The prior board wasn’t privately appointed. It was elected by those it governs. It was was accountable to those it governed and could be replaced by the governed through elections.
I just don't think it's a helpful angle to take. It insinuates some sort of misconduct on the part of the previous board that was literally never alleged as part of this takeover, even by the folks perpetrating it. The rationale for the takeover was clearly stated, so why cast aspersions where none existed?
We're splitting hairs, but, I mostly agree with you, they are not the same, nor was that the implication.
It’s not splitting hairs though, it’s fundamental to the structure of the district. The shorthand that treats the former district board, or the district itself as if they’re the same as Disney is the one that’s incorrect. It’s a lazy shorthand that creates a false impression.
I think that for decades the Disney/RCID configuration has been criticized by both political sides. This is really nothing new. It just seems that politicians eventually wound up grumbling and mumbling as they looked the other way. For decades, Disney did a REALLY good job of quieting both sides and keeping PEACE with the politicians and THAT went a really long way at keeping the status quo secure.
This is a heavily skewed and generally false analysis of the situation.
Fair enough but that's the way I see it from my perspective. (for whatever it's worth)
But this isn't what happened. At all. Politicians didn't look the other way. They reviewed the situation whenever it was brought forward, and they determined time and again that the district was being run effectively as intended within the terms of the charter. You keep suggesting that there is something wrong with Disney's arrangement with RCID and that favors, hush money, or some delicate balance of political appeasement was necessary to keep it in place.
What were the issues criticized?
War flag? That’s quite a stretch to most people. There was one point they did not agree with And they made it known. If they wanted to instigate, there’s dozens of things they could have questioned and antagonized. They did not. They spoke out on one subject because they (along with many others) see it as a human rights violation.
I doubt they care about a handful of people chasing their tails as long as no one is being outrageous.
RCID didn't always just rubber stamp what Disney wanted. There were a few times RCID said no, due to environmental concerns
This is a major point - Reedy Creek did an excellent job designing roads to move lots of cars and busses in, out, and around the WDW property. The recently built flyovers and bus only lanes are a great example.
The whole point was never to run the district better. It was to punish Disney and keeping them "in line".
He was an electrical engineer and worked in the business space prior to becoming a pastor. Whether or not that "qualifies" him is of course still up for debate. And we have gone down the road of some of his previous statement as a pastor...
