Disney buys 1000 acres of land

[Animaniac93-98]

I love Universal, but for them to compete with Disney it starts with the movies. And they’re absolutely not in the same league as Disney at making good ones.

I’m attached to Disney as I grew up on Disney, and continue to enjoy their films. I don’t have 10% of that attachment to Universal.

Universal can spend a fortune and not overcome Disney for this reason alone. I still hope Disney reacts though. They’ll be spooked by higher hotel occupancy at Universal....I admit the gap will be reduced if they go family friendly for gate 3.

Many of the movies featured at UOR are not made or released by Universal. Nintendo is evidence that, for a price, they can have the rights to many different things.

 

[Stripes]

No, nothing to do with the value of the land.

Yeah, just did a little research. It seems to be largely determined by how much the wetland area set aside is improved and how much is set aside.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

If uni builds 2 more parks Disney will be forced to build one.

 

[Rodan75]

I’m not desperate for any fifth gate as there’s plenty of room for expansion of the existing parks. There’s even more room within existing parks for expansion than even a fifth gate would bring.

But, I don’t understand how a fifth gate is very different from an equally large expansion of existing parks. What makes one plausible and the other prohibitive?

I'm assuming all of the administrative infrastructure that would also go into a 5th Gate. From an attraction by attraction perspective I think you are correct, but when you look at all of the overhead a new park would demand is where things get more expensive.

 

[monothingie]

This is probably a question for @danlb_2000 .

Does the value of the land set aside for conservation have an effect on how much they’re allowed to develop, or is it just how much land is set aside?

I ask because Mira Lago was $11.5 million for 3,000 acres versus this purchase which was $23 million for 965 acres.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt the value has anything to do with it.

So it's not exactly an 1:1 exchange. It seems like it's based on the deal worked out with the State of Florida. What was interesting about Mira Lago was that even though they purchased 3000 acres, the exchange deal worked out to about 350 acres of wetland which could be developed. Prior to that in 1992 the nearby Disney Wilderness Preserve took 12000 acres and allowed for the development of 650 acres of wetland (Around the time Animal Kingdom broke ground?) So it may be safe to assume for this transaction, the offset exchange would probably be less than 100 acres of developable land.

The prices look to be around market rate at about $24000/acre.

 

[andysol]

Tap the breaks everyone.

1) This is not a 1:1 land transfer

2) It is approx a 3:1 transfer. Example: The 3k acres became 330 useable acres for WDW. Based on the usage of the current 965 acres, this will give WDW 110-130 acres, just enough for resorts. 1000% not another gate.

3) The side benefit of this purchase is it is next to a major development area, so Disney can stop more hotels from being built/competing.

Note: @monothingie just posted a similar statement.

 

[monothingie]

Tap the breaks everyone.

1) This is not a 1:1 land transfer

2) It is approx a 3:1 transfer. Example: The 3k acres became 330 useable acres for WDW. Based on the usage of the current 965 acres, this will give WDW 110-130 acres, just enough for resorts. 1000% not another gate.

3) The side benefit of this purchase is it is next to a major development area, so Disney can stop more hotels from being built/competing.

Note: @monothingie just posted a similar statement.

And it's nice PR to say that Disney cares about conservation......so that they can clearcut their own property to build DVC Resorts.

 

[po1998]

Yes, there is very little chance of a 5th gate any time soon for a variety of reasons.

Variety of reasons starting with...

1 - DHS additions needed
2 - DHS additions needed
3 - EPCOT additions needed
4 - EPCOT additions needed
5 - AK additions needed
6 - MK additions needed

 

[MisterPenguin]

3) The side benefit of this purchase is it is next to a major development area, so Disney can stop more hotels from being built/competing.

Concur.

Disney seems to be concerned about housing in the area... and profiting from it is gravy.

Recent history shows Disney wants to direct the growth of housing with both very high end Golden Oaks for the high rollers and affordable Flamingo Crossing apartments for their work force. The last thing the area needs, or Disney wants, is a whole bunch more of 3rd party hotels in the area.

So, this purchase may be simply conservation offsets, or, it may be a future Disney-controlled housing project. Either way, it keeps out more 3rd party developers horning into Disney's hotels and housing projects.

 

[donnylambb]

its 10 miles away from WDW. I don't think this will be associated with the parks.

 

[Dunston]

It is so outrageous that a company can make a twenty-three million dollar purchase, with the most likely reason being "just because."

 

[peter11435]

It is so outrageous that a company can make a twenty-three million dollar purchase, with the most likely reason being "just because."

That’s not really the most likely reason.

 

[peter11435]

its 10 miles away from WDW. I don't think this will be associated with the parks.

Definitely will not be part of WDW. But it can be associated with Walt Disney World park and resort expansion via land use mitigation.

 

[Tom P.]

It is so outrageous that a company can make a twenty-three million dollar purchase, with the most likely reason being "just because."

Okay, I'll bite. Why is that outrageous?

 

[jt04]

This has to be fake news because I have been assured TDO was too cheap to buy set asides for future expansion. We were told they only sell chunks of WDW.

 

[danlb_2000]

its 10 miles away from WDW. I don't think this will be associated with the parks.

Yes, it's pretty much agreed that this is for conservation offset, not development.

 

[danlb_2000]

This has to be fake news because I have been assured TDO was too cheap to buy set asides for future expansion. We were told they only sell chunks of WDW.

Why don't you just give up your tired routine of trying to discredit anyone who ever said something that didn't actually turn out to be true.

 

[Dunston]

Okay, I'll bite. Why is that outrageous?

The enormous amount of capital they can through around like that is crazy

 

[Stripes]

2) It is approx a 3:1 transfer. Example: The 3k acres became 330 useable acres for WDW. Based on the usage of the current 965 acres, this will give WDW 110-130 acres, just enough for resorts. 1000% not another gate.

It's not necessarily 1/3. There's no pre-set ratio. How much land can be developed is determined by a UMAM assessment on an individual, case-by-case basis.

 

[Tom P.]

The enormous amount of capital they can through around like that is crazy

Perhaps. But with a market capitalization approaching $200 billion and cash on hand at any time of several billion dollars, a $23 million purchase is like you or I going to McDonald's to get an order of fries. It just isn't significant to their bottom line.