Because he could get labor at prices that would make him even wealthier.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
Because he could get labor at prices that would make him even wealthier.
mikejs78
Premium Member
That's what it used to mean. Now it means a country that is developing, has a robust economy, but is not quite first world.
Modern day definitions are
1= Developed
2= Developing and democratic
3= Undeveloped or developing and undemocratic
That's why approx 75% of our meds are made in China.
You are 900+ pages and 18,000+ posts in. With lots and lots of direct references to the RCID charter not being about creating an actual EPCOT city. With nobody able to cite anything saying a city was needed, and lots of cites, directly from the RCID charter that tourism is the goal.
At this point, anybody saying that not creating city is a reason to dissolve or take over RCID doesn't really need to give a reason. They just need to be ignored. They're not serious and not interested in real dialog about what is going on. They're trying to rationalize an outcome and looking for anything that will let them do that.
el_super
Well-Known Member
It's a pretty dim view of Florida politicians to think that they would have granted such powers had mention of EPCOT never been made, but to be honest, they don't seem all that bright these days either.
But the broader point is: we will never really know. Disney pitched the whole affair, creating the two municipalities and the district, on the premise that it was absolutely necessary to build EPCOT. They kept advertising EPCOT and talking it up in the press and privately among the lawmakers in the run up to get their charter passed. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that they passed Disney's legislation, satisfied in knowing EPCOT wouldn't be built, and yet that bit of misinformation persists.
It was, but has since been redefined based on the economic development of a country, with SOME political connotations still remaining in the definitions of second and third worlds.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Why not have a dim view of them? According to you, the whole batch of them was so dumb that they truly believed the main reason to implement RCID was so Disney could build a fancy apartment complex with some office space and stores and then NEVER ONCE mention it in any of the laws/contracts.
How about a much more plausible explanation? None, or nearly none of them cared one iota about EPCOT being built. What they wanted was the never-ending tax influx into the state from having Disney located there and the form it took was trivial and unimportant, hence why it wasn't included in the legislation.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I deleted my post after seeing that @Heppenheimer had said the same thing.
The sense in which you’re using the term isn’t standard, even if it is out there. “Developed”, “developing”, and “least developed” is the more current (though still overly simplistic) way of dividing the world, with India falling in the middle category.
Agreed is overly simplistic.
Now I challenge you to have a discussion on the subject with more context and detail with an average human being. They'll walk away.
el_super
Well-Known Member
They did:
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Legislature through
the within enactment to supplement, expand and otherwise
modify the powers, functions and authorities of the Reedy
Creek Drainage District, which shall hereafter be known as the
Reedy Creek Improvement District, so as to enable that district
to undertake the improvements herein provided for, to promote
and create favorable conditions for the development and
practical application of new and advanced concepts, designs and
ideas for a recreation-oriented community and to undertake,
and enable enterprises conducted within the District to under
take, a broad and flexible program of experimentation and development
That mirrors some of the statements that Disney were making to them prior to passing it:
Tatum's rationale for Disney's government charter centered on Epcot as a residential community. "In serving the needs of those residing there, our Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow must utilize the technological advances of American industry as they continually develop." They needed "flexibility"-autonomous control-to keep it in "a state of becoming."
The more plausible explanation is that Disney's lawyers knew that having permannent residents in EPCOT, under Disney's control was most likely unconstitutional, and they purposefully wrote the charter with the idea of referring to EPCOT's residents as temporary visitors, aka tourists.
Prove it. Cite a source where they (I am assuming the lawmakers at the time?) actually said that.
New update on the lawsuit from today
blogmickey.com
Disney World Amends Federal Lawsuit to Include Bill Nullifying Reedy Creek Contract & DeSantis' Recent Comments on Retaliation
Disney World has amended its lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to include recent legislative action and comments by the Governor
blogmickey.com
New update on the lawsuit from today
Disney World Amends Federal Lawsuit to Include Bill Nullifying Reedy Creek Contract & DeSantis' Recent Comments on Retaliation
Disney World has amended its lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to include recent legislative action and comments by the Governor
Here are the actual documents which details the changes.
Last edited:
Then Governor Kirk good enough?
Nathaniel Reed: Though he could be 'brash, rude, domineering,' former Florida Gov. Claude Kirk trans
Claude Kirk's passing highlights an era when, as governor, he challenged the old guard that had run Florida since reconstruction.
archive.tcpalm.com
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
It's not a dim view at all if you choose to view this through the lens of the period in which all of this happened rather than from today.
Tourism was already our major business. Our state officials were well aware of Disney as an animation company and movie company and the company that owned Disneyland and who had a weekly show promoting that park on ABC across the nation.
What Disney was not was an urban planing company.
Disney was offering to turn central Florida, known mostly for cow pastures, costly-to-develop swamp land, and orange groves into a major tourism hub and Disney was willing to foot 100% of the bill to put the infrastructure in to get it all started.
There was the potential for free national weekly coverage of that wonderful theme park smack dab in the middle of Florida just like Anaheim was getting.
Even Universal jokingly acknowledged the state of this area pre-Disney in the Minion's movie.
The EPCOT thing was a wild dream - too wild of a dream as it turned out.
Walt had a saying "You can't top pigs with pigs" but he agreed to do that very thing in order to secure the control he was after over the land in Florida for his project. The MK was his concession to the state at the time. He had no plans for the sprawling WDW resort we have today with another three under-built theme parks, 13+ resorts, and timeshares out the wazoo.
All he'd ever built at that point was the Disneyland park and the guts for some World's Fair pavilions. His company hadn't even built the Disneyland Hotel.
I'm sure state officals were happy to get whatever they could with EPCOT (which probably would have been a disaster that bankrupted the company and definitely would not have lasted this long, even if it had been successful for 10-20 years) but MK was always the prize - the sure bet, the thing that was going to spur growth in Orlando and create a tourism bridge from east to west Florida; relatively close to port Canaveral which had promise as a cruse launch but which was still mostly dominated by commercial vessels and not too far from Tampa Bay which already was established as a tourist area - that's what made this whole project appealing to the state.
Tourism was concentrated to the coasts which was heavily subject to seasonal swings in business and where land was expesnive and scarce. This was a deal to bring some of that into the center where space was plentiful, land was cheap, and that theme park would be able to continue to draw people outside of beach weather seasons.
To suggest EPCOT was the carrot would be silly. Walt was who wanted EPCOT. Our state officials weren't that naive, even if he kind of was.
Would the RCID charter have been so robust without consideration to EPCOT?
Probably not but not because Disney somehow hoodwinked Florida - in fact, the Disney Co. ended up going in a direction that in all honesty, state officials would have been even more thrilled with from the start.
Walt wanted total control for EPCOT and the state wanted Disneyland East. The state was fine giving total control so Walt could have his project in exchange for their Disneyland. I'm pretty sure they would have had no problem granting it without EPCOT if Disney had wanted it just to build their theme park out there in the sticks but I don't think the Disney Co. would have, at the time, felt the need for such broad control if they weren't trying to figure out how to maintain development control of a city with residents that they effectively owned.
We all know Walt never got his EPCOT but the state got far more than we ever expected from the WDW resort and basically everything tourism related that you see in central Florida today bloomed from that initial deal with Disney - for better or worse.
Heck, Orlando International Airport started as the McCoy Air Force Base. It was in joint military/civilian use with the Air Force largely subsidizing its operation up until 1975. Disney is the reason it became a major international civilian facility.
Last edited:
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Legit question, what part of this would you say Disney has not done? Do you not think a multi-theme park multi-water park, multi-resort with literally tens of thousands of hotel rooms does not fit the bill? It has to have people that rent apartment's or else it is failing in its charter? How many, what percentage? Why are these things not included? Why was there no stipulation on the amount of residents that had to included? Why did the very same law makers not come back later and strip the district when it became apparent that it was not going to happen?
So Disney was smart enough to know EPCOT wouldn't fly in it's original format but the state was too stupid? They still expected a city to be built or are you saying that both sides knew that tourists is what the whole thing was about? If so then mission accomplished, I would say the WDW complex gets a lot of "temporary visitors" and the state of Florida has benefited from those visitors while not having to pay for the WDW infrastructure.
No need, I can just look at their actions which I believe say everything you need to know. If building EPCOT the city was what the state really wanted, they would have removed RCID decades ago. They didn't because they didn't care, or if they did, not enough to do anything about it.
Just going to throw this out there but you don't think it was left vague enough that Disney could go in many different directions? That the state may have been smart enough at the time to pass something that accounted for the "current" plan (though Walt was already dead by the time it was signed) but still allowed for a wide latitude if changes were needed?
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
So you know EXACTLY what that was like.
StaceyH_SD
Well-Known Member
They were ready to go with an amended complaint as expected. How many more times will it have to be amended before the first hearing?