Disney isn't building the actual housing.
-
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
John park hopper
Well-Known Member
That's good maybe it will get done in a timely fashion
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
They should
Had the displeasure of being routed through there off boggy creek two weeks ago
That area sucks. The epitome of awful Florida sprawl
It likely would primarily be for land acquisition or other expenses like infrastructure for the affordable housing sites.
For-Profit and Not-For-Profit companies like the Michaels Organization, which exclusively specialize on low-income housing development, are given these properties and use a combination of grants, federal funding, and tax credits to build affordable housing complexes at almost no cost to them. They then manage the properties, collect rent, and guide residents/applicants through the application and financial aid process to get them placed into the respective units.
"Disney has pledged to invest up to $17 billion over the next 10 to 20 years, with an initial $8 billion allocated for the first decade."
But... but... Bob and Josh said $17 billion over the next decade, remember?!?! 5th gates and expansions at all the parks and more more more everything!
Also note the carefully worded "up to $17 billion over the next 10 to 20 years". After that initial $8 billion (we'll run with it), they could build a single spinner in the second decade and still meet that.
But... but... Bob and Josh said $17 billion over the next decade, remember?!?! 5th gates and expansions at all the parks and more more more everything!
Also note the carefully worded "up to $17 billion over the next 10 to 20 years". After that initial $8 billion (we'll run with it), they could build a single spinner in the second decade and still meet that.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
It says minimum of 8 billion under the economic development terms in Exhibit C:"Disney has pledged to invest up to $17 billion over the next 10 to 20 years, with an initial $8 billion allocated for the first decade."
But... but... Bob and Josh said $17 billion over the next decade, remember?!?! 5th gates and expansions at all the parks and more more more everything!
Also note the carefully worded "up to $17 billion over the next 10 to 20 years". After that initial $8 billion (we'll run with it), they could build a single spinner in the second decade and still meet that.
"Disney agrees to make at least an initial capital investment of $8billion dollars within the first ten (10) years of the term of the Agreement, consisting of capital investment in existing infrastructure, new construction and technology investment."
They may well end up not doing all 17 in the first 10 but that is a pretty typical safety measure to guard against unforeseeable economic issues (think 9/11, housing crash or Covid) where you need to drastically reduce spending.
Personally I don't think they do all of it in 10 years as I expect a new CEO to come in long before many of the projects that money would go towards have started, halt everything to evaluate the potential projects, can a number of them and restart the whole design process pushing things back years.
That's been the caveat that so many have missed all along - Things change.
And so many were saying, "nope, Bob said it, they filed papers with the SEC, they are LOCKED IN on that $17 billion in the next 10 years, baby, they're going to build tons of new things!!!!!!!!1!!!1!". No common sense, no peeling back a layer on the onion, just keep their pixie dust drip going strong and everything is fine.
Advisable Joseph
Active Member
The agreement says, abut the $8 million minimum:
Attractions and hotels aren't infrastructure (see the previous plans where they are differentiated), so the money from this amount going to attraction and hotels would have to be "new construction."
I guess adding a new tower to a hotel or expanding a ride would be "new construction" but simple renovation or maintenance would not?
Yeah, they'll wind up spending a lot more.
LSLS
Well-Known Member
Honestly the numbers worked out to something very similar to what they had done the previous 10 years. So a few rides, 2-3 new DVC or so, and 1-2 new mini lands. And in all honesty, they are right on their way to that $17 bil investment. TBA, Poly, Tropical Americas, a Moana ride, Lion King ride, and potentially Beyond Big Thunder would pretty much do it on top of the other stuff they spend on. The question really isn't if they use that money, but what they spend it on, and I'd say there's a lot left to be desired on that front.
It's basically a promise not to go back to the doldrums of a previous era. Something new every year...
...once they start building it...
...and finishing it.
Advisable Joseph
Active Member
Still looks like considerably more than last decade, much more than what has been announced, especially if attraction/hotel maintenanced is not included in the pledged amount.
Anyway I saw this weirdness on page 5 of the agreement, page 13 of the document packet:
Emphasis mine.
What does minimum development mean here?
Anyway I saw this weirdness on page 5 of the agreement, page 13 of the document packet:
| Land Use | Comprehensive Plan Approved | Updated Comprehensive Plan Minimum Development |
| Hotel/Motel (keys) | 53,467 | 53,467 |
| Office (gsf) | 1,032,000 | 1,258,564 |
| Retail/Restaurant (gsf) | 1,732,887 | 1,732,887 |
| Major Theme Park (each) | 5 | 5 |
| Minor Theme Park (each) | 5 | 5 |
Emphasis mine.
What does minimum development mean here?
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Well of course. That's been the case before this as well too.
But what it does provide is a slight downside buffer. 8 billion in inflation adjust terms would be about 75% of the spend of the last decade. Which wasn't by any means a cheap decade with five fairly noteworthy projects between Springs, DHS, DAK/Pandora, Epcot and the usual DVC/transport portfolio/mild MK spending.
This agreement provides some downside risk that even in some economic disaster, they can't exactly dial the spending to nothing. It's some vague assurance that the current DAK/Magic Kingdom/Big Thunder/DVC projects and maintenance will continue unabated.
It's not a guarantee that the rest of what we don't know will occur, but it is a reaffirmation that they still do intend on 'more'.
In inflation adjusted terms we've had far worse decades than the 8 billion they are now somewhat bound to, so it's certainly not a bad floor.
Advisable Joseph
Active Member
In sum, it looks like Disney (inadvertantly?) agreed to a development program resulting in 5 major parks? Maybe this is what WESH saw?
I'm trying to figure out what they actually meant. To begin with, I think the word "minimum" in the table and the agreement text was supposed to be "maximum." I'd think they were asking the District to make the right column (below, from my previous post) the new maximum, but then what is the left column? It is not the currently allowed development (2020 plan).
The text of the agreement seems to say that the right column (Column B) is the development program to be spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations.
I'm trying to figure out what they actually meant. To begin with, I think the word "minimum" in the table and the agreement text was supposed to be "maximum." I'd think they were asking the District to make the right column (below, from my previous post) the new maximum, but then what is the left column? It is not the currently allowed development (2020 plan).
The text of the agreement seems to say that the right column (Column B) is the development program to be spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations.
There is no 5th park coming. People need to get this utter twaddle out of their minds and stop clicking on moronic articles.
Stripes
Premium Member
The “minimum” refers to CFTOD promise to increase certain densities and intensities by a certain amount in the the next comprehensive plan. This seems to only have an impact on office space.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Its basically what was already in place.
flynnibus
Premium Member
No, it means the district is agreeing that the forth coming comprehensive plan will include intensities that will allow, at a minimum, the numbers cited in the table.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Some highlights reading through the Agreement...
"The District recognizes that Master Developer’s past and present efforts in developing the Project and Master Developer’s support of the District’s construction of public infrastructure paid for, in large part, with Master Developer’s tax payments to theDistrict, has provided a benefit to the Central Florida community."
After all the hubub about if RCID served a purpose... seems like a nice little insertion here to get the district to go on record that the relationship and concept is beneficial to the state.
"Modification or Cancellation. Any modification or cancellation of all or any portion of this Agreement requires the express written consent of the District and MasterDeveloper."
So a true two party agreement... yet another sign Disney is fully confident they have the 'say' with this district model going forward they want.
An interesting highlight from the Buy Local initiative...
"Master Developer is committed to continuing its role as an economic engine in the state ofFlorida. Master Developer will implement a Buy Local program which will ensure a minimum of fifty (50) percent of all dollars spent for development of the Project are spent with businesses located in the state of Florida"
Note it only requires that the business be LOCATED in the state of florida. Not locally owned, not Florida based, etc.. just 'located' in Florida. Open a Florida office.. and you'd be covered. Seems like a really toothless commitment.
On Affordable housing... note
"Master Developer, at its sole discretion, will fund attainable housingefforts by partial funding of construction costs for approved, to beconstructed attainable housing projects, or, in the alternative, by paymentto a County or City affordable housing trust fund to be mutually agreed upon by the District and the Master Developer"
Note what is lacking...
- any thing about initiatives WITHIN the District (or any location for that matter)
- it even gives them an out to just make a contribution $$ and be done with it
Basically this is a $10M payoff due 10yrs from now... with zero requirements that it actually changes anything within the District or for Disney employees.
There is a list of typical public works and road infrastructure projects the District commits to build (Exhibit E).
So really besides a vague promise to spend $8Billion on the property in the next 10years... there really isn't any big concession from Disney here.
"The District recognizes that Master Developer’s past and present efforts in developing the Project and Master Developer’s support of the District’s construction of public infrastructure paid for, in large part, with Master Developer’s tax payments to theDistrict, has provided a benefit to the Central Florida community."
After all the hubub about if RCID served a purpose... seems like a nice little insertion here to get the district to go on record that the relationship and concept is beneficial to the state.
"Modification or Cancellation. Any modification or cancellation of all or any portion of this Agreement requires the express written consent of the District and MasterDeveloper."
So a true two party agreement... yet another sign Disney is fully confident they have the 'say' with this district model going forward they want.
An interesting highlight from the Buy Local initiative...
"Master Developer is committed to continuing its role as an economic engine in the state ofFlorida. Master Developer will implement a Buy Local program which will ensure a minimum of fifty (50) percent of all dollars spent for development of the Project are spent with businesses located in the state of Florida"
Note it only requires that the business be LOCATED in the state of florida. Not locally owned, not Florida based, etc.. just 'located' in Florida. Open a Florida office.. and you'd be covered. Seems like a really toothless commitment.
On Affordable housing... note
"Master Developer, at its sole discretion, will fund attainable housingefforts by partial funding of construction costs for approved, to beconstructed attainable housing projects, or, in the alternative, by paymentto a County or City affordable housing trust fund to be mutually agreed upon by the District and the Master Developer"
Note what is lacking...
- any thing about initiatives WITHIN the District (or any location for that matter)
- it even gives them an out to just make a contribution $$ and be done with it
Basically this is a $10M payoff due 10yrs from now... with zero requirements that it actually changes anything within the District or for Disney employees.
There is a list of typical public works and road infrastructure projects the District commits to build (Exhibit E).
So really besides a vague promise to spend $8Billion on the property in the next 10years... there really isn't any big concession from Disney here.
Advisable Joseph
Active Member
I'm not sure how you get that from "Updated Comprehensive Plan
Minimum Development." Again, "maximum" would make more sense. I think that may be a typo?
Even the text refers to the column as a development program that the district must memorialize in the plan. Does "development program" imply "maximum" somehow?