Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
Say Disney hypothetically, does win and gets everything they want. This includes a full reversal of Reedy Creek back to the way it was. Is that even possible now with all this damage being done?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
No. Just like when a crap government is elected (rather than imposed), the damage will never be completely undone. But steps can be taken to fix as much of it as possible.
donsullivan
Premium Member
It will never go fully back to what it was, even if Disney does totally win everything they are asking – which is highly likely. This whole adventure highlighted many opportunities where things were a little too intertwined between Walt Disney World and RCID. There are lots of things where they probably didn't have the appropriate levels of separation between WDW and RCID which would likely be a good idea to continue separating for the future. Most of them aren't the types of things that WDW guests would ever notice but real infrastructure things like telecommunications infrastructure and things like that. Disney will likely want to have a little bit more of an air gap between WDW and RCID going forward if only to improve perceptions and show they are 'doing the right thing' once they regain control.
I've believed for some time that it might not be a bad idea to expand the size of the board a little and have one representative each designated by Orange and Osceola County given the impact RCID/WDW activities have on the surrounding communities. Again, a gesture toward 'improving' the operations once they regain control.
DeSantis' Oversight District Says "No Amount of Discovery Will Make a Difference" in Disney Court Battle
The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District has filed a response to Disney's request for a 75-day continuance in a state-level court battle
blogmickey.com
Anyone with experience want to weigh in on the validity of this type of argument or how the judge is likely to take it?
I suppose we'll find out in a few hours.
They continue to argue that their motion for summary judgment relies on undisputed facts but that simply isn’t true. They’re even claiming that Disney shouldn’t be able to depose the people who signed the declarations that contain these “undisputed” facts before the motion is heard??
But what the judge will do?
She did set a date to hear the continuance motion very promptly. I wish we could listen in, because I’d be interested to hear how she deals with it.
BTW, after they filed their response, the district filed a notice of the December hearing date for the motion. Unless that was required pursuant to a pending deadline, it seems like a particularly obnoxious flex while the continuance motion is pending.
But what the judge will do?
She did set a date to hear the continuance motion very promptly. I wish we could listen in, because I’d be interested to hear how she deals with it. BTW, after they filed their response, the district filed a notice of the December hearing date for the motion. Unless that was required pursuant to a pending deadline, it seems like a particularly obnoxious flex while the continuance motion is pending.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Not turning over discovery materials did play a role in a default judgement against a high profile person just a few months ago. That though was in federal court.DeSantis' Oversight District Says "No Amount of Discovery Will Make a Difference" in Disney Court Battle
The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District has filed a response to Disney's request for a 75-day continuance in a state-level court battle
Anyone with experience want to weigh in on the validity of this type of argument or how the judge is likely to take it?
I suppose we'll find out in a few hours.
Not that I’ve seen. The court website has been updated to show the hearing was set for today but there’s no further information so far.
EeyoreFan#24
Well-Known Member
New agenda for November 15 includes this:
That's probably for maintenance of the current system. It's pretty common to have a maintenance contract for these systems, some of the bigger counties even have on-site full time dedicated techs from the manufacturer written in to their contracts.
mikejs78
Premium Member
Really? The consensus is that what it has shown is that there *was* good separation between RCID and Disney. There is zero evidence that things were too intertwined.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
My wild guess is that IF Disney gets RCID back they will find a way to dissolve it completely and create a department within the Disney Company (WDW branch) that does the same things RCID did but further insolate them from ignorant wanna be dictators interfering with how the company is run. I'm sure that the bond situation would seamlessly be absorbed by TWDC or have RCID remain strictly for that purpose. It seems kind of foolish to think that there is any real separation between RCID and Disney. It is a new colossal level of stupid to think that it wasn't established to benefit both WDW and the surrounding counties.
I won't pretend to know exactly how they would do that, but with the right actions I don't see how it wouldn't be possible.
I won't pretend to know exactly how they would do that, but with the right actions I don't see how it wouldn't be possible.
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
Apologies, if this was posted.
Can you point out some examples where the WDW and RCID were too intertwined?
mikejs78
Premium Member
I don't think it's possible actually. Public bonds can't be absorbed by a private entity - they can only be absorbed by another public entity. Additionally, there are a lot of government functions that could not be performed by Disney (inspections, land use, etc.) that wouldn't be able to be done by them and would have to fall to the counties if RCID went away. A private company can't absorb all the functions that RCID performs.
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
I think the CFTOD might have misinterpreted the Judge‘s willingness to explore the underlying issues of the case (as opposed to dismissing it outright) as implicit support for their cause.
I don’t think she’s going to have much patience for their games.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
It's not possible because there are municipal bonds outstanding that can't suddenly be converted to corporate debt. There are income tax implications for bondholders. Also, some of those bonds cannot be paid off early, so even if RCID managed to operate without taking on any more debt for infrastructure projects, they're still handcuffed by the terms of the outstanding debt. This is the same reason why the state had to change gears their plans to dissolve RCID to the hostile takeover they eventually chose.