Given his well publicized diet of fast food and cola, this is a real possibility.unless Trump has a coronary
Given his well publicized diet of fast food and cola, this is a real possibility.unless Trump has a coronary
His mom lived to 88 and father 94, so the genetics say otherwise.Given his well publicized diet of fast food and cola, this is a real possibility.
The man is the luckiest person aliveGiven his well publicized diet of fast food and cola, this is a real possibility.
Nature vs Nurture.His mom lived to 88 and father 94, so the genetics say otherwise.
Yeah, I probably shouldn’t have put that idea out there in the world even as a joke. I also joked about the district banning people dressed as mice or ducks. The way things have progressed that doesn’t seem as much like a silly joke anymore eitherThe problem is this could actually be something they would propose.
it is a sweetheart deal that applicants pursue because it benefits the applicants.
Disney could have built the same infrastructure and ran it privately
proffered it to the counties
quid pro pro.
it list them as they have a ground lease and are reponsible for taxes, but the property is owned by Palm HospitalityInteresting. I wonder why the OCPA lists them as the owner?
Best, most concise summary I’ve seen.No, it's a way of being able to build big projects efficiently while not impacting the taxpayers. Calling it a "sweetheart deal" is incorrect. It's a symbiotic deal aimed at economic growth while putting that burden on the company, not the taxpayers, with the incentive that it allows for greater efficiency.
RCID was a sweetheart deal…..for the limited number of local taxpayers who existed at the time it was put in place. It was also an essential benefit for Disney that directly resulted in the company selecting the Orlando site. Without RCID there’s a good chance they may not have built there or in FL at all. It’s easy to look at the situation today and dismiss the value Disney brought to the table but the state of FL would be dramatically different today without TWDC. Disney enjoyed their control and the local residents enjoyed not paying for the growth….a win/win. I don’t know if that’s the same thing as quid pro quo but both sides certainly benefited greatly initially and continued to benefit up until a few months ago.No, it's a way of being able to build big projects efficiently while not impacting the taxpayers. Calling it a "sweetheart deal" is incorrect. It's a symbiotic deal aimed at economic growth while putting that burden on the company, not the taxpayers, with the incentive that it allows for greater efficiency.
There are still some private fire departments today but in a lot of cases those are supplemental and related to forest fire protection. EMS services could probably be provided privately but even that would have to be heavily coordinated with the local counties which would come at a cost to the counties.Some of it maybe, but not all There's no provision for a private fire department, for example. Reedy Creek's investments and services cover more than just roads. Reedy Creek also pays for police it needs, emergency medical services, etc, which would be funded by the taxpayers otherwise.
I feel like this is something that gets overlooked by some people. By creating RCID TWDC had control of a special tax district but they also paid almost exclusively for the cost of that government. So the argument keeps being made that other corporations don’t get to control a local government but other companies also aren‘t required to exclusively fund one either. If you look at the history of the area if RCID never existed or got dissolved today it would not be hard or overly expensive for TWDC to gain great influence over the local county governments. First, they are a massive catalyst of the local economy so why would the local government be anything other than overly friendly. It would be much cheaper to offer some campaign contributions to the right candidates to get them to approve what you want then to fund you own government. I don’t see Universal struggling to get development approved….they have their own development agreement with the government they don’t control.Yes, but at taxpayer expense as opposed to Disney expense.
It appears that Palm Hospitality is a subsidiary of TWDC. Per a web search I found this:it list them as they have a ground lease and are reponsible for taxes, but the property is owned by Palm Hospitality
When you buy DVC you get a title and "Vista Title Insurance" shows up on the closing sheet? Nice to get a cut from everywhere, Buffet does that with his mobile home business.It appears that Palm Hospitality is a subsidiary of TWDC. Per a web search I found this:
View attachment 712193
So Disney still owns the land through a subsidiary but I guess with a long term land lease it must be structured where DOD is the taxpayer so exempt from property taxes. One thing we have learned in this thread is Disney has some good lawyers
pretty sure DVC involves like three entities, they got it managed very wellWhen you buy DVC you get a title and "Vista Title Insurance" shows up on the closing sheet? Nice to get a cut from everywhere, Buffet does that with his mobile home business.
nice word for milkedpretty sure DVC involves like three entities, they got it managed very well
No, it's a way of being able to build big projects efficiently while not impacting the taxpayers. Calling it a "sweetheart deal" is incorrect. It's a symbiotic deal aimed at economic growth while putting that burden on the company, not the taxpayers, with the incentive that it allows for greater efficiency.
Some of it maybe, but not all There's no provision for a private fire department, for example. Reedy Creek's investments and services cover more than just roads. Reedy Creek also pays for police it needs, emergency medical services, etc, which would be funded by the taxpayers otherwise.
Still a possibility - because RCID was not the ONLY way this could have happened. Proffers could have been for Disney to build and maintain and then turn over to the local gov after an extended period. But instead, Disney offered to shoulder all that, in exchange for something else. Quid pro proYes, but at taxpayer expense as opposed to Disney expense.
That's not an accurate term to describe how Reedy Creek has operated.
Could be an option but to put food and the table and keep health insurance, the laid off can apply for theme park roles at lower pay.The combined stories of Disney are getting it much more press coverage... front page of CNN covers a wide range of Disney stories right now
View attachment 712211
I feel like the parks are barely getting hit by these layoffs, wasn't that the plan?The combined stories of Disney are getting it much more press coverage... front page of CNN covers a wide range of Disney stories right now
View attachment 712211
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.