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

[celluloid]

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.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

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]

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

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.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.

If they did something to harm Disney there was a mechanism to remove them which I think makes sense.

And that's intended to be through an election - not via manipulating their eligibility.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

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]

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

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.

. 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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

And who the landowners are here is not organic - nor immune from influence.. since their ownership is conditional. Hence the conflict.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And who the landowners are here is not organic - nor immune from influence.. since their ownership is conditional. Hence the conflict.

Which is no different from other districts where there is just one landowner. The residency requirement isn’t even necessarily there for them.

 

[GoofGoof]

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"

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.

 

[scottieRoss]

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.

Then who serves on the board? There are no other personal landowners in the District. Or since I own shares of the Walt Disney Co. could I have been elected?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Then who serves on the board? There are no other personal landowners in the District. Or since I own shares of the Walt Disney Co. could I have been elected?

This is what I’m wondering. Who would be elected? And who would vote?

Disney owns the majority of the land and pays 87% of the taxes.

 

[mmascari]

Disney owns almost all the property

Can we just call it all?

Is there anyone who owns any property within the district that isn't Disney that owned that property prior to the creation of the district?

It's not some gotcha when someone says "but the Army owns some land" since they bought it after the district existed under the conditions of the district, knowing full well that Disney owned enough to make them irrelevant to voting. We're bending over backwards to says "almost" just to satisfy some bad faith counter argument that "it's not really all see, ". Nobody owning property in the district is being taken advantage of by Disney (at least not as far as RCID is concerned).

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.

Does it matter though? It's functionally the same.

There's one entity that can vote in or out a board member. That exact same entity can control the land to make them eligible. There's no extra or different control provided.

Owning the land doesn't create any conflict in interest to the board member. They're not any more or less likely to side with Disney because of it, since it doesn't change the control Disney has to put them on or off the board. Having the land not create any advantage for the board member.

And that's intended to be through an election - not via manipulating their eligibility.

If the voting group and the land control group were different, it could matter. As the land control group could exert pressure independent of the voting. But, they're exactly the same, so there's no difference. If they ever become "not the same", then it would matter.

 

[flynnibus]

Then who serves on the board? There are no other personal landowners in the District.

Again... BY DESIGN OF DISNEY. You all are taking the model they implemented by Disney and applying it as if it were the design of the state.

They schemed this to be based on landowners which is agreeable to the state because they couldn't just give appointment powers to WDP itself. But the scheme to manipulate who is a landowner with CONDITIONAL privileges is where it gets messy in terms of addressing the difference between an elected person and a puppet.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Again... BY DESIGN OF DISNEY. You all are taking the model they implemented by Disney and applying it as if it were the design of the state.

They schemed this to be based on landowners which is agreeable to the state because they couldn't just give appointment powers to WDP itself. But the scheme to manipulate who is a landowner with CONDITIONAL privileges is where it gets messy in terms of addressing the difference between an elected person and a puppet.

Other districts don’t even have the residency requirements. If Universal gets its CDD they’re not going to be building five little houses somewhere near Epic Universe. The landowner(s) can pick whomever so long as they’re a resident of the state and US citizen.

 

[GoofGoof]

Can we just call it all?

Is there anyone who owns any property within the district that isn't Disney that owned that property prior to the creation of the district?

It's not some gotcha when someone says "but the Army owns some land" since they bought it after the district existed under the conditions of the district, knowing full well that Disney owned enough to make them irrelevant to voting. We're bending over backwards to says "almost" just to satisfy some bad faith counter argument that "it's not really all see, ". Nobody owning property in the district is being taken advantage of by Disney (at least not as far as RCID is concerned).

Amen brother. I’ve learned here a long time ago that if you are not precise there are people who point It out even though it’s irrelevant. So to avoid that I pick my words more carefully.