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

[drnilescrane]

Disney started with a “milquetoast” statement and this is what happened.

Disney employees stage walkout to demand action against 'Don't Say Gay' bill

Disney employees are walking out in protest of Disney's response concerning the "Don't Say Gay" bill in Florida.

abcnews.go.com

Which is ultimately my point - swiss cheese. None of these issues exist in a vacuum. There were so many moving parts to how we've ended up here.

For the record, I also don't believe they should have stayed out of it. They should have read the room and issued a statement early. The statement they did issue came well after the issue boiled over on Buena Vista St.

Chapek shouldn't have let the employee issue fester the way it did. But that later point is moot. He's been fired because he couldn't do the job.

 

[hopemax]

Well Disney is the only company in this battle, so one broad example would be how other companies handled it

So going back to the timeline that @ParentsOf4 posted earlier, Disney should have signed the same letter that Amazon, Google and others did? Disney would have had the cover of being in a crowd. DeSantis and et al would then have to have attacked more broadly or not at all. But doing this would be the opposite of what you have been advocating all these pages, that Disney should have "just stayed out of it." IMO, until this comment it looked like you were advocating now for the position Disney took initially. The position that blew up badly, put Disney in a position of being a weak, late comer, and made them easy to pick off by the FL government, like predators following the stragglers of a herd. There seems to be a lack of recognition of that. Disney did what you wanted until it proved to be a problem and changed course to even more disastrous results. Is it impossible to recognize that the situation, which we aren't privy to all the inside details, had to have been pretty crappy to move Disney off of its "stay out of it" position? If "stay out of it" was working out, you just keep walking that path of inertia.

 

[GhostHost1000]

So going back to the timeline that @ParentsOf4 posted earlier, Disney should have signed the same letter that Amazon, Google and others did? Disney would have had the cover of being in a crowd. DeSantis and et al would then have to have attacked more broadly or not at all. But doing this would be the opposite of what you have been advocating all these pages, that Disney should have "just stayed out of it." IMO, until this comment it looked like you were advocating now for the position Disney took initially. The position that blew up badly, put Disney in a position of being a weak, late comer, and made them easy to pick off by the FL government, like predators following the stragglers of a herd. There seems to be a lack of recognition of that. Disney did what you wanted until it proved to be a problem and changed course to even more disastrous results. Is it impossible to recognize that the situation, which we aren't privy to all the inside details, had to have been pretty crappy to move Disney off of its "stay out of it" position? If "stay out of it" was working out, you just keep walking that path of inertia.

I'm done with all the back and forth because it's like beating a dead horse and everyone has their own opinion here and some good posts for the discussion are being removed as well, so I'll just answer with this. We are unfortunately where we are IMO because of a number of (poorly thought through/handled) things Disney has done/overdone, not just 1.

 

[Chi84]

Which is ultimately my point - swiss cheese. None of these issues exist in a vacuum. There were so many moving parts to how we've ended up here.

For the record, I also don't believe they should have stayed out of it. They should have read the room and issued a statement early. The statement they did issue came well after the issue boiled over on Buena Vista St.

Chapek shouldn't have let the employee issue fester the way it did. But that later point is moot. He's been fired because he couldn't do the job.

So you think Disney should have more strongly opposed the law right from the start?

 

[the_rich]

I'm done with all the back and forth because it's like beating a dead horse and everyone has their own opinion here, but I'll answer with this. We are unfortunately where we are IMO because of a number of (poorly thought through/handled) things Disney has done/overdone, not just 1.

But the point is that none of the things that you think they have done/overdone should have brought us to the point of the government doing this.

 

[GhostHost1000]

But the point is that none of the things that you think they have done/overdone should have brought us to the point of the government doing this.

It shouldn’t have, completely agree but it has. Disney has put a target on themselves whether we like to admit it or not over the years and chapek and co. handed out arrows. Florida is using a cannon however to fire back which is wrong but again things Disney has done helped to get us here unfortunately.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Good grief people for the last time…

I DO NOT AGREE WITH FLORIDA COMING AFTER DISNEY AND REEDY CREEK (they are wrong for doing that)

Now back to your regularly scheduled program (hopefully on Hulu, Disney needs help paying streaming bills)

The problem is you don't stop there.

The topic of this thread is the state's attempt to dissolve or take over the RCID.

You're against that. Good.

But then, you can't help yourself. You bring up tangents (which technically, being off topic, is not allowed by this forum's ToS).

And you make the tangents sound like:

• Disney deserves it... the thing you're supposedly against.
• Disney shouldn't have gotten into politics, which make it sound like Disney deserves it... the thing you're supposedly against.
• Disney execs mismanaged this, which make it sound like Disney deserves it... the thing you're supposedly against.

You can certainly disagree with Disney's political stances and political communications and chastise them for mishandling this, or bring up all sort of faults of modern Disney (which is @Rickcat96 's angle on this).

But that is all WHATABOUTISM. Which is not germane. Which muddies the conversation. Which makes it seem like you're OK with what the state is doing because it seems you're incapable of just discussing what the state is doing without the WHATABOUTISM of Disney's political stance or fumbling or other perceived problems.

We know you disagree with what the state is doing... until you bring up these other things in the same sentence and we're all like "are you *really* against what the state is doing?"

So, stop the WHATABOUTISM which is off topic to what this thread is all about: The state's actions.

 

[Chi84]

I'm done with all the back and forth because it's like beating a dead horse and everyone has their own opinion here and some good posts for the discussion are being removed as well, so I'll just answer with this. We are unfortunately where we are IMO because of a number of (poorly thought through/handled) things Disney has done/overdone, not just 1.

But what are you referring to when you say "we are unfortunately where we are?" I'm trying to be open-minded and I don't like back and forth either, but it seems you're being intentionally vague. When you say Disney's poor decisions caused us to be where we are, what do you mean by "where we are?"

 

[Lilofan]

Comcast wants and needs WDW to succeed and do well. If WDW suddenly closed for good it would have a large negative impact on Universal and every other business in the area.

That being said, this happens all the time with companies and governments. Not long ago Disney spent tons of money lobbying the state to oppose the gaming industry. I’m sure companies in that industry were not thrilled with Disney.

ESPN a few months ago was looking for partnership with sports betting . I can envision a guest betting UF with the points over UCF prior to an afternoon at MK.

 

[GhostHost1000]

The problem is you don't stop there.

The topic of this thread is the state's attempt to dissolve or take over the RCID.

You're against that. Good.

But then, you can't help yourself. You bring up tangents (which technically, being off topic, is not allowed by this forum's ToS).

And you make the tangents sound like:

• Disney deserves it... the thing you're supposedly against.
• Disney shouldn't have gotten into politics, which make it sound like Disney deserves it... the thing you're supposedly against.
• Disney execs mismanaged this, which make it sound like Disney deserves it... the thing you're supposedly against.

You can certainly disagree with Disney's political stances and political communications and chastise them for mishandling this, or bring up all sort of faults of modern Disney (which is @Rickcat96 's angle on this).

But that is all WHATABOUTISM. Which is not germane. Which muddies the conversation. Which makes it seem like you're OK with what the state is doing because it seems you're incapable of just discussing what the state is doing without the WHATABOUTISM of Disney's political stance or fumbling or other perceived problems.

We know you disagree with what the state is doing... until you bring up these other things in the same sentence and we're all like "are you *really* against what the state is doing?"

So, stop the WHATABOUTISM which is off topic to what this thread is all about: The state's actions.

It’s all related.

 

[GhostHost1000]

But what are you referring to when you say "we are unfortunately where we are?" I'm trying to be open-minded and I don't like back and forth either, but it seems you're being intentionally vague. When you say Disney's poor decisions caused us to be where we are, what do you mean by "where we are?"

Where Disney is. (we as in us fans of Disney)

 

[MisterPenguin]

It’s all related.

So, when you say the state shouldn't be retaliating...

I don't believe you.

 

[GhostHost1000]

So, when you say the state shouldn't be retaliating...

I don't believe you.

ok

 

[Chi84]

Where Disney is. (we as in us fans of Disney)

My question is do you think Disney should have tempered its actions in any way at all based on the possibility of behind the scenes retaliation by the state? It's kind of yes or no.

 

[lewisc]

I read Disney was stopping contributions to state legislators . I wonder how the $$$ enters into this.

The new law changes the board from elected to political appointees. The name is being changed. Powers are being expanded. It sounds like the present district is being repealed and replaced, no matter what the legislation claims.

We have no idea if the bond holders have any rights.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It shouldn’t have, completely agree but it has. Disney has put a target on themselves whether we like to admit it or not over the years and chapek and co. handed out arrows. Florida is using a cannon however to fire back which is wrong but again things Disney has done helped to get us here unfortunately.

Disney already had a target on their back.

They did not hand out arrows. You’re still making analogies that create an equivalence you also deny.

 

[GhostHost1000]

My question is do you think Disney should have tempered its actions in any way at all based on the possibility of behind the scenes retaliation by the state? It's kind of yes or no.

Disney should never have to worry about retaliation by the state unless they do something illegal which this wasn’t

We can’t fail to recognize however all the little things that got them into this mess over the years which brought attention and now politics into it.

 

[flynnibus]

It shouldn’t have, completely agree but it has

So the most valued part of our government is under threat... but you wanna keep reiterating that Disney shouldn't have risked themselves.
Priorities man.

 

[Portable Hole]

Recall that back in 2004, when Comcast was making noises about a possible buyout of Disney, the state conducted an analysis of RCID in light of the potential change in landownership. The report found the foremost cause for concern to be the possibility of a new owner replacing existing RCID board members with new, inexperienced board members unfamiliar with the district’s unique operations.

“…RCID’s board members could be replaced quickly and without cause at the discretion of a new primary landowner. This could suddenly deprive RCID of years of collective experience with district issues as well as the demonstrated commitment to the agenda previously followed by the board. State policymakers could encounter new and different primary owner issues articulated by new board members with less understanding of current practices and their historical basis.”

https://oppaga.fl.gov/Documents/Reports/04-81.pdf p9

 

[lazyboy97o]

I read Disney was stopping contributions to state legislators and presumably emperor Santos. I wonder how the $$$ enters into this.

The new law changes the board from elected to political appointees. The name is being changed. Powers are being expanded. It sounds like the present district is being repealed and replaced, no matter what the legislation claims.

We have no idea if the bond holders have any rights.

The bonds are a big reason the District is being retained instead of being dissolved. There is language in the bill about the bonds and ensuring they are paid.

I’d love to know what has held off action from any bond holders.