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

[peter11435]

Oh I'm a little perturbed as for why it was done this time. It definitely comes off as a "welp Disney you're going to criticize us and our law after we let you open your park during the height of the pandemic? Fine say good bye complete autonomy."

And yeah there were always people who went isn't it odd that the Disney company has all these special privileges and no state oversight in their special district while other special districts still have to answer to the state. It was just never seriously followed through with because Disney was just building theme parks amd hotels.

But that alone is a misconception. RCID was never exempt from all state oversight.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

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.

Just out of curiosity, is that a Florida law?

 

[mikejs78]

Just out of curiosity, is that a Florida law?

Yes. However there's been talk that the legislature will change that law.

 

[GoofGoof]

Just out of curiosity, is that a Florida law?

Yes. Every state has different rules. In FL the law has changed many times but most recently in 2018 they clarified the rule to include people holding state office running for President or Vice President. As others have pointed out the legislature can just pass a new bill reversing the rule but as it stands today he would need to step down.

The intent of the law is to prevent people from using their current state office as a platform to move on to national positions. It also ensures that if someone is focusing on a national campaign and spending a lot of time out of state that someone local who is focused on the state steps in.

 

[Ayla]

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.

He plans on changing the law.

 

[GoofGoof]

Yeah it's political posturing. Dissolving or restructuring Reedy Creek always was political theater. Personally I think it's a waste of time and money.
However in a post RCID world I don't think from a guest perspective we will notice much on our end. I could be wrong though we shall see.

Selfishly, I hope you are right about little impact to guests. I think you could be, but there’s too many unknowns at this point to say for sure.

I think the biggest immediate impact will be on who the district hires to do work for the district. I would imagine they will be excluding vendors who are inclusive or have diversity training so there will be an impact on local residents and businesses. How the board interacts with Disney is still a big unknown. Will the Governor attempt to influence Disney policy or what types of projects get approved? That’s a Big unknown that could directly impact guests.

 

[andysol]

I disagree. They should have fought their CMs’ corner from the outset, and they should still be fighting now.

Which cast members? They have 220,000 of them.

Let’s not pretend they’re a monolith.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yeah it's political posturing. Dissolving or restructuring Reedy Creek always was political theater. Personally I think it's a waste of time and money.
However in a post RCID world I don't think from a guest perspective we will notice much on our end. I could be wrong though we shall see.

It’s not really a post-RCID world. There is still a district with some expanded powers.

 

[GoofGoof]

It’s not really a post-RCID world. There is still a district with some expanded powers.

Didn’t they change the name?

 

[sedati]

I’m not sure that would be disagreeable to state leadership. It’s what some have sort of said they want and would parallel other current events.

Just as a way of shifting public sentiment, put the blame where it belongs when the locals can’t watch a new Marvel film with the rest of the world.

 

[LittleBuford]

Not at all what it means. If Disney came out guns blazing and attacked this setup and the Governor in a statement as many people here would have wanted then they would escalate the conflict which is not good for business. That would be the opposite of cooler heads. This statement does the exact opposite. It tells everyone (shareholders, CMs, customers) that the sky is not falling, that WDW will still continue operating as usual and that they will work with the new district going forward. It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong and isn’t saying they won’t oppose future actions the new board takes.

I understand you and others here are disappointed Disney did not stand up against this. Based on principles alone they probably should fight it, but they are not viewing winning that argument as their top or only priority. Similar to how they worked back channels with the legislature to come up with a compromise (only to have it killed by the Governor) they are looking at playing the long game now too. Like it or not WDW is a significant piece of one of their most important segments and they can’t move it out of FL so they have to figure out how to make it work. I am not an insider so don’t know for sure what their thinking was, but I’m sure all options were on the table and then they determined the path they think will have the best outcome.

Again, I think there are many shades of grey between total acquiescence, which is what the statement signifies, and a guns-blazing approach, which I agree would have been unwise.

 

[peter11435]

Again, I think there are many shades of grey between total acquiescence, which is what the statement signifies, and a guns-blazing approach, which I agree would have been unwise.

I still don’t read the statement as total acquiescence. Not at all.

As someone else said… it’s a public statement from Walt Disney world regarding operations basically staying “we’re still open” and will continue to offer the same experience. It has nothing to do with what teams of lawyers may or may not be working on behind the scenes.

 

[LittleBuford]

I still don’t read the statement as total acquiescence. Not at all.

I hope my reading is wrong. I suppose we’ll know more in due course.

 

[peter11435]

I hope my reading is wrong. I suppose we’ll know more in due course.

I think it’s less about the words and more about the intended audience and source.

 

[GoofGoof]

Again, I think there are many shades of grey between total acquiescence, which is what the statement signifies, and a guns-blazing approach, which I agree would have been unwise.

I agree there are many shades of grey. Where we disagree is that this statement is total acquiescence. I think Disney’s approach actually is in that grey area. They do have a park in Shanghai where they deal with a hostile and authoritarian government so they have some experience playing in the grey area while still succeeding financially.

 

[LittleBuford]

I agree there are many shades of grey. Where we disagree is that this statement is total acquiescence. I think Disney’s approach actually is in that grey area. They do have a park in Shanghai where they deal with a hostile and authoritarian government so they have some experience playing in the grey area while still succeeding financially.

My concern isn't about Disney's financial success. They're still going to make bags of money, and the powers that be in Florida have no interest in changing that. My worries centre on ideological interference with the park's offerings and policies. Sure, Disney already faces this challenge in China, but I don't think many of us expected to be talking about the politics of Orlando and Shanghai in the same breath.

At any rate, and as I've already acknowledged, there may well be grey that I'm simply not seeing. If they are continuing the fight behind closed doors, good luck to them.

 

[Dranth]

I honestly don’t think this really hurts him. The District’s set and context are so misunderstood that I’m not sure it would be easy to make it too much of issue without getting stuck with the many misconceptions.

Maybe not, but it certainly doesn’t help in a general. It depends on how opposition uses it. Some of his own side is using it to show how weak he is because he caved. The other side would paint it as a power hungry dictator move and why would you middle of the spectrum voters want more of that?

We’ll see if he decides to run how it goes but at best, in a general, it just doesn’t come up.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

He plans on changing the law.

I wonder to which candidate Disney will make donations.

Again, I think there are many shades of grey between total acquiescence, which is what the statement signifies, and a guns-blazing approach, which I agree would have been unwise.

FWIW: When I read the statement last night, it didn’t even occur to me that it was indicative of rolling over. Just a standard PR announcement.

 

[LittleBuford]

FWIW: When I read the statement last night, it didn’t even occur to me that it was indicative of rolling over. Just a standard PR announcement.

None of the published analyses I've read since the news broke interpret the statement as other than a full concession on Disney's part, which has only made it more difficult for me to see past my own interpretation. But I sincerely hope I'm missing something that you and others have picked up on.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

The loss of RCID will have a negative impact on Disney financially, right?