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

[Sir_Cliff]

Universal really needs to speak up soon - for both the way another theme park is being treated and for the way their LGBT team members are being treated by the state.

I very much understand why Universal wouldn't want to wade into this, but I must admit that on a personal level this whole incident isn't increasing any warm and fuzzy feelings toward Universal. It reinforces the idea that Disney is a cultural institution whereas Universal operates theme parks.

 

[Disstevefan1]

There could be any multitude of reasons. Legal rights don't expire until quite some time after an actionable wrong, so they lose nothing at all by waiting. Lawyers are notorious for waiting until the last minute to file lawsuits; that says nothing at all about the strength of the case.

I've said several times that we can speculate all we want but we don't know all the facts about this situation. For example, no one knew about the development agreements until the new board brought them to light. Disney can choose other avenues to fight the state's actions without jeopardizing their first amendment claim.

In short, lawyers like to drag things out.

The development agreement was a cool power move by Disney, er, I mean, the former RCID. A real "oversight" by the new oversight district, missing that that happening out in the open. It shows you the power and smarts of Disney, er, I mean the former RCID.

In my opinion, it would be smart for Disney, er, I mean the former RCID (why do I keep doing that), to drag this out till the gov is out of office.

 

[GoofGoof]

If it wasn't a perk, then how is losing it retaliatory?

Disney didn’t just lose the so called perk of having RCID. That district is under hostile Government control now and the Governor is using authority the district has and some it may not even have to try to control Disney and punish them.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Except they didn‘t dissolve RCID. The governor seized control of the district to wield its authority against Disney to punish them for first speaking out and now for outplaying him and embarrassing him on a national stage. If you want to argue a valid reason to dissolve the district is to remove an unfair advantage Disney shouldn’t have that’s a different debate. What happened is not that.

We can split hairs at the definition of dissolved. We can call it "Reskinned" as we like to call it in the theme parks.

The state always had the power to do it, whatever you want to call it.

How, why, when the gov chose to do it is an embarrassment on the national stage for him in my opinion.

This only hurts him politically (ironically the only reason he did it) and he is in so deep now, there is no turning back and it's going to get worse for him.

For a while there I thought this was going to be bad for Disney, but I will go back to my old saying...

TWDC and its theme parks are....... Invincible.

 

[GoofGoof]

I very much understand why Universal wouldn't want to wade into this, but I must admit that on a personal level this whole incident isn't increasing any warm and fuzzy feelings toward Universal. It reinforces the idea that Disney is a cultural institution whereas Universal operates theme parks.

In Universal’s defense the parent company Comcast was a signer of the petition opposing the same bill along with a boat load of other Fortune 500 companies. If Disney never spoke out at all and if the Governor still wanted a crusade to benefit his political goals we could very well be having this same discussion about Universal right now. He could have taken the signing of that petition and blown it up into a battle against a woke FL corporation. Disney was a much more juicy target and they also had the RCID play to improve the attack against them.

 

[Chi84]

The development agreement was a cool power move by Disney, er, I mean, the former RCID. A real "oversight" by the new oversight district, missing that that happening out in the open. It shows you the power and smarts of Disney, er, I mean the former RCID.

In my opinion, it would be smart for Disney, er, I mean the former RCID (why do I keep doing that), to drag this out till the gov is out of office.

Did you read the articles cited earlier about why RCID was created and how it was set up? There's a really thorough (but long) one that explains the relationship between Disney and the RCID. There's no need for the "er." The relationship that existed between RCID and Disney was the one intended by both the state and Disney.

 

[GoofGoof]

We can split hairs at the definition of dissolved. We can call it "Reskinned" as we like to call it in the theme parks.

The state always had the power to do it.

How, why, when the gov chose to do it is an embarrassment in the national stage for him. In my opinion, this only hurts him politically and he is in so deep now, there is no turning back and its going to get worse

What are you talking about? The district is not dissolved. There is no hair to split. It was renamed and they changed the make up of the board. If it was dissolved there would be no board to hold meetings or contract to dispute. The state always had the right to remove the special district. The state should not have the right to take control of the district and wield it against a corporation. Two completely different things. I think you know that.

 

[matt9112]

Of course they were retaliatory.

But I don't have an exhaustive library of the relevant case law in my head to say with certainty that it meets the legal standards that would need to be proven to prevail in a lawsuit.

Retaliatory government action has a long history in this nation from both parties.

 

[Disstevefan1]

What are you talking about? The district is not dissolved. There is no hair to split. It was renamed and they changed the make up of the board. If it was dissolved there would be no board to hold meetings or contract to dispute. The state always had the right to remove the special district. The state should not have the right to take control of the district and wield it against a corporation. Two completely different things. I think you know that.

not dissolved, not dissolved, not dissolved, not dissolved

The rest of my post seems reasonable, if not, I apologize.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Disney didn’t just lose the so called perk of having RCID. That district is under hostile Government control now and the Governor is using authority the district has and some it may not even have to try to control Disney and punish them.

I think your logic is doing some leap-frogging there.

I completely agree with you that the elimination of RCID and the creation of CFTOD was retaliatory, but I question whether that action alone constituted injury to Disney.

The fact that the CFTOD board is hostile to Disney would certainly constitute injury, but I'm not sure it's illegal. I don't like when my town raises my property taxes, but they certainly CAN.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Of course they were retaliatory.

But I don't have an exhaustive library of the relevant case law in my head to say with certainty that it meets the legal standards that would need to be proven to prevail in a lawsuit.

"legal standards" is Disney's cloak of invisibility.

 

[flynnibus]

I think your logic is doing some leap-frogging there.

I completely agree with you that the elimination of RCID and the creation of CFTOD was retaliatory, but I question whether that action alone constituted injury to Disney.

The fact that the CFTOD board is hostile to Disney would certainly constitute injury, but I'm not sure it's illegal. I don't like when my town raises my property taxes, but they certainly CAN.

Missing from your analogy is the part when not only did the town make a change, but they took away your right to elect who was the town leadership.

 

[drnilescrane]

It May Be Time for Disney to Sue Florida​

Sure, there would be political fallout, and at this point Disney is winning the battle of public opinion, with DeSantis increasingly coming across as a bully without the brains to back up his threats. So why escalate? The Oversight District can still do things like raise taxes and muck up the company’s plans for a long time, and who knows how desperate and vindictive DeSantis will get. Plus, while DeSantis won’t be around forever, Disney will always be an easy punching bag because its politics take root in Burbank, not central Florida. The only thing that may extricate Disney long term is if the company decides to fight the whole Oversight District takeover, and Iger, with his credibility and stature, might be uniquely positioned to do it while he’s C.E.O. “Disney could sue to say this takeover was retaliatory because, I mean, it definitely was,” Schumer noted. “The governor and legislators have basically said so, and then that becomes a free speech question.” And a great way for Iger, with ice in his veins and the clock ticking on his Disney tenure, to go in for the kill.

https://puck.news/it-may-be-time-for-disney-to-sue-florida/

I usually trust Matt Belloni (a lawyer and the former editor of the Hollywood Reporter)

 

[Surferboy567]

I think your logic is doing some leap-frogging there.

I completely agree with you that the elimination of RCID and the creation of CFTOD was retaliatory, but I question whether that action alone constituted injury to Disney.

The fact that the CFTOD board is hostile to Disney would certainly constitute injury, but I'm not sure it's illegal. I don't like when my town raises my property taxes, but they certainly CAN.

The board has made multiple threats specifically targeted at Disney (to my knowledge) they have said:

1. Disney doesn’t want to work with the board.

2. Disney doesn’t pay taxes.

3. Disney is a untrustworthy self dealing company.

4. Disney has been using the exception from state mandated inspections to slack on maintenance and not do in-house inspections rigorously enough. They basically said here that they don’t believe the rides are safe.

5. Disney inserts California based politics into Florida and should be punished.

6. Disney breaks inspections rules on pools and it should be controlled by the state.

All of these comments/agendas said by the board almost definitely constitute hostility to Disney.

I don’t believe anything listed above, but the board has said things to the above effect in official meetings. This constitutes hostility to me.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It May Be Time for Disney to Sue Florida​

https://puck.news/it-may-be-time-for-disney-to-sue-florida/

I usually trust Matt Belloni (a lawyer and the former editor of the Hollywood Reporter)

The first paragraph really calls into question the author's credibility.

Nelson Peltz got exactly what he wanted out of Disney, Iger essentially caved to him. Victoria Alonso just got a multimillion dollar payoff. Yet both of these are cited as examples of how Iger is "ice cold" like Michael Corleone.

 

[Patcheslee]

I didn't realize analysis of bills were also published (mich easier read for me) The updated analysis from yesterday even shows some constitutional issues with SB1604 and don't know the effects.

 

[flynnibus]

Nelson Peltz got exactly what he wanted out of Disney, Iger essentially caved to him

And gave him what exactly?

Replacing chapek? Returning to a dividend? Re-org'ing after being away? What? Which of these were compromises to Peltz?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The board has made multiple threats specifically targeted at Disney (to my knowledge) they have said:

1. Disney doesn’t want to work with the board.

2. Disney doesn’t pay taxes.

3. Disney is a untrustworthy self dealing company.

4. Disney has been using the exception from state mandated inspections to slack on maintenance and not do in-house inspections rigorously enough. They basically said here that they don’t believe the rides are safe.

5. Disney inserts California based politics into Florida and should be punished.

6. Disney breaks inspections rules on pools and it should be controlled by the state.

All of these comments/agendas said by the board almost definitely constitute hostility to Disney.

I don’t believe anything listed above, but the board has said things to the above point in official meetings.

Some of those they never said, some of them are objectively true, some of them they said and it's perfectly fine that they said, and some of them they implied without actually saying.

Again, the actions taken by the state legislature in creating the board are separate from the BOARD'S actions.

 

[drnilescrane]

Nelson Peltz got exactly what he wanted out of Disney, Iger essentially caved to him. Victoria Alonso just got a multimillion dollar payoff. Yet both of these are cited as examples of how Iger is "ice cold" like Michael Corleone.

I agree the Nelson Peltz issue is outwardly muddy. Considering the fact Nelson was working with Ike Perlmutter, there's an argument that Nelson wanted a bit more than just the dividend, and the whole endeavor was a tad embarrassing.

On the Victoria Alonso issue, yes she got paid off. But it was about sending a message and having a lot of friends in Frank G Wells, it was received clear as day. Chapek was so weak the executive team got accustomed to doing whatever they wanted and acting solely in personal interest (which is sort of the root of this thread). That needed to stop, and stop quickly.

 

[ParentsOf4]

In Universal’s defense the parent company Comcast was a signer of the petition opposing the same bill along with a boat load of other Fortune 500 companies. If Disney never spoke out at all and if the Governor still wanted a crusade to benefit his political goals we could very well be having this same discussion about Universal right now. He could have taken the signing of that petition and blown it up into a battle against a woke FL corporation. Disney was a much more juicy target and they also had the RCID play to improve the attack against them.

Disney’s only “mistake” was not signing the original petition, like most corporations did.

It was a toothless petition and most companies signed it knowing there was little downside.

Instead, Disney was pretty much the only company that tried to do something of substance, in this case use their powerful lobbyists to try to make meaningful changes to the bill.

Then Disney got pushed into making a very public condemnation by the exact group they were trying to help.

More than any other company, Disney tried to help and got screwed over because of it.

Yes, I’m angry about what DeSantis did, but I’m also disappointed that despite their track record, people didn’t have more faith in Disney.