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

Vegas Disney Fan

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
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).
Click to expand...

I suspect the move still happens, as you said it’s a win win for Disney and for Florida. Delaying the move sends a powerful message but more importantly gives Disney a great bargaining chip, ultimately I can’t see them cancelling the move though, Disney is all about profit and there’s too much to gain not to do it.

Ironically one of the biggest reasons I expect this to still happen is CA has just as messy a relationship with Disney as FL does.
 
Last edited:
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Vegas Disney Fan said:
I suspect the move still happens, as you said it’s a win win for Disney and for Florida. Delaying the move sends a powerful message but more importantly gives Disney a great bargaining chip, ultimately I can’t see them cancelling the move though, Disney is all about profit and there’s too much to gain not to do it.

Ironically one of the biggest reasons I expect this to still happen is CA has just as messy a relationship with Disney as FL does.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree. I never thought I’d see the day where CA was more business friendly than FL, but it seems we might be trending in that direction. Not there yet, but if these types of actions continue there will be very negative long term economic impacts for the state. It’s too bad nobody stops to think about it. All this short term thinking is bad. Remember in FL the legislature is capped at 8 years with term limits. While there are definite benefits to that one negative consequence is total lack of long term accountability. Nobody making these calls is going to be in their office more than 6 or 7 years from now and many will be gone sooner.
 
MisterPenguin

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
GoofGoof said:
Yeah, it’s not that CA is business friendly at all, that’s not the point. A 6 foot 9 power forward is shorter than a 7 foot 1 center, that‘s a fact, but it doesn’t mean that the power forward is short.
Click to expand...
That's a... sport.. am I using the term right?... metaphor, right?
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Previously, I wrote:



Allears.net is reporting that at least one state senator is saying the same thing:

allears.net

Why DeSantis May Not “Fundamentally Alter” Disney’s Business in Florida, Despite Claims

Check out the latest updates about Disney World's Reedy Creek Improvement District (including an update about its huge bond debt) and its possible dissolution here.
allears.net allears.net

Specifically, State Senator Linda Stewart is quoted:

Stewart also said, “The DeSantis group is trying to figure out how to look good. Disney is trying to protect the business model.” She believes the most likely end will be that “Republican lawmakers will make some superficial changes to Reedy Creek, allowing them to declare victory, but they won’t fundamentally alter how Disney does business in Florida.”​

The DeSantis administration has little interest in actually controlling any business entity in Florida. They simply are looking for a political win.

Again, there's a deal to be made here.
Click to expand...
I agree….and the deal is not really much of a deal. Just an agreement that potentially gets both sides what they want most out of this. For Disney if they don’t end up changing much of anything it’s an easy win.

From the article, potential options on the table:
  1. The state could delay the June 2023 dissolution date.
  2. The state could merely “amend certain powers of the Reedy Creek district” instead of dissolving it entirely.
  3. The state or local governments could attempt to “change the wording in the district’s charter or completely replace it,” which would require “a 30-day public notice, discussions, and approvals by delegations in the affected counties.
If I were a betting man I’d say #2 is the most likely outcome. That could be done quickly with very little disruption to actual operations and likely very little push back from Disney or local taxpayers. If that isn’t deemed “enough of a win” by the politicians and they want to do #3 then it may require them to do #1 first since there isn’t a whole lot of time left to potentially alter contracts and setup a new district. #2 allows them to strip Disney (through RCID) of their rights to build a nuclear power plant and/or an airport or some other unimportant change.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
My guess:
  • A new independent special district will be created, essentially the same as the old RCID.
  • The new charter will be similar to the old charter, with some of the more unusual privileges in Disney's original charter eliminated.
  • The new charter will allow the governor to appoint a couple of members to the board of supervisors, but residents (i.e. Disney) will retain majority control.
  • Both sides will release statements about how wonderful things are.
  • The new RCID will continue operating pretty much as before.
Click to expand...
I think this seems like a very possible outcome.

The only thing I don’t know about is how distributive that would be for contracts in place. If the district is dissolved and a new district is formed would that result in the requirement to negotiate all new contracts? There may be a way to novate or assign the existing contracts to the new district which is relatively painless to do and could probably be achieved by June. If it’s new contracts they may need to delay this thing another 3-6 months since that will take time to do. I’m not a lawyer and my limited experience around these types of situations involves contracts with corporate entities not municipal ones so I don’t know how difficult or easy it would be. I also don’t know how that would impact the bonds. Same issue as contracts.

If instead of fully dissolving the district and creating a new one they just amend the existing district that may solve the issues with the contracts and bonds since the legal entity that entered into the contract will survive but I’m not sure the legislature has the legal authority to do that. I’m sure that’s what they are talking about now and have been since the beginning of this. Disney plays a part too. If Disney is on board with the plan and agrees not to challenge things in court then the state may have more flexibility to structure things differently. Same with the bond holders. I think in both cases as long as Disney and the bond holders are left in mostly the same position as before they will agree.
 
ParentsOf4

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
At today's town hall, Bob Iger had the following to say regarding RCID:

I was sorry to see us dragged into that battle, and I have no idea what its ramifications are in terms of the business itself. What I can say is that the state of Florida has been very important to us for a long time and that we have been very important to the state of Florida. That is something that I’m extremely mindful of and will articulate if I have the chance, but I don’t have the details at all yet about what the ramifications are of the decision that was made by the state of Florida and whether we intend to do anything about it.​
​
And also:

I think there is a misperception here on what politics is. I think that some of the subjects that have proven to be controversial as it relates to Disney have been branded political, and I don’t necessarily think they are. I don’t think that when you are telling stories and attempting to be a good citizen of the world that that’s political. Just not how I view it. Do I like the company being embroiled in controversy? Of course not. It can be distracting and it can have a negative impact on the company. To the extent that I can work to quiet things down, I’m going to do that. But I think it’s important to put in perspective what some of these subjects are and not just simply brand them political.​

Mostly typical corporate-speak. Lots of carefully chosen words without saying anything of substance.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom