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

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
Who signed his check and who paid his insurance. That is who he worked for

Technically true but it’s somewhat irrelevant what name is on the check. We all know “who” they work for.

I’ve worked for the same casino for 21 years, in that time we’ve been owned by an individual, 3 investment firms, and a hospitality company, we’ve also had management agreements with a couple gaming companies… all in all my checks have had a half dozen different names over the years (not once being the name of the casino) but my “employer” has never changed. Even our pay and benefits never change because our union contract just transfers across to the new company.
 

rogerrabbitfan9

Active Member
While Desantis deserves credit (good or bad) for this, it’s not like the legislature only did their end of it because he asked them to.

Remember this all started because Disney made a public declaration to cut all political donations over a single issue. This whole things is as much a statement from the Legislature to Disney that if they want special dispensation than the cash must keep flowing as it is a political stunt by the governor.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
This whole things is as much a statement from the Legislature to Disney that if they want special dispensation than the cash must keep flowing as it is a political stunt by the governor.

It’s a great example of the primary flaw in our political system, the donors use money to sway politicians, the politicians use their votes to extract money from the donors.

Rather than representation of the people it becomes representation of those giving the most money. Unless you’re a company, union, PAC, etc with deep pockets you don’t have much say, and if you aren’t willing to play the game as a candidate you won’t be able to compete against the unlimited dollars of those who will play.

Still a better system than most though. We might not have a huge voice but at least we have a small voice.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Doesn't the governor still have to sign off on it?
Yes and no. The governor can sign legislation to make it law or simply not act in which case it also becomes law. The governor can veto legislation and that veto can be overturned by a supermajority of each legislative house.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Technically true but it’s somewhat irrelevant what name is on the check. We all know “who” they work for.

No it is relevant because the organization actually operates independently and not just in name. You can point to them being under the puppet strings of Disney because direction/policy is not fully independent, but the entity runs on its own, even more than just a legal separation or name difference.

Disney indirectly controls the board because it controls who is eligible and of course those people know their role - but it doesn't have that same control over employees
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I think the simple pretense unspoken but assumed in all this is that through negotiation a compromise is reached that Disney would agree to and give their blessing. Do they HAVE to? In most cases it seems not - but like most high level business it's not about what you MUST do but what is in your best interest in the end game.
^this exactly. Too many people are looking at this situation through a political view point and with emotions involved. Disney doesn’t have to negotiate or agree to a compromise, but they might if they think that’s the best plan of action to get to the best possible outcome. Their goal isn’t to “beat” the Governor is a political contest.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Remember this all started because Disney made a public declaration to cut all political donations over a single issue. This whole things is as much a statement from the Legislature to Disney that if they want special dispensation than the cash must keep flowing as it is a political stunt by the governor.
So you’d be ok with legislatures punishing people and companies if they don’t continue to contribute financially? Really?

the legislature passed a law to target 50+ year old legislation in order to punish Disney. It also negatively impacts other districts and countless other entities and individuals. This doesn’t just harm Disney.
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
So you’d be ok with legislatures punishing people and companies if they don’t continue to contribute financially? Really?

the legislature passed a law to target 50+ year old legislation in order to punish Disney. It also negatively impacts other districts and countless other entities and individuals. This doesn’t just harm Disney.
Yeah, the Marion Law Library is the victim here
 

rogerrabbitfan9

Active Member
So you’d be ok with legislatures punishing people and companies if they don’t continue to contribute financially? Really?

the legislature passed a law to target 50+ year old legislation in order to punish Disney. It also negatively impacts other districts and countless other entities and individuals. This doesn’t just harm Disney.
I didn’t say I was ok with it, but that is the system that’s in place. I’ll actually go further and say that abolishing the district was immature on the part of the governor and the legislature and the whole thing could have been handled in a much better manner if people were acting like adults.

I mainly was making the point that getting rid of the governor isn’t enough to fix the problem. The legislature is as much to blame as he is.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I didn’t say I was ok with it, but that is the system that’s in place. I’ll actually go further and say that abolishing the district was immature on the part of the governor and the legislature and the whole thing could have been handled in a much better manner if people were acting like adults.

I mainly was making the point that getting rid of the governor isn’t enough to fix the problem. The legislature is as much to blame as he is.
The part that disturbs me is the number of people who seem to be perfectly fine with government officials blatantly overstepping their authority and using the power given to them “by the people“ to attack someone (in this case a company) for opposing their political views. This is common in places like Russia where Putin uses the power of the government to silence rivals, but it goes against everything this country stands for (or maybe used to stand for :(). No matter what your opinion is about the bill that started all of this or which side you come down on this whole situation with RCID should not be acceptable to you. And by “you” I mean a generic reader, just happened to be replying to your post. I agree it could and should have been handled differently.

Getting back to RCID and more importantly Disney’s reaction, it’s hard to know how this will impact WDW long term. Disney for 50 years was a strong partner with the government of FL bringing in billions of dollars and millions of jobs to the region when you look at both direct and indirect impacts. This has potential future impacts that go well beyond the simple interests of the current crop of politicians. Long after they are out of office Disney will still be in FL doing business (hopefully). This unfortunate situation could have very real long term impacts. So far Disney hasn’t officially cancelled moving the batch of jobs from CA to FL. As far as I know that has been delayed some but not cancelled, but that could still happen. FL had a golden opportunity to lure a bigger chunk of TWDC to their state but that’s in jeopardy now as well as any future plans to move more. Disney cannot just close WDW or move it to another state, but they don’t need to move other jobs there and other companies are watching this situation too. It has become less and less desirable for large corporations to move jobs to a place that is hostile towards business. That may be even more troubling for the state long term. Many efforts were made to diversify the state economy away from an almost total reliance on tourism, but while you cannot move the beach or a theme park it’s less difficult to move warehouses and factories and offices.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
^this exactly. Too many people are looking at this situation through a political view point and with emotions involved. Disney doesn’t have to negotiate or agree to a compromise, but they might if they think that’s the best plan of action to get to the best possible outcome.
Exactly, and we've got no idea what's the best possible outcome for Disney today. It's entirely possible that eliminating the district is actually the better option. Fifty years ago, that wasn't true. For that matter, even 25 years ago, having the district was almost certainly the best option for Disney.

But, today? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe some new thing is better. There's a huge loss of control by losing control of the district board members. On the other side, there's a very real loss of a substantial tax burden by eliminating the district. Which is worth more is the billion dollar question.

Their goal isn’t to “beat” the Governor is a political contest.
Maybe. Probably even. This is correct.

We know Disney contributes to all kinds of different politicians. Despite what we may pretend, individual politicians are not as monolithic as the parties present themselves. Along with people and companies frequently don't agree 100% with any of them. Which makes it entirely possible for Disney to simultaneously dislike this specific political move while at the same time liking some other move. That distinction alone is a reason Disney wouldn't want to "beat at all costs" on one specific issue. Unless of course that issue is super core to the company with drastic long term impacts.

Having said that, now that it's October and we're weeks away from the election. If Disney wanted to go scorched earth, it's October surprise time now. Which also means, the deeper into October we go, less likely they want to do this.


Thrown into all of this, is how much faith do we have in the Disney management team and their actual goals and tactics to get them. There's probably a dozen active posts saying how bad management is and that they have no idea how to do anything. 🤔
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
The part that disturbs me is the number of people who seem to be perfectly fine with government officials blatantly overstepping their authority and using the power given to them “by the people“ to attack someone (in this case a company) for opposing their political views. This is common in places like Russia where Putin uses the power of the government to silence rivals, but it goes against everything this country stands for (or maybe used to stand for :(). No matter what your opinion is about the bill that started all of this or which side you come down on this whole situation with RCID should not be acceptable to you.
If we see Disney go scorched earth, this will be why. They would be reacting to the current issue as a stepping stone to political interference all of their content generation. It would need to be soon with a crescendo of impact culminating on election day. The later we go into October without that, the more we can assume Disney does not see it as a stepping stone to that outcome and thinks it's a more isolated incident. Perhaps that they can ward off larger impacts just by dragging out the current events and that they don't need to win this battle with such devastation that there will be no future battles.

The slow slog of dragging it out and just making this type of interference ineffective is way less 🍿 worthy, but probably better business sense.

FL had a golden opportunity to lure a bigger chunk of TWDC to their state but that’s in jeopardy now as well as any future plans to move more. Disney cannot just close WDW or move it to another state, but they don’t need to move other jobs there and other companies are watching this situation too. It has become less and less desirable for large corporations to move jobs to a place that is hostile towards business. That may be even more troubling for the state long term. Many efforts were made to diversify the state economy away from an almost total reliance on tourism, but while you cannot move the beach or a theme park it’s less difficult to move warehouses and factories and offices.
If they went scorched earth, this is the exact attack line they would follow. That all of these things are bad for FL not just Disney. That they need to stay in FL long term, and if they lose a scored earth plan is a very good reason to not do one. On the other hand, Disney benefits greatly from other companies bringing more employees to FL. Between spouses wanting better jobs or just general turnover, having a larger pool of employers helps increase the desired employee pools and attractiveness. No company wants to be the "only" company. They don't want to be one of hundreds either. :) But, having a bunch raises the pool for everyone. They want FL to be attractive to more employees which means being attractive to more employers.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Maybe. Probably even. This is correct.

We know Disney contributes to all kinds of different politicians. Despite what we may pretend, individual politicians are not as monolithic as the parties present themselves. Along with people and companies frequently don't agree 100% with any of them. Which makes it entirely possible for Disney to simultaneously dislike this specific political move while at the same time liking some other move. That distinction alone is a reason Disney wouldn't want to "beat at all costs" on one specific issue. Unless of course that issue is super core to the company with drastic long term impacts.
I completely agree on this point. IMHO the overall goal for TWDC management is to maximize profits. It may be that they determine that the best way to do this is a public court fight, but that’s not likely. Again, just my opinion. As you said, there have been many other times when the goals of TWDC and the government in FL were aligned. Disney wanted to make more money doing business in the state and the state wanted to grow the economy and provide more jobs for residents. Win/win for both sides. It’s entirely possible that despite not being at all happy about this current dispute Disney will play the long game. Don’t throw away 50 years of cooperation and mutual benefit over one disagreement (even though that is exactly what the politicians have done). However, they may be less likely to jump into large, new investments right away for fear that this is not an isolated one off incident but rather a sign of a new norm. That would be unfortunate for us as parks fans.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
If we see Disney go scorched earth, this will be why. They would be reacting to the current issue as a stepping stone to political interference all of their content generation. It would need to be soon with a crescendo of impact culminating on election day. The later we go into October without that, the more we can assume Disney does not see it as a stepping stone to that outcome and thinks it's a more isolated incident. Perhaps that they can ward off larger impacts just by dragging out the current events and that they don't need to win this battle with such devastation that there will be no future battles.

The slow slog of dragging it out and just making this type of interference ineffective is way less 🍿 worthy, but probably better business sense.
I agree. It’s why I’ve said the likely outcome will likely disappoint some on both sides who want a fight. Sometimes winning a fight can actually be a loss.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom