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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Letting the clock run out for the next set of politicians to deal with it isn't an option. Well, it is an option but not a good one for anybody. The law was passed already, it has a hard deadline that's approaching. When it goes into effect, that effect has consequences. Letting the clock run out on that date means all of the consequences happen.

If all of those consequences were "bad for Disney and good for the politicians", then sure, that's totally what they would do. However, I think all the commentary here has shown what a total disaster it is for everyone to go with the current plan and nothing else. Those consequences are "bad for Disney, bad for politicians, bad for locals", basically bad for everyone.

Which leads to something is likely to be done. The something is still very much unclear.

My personal opinion is that if nothing changes and the law as passed happens, it's least bad for Disney vs all the others.

Almost like it was stupid and not thought out at all?

Nah…can’t be….

 

[lazyboy97o]

Another observation here. Disney not suing to keep RCID doesn't imply that they will not sue in the future about something else.

If RCID is dissolved (as current plan) and replaced with something new, and then that something new tries some novel new technique to collect money from Disney. It wouldn't surprise me to see Disney sue the new thing to say that the collection method isn't legal.

There’s a pretty good case to be made that the law doesn’t apply to Reedy Creek Improvement District, which means there is no standing to challenge the law.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I said state or federal court covering any of the possible legal challenges. I’m sure they will factor in the extra administrative burden as well, but as long as they maintain control (meaning the majority of board seats) the state appointed board members can’t really stop a project.

Why should the larger context be ignored and assumed not to occur?

 

[lazyboy97o]

From the same Variety article:

None of those scenarios is likely to come to pass, nor is the district going to be wiped off the map. Instead, the legislature is on track to create a successor agency that will lack some of the antiquated and unused powers of the original Reedy Creek district, like the ability to build an airport and a nuclear power plant.

This plan has emerged in public records obtained by Variety, and in interviews offered by Ben Watkins, the director of the state’s bond finance division.

As described by Watkins, the key difference would be the state-appointed board seats. Depending on who held the majority, the new board could be anything from a minor annoyance to a major headache. Park visitors and employees, though, might not notice any difference.

Either way, Disney – which has enjoyed sole control over the district for the last 55 years – would be sharing power with the state.

“Disney would take that happily,” predicted one Tallahassee insider.

Disney has its friends in the legislature and employs 38 lobbyists who can try to tilt the deal in its favor.

But if it can’t reach a legislative solution, the alternative is to file a First Amendment lawsuit. That could easily drag on for years, with no guarantee of success.

None of this relates to a binding and final agreement. Disney and the District can let people talk and then walk away when the time comes to actually commit. Entering into a negotiation is not a commitment.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The destruction of reedy creek would cause massive disruption to the city, the area around, the four counties, etc etc

What I think…and I’m using that term loosely…is they passed this and attacked Disney thinking somehow they could “compartmentalize” the grief to just them.

It was never possible. Quiet “hat in hand” stuff is going on - my guess.

Which is what that article GoofGoof posted leads to

 

[CntrlFlPete]

With the subject of energy being discussed, are the solar farms owned/operated by WDW or RCID? Just wondering

the newer farms are owned by Disney, designed and maintained by Oragis.

https://www.wesh.com/article/inside-look-walt-disney-world-s-solar-farm/27200762#

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

From the same Variety article:

None of those scenarios is likely to come to pass, nor is the district going to be wiped off the map. Instead, the legislature is on track to create a successor agency that will lack some of the antiquated and unused powers of the original Reedy Creek district, like the ability to build an airport and a nuclear power plant.

This plan has emerged in public records obtained by Variety, and in interviews offered by Ben Watkins, the director of the state’s bond finance division.

As described by Watkins, the key difference would be the state-appointed board seats. Depending on who held the majority, the new board could be anything from a minor annoyance to a major headache. Park visitors and employees, though, might not notice any difference.

Either way, Disney – which has enjoyed sole control over the district for the last 55 years – would be sharing power with the state.

“Disney would take that happily,” predicted one Tallahassee insider.

Disney has its friends in the legislature and employs 38 lobbyists who can try to tilt the deal in its favor.

But if it can’t reach a legislative solution, the alternative is to file a First Amendment lawsuit. That could easily drag on for years, with no guarantee of success.

Doesn’t that “arrangement” sound eerily like the current dynamic with the Anaheim city council?

Oh yeah…fire up the lawyers

 

[mmascari]

There’s a pretty good case to be made that the law doesn’t apply to Reedy Creek Improvement District, which means there is no standing to challenge the law.

If we play out that scenario, one or two lawsuits is likely.

First, by RCID against the state when the state tries to take action using the current law as the basis of that action. RCID suing the state that the action is not valid. This couldn't happen until some action takes place.

Second, by the state against RCID when RCID resists the state taking action based on the law. This also couldn't happen until the state tries to take an action.

Everyone should note that for both of those, Disney isn't involved, it's the RCID government. Additionally, neither is possible until someone tries to take an action using the law to create the conflict that needs resolution.

Either or both of these wouldn't surprise me.

 

[flynnibus]

It wouldn't at all.
The point is that RCID was created only to benefit Disney.
RCID is responsible for paying WDWs electric bill.
RCID is being dissolved and the Electric company is worried if the electric bill is going to be paid.

Your retelling of things is horrible

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Your retelling of things is horrible

I was thinking the same thing

RCID was created so they could create the largest entertainment complex ever…worth hundreds - at this point - of billions of dollars to the people of Florida

Yes. That matters.

It should also end this nonsense “discussion”

 

[Disstevefan1]

Your retelling of things is horrible

Thanks! Thats exactly my objective
Don't worry TWDC will be fine, it's just the locals who never visit WDW who will get screwed.

 

[mmascari]

From the same Variety article:

There's a certain amount of distance between Disney and politicians created through the use of lobbyists.

We talk very differently about employed executives and decision makers having discussions with politicians than we do about lobbyists for those companies having similar conversations. The results, actions, and commitment to topics covered in those conversations is very different based on the different participants too.

I agree the as-is current situation is not likely to be the final result. I think it's all in the legislature to make the next move, and we've seen them shutdown governments over disagreements before. So, inaction and ending up with the as-is isn't impossible, just unlikely.

Lots of discussion is about how we expect Disney or RCID to fight the elimination. But, there's another possibility too, Disney could simply fight all the of new details they don't like that are part of the replacement. They probably have much better standing for these types of battles too. They wouldn't even need to fight them based on the prior reasons but simply on the merits. So a new district is created, they could fight the new structure based on arguments of the impacted not being involved in the creation process. Or, they don't like the replacement funding, they could fight that based on the legality of creating a new taxing structure without any input from the taxed. Or, they could force that input and then vote it down (or vote for it if they like it). All of those types of suits have the advantage of being based purely in laws governing the creation of new districts and can completely avoid any link to first amendment reasons.

From the outside looking in, this is a significantly less satisfying resolution. From the inside, it's just more rows in that analysis spreadsheet.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I was thinking the same thing

RCID was created so they could create the largest entertainment complex ever…worth hundreds - at this point - of billions of dollars to the people of Florida

Yes. That matters.

It should also end this nonsense “discussion”

I love the, "billions of dollars to the people of Florida"
Tell that to the cast members on the food lines after they got laid off via email when the pandemic started.

The folks in Orange and Osceola counties (who never visit the parks) could really use a couple billion dollars to pay the bond debt that will be dumped on them after RCID is dissolved.

 

[mmascari]

I would hope Disney would care about third parties, like the local counties, but these are NOT their customers so the reality is they won't care, all they care about is not being stuck with the bill.

Are you suggesting Disney cares about it's customers?

From all the posts here, one get's the impression that's clearly not true.

Don't worry TWDC will be fine, it's just the locals who never visit WDW who will get screwed.

In the world of all possible ways this could resolve, this is clearly a possibility. Probably even a more likely one.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Are you suggesting Disney cares about it's customers?

From all the posts here, one get's the impression that's clearly not true.




In the world of all possible ways this could resolve, this is clearly a possibility. Probably even a more likely one.

Ture on both points -
Disney does not actually care about their customers, they just want their money.
And its most likely the locals will get screwed.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I love the, "billions of dollars to the people of Florida"
Tell that to the cast members on the food lines after they got laid off via email when the pandemic started.

The folks in Orange and Osceola counties (who never visit the parks) could really use a couple billion dollars to pay the bond debt that will be dumped on them after RCID is dissolved.

You want to debate that Disney employees should be paid double?

I have and will lead that charge with you.

But that doesn’t negate what I said.
And this move has ZERO to do with helping workers, residents, vendors or anything else.

They couldn’t even manage to make the standard false promise of better communities and schools. Which is easy and they’ve been too stupid to promise that.

 

[GoofGoof]

Why should the larger context be ignored and assumed not to occur?

Ignored by who? As I said multiple times now I’m sure all of the factors were included by Disney when determining a desired path forward. I’m sure they have a lists of wants and are working towards getting as much of their desired outcome as possible.

None of this relates to a binding and final agreement. Disney and the District can let people talk and then walk away when the time comes to actually commit. Entering into a negotiation is not a commitment.

who said it was a commitment or binding? As the article said both sides are talking and have been talking since roughly 2 weeks after the bill was passed. The reporting is that Disney is negotiating. They didn’t say what their asks were and they didn’t say the plan outlined was suggested by or agreed to by the Disney side. Either side could walk away.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Thanks! Thats exactly my objective
Don't worry TWDC will be fine, it's just the locals who never visit WDW who will get screwed.

Many of them have jobs there…they’re not screwed (in theory)
If they don’t and don’t have the means to pay now…it’s not in the cards.

And I don’t want it that way…but everyone keeps paying and it “raises the boat” to where many have already drown under it.


“I want to live at Disney!!” Is a mistake 19/20 times…and I may be conservative in that estimate. From vista way through retirement. Nobody lives in shangri la.

No vacancy at that Inn

 

[GoofGoof]

There's a certain amount of distance between Disney and politicians created through the use of lobbyists.

We talk very differently about employed executives and decision makers having discussions with politicians than we do about lobbyists for those companies having similar conversations. The results, actions, and commitment to topics covered in those conversations is very different based on the different participants too.

Agree 100%. I brought this up months ago and I was told by posters here there is no way negotiations could be ongoing or it would make the news. I think it was even referred to as super secret negotiations. These are common practice and could very well result in a quietly negotiated outcome or could result in absolutely nothing.

Lots of discussion is about how we expect Disney or RCID to fight the elimination. But, there's another possibility too, Disney could simply fight all the of new details they don't like that are part of the replacement. They probably have much better standing for these types of battles too. They wouldn't even need to fight them based on the prior reasons but simply on the merits. So a new district is created, they could fight the new structure based on arguments of the impacted not being involved in the creation process. Or, they don't like the replacement funding, they could fight that based on the legality of creating a new taxing structure without any input from the taxed. Or, they could force that input and then vote it down (or vote for it if they like it). All of those types of suits have the advantage of being based purely in laws governing the creation of new districts and can completely avoid any link to first amendment reasons.

From the outside looking in, this is a significantly less satisfying resolution. From the inside, it's just more rows in that analysis spreadsheet.

I agree with this too. The state ultimately probably has to play ball and give Disney most of what it wants if it wants to setup a replacement district. It’s not as sensational as a big court showdown and not as satisfying for those whose desired outcome is to see a political victory, but a political victory is not likely to be Disney’s top priority at this point.

 

[mmascari]

Agree 100%. I brought this up months ago and I was told by posters here there is no way negotiations could be ongoing or it would make the news. I think it was even referred to as super secret negotiations. These are common practice and could very well result in a quietly negotiated outcome or could result in absolutely nothing.

The lobbyists are super common.

If a Disney executive with decision making ability was talking with someone from the legislature, that would totally be news with lots of stories. That's the scenario I doubt is happening.

There's no way just a lobbyist can commit Disney to any plan. It's the difference between me getting the PTA to lobby the school for changes to my kids classroom and me talking to the school directly and negotiating a change where I buy all the fundraiser sales this year.

I agree with this too. The state ultimately probably has to play ball and give Disney most of what it wants if it wants to setup a replacement district. It’s not as sensational as a big court showdown and not as satisfying for those whose desired outcome is to see a political victory, but a political victory is not likely to be Disney’s top priority at this point.

Sort of. My guess is Disney's number one goal is not having to deal with politicians creating laws based on Disney content. With keeping politicians as far away from what content Disney produces and how they manage their employee relations. Whatever achieves this goal the best, that's what Disney is likely to do. So, they're clearly not going to just give in, unless giving in creates the best outcome for Disney.

It doesn't' have to be a huge public fight worthy of popcorn followed by a documentary and star filled movie adaptation (produced by Disney) to achieve this.

I think we're seeing that it will be a slow mostly silent process where the legislature realizes the hole they've dug and works to find a way out that Disney is willing to accept without the legislature loosing to much face.