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

[Tom Morrow]

personally, i hope they sue. yes it’ll probably give disney some bad press & maybe some negativity.

The only people not on Disney's side on this are anti-lgbt bigots (because that's what this is really about), sooo....

the way i look at it is if disney doesn’t sue, who or what is to say this won’t happen again to another company/individual(s) either in florida or another state by government officials/legislature. it’s opening a door for setting a dangerous precedent. just my 2 cents.

It definitely is a dangerous precedent.

 

[GoofGoof]

I’ll just say since I assume this will sail through the senate too I’m very intrigued to see what kind of land management, civics, and general local governmental experience these new appointees will have.

Politics aside (since this is dumb policy too): Hopefully there’s some semblance of balance between “serious experience” and the “flash-in-the-pan thorn-in-the-side disrupters”. We know there will be some appointees that fall in the latter camp, for sure, since the Governor needs the headline or all this will have be for naught. But here’s hoping (in the event litigation is unsuccessful) for a functioning governable majority with base level understanding of local governance and advancing the basic needs of the District.

I assume behind the scenes a coalition of business, municipalities, and public safety can successfully lobby the Governor/Administration behind the scenes and propose candidates that are going to be in the spirit of good governance.

I wouldn’t expect any effort to be made to find anyone with any relevant experience. The whole thing is a sham and the point is to show complete and unrestrained control for one man. Putting a bunch of stooges on the board will be the absolute play. Look no further than every other time he’s taken something over and appointed people. Not a fine track record for concern bout qualifications. Only qualification needed is willingness to kiss the ring.

 

[MR.Dis]

It appears this is going to be taken up by the Senate tomorrow. If they approve, it will go to the Gov's desk for signature into law. I bring this up because the bill states the new board can be appointed upon the bill becoming law. That means Disney does Not have the option of taking time to decide what to do. If they want to stop this, they will need to go to court immediately to file a law suite And ask for an injunction to stop while this is being litigated. We will know sooner than later.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

The new requirements could disqualify a lot of experienced people, especially those with experience in Central Florida.

I have to admit ignorance that I haven’t read the latest version of this bill nor have I kept up with all the 405 pages of this discussion.

Typically when drafting this type of statuary language that type of experience (I.e. minimum bar threshold for years served, etc) would be a precursor even if the administration is given the ultimate latitude within the mandate to make the selection, but since this is a political exercise I recognize this is an atypical case.

For example I do know amendments to diversify the board experience with a mix of state and local expertise were shot down. But in that case I recall that one amendment allowed the localities to select some of the board members which would have been a nonstarter as it was perceived as being “insufficiently punitive”.

This is all highly unusual and antithesis of good governance.

 

[Cliff]

So the proposal easily passed and will be signed by the governor soon. So who benefits from this and who is hurt by this? I’m not talking about hurt “pride” or “ego”. How would this “actually” hurt Disney’s ability to operate their parks and hotels?

 

[rio]

So the proposal easily passed and will be signed by the governor soon. So who benefits from this and who is hurt by this? I’m not talking about hurt “pride” or “ego”. How would this “actually” hurt Disney’s ability to operate their parks and hotels?

The governor can appoint board members who oversees Reedy Creek. Disney must work with Reedy Creek when negotiating services, taxes, maintenance, etc.

So Disney pays the taxes to maintain Reedy Creek, but does not have the ability to decide who governs them. Better, those board members only really answer to the governor, not Disney or the other land owners.

That’s a win for the governor

 

[kenny279]

So the proposal easily passed and will be signed by the governor soon. So who benefits from this and who is hurt by this? I’m not talking about hurt “pride” or “ego”. How would this “actually” hurt Disney’s ability to operate their parks and hotels?

The new board could punish Disney by raising taxes, levels of red tape, not approve projects that require approval, appoint hostile to Disney staff to oversee it. Won’t affect day to day operations but can have a significant impact because the board will be loyal to Gov. not anyone who elects them. Not that he current elected board is impartial either.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The new board could punish Disney by raising taxes, levels of Ted tape, not approve projects that require approval, appoint hostile to Disney staff to oversee it. Won’t affect day to day operations but can have a significant impact because the board will not loyal to Gov. not anyone who elects them. Not that he current elected board is impartial either.

The board of supervisors absolutely could adopt rules that would impact day-to-day operations.

 

[mmascari]

How would this “actually” hurt Disney’s ability to operate their parks and hotels?

I'm sorry, this post doesn't meet the standards required to post on a Disney Board as determined by the governor appointed board. Please update and try again. We'll get around to reviewing changes when we can, we're very busy and understaffed currently. We've got this pothole we're also not fixing, it's not a priority for us either, but it's very distracting to our time as it really messes up the drive in.

If you do not like this decision, please vote for better board members in the future who will do a better job. Psych, you don't get to vote for board members and have no representation in the local controlling government at all.

Something like that comes to mind.

 

[Figgy1]

The new board could punish Disney by raising taxes, levels of red tape, not approve projects that require approval, appoint hostile to Disney staff to oversee it. Won’t affect day to day operations but can have a significant impact because the board will not loyal to Gov. not anyone who elects them. Not that he current elected board is impartial either.

I wonder how this will effect road repairs and the ability to get from one place to the other "on property"

 

[mmascari]

The new board could punish Disney by raising taxes, levels of red tape, not approve projects that require approval, appoint hostile to Disney staff to oversee it. Won’t affect day to day operations but can have a significant impact because the board will not loyal to Gov. not anyone who elects them.

There's probably nothing that stops the new board from severely reducing staff to eliminate costs. Slow rolling all maintenance, also to reduce costs. Those might even sound reasonable on the surface.

Say they slow roll cannel water management, that then floods a road, so it develops pot holes, then slow walk the repairs. So, instead of some minor issue, it becomes an entire lane of a road shut down for months with construction cones blocking it off. That would create a huge disruption to day to day operations. Because traffic around WDW is already so wonderful.

Further, add in a wink and a nudge that fixing that road could be arranged if Disney would just change some of it's Disney+ content. Remove an episode or a series from the platform. Something that's clearly to woke and should be eliminated.

Not that he current elected board is impartial either.

The current elected board represents it's voters. If they do a poor job, they can be replaced at the next vote. They're not "impartial" in that they represent their voters which is almost entirely Disney.

 

[rio]

Say they slow roll cannel water management, that then floods a road, so it develops pot holes, then slow walk the repairs. So, instead of some minor issue, it becomes an entire lane of a road shut down for months with construction cones blocking it off. That would create a huge disruption to day to day operations. Because traffic around WDW is already so wonderful.

Further, add in a wink and a nudge that fixing that road could be arranged if Disney would just change some of it's Disney+ content. Remove an episode or a series from the platform. Something that's clearly to woke and should be eliminated.


The current elected board represents it's voters. If they do a poor job, they can be replaced at the next vote. They're not "impartial" in that they represent their voters which is almost entirely Disney.

I wonder how this will affect bondholders and the credit ratingness of Reedy Creek or other entities in the state. The board can entirely choose to make decisions detrimental to bondholders and the only man who can tell them to stop is the governor.

 

[Dranth]

The new board could punish Disney by raising taxes, levels of red tape, not approve projects that require approval, appoint hostile to Disney staff to oversee it. Won’t affect day to day operations but can have a significant impact because the board will be loyal to Gov. not anyone who elects them. Not that he current elected board is impartial either.

Not to mention that the bill seems to want to guarantee that no one who has any idea of what they are doing or has any understanding of the needs of a district like this is able to serve on the board.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I wonder how this will affect bondholders and the credit ratingness of Reedy Creek or other entities in the state. The board can entirely choose to make decisions detrimental to bondholders and the only man who can tell them to stop is the governor.

I could see where the increased tax authority decreases the ability for bondholders to make claims. The district could get in the way, but that would really have to happen first. Repealing powers might be argued as harming the original ability of the district to carry out its works as the state originally promised to protect, but again there's probably a need for specific harms and not hypotheticals.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I have to admit ignorance that I haven’t read the latest version of this bill nor have I kept up with all the 405 pages of this discussion.

Typically when drafting this type of statuary language that type of experience (I.e. minimum bar threshold for years served, etc) would be a precursor even if the administration is given the ultimate latitude within the mandate to make the selection, but since this is a political exercise I recognize this is an atypical case.

For example I do know amendments to diversify the board experience with a mix of state and local expertise were shot down. But in that case I recall that one amendment allowed the localities to select some of the board members which would have been a nonstarter as it was perceived as being “insufficiently punitive”.

This is all highly unusual and antithesis of good governance.

To qualify for a board member, a person nor their family can have had a professional relationship with a company that owns or operates theme parks within the last three years. It's a very long list of qualifiers. It's reported as barring Disney employees from serving on the board, but it also prohibits someone who installs Xfinity.

The amendment you reference was really bad and shows the public perception challenges Disney faces. It called for placing the mayors of Orlando and Kissimmee, two cities that don't even share a border with the District, on a board overseeing the affairs of completely separate cities. It would be like giving the mayor of Orlando a seat on the Winter Park city commission. This is the big challenge Disney faces with the public perception around any action. How the District is actually set up and functions is rather nuanced (or convoluted if you will) and even those who oppose the actions of state Republicans don't necessarily understand the actual issues at play here. Eskamani's board amendment was ostensibly more reasonable than all members being appointed by the governor, but it still would have set an absolutely horrible precedent.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

To qualify for a board member, a person nor their family can have had a professional relationship with a company that owns or operates theme parks within the last three years. It's a very long list of qualifiers. It's reported as barring Disney employees from serving on the board, but it also prohibits someone who installs Xfinity.

The amendment you reference was really bad and shows the public perception challenges Disney faces. It called for placing the mayors of Orlando and Kissimmee, two cities that don't even share a border with the District, on a board overseeing the affairs of completely separate cities. It would be like giving the mayor of Orlando a seat on the Winter Park city commission. This is the big challenge Disney faces with the public perception around any action. How the District is actually set up and functions is rather nuanced (or convoluted if you will) and even those who oppose the actions of state Republicans don't necessarily understand the actual issues at play here. Eskamani's board amendment was ostensibly more reasonable than all members being appointed by the governor, but it still would have set an absolutely horrible precedent.

The broader problem you’re going to have is a general fear from the usual Florida interest groups including the FL Chamber, AFSCME, league of cities, etc. I think the perception seems to be that this is a uniquely “Disney” problem and “better them than me”.

Perhaps we may see some friendly amicus briefs filed by legal partners. But no one is going to want to risk going too far out politically and risk political retribution on this until the courts wade in more I’d presume.

 

[GoofGoof]

I wonder how this will affect bondholders and the credit ratingness of Reedy Creek or other entities in the state. The board can entirely choose to make decisions detrimental to bondholders and the only man who can tell them to stop is the governor.

Who knows. The district may never issue new bonds. That is entirely up to the board. Remember the Governor wanted to dissolve the district completely but a major roadblock were those pesky bonds getting dumped on the counties. As time goes on bonds get paid down and if you don’t issue new bonds eventually that’s not an issue anymore. Since the district would use bonds to pay for new projects that would mean halting most new projects that couldn’t be paid for out of current year tax dollars. Could be some lean years coming for the workers who depend on those projects for steady work

 

[Disstevefan1]

I wonder how this will effect road repairs and the ability to get from one place to the other "on property"

 

[ChrisFL]

people on twitter are funny, I keep seeing like "Disney should just move out of Florida"....yeah, 4 massive theme parks, 2 water parks, 23+ hotels and 60,000 employees should just move somewhere up north....amazing

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

people on twitter are funny, I keep seeing like "Disney should just move out of Florida"....yeah, 4 massive theme parks, 2 water parks, 23+ hotels and 60,000 employees should just move somewhere up north....amazing

Of course they can't just get up and move.

Hmm, it's as if that's one of the reasons they're being targeted.