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

flynnibus

Premium Member
Yet another delete-a-thon? Say it isn’t so! It’s almost as if we are all 5 year old children being sent to stand in the corner. The amazingness never ends!
giphy (11).gif
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
To be clear - I don’t want anything “done away with”. I got a ban from the Wish thread for reasons I do not even begin to understand since I am one of the people who actually saw it and was able to discuss it. I didn’t really have any interest in coming back to this board after that until I noticed that there is all sorts of political chat all over the entire board and a lot is not being deleted at all. If the board owners do not allow political discussion, it should be consistent.
Here's an idea... talk to the boss instead of polluting this thread with your 'concerns'. You know how to reach him.
 

WoundedDreamer

Well-Known Member
Yet another delete-a-thon? Say it isn’t so! It’s almost as if we are all 5 year old children being sent to stand in the corner. The amazingness never ends!
No hard feelings. These topics are explosive. Mods are just trying to keep things under control. I can see why they made the decision they did on this thread. Sometimes good posts might get swept up, but when you're deleting hundreds of posts everyday that's just how it roles. I suspect the role of WDWMagic moderator has gotten more laborious and just more difficult over the years. Much more grey area due to the turbulence of recent years. Yet the site is seemingly thriving, so they must be getting it right most of the time.

If I don't like how they mod, I can always rent my own servers and start my own site. Sounds expensive, eh? :oops:
 
"The company, while I was gone, decided to take a position against the Don't Say Gay bill that was moving through the Florida Legislature. I won't comment about what I would have done or not done, but the company took that position against it."

Wait, wasn't it widely reported that Bob Chapek wanted to remain silent/neutral
on the issue of the "Don't Say Gay" bill but it was Iger that pressed Chapek to make public comments? ☠️☠️☠️ Particularly, Iger wanted Chapek to reassure employees of the companies values around diversity.

I personally am all for DEI am proud that the company took the stand that it did but Iger is trying to shift the blame & wash his hands of the role he played. This character trait of late has not been in a good look on him.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Here's a segment from WESH 2 on the City of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista joint meeting today discussing the termination of the Interlocal Agreement between the Cities and the CFTOD.


So i’m not 100% on the language used… is it the district not wanting to extend the covered services?
 

Stripes

Premium Member
Wait, wasn't it widely reported that Bob Chapek wanted to remain silent/neutral
on the issue of the "Don't Say Gay" bill but it was Iger that pressed Chapek to make public comments? ☠️☠️☠️ Particularly, Iger wanted Chapek to reassure employees of the companies values around diversity.

I personally am all for DEI am proud that the company took the stand that it did but Iger is trying to shift the blame & wash his hands of the role he played. This character trait of late has not been in a good look on him.
Iger made a post as a private citizen in opposition to the bill. There was some discussion about how that post empowered some Disney employees to push back harder against Chapek’s lack of support.

Chapek was not feeling secure in the job and seeking to win over support with employees finally commented on the bill with a very aggressive statement.

Virtually every Fortune 100 company released statements opposing the bill but Chapek went from 0 to 100 and that caught a lot of attention.

Iger clearly agreed with the position the company took, but I‘m sure it wouldn’t have been a botched response if he was in charge.
 

Isamar

Well-Known Member
So i’m not 100% on the language used… is it the district not wanting to extend the covered services?

It sounds like they’ve unilaterally decided to stop paying for certain city expenses covered by the agreement (after everyone finalized their budgets) and they therefore won’t renew the agreement.

It could be just one more way to pretend they aren’t raising taxes to pay lawyers and other assorted buddies.

Also, I suspect that “insurance and risk management” might be how the cities would pay their lawyers when they get swept into the state court lawsuit? There are probably people here who could answer that.

(Rank speculation alert: I guess it could also be an attempt to strong-arm the cities into agreeing to something, like control over the police contracts for example. Or who knows what else?)

The report also mentioned that the district rather than the cities collects taxes to cover those services, and presumably won’t be giving up that money. But there was no explanation of exactly how that worked.
 

Figgy1

Well-Known Member
It sounds like they’ve unilaterally decided to stop paying for certain city expenses covered by the agreement (after everyone finalized their budgets) and they therefore won’t renew the agreement.

It could be just one more way to pretend they aren’t raising taxes to pay lawyers and other assorted buddies.

Also, I suspect that “insurance and risk management” might be how the cities would pay their lawyers when they get swept into the state court lawsuit? There are probably people here who could answer that.

(Rank speculation alert: I guess it could also be an attempt to strong-arm the cities into agreeing to something, like control over the police contracts for example. Or who knows what else?)

The report also mentioned that the district rather than the cities collects taxes to cover those services, and presumably won’t be giving up that money. But there was no explanation of exactly how that worked.
I'm wondering how much of these current actions can/will be rolled into the suits against the state/district when asking for damages?
 

monothingie

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
Premium Member
Bob also said he was definitely leaving in 2026 and definitely not selling ABC/ ESPN. 😉

Soooo refreshing to hear an honest non ego driven answer at the rich out of touch CEO conference.
 

tissandtully

Well-Known Member
Iger made a post as a private citizen in opposition to the bill. There was some discussion about how that post empowered some Disney employees to push back harder against Chapek’s lack of support.

Chapek was not feeling secure in the job and seeking to win over support with employees finally commented on the bill with a very aggressive statement.

Virtually every Fortune 100 company released statements opposing the bill but Chapek went from 0 to 100 and that caught a lot of attention.

Iger clearly agreed with the position the company took, but I‘m sure it wouldn’t have been a botched response if he was in charge.
It's kind of weird seeing Iger distancing himself from this, like Disney didn't have a right to speak up on the issue and deserves the retaliation. No matter how it was handled by Disney, the state's response is unconstitutional.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom