases.

Disney promised to do things they were already going to do. It also doesn’t matter because even if Disney doesn’t do what they promised the district can’t prove otherwise until the development agreement expires anyway.

The board can’t do much of anything to antagonize Disney anymore. Disney was content to have the new board takeover with guardrails in place at the beginning of this mess.

And her job is only as secure as the Governor in office's latest itch. The anti-Disney stance of the last year plus was not because a rogue guy was hired as the district administrator... let's not forget that. Those people were just yes-men who were replaced just as fast as they were put in place when the agenda changed. That risk hasn't changed.

The Florida GOP are once again on Disney’s payroll. There is no risk so long as that continues.