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

Dranth

Dranth

Well-Known Member
Rickcat96 said:
Agree with you on everything you said.

What I attempted to articulate was Arrogance put Disney in its own dilemma. As I stated, the states retaliation is out of line. The state did what Disney has done for years leading up to this- Push their weight around.

Disney is not the victim; they are the bully and the bully got bullied back.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying, but it is the characterization that they got what was coming to them I don't agree with.

What Disney has been doing is legal. They can offer poor service, jack up prices as much as they want retheme ever single ride in every one of their parks to "Cheap, Poorly Thought out, Misplaced Ride: The Adventure" and then only allow people to ride them once a day with a $200 per person ILL on top of a $500 entrance fee. They can then release a statement at the end of the day and say every state they operate in stinks and is run by a bunch of clowns. Doesn’t matter, it would all be 100% legal and within their rights as a private company to do so.

Poor business choice yes, but that is all. Getting what was coming to them would have been people who don’t like the quality or direction of the company no longer doing business with them.
 
Last edited:
Rickcat96

Rickcat96

Well-Known Member
Dranth said:
I see where you are saying, but it is the characterization that they got what was coming to them I don't agree with.

What Disney has been doing is legal. They can offer poor service, jack up prices as much as they want retheme ever single ride in everyone one of their parks to "Cheap, Poorly Thought out, Misplaced Ride: The Adventure" and then only allow people to ride them once a day with a $200 per person ILL on top of a $500 entrance fee. They can then release a statement at the end of the day and say every state they operate in stinks and is run by a bunch of clowns. Doesn’t matter, it would all be 100% legal and within their rights as a private company to do so.

Poor business choice yes, but that is all. Getting what was coming to them would have been people who don’t like the quality or direction of the company no longer doing business with them.
Click to expand...
Thanks for fixing my thoughts better than I was able.
 
kong1802

kong1802

Well-Known Member
GhostHost1000 said:
You’re not seriously using news media being moderated and politicized as an example of something not already happening today are you?

Everything is politicized these days and too much is “controlled” by the govt which is why there is so much lobbying and political donations etc.. It would probably be mind boggling if we really knew what all went on behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

My example had nothing to do with any of that.

My example was one of government taking over an operation of a private business as retaliation for an opinion that it didn't like.

Nothing more.
 
Disstevefan1

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
There’s is zero justification for the change…which is what Disney’s entire case will be if goes to court
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
Click to expand...
I never said it was a good idea. In fact, I am against it.

The new district can't possibly make things easier for WDW to do anything.

For purely selfish reasons, I want WDW be able to build new things at will like they could with RCID.

The state had the power to do this at any time during the 50 something years.

Someone fact check me - I am not sure if the state technically ever needed to justify it? That they always could have dissolved RCID at will?
 
kong1802

kong1802

Well-Known Member
Disstevefan1 said:
I never said it was a good idea. In fact, I am against it.

The new district can't possibly make things easier for WDW to do anything.

For purely selfish reasons, I want WDW be able to build new things at will like they could with RCID.

The state had the power to do this at any time during the 50 something years.

Someone fact check me - I am not sure if the state technically ever needed to justify it? That they always could have dissolved RCID at will?
Click to expand...

I think that's the "rub".

If they would have said nothing, and casually presented a bill to dissolve RCID, I don't think Disney has a 1A claim. At least not as strong of one.

But loudmouths gonna loudmouth.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Dranth said:
I see what you are saying, but it is the characterization that they got what was coming to them I don't agree with.

What Disney has been doing is legal. They can offer poor service, jack up prices as much as they want retheme ever single ride in every one of their parks to "Cheap, Poorly Thought out, Misplaced Ride: The Adventure" and then only allow people to ride them once a day with a $200 per person ILL on top of a $500 entrance fee. They can then release a statement at the end of the day and say every state they operate in stinks and is run by a bunch of clowns. Doesn’t matter, it would all be 100% legal and within their rights as a private company to do so.

Poor business choice yes, but that is all. Getting what was coming to them would have been people who don’t like the quality or direction of the company no longer doing business with them.
Click to expand...
Agree…

Disney conduct in this - while not expert - has been completely within the laws passed and general business practices.

As long as decline of product - my wheelhouse - it has nothing to do with thjs at all.

Iger lead them to Wall Street speculation…Wall Street is gonna demand increasing profits every day…Disney can’t do that…so they squeeze their customers.

That’s not a Florida issue.

The way to counter thad is US…the customers have to reject products to keep them honest. Why would they invest to “make more” when we’ll spend more with Ivy it? That is the epitaph of the Iger era. That statement. The customers need to get our house in order. I’ll on the hill if you need me.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Chi84 said:
So is your point that Disney should temper its decisions based on concern over what government may do to them behind the scenes?
Click to expand...
That…is what is in danger of not passing C-Law scrutiny…

You don’t have to dig too far into US code to make a case that political retaliation is forbidden…

And what’s ironic…is my boy Antonin made the case way stronger - by going outside precedence and declaring that companies can - literally - buy government and claim 1A

That’s like the torpedo coming back on you a la the end of Red October….for one particular party.
 
GhostHost1000

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
Chi84 said:
What was the better way?
Click to expand...
Any way would have probably been better than this way. They literally played and made both sides mad in how they handled all of this. The decision making over the last few years in general for TWDC for many things has been questionable at times
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
GhostHost1000 said:
No,
Click to expand...
Great, we all agree, that Disney should make decision about how to run it's business including commentary on public policy without fear of government retribution.

GhostHost1000 said:
but there are/were better ways to handle things to not get into the situation the company is in and image the company now has
Click to expand...
Oh, so, not really "no" then. Disney should totally make decisions about how to run it's business to avoid government retribution.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom