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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It is…what it is

 

[lazyboy97o]

I disagree. They have a very real incentive to negotiate. There are several buckets of possible outcomes to this:

1. Disney refuses to compromise and sues under some State or Federal law claiming the dissolution was illegal and a court agrees and reverses the law returning RCID to where they were before with 100% control
2. Disney refuses to compromise and sues under some State or Federal law claiming the dissolution was illegal and a court disagrees and the state either takes control or creates a new district where Disney has no control
3. Disney plays ball and agrees not to sue assuming the agreement reached provides them control of the new district minus some rights like building an airport or a nuclear power station that they have no intention of using anyway

So if Disney decides to go the court fight way then 1 or 2 happens. They have to assess the percent likelihood of outcomes. For example let’s say it’s 70% they win in court 30% they lose. So if option 3 leaves them in virtually the same place economically then there’s a 100% chance they succeed. Going the court way they have 70/30 odds they are unharmed economically (minus legal fees). If court is 90/10 they probably have less a desire to negotiate. If it’s 50/50 or less more desire. Only Disney can say how they view a potential lawsuit.

This analysis is looking purely at the economic impact to having RCID. It does not take into account the fact that a court win would help ensure that the government does not attempt this again. So the benefit is beyond basic economics. However, the flip side to that is dragging this out in court could provide some bad PR for the company. Like it or not there are paying customers who agree with the state on this. A quiet resolution helps Disney to move on. While a politician only needs to get 51% of the people to like and vote for him to be successful Disney wants near 100% of those people to be customers. The politicians know this and will use it as leverage in negotiations.

All this being said, I believe the state is wrong here. They have over stepped and this is a dangerous precedent to set. The question for Disney is how much of a potential economic hit (from either potentially losing control of a special district or losing more paying customers) are they willing to risk to see the right thing happen.

The state is not allowed to create new districts without Disney's involvement. It is not an option. That is what gives Disney leverage. They have to be involved and the time does not exist to change those rules.

Paying people to do nothing at best is an economic impact. Them having an ability to stall the District's work, which would be their purpose, has an economic impact. The possibility of this being repeated has an economic impact.

There was no popular call to dissolve the District. The people who support it already dislike Disney for a variety of other issues that makes attacking them popular now and potentially in the future.

 

[Disstevefan1]

It is…what it is

Whatever it is, we know TWDC won’t be stuck with the bill… Thanks DeSantis.

 

[mmascari]

Reedy isn’t going anywhere. It was a stunt for donations and that’s why it has been crickets since the cameras got bored and went elsewhere

I’d say at most there is some semantics “name change”…more likely is they let the clock “run out” and some other pols down the road officially drop it.

Letting the clock run out for the next set of politicians to deal with it isn't an option. Well, it is an option but not a good one for anybody. The law was passed already, it has a hard deadline that's approaching. When it goes into effect, that effect has consequences. Letting the clock run out on that date means all of the consequences happen.

If all of those consequences were "bad for Disney and good for the politicians", then sure, that's totally what they would do. However, I think all the commentary here has shown what a total disaster it is for everyone to go with the current plan and nothing else. Those consequences are "bad for Disney, bad for politicians, bad for locals", basically bad for everyone.

Which leads to something is likely to be done. The something is still very much unclear.

My personal opinion is that if nothing changes and the law as passed happens, it's least bad for Disney vs all the others.

 

[GoofGoof]

The state is not allowed to create new districts without Disney's involvement. It is not an option. That is what gives Disney leverage. They have to be involved and the time does not exist to change those rules.

Paying people to do nothing at best is an economic impact. Them having an ability to stall the District's work, which would be their purpose, has an economic impact. The possibility of this being repeated has an economic impact.

Paying lawyers for a drawn out Federal 1st amendment lawsuit has an economic impact as well. I hate to say this, but you plug all this stuff into a spreadsheet and look at the bottom line. The economic impact can be modeled and I’m sure that’s what they did and that is helping to guide their actions while negotiating with the state.

There was no popular call to dissolve the District. The people who support it already dislike Disney for a variety of other issues that makes attacking them popular now and potentially in the future.

You are assuming that if Disney went to court and won that would stop a potential future attack? The state couldn’t take the same approach to attacking, but there would be nothing to stop them from taking other actions, including dissolving RCID as part of some other plan. I don’t see fighting this in court as an automatic way to avoid future attacks.

 

[mmascari]

But like I said, if they maintain control of a majority of the board seats (a big if that we don’t know until an official plan is announced) they maintain practical control. The state appointed directors would lack the ability to stop the elected directors from doing exactly what they would do today. Maybe some votes would be 4-3 instead of 7-0 but the outcome is the same. So if Disney (through RCID) wanted to add a 4th parking garage to Disney Springs or add another overpass to one of their roads or enter into a new agreements to buy solar power they would have the votes to do it. They would also have the votes to set budgets and tax rates and any other actions the board currently takes. The state appointed directors may have access to some information that was previously non-public so the worst they are is someone looking over your shoulder. A minor inconvenience unless you want to do something unethical or potentially illegal.

That type of plan may happen, but I would find it very unlikely for Disney to simply agree to it or suggest it. In fact, I would find it very unlikely for Disney to simply agree to any plan at all. They don't have to sue to stop the current plan either, they can just not blink first.

The problem is with Disney voluntarily agreeing to any compromise, instead of one being forced on them. Meaning they agree to something proactively vs just not fighting it in court. There's a subtle difference between the two.

RCID may negotiate, suggest solutions, and compromises. But, that's RCID not Disney. Another subtle difference that matters in this context for both the solution and how it's arrived at.


Disney may not fight and will accept a plan like above, or some other plan. But, there's clearly negative repercussions if they proactively compromise and suggest solutions. Not related to the operations of RCID itself, but to the operations of Disney. Disney proactively compromising is a tacit acceptance that the legislative reaction to company policy and statements is an acceptable outcome.

Based on that acceptance, legislative reaction to content and story decisions isn't a huge step. A position Disney would not want to put themselves in. After all, Disney owns the quote "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

 

[lazyboy97o]

Paying lawyers for a drawn out Federal 1st amendment lawsuit has an economic impact as well. I hate to say this, but you plug all this stuff into a spreadsheet and look at the bottom line. The economic impact can be modeled and I’m sure that’s what they did and that is helping to guide their actions while negotiating with the state.

A First Amendment play is not the only course of action. Why is that the only one you acknowledge? Figuring out a court challenge is a more finite number that can be known. How do you model the cost of new supervisors delaying projects? Why are we assuming Reedy Creek Improvement District would not see any of the changes being made to other bodies to provide greater executive oversight?

You are assuming that if Disney went to court and won that would stop a potential future attack? The state couldn’t take the same approach to attacking, but there would be nothing to stop them from taking other actions, including dissolving RCID as part of some other plan. I don’t see fighting this in court as an automatic way to avoid future attacks.

Giving in sets the precedent. It means you know it works and can be done again and bigger. Not just doing that means it is not a guarantee. It can be tried, but it is messy, has costs and may not work.

 

[mmascari]

Paying lawyers for a drawn out Federal 1st amendment lawsuit has an economic impact as well. I hate to say this, but you plug all this stuff into a spreadsheet and look at the bottom line. The economic impact can be modeled and I’m sure that’s what they did and that is helping to guide their actions while negotiating with the state.

I'm sure Disney did this analysis months ago.

Somewhere in an office right now is are some finance and strategic planning wonks doing the math on impacts from transferring the bonds, impacts to tax burden, possible impacts as counties get creative to try and keep the taxes, impacts to losing control of planning, impacts of Disney's needs just being another need in the county vs the sole needs being managed, how those impacts will work out short term and long term. Combined with if there are enough short term gains to making finding other long term solutions better. If you're the wonk and posting here, please blink twice.

Exactly how much is all the control Disney has worth to them?

No matter what else, we know that loss of the district will reduce the control Disney has on how and what things are done. Is keeping that control worth the fight and how does it balance out against the other items?

I'm also sure that part of that analysis determined lots of impacts to "Not Disney". Especially around costs and other impacts.

Disney doesn't have to fight it. They can fight it and win, set a clear precedent. They can fight it an lose, set a clear precedent the other way. They can largely ignore it, leave it murky with no clear precedent.

While we would like to think that Disney would like to minimize the impact to uninvolved "Not Disney" third parties, like the local counties, that's just one more item in the analysis. If the negative blowback on Disney to let that impact happen is small enough, or they think the blowback will be at someone else instead, they may just ignore it.

For RCID employees and government, dissolution of RCID is clearly bad. For Disney though, it's less clear if they could just work around the impacts and end up better off in other areas.

I mean, sure if Disney was secretly planning a fifth gate and needed to plan and prioritize huge infrastructure changes to support a project like that, the loss of control would have a much larger impact. But, if they're mostly planning internal adjustments and able to live within the existing infrastructure for the next decade, then it's less exciting.

 

[mmascari]

Another observation here. Disney not suing to keep RCID doesn't imply that they will not sue in the future about something else.

If RCID is dissolved (as current plan) and replaced with something new, and then that something new tries some novel new technique to collect money from Disney. It wouldn't surprise me to see Disney sue the new thing to say that the collection method isn't legal.

 

[GoofGoof]

A First Amendment play is not the only course of action. Why is that the only one you acknowledge? Figuring out a court challenge is a more finite number that can be known. How do you model the cost of new supervisors delaying projects? Why are we assuming Reedy Creek Improvement District would not see any of the changes being made to other bodies to provide greater executive oversight?


Giving in sets the precedent. It means you know it works and can be done again and bigger. Not just doing that means it is not a guarantee. It can be tried, but it is messy, has costs and may not work.

We can agree to disagree on the second point.

I said state or federal court covering any of the possible legal challenges. I’m sure they will factor in the extra administrative burden as well, but as long as they maintain control (meaning the majority of board seats) the state appointed board members can’t really stop a project.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I'm sure Disney did this analysis months ago.


I'm also sure that part of that analysis determined lots of impacts to "Not Disney". Especially around costs and other impacts.

Disney doesn't have to fight it. They can fight it and win, set a clear precedent. They can fight it an lose, set a clear precedent the other way. They can largely ignore it, leave it murky with no clear precedent.

While we would like to think that Disney would like to minimize the impact to uninvolved "Not Disney" third parties, like the local counties, that's just one more item in the analysis. If the negative blowback on Disney to let that impact happen is small enough, or they think the blowback will be at someone else instead, they may just ignore it.

For RCID employees and government, dissolution of RCID is clearly bad. For Disney though, it's less clear if they could just work around the impacts and end up better off in other areas.

I mean, sure if Disney was secretly planning a fifth gate and needed to plan and prioritize huge infrastructure changes to support a project like that, the loss of control would have a much larger impact. But, if they're mostly planning internal adjustments and able to live within the existing infrastructure for the next decade, then it's less exciting.

I would hope Disney would care about third parties, like the local counties, but these are NOT their customers so the reality is they won't care, all they care about is not being stuck with the bill.

I really doubt there will EVER be a fifth gate. There is no need. Folks show no matter what is offered.

If we are lucky enough to get a net gain of attractions at WDW it will be in the existing 4 parks.

 

[GoofGoof]

That type of plan may happen, but I would find it very unlikely for Disney to simply agree to it or suggest it. In fact, I would find it very unlikely for Disney to simply agree to any plan at all. They don't have to sue to stop the current plan either, they can just not blink first.

The problem is with Disney voluntarily agreeing to any compromise, instead of one being forced on them. Meaning they agree to something proactively vs just not fighting it in court. There's a subtle difference between the two.

RCID may negotiate, suggest solutions, and compromises. But, that's RCID not Disney. Another subtle difference that matters in this context for both the solution and how it's arrived at.


Disney may not fight and will accept a plan like above, or some other plan. But, there's clearly negative repercussions if they proactively compromise and suggest solutions. Not related to the operations of RCID itself, but to the operations of Disney. Disney proactively compromising is a tacit acceptance that the legislative reaction to company policy and statements is an acceptable outcome.

Based on that acceptance, legislative reaction to content and story decisions isn't a huge step. A position Disney would not want to put themselves in. After all, Disney owns the quote "I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."

From the same Variety article:

None of those scenarios is likely to come to pass, nor is the district going to be wiped off the map. Instead, the legislature is on track to create a successor agency that will lack some of the antiquated and unused powers of the original Reedy Creek district, like the ability to build an airport and a nuclear power plant.

This plan has emerged in public records obtained by Variety, and in interviews offered by Ben Watkins, the director of the state’s bond finance division.

As described by Watkins, the key difference would be the state-appointed board seats. Depending on who held the majority, the new board could be anything from a minor annoyance to a major headache. Park visitors and employees, though, might not notice any difference.

Either way, Disney – which has enjoyed sole control over the district for the last 55 years – would be sharing power with the state.

“Disney would take that happily,” predicted one Tallahassee insider.

Disney has its friends in the legislature and employs 38 lobbyists who can try to tilt the deal in its favor.

But if it can’t reach a legislative solution, the alternative is to file a First Amendment lawsuit. That could easily drag on for years, with no guarantee of success.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Letting the clock run out for the next set of politicians to deal with it isn't an option. Well, it is an option but not a good one for anybody. The law was passed already, it has a hard deadline that's approaching. When it goes into effect, that effect has consequences. Letting the clock run out on that date means all of the consequences happen.

If all of those consequences were "bad for Disney and good for the politicians", then sure, that's totally what they would do. However, I think all the commentary here has shown what a total disaster it is for everyone to go with the current plan and nothing else. Those consequences are "bad for Disney, bad for politicians, bad for locals", basically bad for everyone.

Which leads to something is likely to be done. The something is still very much unclear.

My personal opinion is that if nothing changes and the law as passed happens, it's least bad for Disney vs all the others.

Almost like it was stupid and not thought out at all?

Nah…can’t be….

 

[lazyboy97o]

Another observation here. Disney not suing to keep RCID doesn't imply that they will not sue in the future about something else.

If RCID is dissolved (as current plan) and replaced with something new, and then that something new tries some novel new technique to collect money from Disney. It wouldn't surprise me to see Disney sue the new thing to say that the collection method isn't legal.

There’s a pretty good case to be made that the law doesn’t apply to Reedy Creek Improvement District, which means there is no standing to challenge the law.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I said state or federal court covering any of the possible legal challenges. I’m sure they will factor in the extra administrative burden as well, but as long as they maintain control (meaning the majority of board seats) the state appointed board members can’t really stop a project.

Why should the larger context be ignored and assumed not to occur?

 

[lazyboy97o]

From the same Variety article:

None of those scenarios is likely to come to pass, nor is the district going to be wiped off the map. Instead, the legislature is on track to create a successor agency that will lack some of the antiquated and unused powers of the original Reedy Creek district, like the ability to build an airport and a nuclear power plant.

This plan has emerged in public records obtained by Variety, and in interviews offered by Ben Watkins, the director of the state’s bond finance division.

As described by Watkins, the key difference would be the state-appointed board seats. Depending on who held the majority, the new board could be anything from a minor annoyance to a major headache. Park visitors and employees, though, might not notice any difference.

Either way, Disney – which has enjoyed sole control over the district for the last 55 years – would be sharing power with the state.

“Disney would take that happily,” predicted one Tallahassee insider.

Disney has its friends in the legislature and employs 38 lobbyists who can try to tilt the deal in its favor.

But if it can’t reach a legislative solution, the alternative is to file a First Amendment lawsuit. That could easily drag on for years, with no guarantee of success.

None of this relates to a binding and final agreement. Disney and the District can let people talk and then walk away when the time comes to actually commit. Entering into a negotiation is not a commitment.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The destruction of reedy creek would cause massive disruption to the city, the area around, the four counties, etc etc

What I think…and I’m using that term loosely…is they passed this and attacked Disney thinking somehow they could “compartmentalize” the grief to just them.

It was never possible. Quiet “hat in hand” stuff is going on - my guess.

Which is what that article GoofGoof posted leads to

 

[CntrlFlPete]

With the subject of energy being discussed, are the solar farms owned/operated by WDW or RCID? Just wondering

the newer farms are owned by Disney, designed and maintained by Oragis.

https://www.wesh.com/article/inside-look-walt-disney-world-s-solar-farm/27200762#

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

From the same Variety article:

None of those scenarios is likely to come to pass, nor is the district going to be wiped off the map. Instead, the legislature is on track to create a successor agency that will lack some of the antiquated and unused powers of the original Reedy Creek district, like the ability to build an airport and a nuclear power plant.

This plan has emerged in public records obtained by Variety, and in interviews offered by Ben Watkins, the director of the state’s bond finance division.

As described by Watkins, the key difference would be the state-appointed board seats. Depending on who held the majority, the new board could be anything from a minor annoyance to a major headache. Park visitors and employees, though, might not notice any difference.

Either way, Disney – which has enjoyed sole control over the district for the last 55 years – would be sharing power with the state.

“Disney would take that happily,” predicted one Tallahassee insider.

Disney has its friends in the legislature and employs 38 lobbyists who can try to tilt the deal in its favor.

But if it can’t reach a legislative solution, the alternative is to file a First Amendment lawsuit. That could easily drag on for years, with no guarantee of success.

Doesn’t that “arrangement” sound eerily like the current dynamic with the Anaheim city council?

Oh yeah…fire up the lawyers

 

[mmascari]

There’s a pretty good case to be made that the law doesn’t apply to Reedy Creek Improvement District, which means there is no standing to challenge the law.

If we play out that scenario, one or two lawsuits is likely.

First, by RCID against the state when the state tries to take action using the current law as the basis of that action. RCID suing the state that the action is not valid. This couldn't happen until some action takes place.

Second, by the state against RCID when RCID resists the state taking action based on the law. This also couldn't happen until the state tries to take an action.

Everyone should note that for both of those, Disney isn't involved, it's the RCID government. Additionally, neither is possible until someone tries to take an action using the law to create the conflict that needs resolution.

Either or both of these wouldn't surprise me.