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

[JAB]

I honestly don’t know. I think the argument is that the landowners of the District should share the development rights, not have them vested in one landowner. It would be a little odd if you could add a room to your house because your neighborhood had a cap on room additions and they were all given to your neighbor who may or may not use them.

In this case, though, wouldn't it be more like you leased the land you built your house on from your neighbor and the lease agreement already states they have to approve construction? How many hotels (if any) in the district are sitting on land that isn't owned by Disney?

 

[lentesta]

I honestly don’t know. I think the argument is that the landowners of the District should share the development rights, not have them vested in one landowner. It would be a little odd if you could add a room to your house because your neighborhood had a cap on room additions and they were all given to your neighbor who may or may not use them.

So there are two questions:

1. If the Swan wanted to add hotel rooms, does the developer agreement say that Disney has decision-making authority there, which Disney did not previously have (e.g., through an existing contract with the Swan)?
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, is that unusual for special districts in Florida?

It's a fact that other Florida SD boards include people who have direct and substantial financial interests in the board's decisions. The Wilton Drive board is composed entirely (IIRC) of people who own land and businesses there.

 

[Andrew C]

They can't pack up WDW and move to another state, but they can relocate DCL home ports, slow/stop construction of new hotels in FL (and prioritize new DVC builds in CA over FL, possibly with more Hilton Head type beach resorts outside of FL), and move office workers to other states. None of that would equal the impact of moving all of WDW, obviously, but it's not nothing, either. I'm sure Disney would prefer to have the courts rule in their favor over those options, though.

I think much of that are not viable options, even if they wanted to. Maybe the last item you listed is the most realistic.

 

[LAKid53]

Also wouldn’t anything RCID takes via eminent domain have to be for the benefit of RCID?

They can’t just say that it would benefit the district to have a state prison in it.

All Section 73.015, F.S., states is that:

"1. That all or a portion of his or her property is necessary for a project.
2. The nature of the project for which the parcel is considered necessary, and the parcel designation of the property to be acquired."

There is an attorney general opinion that looks at the taking of property by a special district and whether said reason for taking the property meets public interest. The question was in regards to the project for which the property is being taken is in violation of local zoning.

"....the power to condemn simply provides a method whereby property can be acquired; it does not have anything to do with the use of the property."

It's an interesting read, even if not specifically applicable to your hypothetical.

Special tax district, eminent domain power | My Florida Legal

www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[Disstevefan1]

They can't pack up WDW and move to another state, but they can relocate DCL home ports, slow/stop construction of new hotels in FL (and prioritize new DVC builds in CA over FL, possibly with more Hilton Head type beach resorts outside of FL), and move office workers to other states. None of that would equal the impact of moving all of WDW, obviously, but it's not nothing, either. I'm sure Disney would prefer to have the courts rule in their favor over those options, though.

So TWDC would purposely neglect WDW and relocate DCL (both cash cows for the company) to prove a point?

The company needs these dependable sources of income.

Not trolling, just asking.

 

[RamblinWreck]

So TWDC would purposely neglect WDW and relocate DCL (both cash cows for the company) to prove a point?

The company needs these dependable sources of income.

Not trolling, just asking.

Doubtful they would neglect it, but they could certainly stop investing so much in it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I wondered the same thing.

I know that S&D are on Disney-owned land that Tishman leases, and that there are restrictions in that lease that Tishman is limited to what land they can develop, and were only allowed to develop 2 hotels (which is why Swan Reserve - originally to be called The Cove at the Walt Disney World Swan - was built on the location of the Swan's tennis courts and is technically an expansion of the Swan), and that Disney has to approve any changes.

So if Disney already had such authority over non-Disney hotels in the district, can they really argue that the new agreement gives Disney authority it didn't already have via lease agreements?

I guess in theory if someone made the right offer they could buy a parcel without any such agreements or restrictions. But I think that gets to the issue of standing, we’re talking about some future party who is impeded by the contract. Why does this limit the District and do so right now when there is no alternative comprehensive plan? I have a hard time not coming to the conclusion that the Board does have secret plans, that they thought they could take land and sell it off to other hotel developers. They’ve pretty much admitted as much with regards to affordable housing even though it is now allowed in most of the District.

 

[mkt]

So TWDC would purposely neglect WDW and relocate DCL (both cash cows for the company) to prove a point?

The company needs these dependable sources of income.

Not trolling, just asking.

Maintaining the status quo at WDW isn't neglect. They just wouldn't expand.

That's Disney's other potential power move: jobs.

DCL doesn't need Florida: it needs a port. I am beyond certain that there are plenty of cruise ports that could offer Disney a better deal than Florida's have.

And as far as the part you ignored, I can also imagine Disney allowing white collar professionals to go remote from anywhere they want.

 

[LAKid53]

So TWDC would purposely neglect WDW and relocate DCL (both cash cows for the company) to prove a point?

The company needs these dependable sources of income.

Not trolling, just asking.

DCL has invested a lot of money to upgrade their terminal in Port Canaveral and is in the process of modifying the terminal it acquired from Carnival at Port Everglades. It's not going to abandon either, especially with 2 more ships in the works. The partially completed ship it acquired last year will be used in Asia. No word if the Treasure will be permanently berthed at Port Everglades.

 

[Andrew C]

DCL doesn't need Florida: it needs a port. I am beyond certain that there are plenty of cruise ports that could offer Disney a better deal than Florida's have.

It absolutely needs Florida. The state is an essential part of Caribbean and Bahamian cruising out of the US.

 

[LAKid53]

Maintaining the status quo at WDW isn't neglect. They just wouldn't expand.

That's Disney's other potential power move: jobs.

DCL doesn't need Florida: it needs a port. I am beyond certain that there are plenty of cruise ports that could offer Disney a better deal than Florida's have.

And as far as the part you ignored, I can also imagine Disney allowing white collar professionals to go remote from anywhere they want.

I must disagree. As I said above, Disney has spent $$$$ upgrading their terminal at Port Canaveral and finishing work on the berth they acquired from Carnival at Port Everglades. The Caribbean is the bread and butter of the US cruise industry. The only other options would be Houston or New Orleans.

Why port further away from your most lucrative routes that include Castaway Cay and the addition of Lighthouse Point next year?

 

[LAKid53]

It absolutely needs Florida. The state is essential part of Caribbean cruising out of the US.

Precisely

 

[JAB]

I guess in theory if someone made the right offer they could buy a parcel without any such agreements or restrictions. But I think that gets to the issue of standing, we’re talking about some future party who is impeded by the contract. Why does this limit the District and do so right now when there is no alternative comprehensive plan? I have a hard time not coming to the conclusion that the Board does have secret plans, that they thought they could take land and sell it off to other hotel developers. They’ve pretty much admitted as much with regards to affordable housing even though it is now allowed in most of the District.

Makes sense. I hadn't considered what ulterior motives CFTOB might have had. So basically, regardless of whatever the superficial legal reasoning of their argument is, they're really just upset that the development agreement would prevent them from enacting their plan to "stick it" to Disney by letting the competition develop on the doorstep of the parks.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

So TWDC would purposely neglect WDW and relocate DCL (both cash cows for the company) to prove a point?

The company needs these dependable sources of income.

Not trolling, just asking.

Moving DCL wouldn't necessarily have a negative impact on its Financials- especially if the state continues trying to find ways to punish Disney since DCL could be a potential target for petty vindictive interference.

Not building more WDW hotels isn't necessarily "neglecting" WDW, either - but if the state is going to continue to seek out ways to cost Disney money then perhaps that money is better spent in places where they won't have to mount legal battles to build and won't face building inspectors who could potentially care more about pleasing the governor and his handpicked CFTOD board than actually making sure the building is up to code. Those added costs, delays, and headaches would alter the cost-benefit analysis when choosing between multiple options and locations. They could simply save any WDW projects for a time when a reasonable board is in place at CFTOD, which may be several years down the line if Disney somehow loses the court case.

 

[GrumpyFan]

They can't pack up WDW and move to another state, but they can relocate DCL home ports, slow/stop construction of new hotels in FL (and prioritize new DVC builds in CA over FL, possibly with more Hilton Head type beach resorts outside of FL), and move office workers to other states. None of that would equal the impact of moving all of WDW, obviously, but it's not nothing, either. I'm sure Disney would prefer to have the courts rule in their favor over those options, though.

For DCL, Florida is probably the best location, mainly because of its close proximity to Castaway and the new Lighthouse Point private islands, but also WDW. South Carolina or Georgia might be a reasonable re-lo option for them but those aren't great ports, and would require some major investment to get up to standard. Of those two, Charleston might be the better option, since no major cruise lines go out of Savannah. Also, compared to WDW, the cruise ports don't employ near as many people, so the impact there would be small, but certainly significant for the areas, although, I think the other cruise lines would quickly absorb them, so it wouldn't be a big loss for the state. The biggest hit Florida might see with DCL pulling out would be in tax and tourism revenue, but again, those might be leveled out by other cruise lines.

Building more DVCs outside of Florida also wouldn't have a big effect, as those outside Florida, don't have as big a draw, with the exception maybe of Aulani.

The other option was the suspension of the Lake Nona project, which was in progress. While this wasn't a large impact to the area, it was an investment and would have likely meant more jobs and revenue for the area in the long term. The bad part about this for Disney is that it would have been a significant savings for them. There really isn't another location for them to move to that would have the same cost benefit as Florida.

Outside of these, they could suspend or slow development in Florida, but that will hurt them more than the state. Sadly, they seem to be over a barrel here. Theirs and Florida's best bet would be for this to be settled and a return to what they had or something similar.

One other option would be for them to get REAL political and dump a bunch of money and advertising against Desantis. They could also donate heavily into his opponents, but as we've seen here, that can cause backlash as well with their fan base. If I were them, I would at least go on a publicity tour maybe with some advertising and perhaps even trying to get some other Florida business leaders to help them fight back. At the very least, hire a PR firm to help them wage this battle. It might be costly in the short term, and the timing couldn't be worse for them to incur such an expense, but losing this fight could also be costly for years to come.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

It absolutely needs Florida. The state is an essential part of Caribbean and Bahamian cruising out of the US.

They couldn't - and wouldn't - completely abandon FL ports, but if they could get an appealing deal at Port Charleston they could certainly start moving some of their older ships from FL to SC. They could also add more NYC to Canada sailings, have more Mexico sailings out of Texas, etc. Reducing does not mean eliminating.

 

[Andrew C]

They couldn't - and wouldn't - completely abandon FL ports, but if they could get an appealing deal at Port Charleston they could certainly start moving some of their older ships from FL to SC. They could also add more NYC to Canada sailings, have more Mexico sailings out of Texas, etc. Reducing does not mean eliminating.

Caribbean is the money maker and what you're suggesting would significantly hurt that, well beyond this fight with the gov. Location/proximity, infrastructure, skilled workers, customer base, customer expectations...just not viable.

 

[mmascari]

I have a hard time not coming to the conclusion that the Board does have secret plans, that they thought they could take land and sell it off to other hotel developers. They’ve pretty much admitted as much with regards to affordable housing even though it is now allowed in most of the District.

They don't even need to follow through and do that. The threat of doing it would create enormous leverage over Disney. That's clearly what they want.

They want to be able to say Disney should adjust Disney+, movie, and whatever other content. Even if that isn't an action available to the board. If they can can give a nod to "We're so distracted by this content we don't like that we're thinking of opening a high rise office building on the land between Animal Kingdom Lodge and Animal Kingdom."

They don't actually need to build that high rise, but they do need it to be a credible threat. Anything that removes it as threat option is a win for Disney.

 

[Dranth]

No real need for them to move much of anything though. Even if they lost a court case and then decided to start to implement any plans the governor would have what, maybe a year left in office and he can't run again in 2028. So, why bother? His own party is starting to push back on this mess so if you are Disney, just start donating to and working with people on either side of the isle who will start to roll back the rhetoric and work with the company.

 

[GoofGoof]

Dont they already pare back investment in Florida? Don't the WDW parks receive less investment then every other Disney park on the planet? It doesn't seem to really hurt their revenue.

I would still expect to see more investment in the Cruise Line and International Parks to get spending out of Florida, even just temporarily.

If Disney really wanted to hurt FL, which I don’t believe they do, they could move their cruise ships out completely. Baltimore or Galveston would be more than happy to take the business. That would be a big blow to the state cruise industry and a trickle down impact to businesses who get people from the airport to the cruise or hotels and restaurants that have extra business from people going on a cruise.