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

[lazyboy97o]

This appears to be the prevailing assumption (and it's a reasonable one), but I don't think a backroom deal is anything to be sanguine about. "Gentlemen's agreements" are no substitute for legally enshrined protections.

Especially with people who continue to act in the manner in which they are supposedly promising not to act.

 

[Ghost93]

on the surface, i’m surprised that disney is currently laying down & accepting this. like others, i’ll assume there’s more going on that we don’t know much about as of yet. for arguement sake, if this does go unchallenged, i’ll be more worried about future actions like this happening again.

It sets a horrific precedent.

 

[Notypeo]

I strongly suspect that Disney saw the writing on the wall and negotiated for the best taxing/financial terms possible in the legislation, and some unenforceable “understanding” about the appointees. Maybe it’s the best they could have done? But for as little leverage as they might have had this round, it leaves them with far less for future fights because the Governor will now have de facto veto power over investments and operations.

 

[peter11435]

In this particular case, I don't disagree with you.

However, what constitutes "misuse of power" and "blatantly unconstitutional" typically are decided in courts. You and I might subjectively think this true in this particular instance, but unless Disney brings this to court (and it appears they won't), then we'll never really know.

Since we'll never know, our opinions of what is a "misuse of power" and "blatantly unconstitutional" are exactly that, opinions.

You and I might feel strongly about this, but without a court ruling to back us up, we're not in a position to objectively say that what we think is morally superior. We feel it is, but that's subjective.

I don’t think I would use a courts decision to definitively determine the morally superior opinion.

The reason we feel this is unconstitutional is because the very people who took this action made it very clear they were violating the first amendment when they did it. They told anyone who would listen what they were doing and why they were doing it. No judges ruling will change that fact.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I strongly suspect that Disney saw the writing on the wall and negotiated for the best taxing/financial terms possible in the legislation, and some unenforceable “understanding” about the appointees. Maybe it’s the best they could have done? But for as little leverage as they might have had this round, it leaves them with far less for future fights because the Governor will now have de facto veto power over investments and operations.

They didn't need "leverage." They have multiple grounds and avenues to have this overturned.

 

[Drdcm]

My guess is that this is a business decision to remove themselves from this situation as quickly as possible. Iger said he wanted to smooth things over and not challenging it likely offers some sort of business incentive for them to agree to the terms.

Not saying it’s right.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don’t think I would use a courts decision to definitively determine the morally superior opinion.

The reason we feel this is unconstitutional is because the very people who took this action made it very clear they were violating the first amendment when they did it. They told anyone who would listen what they were doing and why they were doing it. No judges ruling will change that fact.

It is it incredibly telling that those who support this don't want this fact to be remembers and known.

 

[Surferboy567]

New statement from Jeff Vahle -

View attachment 697645

…what is wrong with them?

 

[lazyboy97o]

My guess is that this is a business decision to remove themselves from this situation as quickly as possible. Iger said he wanted to smooth things over and not challenging it likely offers some sort of business incentive for them to agree to the terms.

Not saying it’s right.

This does absolutely nothing to remove themselves from the situation nor does it offer any business incentives. They are now permanently stuck in the situation. Anything and everything can be scrutinized and harm can be applied.

 

[Drdcm]

This does absolutely nothing to remove themselves from the situation nor does it offer any business incentives. They are now permanently stuck in the situation. Anything and everything can be scrutinized and harm can be applied.

Says you. Disney gets to make their own decisions. And they’ve clearly done something different. You’re operating under the false assumption that Disney exists to protect your or our interests. They’re a business and are going to operate with that priority. Why would you expect it to suddenly change? Are you suggesting you know more about the reasons for this decision that Disney itself?

 

[LittleBuford]

Then do not be so Naive as to think the State of Florida, Orange County and Osceola County want to lose the 100's of millions of dollars Disney generate EACH year in tax revenue.

I’m not suggesting that the government has any interest in preventing Disney from earning money. Rather, my concern is that this new structure will be used as a means to exert political and ideological pressure on Disney in relation to park offerings and policies. That should worry all of us.

 

[kong1802]

This does absolutely nothing to remove themselves from the situation nor does it offer any business incentives. They are now permanently stuck in the situation. Anything and everything can be scrutinized and harm can be applied.

It's entirely the wrong move.

They have a very strong 1A case and a chance at an important victory for others.

I hope they change their tune sooner than later and push back on this blatant over reach.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Says you. Disney gets to make their own decisions. And they’ve clearly done something different. You’re operating under the false assumption that Disney exists to protect your or our interests. They’re a business and are going to operate with that priority. Why would you expect it to suddenly change? Are you suggesting you know more about the reasons for this decision that Disney itself?

Disney is not protecting their interests. They are giving up the control that they specifically sought and kept for the operation of their business. They are allowing a large, important business segment to be harmed in retaliation for business decisions made across the company. The idea that there is some super secret thing that actually stops the objectives of this action is a farce.

I’m not suggesting that the government has any interest in preventing Disney from earning money. Rather, my concern is that this new structure will be used as a means to exert political and ideological pressure on Disney in relation to park offerings and policies. That should worry all of us.

It's not just parks policy. Those involved have said they want to influence Disney's decisions across the company.

 

[Drdcm]

Disney is not protecting their interests. They are giving up the control that they specifically sought and kept for the operation of their business and are allowing a large, important business segment to be harmed in retaliation for business decisions made across the company.

You seem to constantly be under the impression that anything said that doesn’t immediately align with your opinions is an attack. You did this to me a few days ago.

I’m merely stating facts. Disney apparently has decided not to pursue this further. Disney is in charge, not you. Disney has more information at their disposal to make an informed decision on how to proceed, not you. Maybe RCID wasn’t worth the effort anymore, maybe they got some sort of deal. I don’t know why they did what they did and you don’t either.

If you ask me if they have a moral obligation to fight this. I would agree, as I’ve said many many times it is a first amendment violation. Yet somehow you seek to argue with me when I say this even though we agree that the government was bad.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

If this was going to lead to this type of capitulation to begin with they would have been better off just staying silent like Morell/Chapek wanted since now the lesson from Tallahassee will be that Disney will submit to the state’s demands.

The WDC’s problem has consistently been their refusal to take a firm stand one way or another that they continue to simultaneously do damage to their brand and employee morale and their political relationships in FL. By “threading the needle” they keep getting the worst of both worlds and I don’t expect this to be any different.

This new board will continue to be a thorn in TDO’s side holding up necessary projects in exchange for more humiliating public statements and capitulations from WDC leadership.

 

[flynnibus]

Or a potential lawsuit will be filed by the residents of Reedy Creek or by the bondholders and not directly by Disney.

This has been my line all along.. Disney fighting the 1a argument or new florida constitutional challenges are really plans c, d, etc. I think those directly associated with RCID are more likely the first salvos to be fired.

Tho the statement by the DIS spokesman is disappointing.

 

[Disstevefan1]

New statement from Jeff Vahle -

View attachment 697645

Look on the bright side, Disney won't be paying the lawyers the TRUCKLOADS of money to fight this.

Will WDW be better off? NOPE! But remember, no matter what the offerings at WDW, FOLKS SHOW UP ANYWAY.

 

[wdwmagic]

The fact Disney isn’t going to fight this leads me to believe it’s all sorted out behind the scenes, DeSantis gets his win and Disney has assurances nothing fundamentally changes in how they run WDW.

This seems likely from what we have seen so far.

 

[Patcheslee]

Does this mean the board could deny permits for events that usually have additional artwork/stands or such temporarily installed?

 

[el_super]

They don't want to do battle at all. They just need to look like they are. Which is why nothing will come of this and Disney will keep doing Disney.

Meh.... close enough (and almost a year ago!)