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

JoeCamel

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
Brooklin Disney Dad said:
Is this a contractual benefit or a “perk”? How does he get to take his grandchildren? For free? If this is a matter of just giving out tickets when requested, DW is like an open bar for employees where taxpayers foot the bill. The $1000 stipend restricts employees from inviting more than just their immediate families. Remember, FLA residents already are paying a minimal amount to enjoy the parks compared to tourists. Would love to know how this benefit actually worked. Sounds like it was being mismanaged/abused. Kind of like using 10 sick days when you were only sick for 4 and used the other 6 “just because”. Eventually something has got to give. FYI…I have been union for 23 yrs.
Click to expand...
$1000 barely covers one pass
 
LAKid53

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
MR.Dis said:
Sounds like Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burns. Not going to go over the issues again, there are almost 1100 pages. There is a very real chance that after all is said and done, the State of Florida will have the final say on the ruling body. In the mean time the company could be in shambles. So if you think it is worth the challenge, you have the right to your opinion. I simply do not agree.
Click to expand...

Correction: the COURTS will have the final say.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
MR.Dis said:
My ONLY point is, while they spend so much time and energy on this, their company is performing poorly. That should be their focus. Fix the parks...... Those are the things that need to have their attention, not who is the governing body of the 43 square miles in central Florida.
Click to expand...
Wait which is it?

They should fix the parks, which is hugely dependent on who the governing body of that 43 square miles is, or they should ignore the impact of the governing body and it's impacts on the parks?

That's not even internally consistent within the single post. I'm completely lost on what you want. They should work on parks by ignoring the largest impact to the ability to do that work?

MR.Dis said:
There is a very real chance that after all is said and done, the State of Florida will have the final say on the ruling body. In the mean time the company could be in shambles.
Click to expand...
If Disney loses all control any any accountability mechanism with the ruling body that collects taxes and permits work on their largest physical asset, they will definitely be in shambles after that.

So, again, it's unclear what you want. You want them to not be in shambles by ignoring the thing with the largest ability to impact how the parks work?


This would be like taking one wheel off your car and instead of working to correct that, just focus on steering the car. I'm sure you could steer it better to make up for the fact that the wheel is gone. Just ignore that missing wheel, focus on the steering, that will surely get you to your destination faster. (I think I heard that from a bus driver.)
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
mmascari said:
Wait which is it?

They should fix the parks, which is hugely dependent on who the governing body of that 43 square miles is, or they should ignore the impact of the governing body and it's impacts on the parks?

That's not even internally consistent within the single post. I'm completely lost on what you want. They should work on parks by ignoring the largest impact to the ability to do that work?


If Disney loses all control any any accountability mechanism with the ruling body that collects taxes and permits work on their largest physical asset, they will definitely be in shambles after that.

So, again, it's unclear what you want. You want them to not be in shambles by ignoring the thing with the largest ability to impact how the parks work?


This would be like taking one wheel off your car and instead of working to correct that, just focus on steering the car. I'm sure you could steer it better to make up for the fact that the wheel is gone. Just ignore that missing wheel, focus on the steering, that will surely get you to your destination faster. (I think I heard that from a bus driver.)
Click to expand...
What’s great about the “work with them” argument is that you have to take the position that the new board is lying.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
mmascari said:
This is lazy reporting or talking points. The nuance and structures that defined (and still define) the relationship between Disney and RCID aren't just some vague thing to be ignored. Calling RCID employees the same as Disney employees is factually wrong. Those legal structures clearly define them as different things. No matter how many times some politician says Disney and RCID are the same thing, it is simply not true.

There's no leaching our or expansion of what an employer can give an employee here. Because district employees are NOT Disney employees, no matter how many times someone tries to say they are the same. Much like the Mayor or Miami is not a McDonald's employee despite the fact that there are McDonald's in Miami that pay taxes. (At least, I assume there are McDonald's in Miami.)

The legal and financial structures that create the District separate from Disney aren't some smoke and mirrors, they provide a strict definition of the entities.


Disney obviously had lots of influence over prior management. The board was an elected group and Disney had the majority of votes, hence they could vote to pick whomever they wanted. In any next election, they could vote in someone new. They obviously picked people that wanted to work together for a combined vision instead of people who were antagonistic towards them. That's not burying your head, that's the factual legal structure. Pretending Disney and the District were the same is just fantasy.


The District has never been a subsidiary of Disney. Not even close.


Because those are employees of Costco and the Car Rental Company. If you want to complete this analogy, it would be Costco giving free memberships directly to the building and health inspectors, and only the ones that work for the agency that covers them instead of all inspectors everywhere. If the inspection departments wanted to buy Costco memberships for all of their employees, that would be completely different. Even though, in both scenarios inspectors received free to them memberships. They are not the same.

Clearly, you don't really believe that the District employees are not Disney employees. If you cannot believe that well defined fact, what's the point. Might as well create any imaginary scenario, they'll all be just as valid.
Click to expand...
Most of that post is what I have been saying and of course know that they worked for RCID and did not get a paycheck from Disney, however the burying ones head in the sand is when you know that RCID was formed by WDW and is there specifically for the things that are of the best interest of WDW and their pay is covered by taxes paid by Disney to RCID. RCID is not a for profit business. I know that legal crap but the reality is much deeper than the paper the setup was written on. I know all about the separate companies garbage, but it never really was run that way. Yes, I know that there were times when RCID conflicted with WDW's desires and that was partially what they were created for to keep things on the up and up as far as their responsibilities vs. WDW's wants are concerned. That is what is real and it is practiced like that in thousands of locations. Separate but connected so that things could happen faster and not have desk jockeys overseeing the building of the infrastructure or having to run things built within the overall Disney property is not going to burden the surrounding counties..
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
LAKid53 said:
The Florida Legislature created Reedy Creek Improvement District, at the request of TWDC. You'd be surprised the number of special districts created at the request of developers or other non-government entities.
Click to expand...
Why is everyone thinking that I am supporting the dictatorial actions of the Florida government. I am not and would love to see it all reversed and go back to square one. And I have seen and even been part of a district formed around the development lived in. I am fully aware of that as I am fully aware of how beneficial RCID was to Disney as well as the State of Florida. I know the history of why, when and how the RCID district was formed and it's responsibilities and agree with Disney's stand.
LAKid53 said:
1. Disney doesn't "give them out". RCID paid for them. Read the invoice posted earlier in the thread.
2. Disney does not directly pay CFTOD employees. Any more than I write the paychecks of members of the Orange County commission.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why you think that I think the Disney pays or ever has paid them directly, I know how it works, it seems to me that you are the one that isn't thinking in the reality of how that whole system works and works well.
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
LAKid53 said:
No, those are benefits. As defined by law.

Seriously, stop.
Click to expand...
Seriously, read my posts you are saying the same thing I am saying. I'm sorry you don't understand my examples and their obvious disconnects with the idea that they are gifts. Hence the reason why I put a ? after the word gifts. Seriously, stop!
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Nubs70 said:
The above is a transaction between private entities not between private and public.

The firefighters fall under governmental employees and WDW is private and could now be considered a political entity based on Chapek's second statement pertaining to the DSG bill.

Below is from the gift statutes of Florida:

(b) A political committee is prohibited from giving, directly or indirectly, any gift to a reporting individual or procurement employee or a member of his or her immediate family
Click to expand...
A political committee did not give that our, Disney reward them for their help in maintaining a safe environment on the property. I never said that RCID or LSMFT or whatever the new name is gave anything to anyone.
 
JoeCamel

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
GrumpyFan said:
I bet they do! 😂
Hopefully the judge will toss that.
Click to expand...


Essentially, the CFTOD defendants want to have the matter settled in state court where they have already prevailed against Disney’s Motion to Dismiss.

I wouldn't ascribe too much weight to the dismissal denial, it's pro forma if there is even a shred of conflict that is unsettled between the parties the judge has to hear the evidence so the judge can rule who prevails and in what capacity
 
Last edited:
LSLS

LSLS

Well-Known Member
MR.Dis said:
Sounds like Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burns. Not going to go over the issues again, there are almost 1100 pages. There is a very real chance that after all is said and done, the State of Florida will have the final say on the ruling body. In the mean time the company could be in shambles. So if you think it is worth the challenge, you have the right to your opinion. I simply do not agree.
Click to expand...

Wait, I'm confused. Are you of the opinion that the people running the company are neck deep into this lawsuit spending all their waking hours on it and ignoring the rest of the company?
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
JoeCamel said:
Essentially, the CFTOD defendants want to have the matter settled in state court where they have already prevailed against Disney’s Motion to Dismiss.

I wouldn't ascribe too much weight to the dismissal denial, it's pro forma if there is even a shred of conflict that is unsettled between the parties the judge has to hear the evidence so the judge can rule who prevails and in what capacity
Click to expand...
This denial of the motion to dismiss wasn’t pro forma. There is no conflict in the matter as the Distict is prohibited from following the agreements by state law. The judge was very close to flat out stating a desire to rule on the hypothetical.
 
JoeCamel

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
This denial of the motion to dismiss wasn’t pro forma. There is no conflict in the matter as the Distict is prohibited from following the agreements by state law. The judge was very close to flat out stating a desire to rule on the hypothetical.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should have said most cases. Everyone I've seen has a couple of motions to dismiss during the case as a matter of course
 
A

afterabme

Active Member

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom