Four Seasons Land Deal

[jt04]

1. Already in the works.
2. Not Needed.
3. Don't count on Disney building anything but DVC for a while.

1. Kinda sorta but not really :brick:
2. Guests opinions not important :zipit:
3. Oh I am not so naive as to think they will do anything other than what it takes to keep stock holders at bay. Guests are now commodities.:hammer:

Question: At what point will Disney be compelled to change the name of WDW to something else as the property continues to be sold, rented and leased away to non-Disney companies? :hurl:

 

[captainkidd]

1. Already in the works.
2. Not Needed.
3. Don't count on Disney building anything but DVC for a while.

Judging by the crowds at the water parks from March - September, I'd say a 3rd one would be helpful.

 

[devoy1701]

I would like to remind you of the history of the Walt Disney Resort, especially the original plans for the land. The Magic Kingdom was the only park planned, and that was the only part that was supposed to change the mistakes of Disneyland. The rest of the property was supposed to be designed and created as a city where the leasing and selling of land would create a beautiful and wonderful living environment. Disney was going to sell land for homes, businesses, and industry, but they were going to control building codes, etc.

How does this Four Seasons deal change any of the original thoughts on Disney World? The answer is "it does not." Disney saw where they were lacking, and found a great partner to accomplish a goal. Disney will still have tight control on what Four Seasons does with the property, and will create a beautiful, relaxing, lush resort. This is closer to Disney's original plan than building more theme parks.

Your bold statement is incorrect. An important aspect of the original plans for Walt Disney World that the city of EPCOT was to be owned and operated by the Walt Disney Company with and businesses sponsoring and leasing the office/retail space within its limits. It was to be a showcase for american innovention. At no time was the plan to build the city and sell it off to companies who came to it. It was always going to be disney owned. Hence a BIG difference between the original plans and the Four Seasons deal.

Now I have a general question that is partially directed towards Yoda. Do contracts like this one taking place between Four Seasons and the Disney Co become available to the public? (I haven't had all too much experience with real estate transactions yet :lookaroun).

 

[captainkidd]

I
How does this Four Seasons deal change any of the original thoughts on Disney World? The answer is "it does not." Disney saw where they were lacking, and found a great partner to accomplish a goal. Disney will still have tight control on what Four Seasons does with the property, and will create a beautiful, relaxing, lush resort. This is closer to Disney's original plan than building more theme parks.

My assumption is Walt didn't purchase all that land just to sell it off at a later time for a profit. Could be wrong, but judging by what I've read and seen, that was not his intention.

Granted, many (actually, most) of what WDW has become was not Walt's original intention. We all know that. However, we all also know that the most important thing to him seemed to be seperating his Disney World from the outside world.

 

[Master Yoda]

Judging by the crowds at the water parks from March - September, I'd say a 3rd one would be helpful.

But would it be profitable? My guess is no otherwise either River country would still be open or another water park would either already be built or in the works.

 

[Master Yoda]

Your bold statement is incorrect. An important aspect of the original plans for Walt Disney World that the city of EPCOT was to be owned and operated by the Walt Disney Company with and businesses sponsoring and leasing the office/retail space within its limits. It was to be a showcase for american innovention. At no time was the plan to build the city and sell it off to companies who came to it. It was always going to be disney owned. Hence a BIG difference between the original plans and the Four Seasons deal.

Now I have a general question that is partially directed towards Yoda. Do contracts like this one taking place between Four Seasons and the Disney Co become available to the public? (I haven't had all too much experience with real estate transactions yet :lookaroun).

In this case it looks like some of the details of the agreement might be public record. It is 316 pages so it will take a bit of time to download and I have yet to go through this document to see what if any meat there is pertaining to the current subject.

http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagleweb/viewAttachment.jsp?docName=20080491301&id=DOC283S20629.A0&parent=DOC283S20629

 

[devoy1701]

In this case it looks like some of the details of the agreement might be public record. It is 316 pages so it will take a bit of time to download and I have yet to go through this document to see what if any meat there is pertaining to the current subject.

http://or.occompt.com/recorder/eagl...491301&id=DOC283S20629.A0&parent=DOC283S20629

holy legal babble! That is quite a document! I don't have much time to read it right now but i did skim over most of the pages. There is some interesting language between pages 58 and 85. Page 147 has a map of the exact piece of property in question and the next 50 pages or so are supplement maps including some detailed layouts of the residential area. The last couple pages are basically homeowners regulations...pretty strict neighborhood. We also don't have to worry about any bars (except in the hotel), bowling allies or strip clubs going up!

 

[hokielutz]

holy legal babble! That is quite a document! I don't have much time to read it right now but i did skim over most of the pages. There is some interesting language between pages 58 and 85. Page 147 has a map of the exact piece of property in question and the next 50 pages or so are supplement maps including some detailed layouts of the residential area. The last couple pages are basically homeowners regulations...pretty strict neighborhood. We also don't have to worry about any bars (except in the hotel), bowling allies or strip clubs going up!

That's right.... The Bowling Alley, all 100 lanes is going to be build at the WWOS property.

 

[yankspy]

holy legal babble! That is quite a document! I don't have much time to read it right now but i did skim over most of the pages. There is some interesting language between pages 58 and 85. Page 147 has a map of the exact piece of property in question and the next 50 pages or so are supplement maps including some detailed layouts of the residential area. The last couple pages are basically homeowners regulations...pretty strict neighborhood. We also don't have to worry about any bars (except in the hotel), bowling allies or strip clubs going up!

Care to elaborate? Is it interesting enough to ease some concerns? I guess I should read it as well.

 

[devoy1701]

Care to elaborate? Is it interesting enough to ease some concerns? I guess I should read it as well.

heh heh...no I cannot elaborate... I can tell it pertains in part to what we are talking about here but I cannot completely figure out yet EXACTLY what it is saying! I just glanced over the pages real quick (got too much work to do!) and legal documents need much more than a quick glance. But it does pertain to the rules and stipulations of the land transaction including annexation and deannexation of the land. What I haven't had time to figure out is if it is just pertaining to the transaction itself or for the whole period of Four Seasons ownership.

And judging by what I have read...it's not so much that Disney will have an active say in the design plans of the property but that they have set MANY regulations, stipulations, codes, conducts, etc that have been predetermined in order for this sale to be complete.

Also before page 58 the document outlines all of the language and rules within the document. There were some key ones I picked up on as important to this discussion but I didn't take note of the pages. And basically from about page 50 to 140 all of the guidelines for the general property. The rest is split into more detailed plans for each segment of the property.

 

[freedogshampoo]

According to the restrictions:

They're allowed to put up a liquor store as long as it is in the hotel

no gun ranges :brick:

Only Disney owned or approved Vacation Planning or Attraction materials

Only Disney owned/approved Cruise Ship Materials (provided that Disney continues to own/lisense cruise ships under the Disney name).

No recreational vehicle campgrounds

No flea markets or junk yards (it's interesting how specific this paper gets..)

No establishment that sells, rents, distributes.."adult entertainment". including "sexually explicit games, toys, devices" :ROFLOL: although it seems that access to these materials via personal computers is allowed.

 

[bdinger]

When this was first announced, I believe the plan was to de-annex the land from Reedy Creek. The land being sold would then come under the control of Orange County.

I'll have to read the document posted above, but by turning control of this land over to Orange County, I don't see how Disney can have any say in what can and cannot be developed on it.

 

[Master Yoda]

When this was first announced, I believe the plan was to de-annex the land from Reedy Creek. The land being sold would then come under the control of Orange County.

I'll have to read the document posted above, but by turning control of this land over to Orange County, I don't see how Disney can have any say in what can and cannot be developed on it.

There are multiple pages of restrictions in that 300 + page document. Disney has drastically limited what can be done with that property all the way down to what promotional material can be displayed in the resort.

 

[jt04]

There are multiple pages of restrictions in that 300 + page document. Disney has drastically limited what can be done with that property all the way down to what promotional material can be displayed in the resort.

Whether we like it or not part of WDW has been "amputated" and that is a shame. :brick:

 

[Master Yoda]

Whether we like it or not part of WDW has been "amputated" and that is a shame. :brick:

It all depends on your perspective. IMHO they remove an eye and replaced it with a superior bionic one.

*cue 6 million dollar man music*

 

[devoy1701]

I still oppose your view on this one Yoda. I understand your logic in it, but I still don't think that selling a piece of the property, no matter how much they got for it and what the stipulations are, was the right thing to do. Walt didn't go through all of the trouble of aquiring 27,500 acres (and he would have bought more if he had the money) just to have it sold off for other companies to develop. That is why Spectroman statement about the original idea of EPCOT was also incorrect. The idea of the WDW Resort was always for the Disney Co to retain complete control of the complex. This is probably also why Eisney decided to offer a lease of the land for the Swan & Dolphin Resorts instead of selling it to the developers. It is ALSO why the Disney Co has made numerous attempts to purchase the Bonnett Creek property.

 

[Master Yoda]

I still oppose your view on this one Yoda. I understand your logic in it, but I still don't think that selling a piece of the property, no matter how much they got for it and what the stipulations are, was the right thing to do. Walt didn't go through all of the trouble of aquiring 27,500 acres (and he would have bought more if he had the money) just to have it sold off for other companies to develop. That is why Spectroman statement about the original idea of EPCOT was also incorrect. The idea of the WDW Resort was always for the Disney Co to retain complete control of the complex. This is probably also why Eisney decided to offer a lease of the land for the Swan & Dolphin Resorts instead of selling it to the developers. It is ALSO why the Disney Co has made numerous attempts to purchase the Bonnett Creek property.

I am not saying that Disney should go off selling property whilly nilly to any Tom, D.ic.k and Harry, but in this case I feel it was the right move. I am sure that Disney started with the lease option but bottom line the 4 seasons did not need Disney, Disney needed the 4 seasons and I have a feeling that 4 seasons knew that. They were in a much better position to dictate terms than the owners of Swan and Dolphin were.

Could this deal set a bad president....absolutely, but I have a feeling that this will be a one shot deal. The only way I see something like this happening again is if the 4 seasons resort greatly exceeds Disney's projections.

 

[Computer Magic]

I am not saying that Disney should go off selling property whilly nilly to any Tom, D.ic.k and Harry, but in this case I feel it was the right move. I am sure that Disney started with the lease option but bottom line the 4 seasons did not need Disney, Disney needed the 4 seasons and I have a feeling that 4 seasons knew that. They were in a much better position to dictate terms than the owners of Swan and Dolphin were.

Could this deal set a bad president....absolutely, but I have a feeling that this will be a one shot deal. The only way I see something like this happening again is if the 4 seasons resort greatly exceeds Disney's projections.

Help me understand, you keep saying Disney needed the 4 Seasons? I don't see that. Unless the 4 Season's is treated exactly the same as Disney resort (EMH, transportation, connect walking path, dining plan, able use restraurants from dining plan), I don't see a benefit. What am I missing?

Maybe is old school thinking, but I don't like the idea of Disney selling property that Walt bought.

 

[MousDad]

Help me understand, you keep saying Disney needed the 4 Seasons? I don't see that. Unless the 4 Season's is treated exactly the same as Disney resort (EMH, transportation, connect walking path, dining plan, able use restraurants from dining plan), I don't see a benefit. What am I missing?

I think what Yoda is saying is that Disney has nothing that would remotely compare to the product 4 Seasons could offer, and they have no desire to create such a product themselves, but they do have a desire to profit off the customer base that such a product would bring in. Yoda, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Master Yoda]

Help me understand, you keep saying Disney needed the 4 Seasons? I don't see that. Unless the 4 Season's is treated exactly the same as Disney resort (EMH, transportation, connect walking path, dining plan, able use restraurants from dining plan), I don't see a benefit. What am I missing?

Maybe is old school thinking, but I don't like the idea of Disney selling property that Walt bought.

Disney has wanted/needed a 5 star resort for quite some time. It is a lucrative market currently going off property. Due to various reasons (primarily the name Disney) Disney will never to be able to create a 5 star resort on their own. Due to the 4 seasons reputation the resort they create is all but guaranteed to be an instant 5 star resort. While the details have not been released there is no reason to think that the 4 seasons will not get all of the aforementioned Disney resort benefits (ie transportation, EMH, etc)