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

[flynnibus]

Lest we also forget what happened during the pandemic, Ron also has a problem with science-y people telling him things he doesn't like to hear.

Didn’t you see the tweets? He was right about covid! (according to his team)

 

[peter11435]

But what about Sherbeth? That needs work

Most of that does not belong to Disney or the district

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Well played. Giving money to the community to earn some good will in the fight against DeSantis.

View attachment 708523

Disney makes donations such as these all the time. Just wanted to put that out there.

 

[GoofGoof]

What more could they possibly legislate?

View attachment 708458

The legislature can pass legislation to ban mouse mascots from appearing in public in FL. It may anger a few additional groups like some exterminators and those union guys that break out the giant inflatable rat when picketing a non-union work site, but some collateral damage is acceptable. If that doesn’t do the trick they move on to ducks

 

[Stripes]

The legislature can pass legislation to ban mouse mascots from appearing in public in FL. It may anger a few additional groups like some exterminators and those union guys that break out the giant inflatable rat when picketing a non-union work site, but some collateral damage is acceptable. If that doesn’t do the trick they move on to ducks

View attachment 708537View attachment 708538

That would be struck down for violating the First Amendment’s right to freedom of expression.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

The legislature can pass legislation to ban mouse mascots from appearing in public in FL. It may anger a few additional groups like some exterminators and those union guys that break out the giant inflatable rat when picketing a non-union work site, but some collateral damage is acceptable. If that doesn’t do the trick they move on to ducks

View attachment 708537View attachment 708538

I'd assume this is a joke, but aside from the fact that it would be illegal, it would really only hinder from Disney using Mickey & Minnie in public forums. Disney is private property.

 

[GrumpyFan]

This conversation seems to have gone off the rails.
Attempting to bring it back here.

I'll admit, I'm torn politically on this, I like Disney/Iger and I like Desantis, except for his attack on Disney in this manner.
But, I really like Iger's tactic on this, and getting out in front of it offensively. I hope they prevail!

“Our point on this is that any action that thwarts those efforts simply to retaliate for a position the company took sounds not just anti-business, but it sounds anti-Florida,” he said.

“We love the state of Florida,” Iger said. “I think that’s reflected in not only how much we’ve invested over the last 50 years, but how much we’ve given back in jobs and community service, taxes, tourism, of course. We’ve also always appreciated what the state has done for us. It’s been a two-way street.”

But Iger said it was wrong for the state to retaliate against Disney for taking its position.

“The company has a right to freedom of speech just like individuals do,” Iger said. “The governor got very angry about the position that Disney took, and it seems like he’s decided to retaliate against us… in effect to seek to punish a company for its exercise of a constitutional right. And that just seems really wrong to me – against any company or individual, but particularly against a company that means so much to the state that you live in.”

Iger said that Disney plans to invest $17 billion in Disney World over the next 10 years, investments he said would create 13,000 new Disney jobs and thousands of other indirect jobs, attracting more people to the state and generating more taxes.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/03/business/disney-florida-fight/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2023-04-04T14%3A30%3A13&utm_term=video

 

[el_super]

This conversation seems to have gone off the rails.

Yes.

I'll admit, I'm torn politically on this, I like Disney/Iger and I like Desantis, except for his attack on Disney in this manner.
But, I really like Iger's tactic on this, and getting out in front of it offensively. I hope they prevail!

Disney isn't really trying to get out in front of this. If not for the fact that questions were expected during the shareholder event, they probably wouldn't have prepared any statement on this at all. Unless something drastically threatens their control of WDW, or there is some terrible interview prepping, it's doubtful Iger will mention this again.

It is a mistake to think that Disney is going to fight the FL government here. They are going to do what they can to maintain the status quo: control of their property and general ability to do whatever they want, but they are not going to go after the governor, the house, or any part of the government out in the open.

 

[thomas998]

There’s so much legally, historically, and factually wrong with this post I don’t even know where to begin.

Disagreeing with something you don't like doesn't make it wrong.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

It is a mistake to think that Disney is going to fight the FL government here. They are going to do what they can to maintain the status quo: control of their property and general ability to do whatever they want, but they are not going to go after the governor, the house, or any part of the government out in the open.

It is a mistake to think Disney will not fight the FL government. If FL further threatens them, ie a lawsuit of further legislative action, Disney will respond. All of that will be public knowledge, while they may not make an official statement.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Disagreeing with something you don't like doesn't make it wrong.

The post they were responding to was legally, historically and factually wrong. There’s no opinions there

 

[GoofGoof]

That would be struck down for violating the First Amendment’s right to freedom of expression.

I thought FL was where the first amendment went to die….now the 2nd amendment…..that’s still alive and kicking

I'd assume this is a joke, but aside from the fact that it would be illegal, it would really only hinder from Disney using Mickey & Minnie in public forums. Disney is private property.

….but what about the children Like all the rest of the nonsense recently passed just say it’s done to protect parental rights and children. The base will eat it up. Last I checked those drag queens weren’t in the street in front of the hotel….they too were on private property. I was obviously kidding with the original post but banning mice seems less egregious to me than some stuff that was actually done recently.

 

[el_super]

It is a mistake to think Disney will not fight the FL government. If FL further threatens them, ie a lawsuit of further legislative action, Disney will respond. All of that will be public knowledge, while they may not make an official statement.

Disney will defend themselves in court, sure, but they probably won't respond to continued threats. It is in their best interest to play both sides to the best of their ability.

 

[thomas998]

How is this true? RCID board was designed to be held by landowners, at the time of it's creation the only landowners were Disney. Disney was still really the only landowner, they just sold/gave those small plots of land to people they chose to serve on the board.

The fact is that the state couldn't have cared less about a mutually beneficial agreement. The current Dictator of Florida is using this as a political agenda.

I think you are forgetting about EPCOT and what it was originally intended to be and what Disney claimed it was going to be. The original plan was for it to be a community filled with people that lived their. Those people would have then elected the people on the board and it would have functioned as a small town where Disney wouldn't be picking all the board members. No different than how a neighborhood with a HOA will be completely controlled by the developer until the houses are sold to individuals. This was basically Disney selling the state on a neighborhood but then deciding to keep all the houses.

 

[thomas998]

The post they were responding to was legally, historically and factually wrong. There’s no opinions there

You responded to a post that was not wrong legally, historically or factually.

 

[mmascari]

I think you are forgetting about EPCOT and what it was originally intended to be and what Disney claimed it was going to be. The original plan was for it to be a community filled with people that lived their.

Can you point to the document and text that says this?

There's been at least a dozen posts pointing to the RCID charter explicitly showing that this was not part of it.

If you're going to dispute all of them, lets see some details.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think you are forgetting about EPCOT and what it was originally intended to be and what Disney claimed it was going to be. The original plan was for it to be a community filled with people that lived their. Those people would have then elected the people on the board and it would have functioned as a small town where Disney wouldn't be picking all the board members. No different than how a neighborhood with a HOA will be completely controlled by the developer until the houses are sold to individuals. This was basically Disney selling the state on a neighborhood but then deciding to keep all the houses.

This is more incorrect information that has been addressed multiple times. Both the original enabling legislation and state Supreme Court decision focus on developing tourism, not a residential development.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I think you are forgetting about EPCOT and what it was originally intended to be and what Disney claimed it was going to be. The original plan was for it to be a community filled with people that lived there. Those people would have then elected the people on the board and it would have functioned as a small town where Disney wouldn't be picking all the board members. No different than how a neighborhood with a HOA will be completely controlled by the developer until the houses are sold to individuals. This was basically Disney selling the state on a neighborhood but then deciding to keep all the houses.

This post is further proof that you don’t understand RCID and its intentions. RCID was yes, created in part due to the originals plans for Epcot. It was primarily created because in 1966, Orlando was swamps. The FL legislature entered into a mutually beneficial agreement with Disney, for Disney in essence to pay for their own municipal services, as the counties would not have been able to handle it, at the time. By your own logic Disney would’ve still had member(s) on the board as they would’ve remained the majority land owner. The original plans for Epcot died with Walt. Shortly after legislation to create RCID happened.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

You responded to a post that was not wrong legally, historically or factually.

Im not sitting at home on my computer but when I do get home I will respond with proof that it was wrong, legally, historically and factually. Everyone coming on here to spew more lies and inaccuracies is fueling the partisan fire that DeSantis has created

 

[flynnibus]

Disagreeing with something you don't like doesn't make it wrong.

No, the fact it's making false claims is what makes it wrong.

"Reedy Creek pre-Desantis was technically an independent board that was not supposed to be run by Disney though everyone from the beginning knew that it was"

"not supposed to be run by Disney"? There is no cloak and dagger here... everyone knew the scheme when the RCID act was enacted and Disney was the sole landowner driving representation. There is no conspiracy of 'lack of enforcement' or ignoring anything as you suggest.