George K to Replace Meg Crofton as WDW head in early 2013

[COProgressFan]

If you are correct, and I have no reason to think otherwise, then I'll suggest one of two possibilities as the REAL reason. One, them buying at Golden Oak was a publicity stunt for the company. Two, Andy (who is quite particular about things) decided he had no desire to live in the middle of a theme park/timeshare resort with neighbors who are only there for vacations.

There is no legit reason for any conflict of interest since Disney deannexed the land and isn't building the homes. Even if that were not the case, I can't think of any legit conflict here.

I didn't understand the "conflict of interest" either. That just doesn't make any sense.

In any case, if true, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. Obviously the original Golden Oak location was a PR move, but I can't imagine George actually wanting to live there especially if he plans on "retiring" when his contract is up.

Edit: OP clarified the potential conflict. Still, it seems like a stretch to me.

 

[Tim_4]

I didn't understand the "conflict of interest" either. That just doesn't make any sense.

In any case, if true, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. Obviously the original Golden Oak location was a PR move, but I can't imagine George actually wanting to live there especially if he plans on "retiring" when his contract is up.

The neighborhood is controlled by the Golden Oak Non-Residential Association. Disney has full control of the Non-Residential Association (either three fifths of the board of directors, or four sevenths, I forget). Therefore, Disney can make decisions concerning the neighborhood's management. Thus, GK could have potentially run into issues where his best interest as a homeowner was not in the best interest of the shareholders.

He very much intended on living there "for real."

 

[WDW1974]

The neighborhood is controlled by the Golden Oak Non-Residential Association. Disney has full control of the Non-Residential Association (either three fifths of the board of directors, or four sevenths, I forget). Therefore, Disney can make decisions concerning the neighborhood's management. Thus, GK could have potentially run into issues where his best interest as a homeowner was not in the best interest of the shareholders.

That's very interesting. But I still call it an excuse. Bottom line is George's contract runs until 1/31/16 at which point he will be the ancient (by Disney standards) age of 62 and done with Disney. Considering how long it takes to build one of these mini-mansions, I'd suggest that at most there might be an 18-month window with him working for the company. I really can't imagine what kind of conflict could possibly arise that he'd be involved in. ... I do think it is a convenient excuse, though. And thanks for the info.

 

[asianway]

That's very interesting. But I still call it an excuse. Bottom line is George's contract runs until 1/31/16 at which point he will be the ancient (by Disney standards) age of 62 and done with Disney. Considering how long it takes to build one of these mini-mansions, I'd suggest that at most there might be an 18-month window with him working for the company. I really can't imagine what kind of conflict could possibly arise that he'd be involved in. ... I do think it is a convenient excuse, though. And thanks for the info.

The same type of conflict exists if a CM owns DVC and I know several on Karl's payroll who own, none as high profile but a CM is a CM

 

[flynnibus]

Having been involved with plenty of HOA stuff... I find the conflict mentioned here pretty trivial. The developer controlling the association is standard fare for every subdivision until typically there is enough of a build out that the residents get enough seats, and usually, ultimately the majority of the director chairs. The funny thing is the very notion of this is a bit of a conflict to start with. The reason for the developer maintaining control so strictly is because they are trying to SELL HOMES - they aren't acting in the interest of the homeowners, but themselves anyway. The reason the developers get out of being on the board is because they no longer have a vested interest in the community.. so they free up their resources and move on.

If people cared about this... boards would be staffed with independents until the resident population is sufficientenough.. but that doesn't happen.

And most builders I know.. live in developments they built

Objectivity and HOAs don't really coexist when we are talking about developers

 

[Tim_4]

Having been involved with plenty of HOA stuff... I find the conflict mentioned here pretty trivial. The developer controlling the association is standard fare for every subdivision until typically there is enough of a build out that the residents get enough seats, and usually, ultimately the majority of the director chairs. The funny thing is the very notion of this is a bit of a conflict to start with. The reason for the developer maintaining control so strictly is because they are trying to SELL HOMES - they aren't acting in the interest of the homeowners, but themselves anyway. The reason the developers get out of being on the board is because they no longer have a vested interest in the community.. so they free up their resources and move on.

If people cared about this... boards would be staffed with independents until the resident population is sufficientenough.. but that doesn't happen.

And most builders I know.. live in developments they built

Objectivity and HOAs don't really coexist when we are talking about developers

The Golden Oak HOA is a separate organization from the Non-Residential Association. All the HOA does is collect fees. The Non-Residential Association has all the power, and the board will be controlled by Disney, with a few members from Four Seasons, always and forever. Control will never pass to the homeowners.

The same type of conflict exists if a CM owns DVC and I know several on Karl's payroll who own, none as high profile but a CM is a CM

That's not the same. For example, a Director or above and certain lower managers have restrictions on buying and selling Disney stock, while the person working PhotoPass on Main Street can trade all day long. The key criterion is whether you can exert significant influence on the organization.

That's very interesting. But I still call it an excuse. Bottom line is George's contract runs until 1/31/16 at which point he will be the ancient (by Disney standards) age of 62 and done with Disney. Considering how long it takes to build one of these mini-mansions, I'd suggest that at most there might be an 18-month window with him working for the company. I really can't imagine what kind of conflict could possibly arise that he'd be involved in. ... I do think it is a convenient excuse, though. And thanks for the info.

Are you suggesting it was GK's excuse or Disney's?

 

[flynnibus]

The Golden Oak HOA is a separate organization from the Non-Residential Association. All the HOA does is collect fees. The Non-Residential Association has all the power, and the board will be controlled by Disney, with a few members from Four Seasons, always and forever. Control will never pass to the homeowners.

Thx for that.. a tidbit about the setup for those interested.. (from a GO flyer..)
http://finehomes-orlando.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/At-a-Glance-2011-2.pdf

Looking at this.. they are setting up with some of the same homeowner traps that some of the developers up here did. Again, all within the developer control and the residents get stuck with them. Like.. a 75 year EXCLUSIVE contract to provide phone/internet/cable. A sweetheart deal for the developer.. a ball and chain for the homeowners.

edit: just to clarify the 75yr example is up here.. not Golden Oaks. But GO does have the same type of bundled service rolled into their dues apparently.

 

[WDW1974]

Are you suggesting it was GK's excuse or Disney's?

Either or.

I could easily see George and Andy taking one for the team ... I can also see them having severe second thoughts about owning a home there.

Pre-Andy and after they were together, George had options to live in Celebration (where many Disney execs including Al Weiss bought) and he opted for Bay Hill. He's a smart guy and knows that Disney real estate is never a value.

 

[TP2000]

I just can't imagine living in the same place you work, personally. I have been emotionally and professionally committed to several big companies in my time, but when I go home I want to leave the company behind. I can't imagine working at Boeing all day, and then driving 10 minutes to my Boeing-owned subdivision filled with other Boeing employees who obey the Boeing-controlled homeowners association.

I don't blame George Kalogridis one bit for getting off of the plantation and buying a house on non-Disney property for he and his partner. It sounds like a much healthier way to live to me.

 

[Clever Name]

I just can't imagine living in the same place you work, personally. I have been emotionally and professionally committed to several big companies in my time, but when I go home I want to leave the company behind. I can't imagine working at Boeing all day, and then driving 10 minutes to my Boeing-owned subdivision filled with other Boeing employees who obey the Boeing-controlled homeowners association.

I don't blame George Kalogridis one bit for getting off of the plantation and buying a house on non-Disney property for he and his partner. It sounds like a much healthier way to live to me.

Just imagine if Walt's version of EPCOT would have come to fruition. It would have been a nightmare for the employees.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Just imagine if Walt's version of EPCOT would have come to fruition. It would have been a nightmare for the employees.

Not really, I doubt that anyone would have been able to live there due to the cost of housing. Walt wasn't anymore generous with his employees then present management is.

 

[nytimez]

Not really, I doubt that anyone would have been able to live there due to the cost of housing. Walt wasn't anymore generous with his employees then present management is.

Wasn't the point of EPCOT - Walt's EPCOT - was that to live there, you had to work there?

 

[Goofyernmost]

Wasn't the point of EPCOT - Walt's EPCOT - was that to live there, you had to work there?

There were a lot of flaws in Walt's plan. He may have had that in his mind but he wasn't being realistic about how the residents would be able to afford it, unless he thought of it as company housing. Which he might have, we will never know. When people have a lot of money, which he did at that time, it is harder to imagine how difficult it is to live. He and spirit tend to forget what the other 99% have to deal with.