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

[MagicHappens1971]

You saw him say it?

I thought the shareholder meetings were audio only but I could be wrong

 

[Tha Realest]

Per the private nondelegation doctrine, the state legislature in 1967 could not delegate its power directly to Disney. It had to create a "local government" to do this.

So is the theory that, on the way out the door, the RCID-WDPR development agreement violated the private nondelegation doctrine by conferring its power off to a private entity?

 

[mightynine]

If the state’s gonna “inspect” the Monorails, can they include an A/C person on the crew? Get’s kinda warm on that highway in the sky sometimes.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I thought the shareholder meetings were audio only but I could be wrong

Hmmm, you know, I think you are right, I listened to the meeting on YouTube Streamed by as Vlogger, but I definitely heard it, maybe his face wasn't on the screen.

So, I heard him say in on YouTube Thanks for keeping me in check.

Now please assure me WDW will get the $17B

 

[seascape]

.Going back to the 1960's rember there are records showing without the RCID being approved Disney would sell the the property for a profit. The entire history of the property and Florida will be part of this case. Disney has been a wonderful partner with the 2 counties and the State. All Disney is asking for is to be treated like a good partner and what the State is doing is trying to harm them.

 

[Disstevefan1]

.Going back to the 1960's rember there are records showing without the RCID being approved Disney would sell the the property for a profit. The entire history of the property and Florida will be part of this case. Disney has been a wonderful partner with the 2 counties and the State. All Disney is asking for is to be treated like a good partner and what the State is doing is trying to harm them.

Flarida and WDW were EXCELLENT partners for over 50 years, and that is why the state let them be.

Folks want to blame political parties; folks want to blame the voters (as if they literally voted for this cr@p).

That is just shifting blame away from the one and ONLY person that is to blame - DeSantis.

 

[GoofGoof]

Iger announced the 17B during a shareholders meeting in which he called DeSantis “anti-business”.

Iger vows $17B Disney World expansion, calls DeSantis ‘anti-business’

Disney plans to invest $17 billion in Walt Disney World over the next 10 years and create 13,000 new jobs, CEO Bob Iger says.

www.orlandosentinel.com

As others have mentioned, as much as I’m sure Disney would like to hurt the state, withholding expansions & $$$ will just hurt their business.

I don’t think Disney has any desire whatsoever to hurt the state of FL or their government. They wouldn’t be pulling back on investment in an attempt to hurt anyone, it would only be done if they felt the investment wouldn’t be profitable or said more accurately wouldn’t be as profitable as other alternatives. So if the climate in FL gets more anti-business and the government continues to attempt to hurt Disney’s business they could look elsewhere to invest in theme parks or instead build a new cruise ship or resort outside of FL. WDW isn’t going anywhere and they will almost certainly continue to invest in the existing resort.

 

[el_super]

So if the climate in FL gets more anti-business and the government continues to attempt to hurt Disney’s business they could look elsewhere to invest in theme parks or instead build a new cruise ship or resort outside of FL.

They don't even have to be actively trying to hurt Disney to make it less advantageous to do business there. Just the breakdown in communication between lawmakers and Disney's lobbists can present a difficult challenge. Does the carve out for SB7072 happen in today's climate?

 

[GoofGoof]

Now please assure me WDW will get the $17B

The $17B is a forecast of capital spending for the next 10 years. They spell out that it’s based on management’s views and assumptions at the time the statement is made. Here’s the exact wording that is similar to every company’s earnings releases.

Forward-Looking Statements:
Certain statements in this discussion may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements regarding our plans; performance; expectations; strategy and priorities; organizational structure; cost reductions; product or service offerings (including attractions, content and content releases); charitable giving; and other statements that are not historical in nature. These statements are made on the basis of management’s views and assumptions regarding future events and business performance as of the time the statements are made. Management does not undertake any obligation to update these statements.
Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied. Such differences may result from actions taken by the Company, including restructuring or strategic initiatives (including capital investments, asset acquisitions or dispositions, new or expanded business lines or cessation of certain operations), our execution of our business plans (including the content we create and IP we investment in, our pricing decisions, our cost structure and our management and other personnel decisions) or other business decisions, as well as from developments beyond the Company’s control, including: further deterioration in domestic and global economic conditions; deterioration in or pressures from competitive conditions, including competition to create or acquire content and competition for talent; consumer preferences and acceptance of our content, offerings, pricing model and price increases and the market for advertising sales on our DTC services and linear networks; health concerns and their impact on our businesses and productions; international, regulatory, political, legal, or military developments; technological developments; labor markets and activities; adverse weather conditions or natural disasters; and availability of content; each such risk includes the current and future impacts of, and may be amplified by, COVID-19 and related mitigation efforts.
Such developments may further affect entertainment, travel and leisure businesses generally and may, among other things, affect (or further affect, as applicable): our operations, business plans or profitability; demand for our products and services; the performance of the Company’s content; our ability to create or obtain desirable content at or under the value we assign the content; the advertising market for programming; income tax expense; and performance of some or all Company businesses either directly or through their impact on those who distribute our products.
Additional factors are set forth in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 1, 2022, including under the captions “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and “Business,” quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, including under the captions “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

[GoofGoof]

They don't even have to be actively trying to hurt Disney to make it less advantageous to do business there. Just the breakdown in communication between lawmakers and Disney's lobbists can present a difficult challenge. Does the carve out for SB7072 happen in today's climate?

It’s possible. Look at DLR being shut down for so long during Covid. That wasn’t done because a toddler was having a tantrum and trying to hurt Disney but it was still a government action that hurt the company. I believe Disney when they say they want to continue to have a great relationship with the state of FL, but that doesn’t mean things will immediately get back to the way they were.

 

[lentesta]

"Discretionary legislative power" is the power that the legislature has to operate with some flexibility, to exercise their own judgement.

Yeah. I got it. I had a nice conversation this afternoon about the "Major Doctrines" policy too.

My points were:

• The phrase "discretionary legislative power" seems to appear exactly once in Florida case law
• That case happened in Orange County
• The board's use of the specific phrase might indicate that it seeks to refer to that one case as precedent

So I think we're aligned on that stuff.

 

[lentesta]

That's the point to be argued in court. CFTOD's attorneys are arguing that the development agreement violated the private nondelegation doctrine. That doesn't mean they are right.

Has the board given a specific example of a power that was explicily delegated in the agreement? The building height thing isn't a delegation.

I ask because the board's suit section 110 complains about being unable to periodically reasses based on updates to the law:

The Development Agreement obligates the District to "fund[], design[] and construct[]" public facilities to accommodate Disney's future growth, but without allowing for periodic reassessment of currently planned projects, including as encouraged or required by law.
See Fla. Stat. §163.3191 (requiring local government to "evaluate its comprehensive plan to determine if plan amendments are necessary to reflect changes in state requirements" "[a]t least once every 7 years," and "encourag[ing]" local governments "to comprehensively evaluate and, as necessary, update comprehensive plans to reflect changes in local conditions").

But Florida Statute 163.3233(1) specifically says:

The local government’s laws and policies governing the development of the land at the time of the execution of the development agreement shall govern the development of the land for the duration of the development agreement.

So absent a specific example of a delegated power, FL 163.3233 seems to overrule the state's objection in 110.

 

[BrianLo]

For comparison, Domestic Parks & Resorts Capex from 2011 to 2020 (i.e. pre-COVID) was $21.5B. That includes 2 cruise ships plus money spent at DL. However, P&R domestic numbers are dominated by WDW. Of that $21.5B, at least $17B was spent at WDW.

Domestic P&R depreciation was all the way up to $1.68B in 2022. Some of that depreciation will be on the ships, some will be at DL. Perhaps $1.2B per year will be at WDW. Adjust that for forward-looking inflation and, over 10 years, most of the $17B that Iger mentioned will be for upkeep.

Still, there will be some left for theme park improvements. Maybe a land or two (like the replacement for Dinoland) and perhaps two or three new attractions elsewhere. More DVCs for sure. Also, more non-theme park development.

I'm going to take a few issues on your read of this. Depreciation is separated from Capex, as is operating expenditures. Depreciation is not spend, it's a gradual tax write off. If you added Capex and Depreciation together for 2010-2020, it would be way in excess of that 21.5 billion figure.

Secondly, you are being extremely generous in your outlay to WDW. The two cruise ships push 2 billion. DLR during that period specifically would include a portion of DCA 2.0, the 60th, all of Galaxy's Edge, a parking garage, Project Stardust, some work on MMRR etc. Including quite the array of 'minor' projects that DLR has more consistently engaged in.

Now of course the majority is still WDW based, though I'm splitting hairs and guessing more like 15 billion. Capex off the top of my head would include a portion of New Fantasyland, Pandora/AK, Galaxy's Edge, Toy Story Playland, an early portion of Epcot, Art of Animation, Gran Destino, VGF, Copper Creek, Riviera, Resort transport (Skyliner), Hub and gate overhauls at MK/AK/DHS, the money pit that was My Magic Plus (possibly billions in those years, but did include resort-wide tech/internet upgrades) and Disney Springs (minus parking garages). Leaving off many minor double-digit items like a 3rd Soarin' Theatre, Resort entertainment, a few larger ride overhauls, etc.


I don't list this to again say Bob is planning a 5th gate, I highly doubt he is. But 17 billion for WDW, despite inflation, is a lot more than a couple rides and a new land. Whether it is less or more impactful than the previous decade is hard to say, but the job expansion does lend credence to more expansive efforts rather than replacement and some notable money wastage.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't list this to again say Bob is planning a 5th gate, I highly doubt he is. But 17 billion for WDW, despite inflation, is a lot more than a couple rides and a new land

It's also a citation that isn't necessarily just capex spend... the statement was intentionally vague and positioned to be talking about the value they are putting into Florida over the time... and now we know it was almost certainly designed to dovetail into Disney's scheme to defend it's RCID lockup. But as covered in the other thread - the statement is very open ended, and can include everything from labor they are already spending, to new hires, to rehabs, to almost anything.

 

[mikejs78]

As an example, you can find the phrase in Gundy v. United States

Federal caselaw isn't relevant here.

 

[BrianLo]

It's also a citation that isn't necessarily just capex spend... the statement was intentionally vague and positioned to be talking about the value they are putting into Florida over the time... and now we know it was almost certainly designed to dovetail into Disney's scheme to defend it's RCID lockup. But as covered in the other thread - the statement is very open ended, and can include everything from labor they are already spending, to new hires, to rehabs, to almost anything.

I totally get that. I still seriously believe the number was merely the previous decade of WDW specific Capex, with some projected inflation. It's a talking point for sure, but I'm sure it has some merit internally as their projected benchmark. I also can't fathom where 13k cast members come from if it includes most of those things you mention, it seems pointedly New Capex (which would include rehabs, but not labour, operations, or new hire cost).

It was definitely a pointed flex at this whole issue, but I also don't support the hypothesis that it was a lie or fully meaningless. It holds actual weight in a shareholders meeting.

 

[Disstevefan1]

The $17B is a forecast of capital spending for the next 10 years. They spell out that it’s based on management’s views and assumptions at the time the statement is made. Here’s the exact wording that is similar to every company’s earnings releases.

Forward-Looking Statements:
Certain statements in this discussion may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements regarding our plans; performance; expectations; strategy and priorities; organizational structure; cost reductions; product or service offerings (including attractions, content and content releases); charitable giving; and other statements that are not historical in nature. These statements are made on the basis of management’s views and assumptions regarding future events and business performance as of the time the statements are made. Management does not undertake any obligation to update these statements.
Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied. Such differences may result from actions taken by the Company, including restructuring or strategic initiatives (including capital investments, asset acquisitions or dispositions, new or expanded business lines or cessation of certain operations), our execution of our business plans (including the content we create and IP we investment in, our pricing decisions, our cost structure and our management and other personnel decisions) or other business decisions, as well as from developments beyond the Company’s control, including: further deterioration in domestic and global economic conditions; deterioration in or pressures from competitive conditions, including competition to create or acquire content and competition for talent; consumer preferences and acceptance of our content, offerings, pricing model and price increases and the market for advertising sales on our DTC services and linear networks; health concerns and their impact on our businesses and productions; international, regulatory, political, legal, or military developments; technological developments; labor markets and activities; adverse weather conditions or natural disasters; and availability of content; each such risk includes the current and future impacts of, and may be amplified by, COVID-19 and related mitigation efforts.
Such developments may further affect entertainment, travel and leisure businesses generally and may, among other things, affect (or further affect, as applicable): our operations, business plans or profitability; demand for our products and services; the performance of the Company’s content; our ability to create or obtain desirable content at or under the value we assign the content; the advertising market for programming; income tax expense; and performance of some or all Company businesses either directly or through their impact on those who distribute our products.
Additional factors are set forth in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 1, 2022, including under the captions “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and “Business,” quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, including under the captions “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

So, a solid maybe

 

[GoofGoof]

So, a solid maybe

It’s exactly how they describe it. Their projection at the time the statement is made. Every company gives some form of projection or guidance from time to time that has a similar disclaimer. Nothing guarantees it’s the exact number (how could anyone know) but there’s no reason to believe it’s a lie either.

 

[LAKid53]

I have a question for those here in Orlando. Was just watching the news and heard about the passage of the ride safety bill. It is called the Tyre Sampson Bill, named for a teen who was killed on the drop tower at Icon Park. Is this the same bill that is requiring greater inspections at Disney? or is this something else?

I believe so. However Icon Park was already under inspection by the state (DACS).

 

[LAKid53]

As I understand it there are a few bills being considered on theme park safety and this was actually a good one from a consumer/safety perspective barring last minute amendments. The family of Tyre supported it and it was unanimously supported.

But in traditional Florida fashion: There is also companion bill that would shield amusement parks from state FOIA requests and then there is the ridiculous Disney one that would divert resources to regulate the Disney parks in the special district.

There are 3 related bills for SB 902:
SB 904 - the bill exempting records from public scrutiny regarding accidents under active investigation for a specified time;
HB 1243 - replaced with SB 904;
HB 1241 - replaced with SB 902