lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
At this point continuing to try to claim there is no evidence that this is just about Disney is just lying. The quotes and even video has been provided multiple times.
Last edited:
-
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
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
What negotiations? The bill is now law. There is currently no mechanism to water anything down. The governor doesn’t have the power to just ignore the law, unilaterally create districts or unilaterally impose new taxes. The special session is over and a new one has not yet been called. If there was an interest in negotiations this would not have been developed in secret without the knowledge of any local officials and then rushed through without necessary details.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Other groups were impacted because they met the same criteria that was chosen in order to target Disney. You can’t argue that the Reedy Creek Improvement District has no valid purpose when it was still actively fulfilling its purpose as defined in the 1967 Reedy Creek Act and in the 1968 unanimous Supreme Court opinion that upheld the districts constitutionality.
The governor and numerous other state officials and legislators have made it clear that this bill was passed in order to harm Disney. They were open and honest about that fact. Purposefully.
It may not have been smart business on Disney’s part. However that is a determination to be made by customers and investors… not the government.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
The bill preamble clearly says it intends to prevent classroom instruction. You are correct the actual bill language was changed from discussion as it was originally filed to instruction. However given the nature of the classroom environment it’s not hard to successfully argue that any discussion between a teacher and student is instruction.
prberk
Well-Known Member
I feel sad.
I understand all of the political winds (of left and right) at play here. I understand the risks of giving special consideration to one entity, as Disney had with Reedy Creek.
But I also understand what they did with it — and how over the years there was a mutually respectful and beneficial relationship between Florida and the Disney organization that, while not perfect, worked together (or in trust) to allow and achieve great new things — many of which actually did achieve many of Walt’s objectives with urban planning and innovation — that would not have been as likely or possible without the special case that Disney had in Florida.
The infrastructure is top-notch and often innovative in a way that in other localities just would get mired down in red tape or not done — and demonstrates the unique success of this special project in a way that always inspired me. Examples that inspired me include: the monorail as actual municipal transportation (not just a ride), the water bridge near the contemporary, the pneumatic trash system, the all-fiber-optic telecommunications system that was the nation’s first, the Skyliner as actual transportation, the canal system, building innovations and hurricane readiness, and even the whimsical overlay on the Reedy Creek Fire Department buildings that support a crew that was training with and actively supporting firefighters from around the state during the wildfires outside of their district.
My point is that the Reedy Creek Development District may have been a questionable proposition — but it allowed both Disney and Florida to benefit and bring great things to the world — all of which was built on trust and adults working together with trust. I am sad to see that come crashing down in what to me amounts to grandstanding on both sides. There is collateral damage here that undermines what, to me, was the innovation, cooperation, and idea generation that Walt Disney World represented in its ideals — even if, as with everything, there are problems to work out. That, in itself, is what is missing — a willingness to work together and hear one another to achieve great things.
I am sad.
I understand all of the political winds (of left and right) at play here. I understand the risks of giving special consideration to one entity, as Disney had with Reedy Creek.
But I also understand what they did with it — and how over the years there was a mutually respectful and beneficial relationship between Florida and the Disney organization that, while not perfect, worked together (or in trust) to allow and achieve great new things — many of which actually did achieve many of Walt’s objectives with urban planning and innovation — that would not have been as likely or possible without the special case that Disney had in Florida.
The infrastructure is top-notch and often innovative in a way that in other localities just would get mired down in red tape or not done — and demonstrates the unique success of this special project in a way that always inspired me. Examples that inspired me include: the monorail as actual municipal transportation (not just a ride), the water bridge near the contemporary, the pneumatic trash system, the all-fiber-optic telecommunications system that was the nation’s first, the Skyliner as actual transportation, the canal system, building innovations and hurricane readiness, and even the whimsical overlay on the Reedy Creek Fire Department buildings that support a crew that was training with and actively supporting firefighters from around the state during the wildfires outside of their district.
My point is that the Reedy Creek Development District may have been a questionable proposition — but it allowed both Disney and Florida to benefit and bring great things to the world — all of which was built on trust and adults working together with trust. I am sad to see that come crashing down in what to me amounts to grandstanding on both sides. There is collateral damage here that undermines what, to me, was the innovation, cooperation, and idea generation that Walt Disney World represented in its ideals — even if, as with everything, there are problems to work out. That, in itself, is what is missing — a willingness to work together and hear one another to achieve great things.
I am sad.
Last edited:
Kman
Well-Known Member
I guess you don't understand the political right
peter11435
Well-Known Member
what was simply not true?
Dranth
Well-Known Member
For me, the interesting question will be how many who disagree with Disney and want to stop supporting them will actually do it. Maybe they don't go to the parks but Disney is SO far reaching at this point. Will these parents hold the line when their kids want to see the next Marvel movie? What if they manage to make a good Star Wars movie and all their friends are seeing it? Once Toy Story 645 comes out and the little one is crying to see it are the parents going to cave in? I'd be willing to bet that in many cases these people give in and for those that don't, at least half of those kids will just go to a friends house and watch the stuff anyway.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
People are generally about as good at boycotting as they are keeping up with New Years resolutions and giving things up for lent.
I can point too many private construction projects that get done in a timely manner and do innovative things without the need of a special district.
And I'm going to guess you don't either.
Fortunately Disney is also adding bigger and bigger financial incentives to stop going (with ever escalating prices).
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
How many insisted on paying for the vast majority of their own infrastructure on top of paying their taxes that would otherwise help pay for such things?
That Disney. Salt of the Earth.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
And yet attendance keeps increasing
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
Also, many of the "private projects" would become public projects under this act (such as any roadwork) - and we all know that governments don't always move quickly or seek to hire the best choice when it comes to repairing (or altering) roads.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Will you give us specifics as to how this is not true?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I assume this is a joke. TWDC has had to face the possibility of an authoritarian government seizing their property with their Shanghai park. It was built into the political risk premium on that project but the rate of return was still great enough to overcome. I don't think they ever considered that risk for the domestic parks. It’s frightening that citizens of the United States would suggest an action like that where the government seizes the property of a private company because they don’t blindly support the government. Really frightening stuff.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
I understand what you are saying but SD is a Chinese park where TWDC is an investor with no controlling ownership. Not a relevant comparison. TWDC would absolutely be better off simply divesting itself of SD. WDW is in no way shape or form like SD. Any possibility of property seizure because of this RCID issue is not on any radar, not realistic.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
So you think Disney isn't going to fight this at all? Or is this in the eventuality where they don't win?