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

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
I’m aware, I’m just pointing out that the district has influence over a lot more than just undeveloped land. People keep narrowing in on certain things and missing the breadth of the actual authority. The district could absolutely interfere in things that are already done.
Oh, of course.

They could hypothetically order all businesses in the district to shut down operations during religious holidays if they wanted to.
 

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
I hope your frozen margarita budget is fully stocked up;)
Margarita GIF by CheekysBrand
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
No. They wrote a new law that replaced the old one. That's how it works.

Ah. But the bill that created the RCID in 1967 wasn't set in stone. There is a process in Tallahassee to throw out old laws and write new ones. Like changing the driving age from 15 to 16, or making it illegal for anyone under 21 to buy cigarettes when 12 year old kids used to be sent to the corner store to buy cigs for their mom.

Laws can be changed. Or thrown out. Or replaced by new ones.

That's legal. And it's what apparently just happened with Disney's RCID. But for the tourists and employees of WDW, it doesn't change much of anything for them.

I'm still looking/waiting for someone to provide an example of how this will change the WDW guest experience, aside from "Well, stuff will take longer to build now!". Longer than Hyperion Wharf Disney Springs took? Longer than that little Moana water play area? Longer than the four years it takes to retheme Splash Mountain to Tiana?
 

BringMeTheHoriz

Active Member
Ah. But the bill that created the RCID in 1967 wasn't set in stone. There is a process in Tallahassee to throw out old laws and write new ones. Like changing the driving age from 15 to 16, or making it illegal for anyone under 21 to buy cigarettes when 12 year old kids used to be sent to the corner store to buy cigs for their mom.

Laws can be changed. Or thrown out. Or replaced by new ones.

That's legal. And it's what apparently just happened with Disney's RCID. But for the tourists and employees of WDW, it doesn't change much of anything for them.

I'm still looking/waiting for someone to provide an example of how this will change the WDW guest experience, aside from "Well, stuff will take longer to build now!". Longer than Hyperion Wharf Disney Springs took? Longer than that little Moana water play area? Longer than the four years it takes to retheme Splash Mountain to Tiana?

It doesn’t matter how or if this impacts the guest experience. What it does impact is a person’s ability to operate as a company as they previously had for so long. It impacts the ability for that person to speak their beliefs without retribution as is afforded them in our constitution.
 

Dranth

Well-Known Member
What I had heard back before Christmas was that the local taxpayers were going to be on the hook for a bunch of taxes that Disney used to pay for via the RCID. That seemed alarming to me, but it was apparently false, or misinformation, or at best sloppy reporting on legislation still in progress.
The part about the local counties having to pay off the debt was from the original bill that was passed last year that dissolved RCID with no replacement. That was still in place until this new bill was passed a week or so ago.

Laws can be changed. Or thrown out. Or replaced by new ones.

That's legal. And it's what apparently just happened with Disney's RCID. But for the tourists and employees of WDW, it doesn't change much of anything for them.
Yes, laws can be changed but that doesn’t make what Florida did legal. Being able to do something and it being legal are two different things. If I run outside and assault my neighbor and they don't press charges, it doesn't make what I did legal, it just means no one pressed charges.

I'm still looking/waiting for someone to provide an example of how this will change the WDW guest experience, aside from "Well, stuff will take longer to build now!". Longer than Hyperion Wharf Disney Springs took? Longer than that little Moana water play area? Longer than the four years it takes to retheme Splash Mountain to Tiana?
People have provided a number of examples beyond it just taking longer but ignoring that, I feel like you are missing the main complaint people have. Ron DeSantis went out in public and repeatedly said he this was done to punish Disney for speaking up about a law they disagreed with. If you think it is okay for government to punish an individual or a specific company because they exercised what should have been their protected right then so be it. At least come out and own it and say you are fine with that but many of us are not.
 

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
People have provided a number of examples beyond it just taking longer but ignoring that, I feel like you are missing the main complaint people have. Ron DeSantis went out in public and repeatedly said he this was done to punish Disney for speaking up about a law they disagreed with. If you think it is okay for government to punish an individual or a specific company because they exercised what should have been their protected right then so be it. At least come out and own it and say you are fine with that but many of us are not.
If this was some small mom & pop business, sure I’d be angry too. But it’s Disney, one of the largest corporations in the world. It’s hard to feel bad for them when they are constantly doing shady stuff, and they didn’t even do the right thing at the beginning of this whole issue.

Until someone can point out how this significantly impacts the guest experience or front of the line CM experience, I find it hard to care. Seems like it’s just political theatre and another excuse (in the long list) for Disney to avoid investing in WDW.
 

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
Laws can be changed. Or thrown out. Or replaced by new ones.

That's legal. And it's what apparently just happened with Disney's RCID. But for the tourists and employees of WDW, it doesn't change much of anything for them.

Changing the law was legal. The reason why it was changed is what wasn’t, by the governor’s own admission.
 

Dranth

Well-Known Member
If this was some small mom & pop business, sure I’d be angry too. But it’s Disney, one of the largest corporations in the world. It’s hard to feel bad for them when they are constantly doing shady stuff, and they didn’t even do the right thing at the beginning of this whole issue.

Until someone can point out how this significantly impacts the guest experience or front of the line CM experience, I find it hard to care. Seems like it’s just political theatre and another excuse (in the long list) for Disney to avoid investing in WDW.
See, I don't get this. Why should the size of a company matter? Should only companies that make less than a certain amount a year be protected by laws? What is that amount? Does it apply to people? Does some random billionaire make enough money that they no longer deserve first amendment rights?

Political retribution for speech is wrong no matter who is involved.
 

BringMeTheHoriz

Active Member
If this was some small mom & pop business, sure I’d be angry too. But it’s Disney, one of the largest corporations in the world. It’s hard to feel bad for them when they are constantly doing shady stuff, and they didn’t even do the right thing at the beginning of this whole issue.

Until someone can point out how this significantly impacts the guest experience or front of the line CM experience, I find it hard to care. Seems like it’s just political theatre and another excuse (in the long list) for Disney to avoid investing in WDW.

That mom and pop shop, if incorporated, has the same representation and rights as a massive corporation such as Disney. If you want to cherry pick who has rights and who doesn’t, then your argument holds no ground. Ironically enough, that’s the whole reason this mess got started. Disney spoke out for equal rights for everyone, and got the shaft. We’ve come full circle.
 
Last edited:

Brer Oswald

Well-Known Member
See, I don't get this. Why should the size of a company matter? Should only companies that make less than a certain amount a year be protected by laws? What is that amount? Does it apply to people? Does some random billionaire make enough money that they no longer deserve first amendment rights?

Political retribution for speech is wrong no matter who is involved.
I’m not saying that it isn’t wrong. I’m saying that I don’t feel bad. It’s barely more than a minor inconvenience for them anyways.

You could say that it creates a dangerous precedent, but I have a hard time believing DeSantis (or anyone for that matter) would go after a smaller company for something similar since it would not get the same amount of eyes on it.
 

Dranth

Well-Known Member
I’m not saying that it isn’t wrong. I’m saying that I don’t feel bad. It’s barely more than a minor inconvenience for them anyways.

You could say that it creates a dangerous precedent, but I have a hard time believing DeSantis (or anyone for that matter) would go after a smaller company for something similar since it would not get the same amount of eyes on it.
Maybe, but there are just some lines Government should not be allowed to cross for any reason and retaliating against free speech is one of them. If customers want to punish a company for saying things they don't agree with and boycott, fine, but not the state.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom