GoofGoof
Premium Member
They had an “airport“ for a little while. It wasn’t much more than a landing strip, but it did exist until the 80s. 2 airlines flew little prop planes from Orlando and Tampa to the airport.
-
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
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Plus it’s not allowed now under the new district if that thing holds up in court.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They don’t really have the space now. The area where the airport was sited in the original master plan was where Celebration is now located. It would have been a convenient location as a jet fuel pipeline does run right next door along I-4.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I guess there is the possibility of a voluntary transfer, but even that would have to get around private contracts with Disney.
Rhinocerous
Premium Member
What about the Monsanto House of the Future? Or the RCA Home of Future Living?I thought tourism was a key goal of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. I've never seen some housing attract more tourists.
BOOM!
Check and mate.
Rhinocerous
Premium Member
How, in even the wildest contortions of reality, could a no-fly zone over Disney parks be considered to compromise our national security? It’s not like the castle turrets are hiding SAM batteries.
Right?
Landing strip is still there. Its down the road from Fort Wilderness.
Shower thoughts: is there a way to see if any of these board members own shares in TWDC?
Disney says it intends to spend 17 Billion on WDW in the next 10 years. I'd be happy if they just filled the ugly crater that has been in Epcot for the past...I dunno 4 years? The fact that they let that drag on for so long...is telling.
Does anybody here believe that Disney has...or ever will have...17 billion to spend on WDW in the next 10 years? Maybe...but I seriously doubt it.
Parks profit is being sucked away to prop up and float the rest of the company. If Disney kept parks profit inside the parks and re invested it back into the parks?...then "maybe"...but I doubt that will ever happen.
Does anybody here believe that Disney has...or ever will have...17 billion to spend on WDW in the next 10 years? Maybe...but I seriously doubt it.
Parks profit is being sucked away to prop up and float the rest of the company. If Disney kept parks profit inside the parks and re invested it back into the parks?...then "maybe"...but I doubt that will ever happen.
If they do not own individual shares, not surprised if their 401K mutual funds has TWDC in fund manager portfolio.
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
I'd be more interested to know how much they have invested in the competition
LSLS
Well-Known Member
Len did a breakdown of the numbers in the $17 billion thread, and taking into account inflation, that is actually less than they spent in Capex over the previous 10 years.
fotofx
Well-Known Member
Usually used as a parking lot for construction supplies now. The EPCOT monorail beam made it basically unusable.
Google Map
Last edited:
I work events occasionally and we are often parked in the STOLPort lot, which yes is basically under the EPCOT beam
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Prior board members were gifted acreage by Disney within Reedy Creek and chosen exclusively by Disney for decades, but now’s the time to get concerned about conflicts of interest.
Disney’s Reedy Creek government has rare board vacancy, but don’t bother running
It’s not quite white smoke rising from St. Peter’s Basilica, but Florida’s most mysterious election process is unfolding this month at, of all places, Walt Disney World. About two…
www.orlandosentinel.com
We made a turn into the side road with our rental car and yes indeed its a construction supply dump. We drove the length of the airplane runway.
fotofx
Well-Known Member
Not so much under the beam but a bit close for comfort. It was a short takeoff and landing runway with limited space to start with. Not much of a safety buffer around it.. Even when they had brought Walt's plane back years ago, they landed on World Drive and did not use it.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Prior board members were gifted acreage by Disney within Reedy Creek and chosen exclusively by Disney for decades, but now’s the time to get concerned about conflicts of interest.
Disney’s Reedy Creek government has rare board vacancy, but don’t bother running
It’s not quite white smoke rising from St. Peter’s Basilica, but Florida’s most mysterious election process is unfolding this month at, of all places, Walt Disney World. About two…
Actually, yes. The boards mission was/is to serve the district, not be overlords. It matters now if they have a conflict of interest when it comes to that mission.
Because back then the District and the Company worked cooperatively. Now that the new board is finding any way to punish Disney it would be interesting to see what connections these members have in the local tourism industry.Prior board members were gifted acreage by Disney within Reedy Creek and chosen exclusively by Disney for decades, but now’s the time to get concerned about conflicts of interest.
Disney’s Reedy Creek government has rare board vacancy, but don’t bother running
It’s not quite white smoke rising from St. Peter’s Basilica, but Florida’s most mysterious election process is unfolding this month at, of all places, Walt Disney World. About two…
The sentence context here conveys that this gift created a conflict and that it is bad. But, is that really true?
It's true that Disney made the gifts. With conditions and restrictions. It was clearly done to satisfy the requirement that board members owned property within the district. Something no longer true.
Beyond that, did it have any value? Was there some secret pay off hiding in the arrangement? Were those board members able to use that gifted property in some way to enrich themselves? If they stopped being a board member, did the gift allow them to enrich themselves then?
Or, did it just solve the technical problem to meet the requirement of owning land that had no value to anyone besides Disney and where Disney retained the right to acquire it back from them if they were no longer a board member?
If we changed the sentence to "Prior board members were given id badges by the constituents within Reedy Creek and chosen exclusively by those constituents for decades, badges they had to return if they left, but now’s the time to get concerned about conflicts of interest." Would that change the implications at all?
I would assume, but don't really know, that if the prior board was directly investing in competitor theme parks outside the district, that would have created a conflict at the time to worry about.