asianway
Well-Known Member
Yes you can develop wetlands if you restore them somewhere else as an offset. And get the proper permits...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Bob Iger at WDW now ... BoD to Follow?
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
danlb_2000
Premium Member
The suitability of the land isn't arbitrary, it's based on it's physical characteristics, so you can't suddenly say something is not wetlands when it is. What you can do is use lands in another area to offset the impacts you will make to the wetlands in they are you want to build.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
That is not capitalism then. Bribes are more closer to crony capitalism.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Uh, no. Bribes are a part of overly beauracratic systems where they become inevitable as does corruption. In truly free market economies they are not necessary.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Disney is the local government official and Disney is Reedy Creek. They can do what they want, when they want with only the slightest of faux motions that make it all look legit. That was Walt's brain child, and it has served them well. As long as they trade off one wet land for another they keep the image of responsible government, but, other then massive piles of paperwork, it is all pretty much rubber stampable.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
In 44 years, no attraction has successfully pulled guests away from the Magic Kingdom, why would you think that will change?
Hula Popper
Well-Known Member
Oy vey.
Cesar R M
Well-Known Member
they are still part of the "Neoliberal Capitalism". Which pretty much says "screw regulations, governments and anyone who stands in our way".
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Frozen has not affected the crowd dynamic at MK whatsoever. In fact, MK is busier than ever. (32% Peak Crowds, YTD. 64/199 Days. For comparisons sake, MK Pulled 14%, 52 days for all of last year)
If anything, the rash of peak attendance days in the past two months seem to be drawing from DAK mostly and some from Epcot.
Do you think in the history of WDW Co. that it never once has engaged in knowingly illegal behavior?
Matt_Black
Well-Known Member
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Frozen, Star Wars, Pixar, Pandora, nighttime DAK, DHS 2.0 and "Soarin' 2: Goin' Global", have never been added to the mix in the way they soon will be.
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
It's a far point... expect Epcot to be affected.
mahnamahna101
Well-Known Member
Which is why massive expansion over the next 20-25 yrs is a must once the other 3 are up to par.
Every expansion pad should have a plan for it, and be prepped for potential construction. Get the infrastructure ready so there isn't hoops to jump through when expanding.
FullSailDan
Well-Known Member
Unsuitable as shown in that map really just means that specific land or the surrounding areas would need considerable alteration to be build able. It may be for a variety of reasons, lack of easy access to power, water or drainage, it might be a flood zone, it might have significant foliage that would need to be razed, it also might have poor soil conditions, etc. RCID aims to push construction into the other areas deemed "suitable for urban use", but of course civil engineering as a profession exists for a reason...
Edit: words
danlb_2000
Premium Member
The problem is, will these things also draw more people to WDW in general, which could offset the people being pulled away from MK to the other parks. I would bet that 99% of the people who take a vacation at WDW will spend at least some time at MK, so anything that draws more people to WDW is going to cause in increase in MK attendance even if those things are in other parks.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
This is not entirely true. Any changes to have an impact on storm water management have to be approved by the South Florida Water Management district and that approval is not always a rubber stamp. Disney put in a permit almost a year ago to allow them to impact more wetlands and it's still waiting to be approved.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
That is a great question. Maybe, but I do not have this evidence so I would rather not accuse a company of doing so until I see otherwise.
dumboflyer
Well-Known Member
The "government bribes" discussion is both off-topic and highly political. Find a way to weave in a comparison with how well Universal bribes officials and @PhotoDave219 will have to send out the hit squad on you.
To the point of the RCID 2020 suitability map: thank you to those who correctly pointed out the difference between land that has been "designated" or "preserved" as wetlands vs. land that is more or less suitable for commercial construction. HUGE difference. And has also been correctly pointed out, even when lands are "designated" or "preserved", this is a fluid concept. Disney can usually designate something else (connected to the current WDW property or not) to offset if they want to develop what they have. This is very common, and not just for Disney. I believe last November they bought another 3,000 acres (just under 5 sq miles) near Kissimmee to help offset WDW development.
As far as suitability goes, this is also a very fluid concept. This photo is of the Magic Kingdom/Bay Lake/7 Seas Lagoon in 1947:
http://www.clemson.edu/ces/geolk12/semaps/sites/jpeg/10aflpen/10a9.html
I wonder how "suitable" the RCID survey would have classified the MK lands back then. Or the monorail resorts. Regardless, they wanted MK there and were willing to spend the money to make the site suitable. I'm sure that if TWDC ran the numbers and determined that the benefit to placement of a park/resort/whatever in a "green" area outweighed the costs of making that area "suitable", it would get done.
To the point of the RCID 2020 suitability map: thank you to those who correctly pointed out the difference between land that has been "designated" or "preserved" as wetlands vs. land that is more or less suitable for commercial construction. HUGE difference. And has also been correctly pointed out, even when lands are "designated" or "preserved", this is a fluid concept. Disney can usually designate something else (connected to the current WDW property or not) to offset if they want to develop what they have. This is very common, and not just for Disney. I believe last November they bought another 3,000 acres (just under 5 sq miles) near Kissimmee to help offset WDW development.
As far as suitability goes, this is also a very fluid concept. This photo is of the Magic Kingdom/Bay Lake/7 Seas Lagoon in 1947:
http://www.clemson.edu/ces/geolk12/semaps/sites/jpeg/10aflpen/10a9.html
I wonder how "suitable" the RCID survey would have classified the MK lands back then. Or the monorail resorts. Regardless, they wanted MK there and were willing to spend the money to make the site suitable. I'm sure that if TWDC ran the numbers and determined that the benefit to placement of a park/resort/whatever in a "green" area outweighed the costs of making that area "suitable", it would get done.
dizneycrazy09
Well-Known Member
What I think it ultimately comes down to is that people are going to absolutely FLOOD WDW for it's 50th anniversary. It's obviously something that's going to be heavily promoted, and it's a once in a lifetime event for so many WDW fanatics. Management has to realize that with the capacity issues they're facing now with no significant event or new attractions opened they must start drastically increasing capacity to deal with the undoubtedly HUGE crowds WDW will be seeing in about five years. I believe we'll be seeing quite a bit of money flowing into the parks over the next five years, not because anyone in the company wants to spend money down in the swamps, but simply because they absolutely have to. They literally have no choice but to spend at this point.