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

[LAKid53]

I really hope the Reedy Creek district doesn't get removed. For numerous reasons. One, it will likely lead to inferior experiences at the Florida Parks as it will take Disney longer to get projects approved and it will cost Disney more money.

But I also think it's disturbing that Florida is punishing Disney for speaking its mind about a piece of legislation that could have a detrimental impact to its many LGBTQ employees. The very intent of removing the district isn't to benefit Florida residents, it's a malicious act of revenge by DeSantis.

Drive around the roads in Orange and Osceola Counties. THAT'S what you'll get on Disney property if DeSantis gets his way.

Think how quickly fire services responded when trees on top of SDMT caught fire.

 

[Andrew C]

Do you not know that a publicly traded company is still a private entity?

Understood. Was just pointing out the supposed reason for his interest. The state having an apparent stake. Providing context.

Also, companies can be referred to as public or private in certain (and common) contexts. Like musk wanting to buy Twitter and take it private for a example.

 

[mikejs78]

Understood. Was just pointing out the supposed reason for his interest. The state having an apparent stake. Providing context.

Also, companies can be referred to as public or private in certain (and common) contexts. Like musk wanting to buy Twitter and take it private for a example.

Governments don't have an interest in public companies. Public just means that the stock is open for anyone to purchase, not that it's public in the sense of the public sector.

 

[LAKid53]

The Reedy Creek Improvement District was something that could have only happened in the 1960's, especially with Walt's inherent charm involved to woo the local politicians.

I don't think any massive corporation should have self-governance in the 21st century. But if I was in charge of a massive corporation that enjoyed the luxury and profitability of self-governance grandfathered in since the 1960's, I sure as heck wouldn't put any of that at risk by publicly opposing the current government's popular legislation. (Don't forget, even 52% of Florida Democrats support the Parental Rights bill!)

Somehow, Universal Studios, Darden Corporation and any other number of big players in Florida get a free pass on this one. Only Bob Chapek and Burbank leadership got into this mess. Why is that?

Uh, the Florida Legislature created RCID, not local politicians. And RCID isn't the only special district.

 

[LAKid53]

Governments don't have an interest in public companies. Public just means that the stock is open for anyone to purchase, not that it's public in the sense of the public sector.

Correct

 

[monothingie]

Think how quickly fire services responded when trees on top of SDMT caught fire.

Not exactly.

Reedy Creek FD is understaffed and underpaid (compared to OC) and do not have the resources they require to adequately handle response calls.

Integrating RCID FD with OC would result in better pay for first responders, improved response, and access to more resources.

 

[Andrew C]

Governments don't have an interest in public companies. Public just means that the stock is open for anyone to purchase, not that it's public in the sense of the public sector.

The state of Florida is an investor in Twitter through their state pension fund. According the the article I shared, that much is true. That is the apparent reason for the gov's interest in the case, according to him. I am not saying I agree with it or not...or whether or not that is the real reason for him wanting to look at it. I am only saying that is what he is pointing out as the state's stake/interest in Twitter. You can agree with him or disagree.

 

[JohnD]

Passed by party line vote in House committee: 14-7.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

The Reedy Creek Improvement District was something that could have only happened in the 1960's, especially with Walt's inherent charm involved to woo the local politicians.

I don't think any massive corporation should have self-governance in the 21st century. But if I was in charge of a massive corporation that enjoyed the luxury and profitability of self-governance grandfathered in since the 1960's, I sure as heck wouldn't put any of that at risk by publicly opposing the current government's popular legislation. (Don't forget, even 52% of Florida Democrats support the Parental Rights bill!)

Somehow, Universal Studios, Darden Corporation and any other number of big players in Florida get a free pass on this one. Only Bob Chapek and Burbank leadership got into this mess. Why is that?

The ability to speak out about an issue without fear of consequences from the government shouldn't hinge on how popular your opinion is. That goes against the foundation of a free society. It's one thing for there to be backlash from consumers or employees. It's another for there to be retaliation by the government.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Some scary rhetoric here.

 

[durangojim]

The Reedy Creek Improvement District was something that could have only happened in the 1960's, especially with Walt's inherent charm involved to woo the local politicians.

I don't think any massive corporation should have self-governance in the 21st century. But if I was in charge of a massive corporation that enjoyed the luxury and profitability of self-governance grandfathered in since the 1960's, I sure as heck wouldn't put any of that at risk by publicly opposing the current government's popular legislation. (Don't forget, even 52% of Florida Democrats support the Parental Rights bill!)

Somehow, Universal Studios, Darden Corporation and any other number of big players in Florida get a free pass on this one. Only Bob Chapek and Burbank leadership got into this mess. Why is that?

I think it's because he said something at all. I believe if he had either ignored the issue and let the employees rant and rave on twitter and protest the story would have been done and over by now. He may have lost some employees but I don't think it would have hurt the company much. It also would have set the precedent that the company under his "leadership" would be less political going forward without him having to actually say it. Lots of people would be upset for a while but they'd get over it. Also lots of people wouldn't have been upset at all.

 

[Brian]

But this isn't scrutiny - that is what study commissions are for. This is a knee jerk political move during a special session. There is nothing serious about the process.

Agreed.

The pretext actually matters a lot. Retaliation for someone speaking out on a piece of legislation falls a lot higher on the hierarchy of rights than whether RCID is a sweetheart deal or not. (I can easily debate that it wasn't - but that's not the point. Debate it on the merits, fine. But not in retaliation for expressing a political opinion. )

Would you support scrutinizing deals from time to time that ostensibly benefit specific entities? Leaving obvious political pettiness aside.

 

[LAKid53]

Understood. Was just pointing out the supposed reason for his interest. The state having an apparent stake. Providing context.

Also, companies can be referred to as public or private in certain (and common) contexts. Like musk wanting to buy Twitter and take it private for a example.

If Musk acts on his threat to take Twitter private, that affects whatever the SBA's position in Twitter is.

 

[LAKid53]

But this isn't scrutiny - that is what study commissions are for. This is a knee jerk political move during a special session. There is nothing serious about the process.

It is a shame we don't value governance.

So instead of the upcoming session focusing on a real crisis in the state - homeowners insurance - it will be a bunch of legislators postering before the cameras in Tallahassee.

 

[Disney Analyst]

So instead of the upcoming session focusing on a real crisis in the state - homeowners insurance - it will be a bunch of legislators postering before the cameras in Tallahassee.

Sounds about Right

 

[LAKid53]

Would you support scrutinizing deals from time to time that ostensibly benefit specific entities? Leaving obvious political pettiness aside.

Yes. I've got a few in mind....

But this deal is beneficial to both TWDC and the residents of the 2 counties those 43 square miles lie in.

 

[TP2000]

Because Disney employees started doing walkouts. Other companies employees did not.

Regardless I think you're missing my key point. It shouldn't matter how bad Chapek handled this. I completely agree that he handled this horribly. But a government should not retaliate against speech, full stop. Everything else is secondary.

Should a CEO publicly condemn a state politician though? Chapek specifically took on DeSantis and his popular legislation, to apparently appease 98 hipsters who walked out in Burbank and who don't vote in Florida. How stupid does Chapek have to be to not know that? Who the heck was writing Chapek's public statements in open criticism of a popular governor and popular legislation?

Not a single person walked out at Disneyland, that employs 30,000 people on site.

In Florida, that employs 65,000+ on site, exactly one (1) Disney employee walked out. It was a lone hourly CM who works in a Disney World gift shop.

And I thought that kid was 100 times braver and has far more respect from me than any salaried hipsters who took a Comp Day to parade around the Burbank campus for 20 minutes before going to Brunch to brag about "how brave we are!" over Mimosas. When they were anything but brave, because they know not only will they not get any pushback or career damage for their Comp Day stunt, but they will be lauded and praised by coworkers and on Instagram for... taking a Comp Day from their salary cubicle jobs at a liberal company in a very liberal town. There is no bravery or danger involved there.

You did it, hipsters! You took a Comp Day and got Likes on the 'Gram! Now it's time for Brunch!

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Some scary rhetoric here.

"You know that business of yours that is responsible for billions of dollars of tourism revenue? Yeah, you're just a guest in this here state." What a warm, business-friendly message to send. I'm sure no other large corporations considering moving their headquarters in the future will ever remember that.

 

[mgf]

Would you support scrutinizing deals from time to time that ostensibly benefit specific entities? Leaving obvious political pettiness aside.

I wrote a grad thesis on preferential public spending on sports stadiums.... where do I sign up?!?

 

[mikejs78]

The state of Florida is an investor in Twitter through their state pension fund. According the the article I shared, that much is true. That is the apparent reason for the gov's interest in the case, according to him. I am not saying I agree with it or not...or whether or not that is the real reason for him wanting to look at it. I am only saying that is what he is pointing out as the state's stake/interest in Twitter. You can agree with him or disagree.

The state of Florida as a shareholder should have no more or less input into the workings of a company than any other stockholder. The state of Florida could express their views about the makeup of Twitter via normal corporate governance dash shareholder meetings, votes, letters to the board, etc. Using governmental levers of legislation to protect the states interest in a particular stock smacks of government cronyism.

Agreed.


Would you support scrutinizing deals from time to time that ostensibly benefit specific entities? Leaving obvious political pettiness aside.

I would. That's the reasonable job of legislators. But this isn't that - this was an express statement of retaliation for political speech.