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

[Dan Deesnee]

Let's be honest here. Can prices really go much higher before attendance is meaningfully impacted? Can the time to complete an attraction really take any longer?

Universal is in part of a district called The Orlando Community Redevelopment Agency and look! Rides are done in 2 years! Prices are better than Disney across the board! Etc, etc...

The sky is not falling. In 5 years I imagine we'll look back and see that nothing really changed from a guest perspective.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Unless it’s in the bonds, I’m not sure anything would stop them. I believe it was more a promise that parking would be free because there was an uproar over the district building the garages.

Adding parking fees to the garages would be an easy way to increase the burden on Disney while following their obligations. Reconfiguring the garages to collect a fee would be a huge expense largely carried by Disney but it could be done “to ensure the debts created by Disney are paid.” New expenses for not behaving but all well within the districts powers.

The bonds would only prevent the revenue from being the source of repayment for the outstanding debt. They could charge to park and designated the funds for maintenance (even if they decide to do a crappy job maintaining them).

 

[fgmnt]

Unless the law is changed he’s done 10 days after he officially announces that he is running so well before 2024. Not sure if the LT Governor takes over and finishes the term or if there’s a special election to replace him.

Surely the Florida legislature won't change a law to the governor's whims.

 

[peter11435]

Unless the law is changed he’s done 10 days after he officially announces that he is running so well before 2024. Not sure if the LT Governor takes over and finishes the term or if there’s a special election to replace him.

They’ve shown a willingness to haphazardly change laws they disagree with or conflict with their agenda regardless of the impact and logic behind the changes.

 

[Notypeo]

There’s been some talk about litigating now versus litigating later, after the Board does something egregious. But the time to have a big First Amendment fight is now, and that’s not the path the company’s taken.

As to future litigation, I think a lot of developers and municipal professionals assume that any land use approval process is going to end in litigation. Not because every application ends up in court, but because unless everyone’s on the same page from the outset the process works backwards from the possibility. “Does the site plan comply with the ordinance” is another way of asking, “will our decision hold up in court.”

Of course, assuming the company wants to avoid the political fallout from any litigation with the Board, it’s operating with one hand (or more) tied behind its back. The hope seems to be that the Board will be easygoing and cooperative. That’s an awful big assumption.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Universal is in part of a district called The Orlando Community Redevelopment Agency and look! Rides are done in 2 years! Prices are better than Disney across the board! Etc, etc...

It’s amazing how a district that’s only concerned with the city’s transit infrastructure and has nothing to do with anything inside the parks doesn’t interfere with things inside the parks! Wow!

 

[GoofGoof]

Surely the Florida legislature won't change a law to the governor's whims.

They’ve shown a willingness to haphazardly change laws they disagree with or conflict with their agenda regardless of the impact and logic behind the changes.

Whether he formally resigns or not who do you think will be running the state day to day while he’s in other states campaigning? Either way the LT Governor will be in charge.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Unless the law is changed he’s done 10 days after he officially announces that he is running so well before 2024. Not sure if the LT Governor takes over and finishes the term or if there’s a special election to replace him.

The leaders of both houses have publicly expressed a willingness to change the law so that DeSantis would not have to resign the governorship.

 

[flynnibus]

This is done. Everyone wants a big fight including the state of Florida. It is over. Disney has made their call. IMHO probably the best call because they have some lean years coming. Let it RIP.

One spokesman statement is not a true view of Disney’s strategy and end game.

I think there is still more to cone

 

[mightynine]

The leaders of both houses have publicly expressed a willingness to change the law so that DeSantis would not have to resign the governorship.

 

[lazyboy97o]

One spokesman statement is not a true view of Disney’s strategy and end game.

I think there is still more to cone

But why suddenly say something so quickly? They went months without saying anything.

 

[Tha Realest]

One spokesman statement is not a true view of Disney’s strategy and end game.

I think there is still more to cone

That statement was parsed and revised and signed off at the highest of levels. It explicitly says they are “focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework.” As stated, that does not signal an immediate or imminent plan to challenge the framework, but rather a concession to it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

One spokesman statement is not a true view of Disney’s strategy and end game.

I think there is still more to cone

Nah…they’re gonna let it roll.

A lot of unrelated things have happened in the last 10 or so have lined up against them…unfortunate too

 

[flynnibus]

But why suddenly say something so quickly? They went months without saying anything.

Because ’no comment’ doesn’t really work in this situation. They have to project an image of being ready and adaptable.

It was a calming statement - for a company that needs to provide an image of continuity to ensure the market doesn’t start panicking.

I read it as ‘we can keep moving forward and keep operating’ — more than them laying down.

Obviously it’s not a declaration of war… but I don’t think they have laid out their entire strategy in that simple prepared statement

 

[flynnibus]

That statement was parsed and revised and signed off at the highest of levels. It explicitly says they are “focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework.” As stated, that does not signal an immediate or imminent plan to challenge the framework, but rather a concession to it.

I think it was intended to say ‘we are still open for business’

 

[peter11435]

That statement was parsed and revised and signed off at the highest of levels. It explicitly says they are “focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework.” As stated, that does not signal an immediate or imminent plan to challenge the framework, but rather a concession to it.

Like I said earlier, WDW must now operate under the assumption that the new framework is the future of their operations. The results of any potential future litigation are uncertain. Now that the change is reality there is a need to reassure investors, guests, and cast members that you are prepared to operate under the new structure with little to no impact to the experience.

 

[GoofGoof]

One spokesman statement is not a true view of Disney’s strategy and end game.

I think there is still more to cone

I agree. I think the statement was done to show cooler heads have prevailed. Remember that Disney has a responsibility to lots of groups like CMs and shareholders who prefer stability vs open conflict. This statement says we will be fine and we will move forward working with the new board. What it doesn’t say is we will just accept whatever they do. If/when the board steps out of line then they will act. That action will be boring and won’t grab headlines. I know there are people who prefer to see Disney fight this on a 1st amendment basis, but that isn’t going to happen now.

 

[LittleBuford]

I think the statement was done to show cooler heads have prevailed.

I’m really baffled by this framing, which makes it seem as if Disney would have been doing something unreasonable or hotheaded by opposing arbitrary government interference.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Because ’no comment’ doesn’t really work in this situation. They have to project an image of being ready and adaptable.

It was a calming statement - for a company that needs to provide an image of continuity to ensure the market doesn’t start panicking.

I read it as ‘we can keep moving forward and keep operating’ — more than them laying down.

Obviously it’s not a declaration of war… but I don’t think they have laid out their entire strategy in that simple prepared statement

I think the play now is to let it pass…
Best way to put out a fire is to deprive it of oxygen…not throw water on it

 

[Dan Deesnee]

I think things will be difficult as long as DeSantis is in office since he wants — for political reasons — to attack Disney. Once he leaves in 2024 or 2026 (depending on whether he runs for president), the situation should be a moot point. Unless the next governor is even crazier.

You think he's crazy, some people don't.

That's the beauty of America. I don't think the next governor will make much of a difference from a Disney perspective. You may disagree with a political party/political person but they're all focused on money, so hurting Disney TOO bad is not in any of their best interests.