gbruenin
Active Member
The use of the STOLport strip ended well before the EPCOT monorail was ever built.
-
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
fotofx
Well-Known Member
Yes but the rail sealed it's fate.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Yet we all the the ‘gift’ you mention is basically worthless to the recipient and is just a way to facilitate something….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
Yet the new district administrator is being paid twice the amount of anyone in governments orders of magnitude bigger than the district. Highest paid orlando employees were paid $220k in 2019.
This guy is getting 400k for a district that should be on cruise control….
Talk about suspect interests….
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
Also without any qualifications
flynnibus
Premium Member
He’s got more than his bosses
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
Right... "ethics chairman"
Optics are optics. It is an important part of the business, and it optically does also not look so good when you realize Bob Iger has now left and returned when he was needed for arguably the biggest crucial juncture of the company since a World War or post terrorism. He appears to just as many as a coward as he does a savior. And the middle group in-between who does not know or care.
He is saying on one hand he is going to be invest 17 billion in the next ten years, which is not that different to average investment spending in a decade at the property for ten years at a time. It optically sounds great to some.
The Ultimatum Speak coming out now(justified or not) comes easy to Iger for a reason.
He is saying on one hand he is going to be invest 17 billion in the next ten years, which is not that different to average investment spending in a decade at the property for ten years at a time. It optically sounds great to some.
The Ultimatum Speak coming out now(justified or not) comes easy to Iger for a reason.
Last edited by a moderator:
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Look at the history, it’s been posted here too if you search back. They spent more than that (adjusted for inflation) over the last 10 years. No reason to believe that will change.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
How was that a conflict of interest. The special tax district was created to promote tourism and economic growth. The land covered is almost entirely WDW property. Why would a board picked by Disney have a conflict of interest? If Disney does well the board is doing their job. They exist exclusively to promote tourism, namely WDW. Flash forward to today and we have a board that is attempting to hurt Disney. If Disney pulls back on investment that’s directly opposite of the purpose of the district. This is not a general government. There were never other citizens of the district who could be harmed by Disney’s success. It’s time to drop the false narrative.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…
flynnibus
Premium Member
He's saying its a conflict for the individual - not for the district. The individual doesn't have a right or purpose to be part of the district leadership until they are annointed this way.. and they are also at the whim of Disney to displacing them. This does create a conflict where an individual is subject to influence in their role.
Even tho the District is to promote tourism and economic growth, that doesn't mean without limits or rules. The conflict exists because the individual has to rule/act on subjects related to the party that literally controls their eligibility to serve.
It's always been messy from an objectivity perspective - but largely Disney has proven to be a good steward here.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s a conflict specifically known and understood by the state which is why such districts are specifically exempt from certain conflict of interest rules.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I still don’t get that as a conflict of interest. Disney owns almost all the property and pays almost all the taxes so why shouldn’t they have the right to put in whoever they want and why shouldn’t that person act based on what Disney wants? If they did something to harm Disney there was a mechanism to remove them which I think makes sense. The setup that they owned land was arbitrary anyway, largely symbolic since nobody actually lived there. They could have just setup the board to be elected from anywhere by the landowners (meaning Disney would pick the board) and then set up a mechanism where the landowners could remove a board member with a simple vote.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Ehh - the whole 'who is the landowner' scheme and swapping land to control who those people are is NOT part of the normal way special districts are viewed. You're referring to the notion that the district exists to function for the limited purpose and entities... but that doesn't absolve the manipulation of the eligibility requirements.
flynnibus
Premium Member
They do through VOTING. But the eligibility of who can run is designed to be based on land ownership - which is being artifically manipulated here. The model of representation and limited beneficators is fine - the artificial manipulation of who is eligible (and the ability to disqualify them) is the part that creates the conflict.
And that's intended to be through an election - not via manipulating their eligibility.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
When the district was setup they could have just made anyone living anywhere eligible and then Disney as the landowner votes the same guys in. The board members don’t live in the district, they are just given the land to make them eligible to run. That was by design. If there’s a problem with Disney picking the board then there’s a problem with the landowners picking the board which is common all over the place. I think it’s a bigger problem when the landowners who pay the taxes don’t get to pick the board.
flynnibus
Premium Member
DESIGN BY DISNEY - Not by Design of the charter, nor explicitly by the State. You're using a circular argument to validate it's use and intent. The charter is not setup to explicitly have it done this way - It's done this way to manipulate the requirements UNDER how the charter is written. Disney knew what they were doing - but it's not the same thing to say this is by design of the charter. The land swapping being done is artificial and outside the definition of the charter.
Who said it's a problem? You can acknowledge the model is a conflict of interest without declaring it problematic or invalid.
It's entirely different to say "the landowners vote" and to say "we can change who the landowners are at anytime"
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
No, I am referring to other districts that are controlled by landowners. It’s understood that the landowners are going to pick people close to them, often even employees which is why there are state-wide rules that apply.
flynnibus
Premium Member
And who the landowners are here is not organic - nor immune from influence.. since their ownership is conditional. Hence the conflict.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Which is no different from other districts where there is just one landowner. The residency requirement isn’t even necessarily there for them.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
There are no residential landowners in the district so without Disney jumping through the hoop to temporarily deed the land there would have been no board. We can agree to disagree I guess. I don’t see it as a conflict of interest since the intent all along was to have a board that Disney controlled.