RunForestRun
Active Member
Near record profits in their theme park segment? Ok I guess
All because what was created like 50 years ago. Not these new things that breakdown every 2 seconds.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
All because what was created like 50 years ago. Not these new things that breakdown every 2 seconds.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Yes. The District is who issues development and building approvals.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Those reasons aren’t hard to find. Too much traffic. Storm water management concerns.
If Disney wants another pedestrian bridge going over a road then that’s really easy to not allow since the district is not required to allow crossing their property and right of way.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Well, Thomas, Alito and Roberts all voted for Disney to be able to do exactly what they did and also claim to support 1A rights so I would hope they have enough of a spine to stand up for what they claim to believe.
Use your imagination, it's not hard to come up with a perfectly plausible reason. Maybe they want to run a wildlife study to validate it doesn't impact the mating habits of some bird. A study that will require multiple years to understand how impacts would interact with migration patterns. I didn't even have to try hard for that one.
If we push this some absurd adversarial relationship, Disney could just ignore this, and build it anyway. Then ignore the stop work order. Then the fine for not stopping work, or pay the fine as an increased cost. They could force it all the way to not stopping until the sheriff shows up to enforce that they're breaking the law by ignoring the permitting process. As much as that type of spectacle would make for interesting PR for everyone, it probably stops long before that. Most likely, insurance requirements and risk exposure would stop the project first. Since insurance is going to have a problem with doing work without a valid permit or under a stop work order. Internal finance and risk management is going to stop the project and not want to self insure the risk of working under those conditions.
That insurance is probably the same thing that stops Disney from doing rogue pot hole repair on the roads too.
Parks at capacity, record profits, and overwhelming public support in their favor across the US?
I suppose so.
SaucyBoy
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
And yet they're still one of the most beloved and successful companies in the country right now.
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
Question, what was your previous name on here?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s not something that people really think about, but insurance companies can effectively act as another building department. On some large projects they will even do some drawing review.
But it’s not just the insurance. The contractor would be carrying a lot of liability for working without a permit and inspections. You also cannot let people into a building without a certificate of occupancy issued by the authority having to jurisdiction (AHJ) which in this case is the district.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Yes. It’s called zoning and permits.
People gloss over everything and don't think about all the little details unless they are directly impacted. There's lots of important things in those details and they all matter and have many impacts on the entire process and structure.
They could do all the work with direct employees, not using any contractors. Then, self insure.
I mean, nothing physically stops you from letting them in. I'm sure there is a substantial number of people here that have walked in new construction homes before the certificate of occupancy.
I'm not saying they will do these things. Not saying they should do these things. Disney risk managers are almost certainly saying the should NOT do these things.
Just pointing out that if we take the adversarial relationship to its final conclusion where everyone is working against each other, things get weird. Absurdly weird. So much of what we do only works because everyone agree to follow the same rules, even if they disagree with some of those rules. At least largely.
If you don't agree on anything, everything devolves really fast. Like that "one guy" who cuts the line. If everyone just decided they could ignore the queue and walk to the front, chaos occurs.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I hear what you guys are saying but I think you are over simplifying the process. The district can certainly delay stuff, add extra administrative costs like studies but they would have to document real reasons for full denial and then Disney would be free to pursue it in court. If the district sites traffic issues they would need a legit traffic study showing that and then Disney would be free to have their own traffic studies done. If it’s storm water management they would have to present the actual issue and then Disney would be allowed to alter their plans to accommodate it and bring in any experts they see fit to dispute the claim.
In court a local government denying a business to construct something on their own property would meet heavy scrutiny from most conservative judges. This wouldn’t be a headline grabbing Disney vs DeSantis lawsuit, just a company suing to continue a project the local government denied. Working in the energy industry I can tell you it happens all the time. Sometimes we lose and the project never happens, sometimes we win and the only harm is lost time and legal fees but most of the time the 2 sides agree to some compromise.
RunForestRun
Active Member
This is actually my first name friend. I've been reading the boards for years though. Very interesting stuff.
They site the need for the study, not the study results. Then drag out doing the study. Increasing both cost and time. Disney could fight in court the need for the study too, and then the study results. All the time effectively funding both sides of the lawsuit. You know how hard it is to get through the process when everyone is working in good faith. It just devolves and gets worse when one side isn't working in good faith on the direct item at hand but instead using it to change something totally unrelated.
That would be a win for Ron though. Time and legal fees and slowing everything down is a win. It gets him closer to controlling the content Disney releases. Because the dispute isn't in good faith and not about the topic at hand, a comprise wouldn't work, or would be really strange. Disney agrees to pull an episode from Disney+ in exchange the district drops a requirement that some study be done before starting work. That type of compromise would also be a win for Ron.
Normally, governments are able to highly compartmentalize stuff. They can be fighting with a company about one issue while at the same time partnering with them on something totally unrelated. That concept is fundamental to how governments interact with each other too. Disagreeing about one thing while still working on something else. In this case, the stated goal is to explicitly not compartmentalize, to use district to force actions in other completely unrelated areas.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I am very familiar with the process. The bar is really not that high.
And even if they need that level of argument and documentation, your resolution only comes after a court contest. No court is going to issue an injunction that allows a building to be built because it’s the exact opposite of the purpose of an injunction.
That win is also only related to that one issue. The board can deny Project A for baseless reasons, Disney can start legal challenges and then the board can deny Project B. Even after Disney wins the cases for Projects A and B, the board can still go ahead and deny Project C. The judge can write a ruling scolding the board for denying projects for baseless reasons but that’s it. The court has no mechanism to actually stop the board from continuing to deny actions. The court can’t change the board or their decision making process, only the governor can do that.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Your optimism is too high. These kinds of fights go on everyday everywhere. All the district needs to do is make the zoning and land management plans so that thjngs of interest require exceptions and can’t be done by-right. Then it’s much easier to deny exceptions.
Yes they can sue… but by doing so the stall team already wins. And legal bills… who gets to pay?? Oh the district taxpayers. Don’t like it… complain to the governor who hates you.
This is a one sided situation. This is why we don’t operate this way elsewhere
As I understand it most of the lands within the district are owned by Disney and/or affiliated companies like The Celebration Company, CompassRose etc? Is there anything more than infrastructure that the district actually “owns”?
flynnibus
Premium Member
Looks like Reedy Creek doesn't "own" much of anything.
I’ve played around on one these before and pretty much every parcel I checked had some sort of landowner, so it’s not like the district could just pick a plot of land and approve a motel 6 to be built there