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

[Rickcat96]

Have not seen who is paying for these changes and if the "New" supervisors will be compensated and by whom. I guess the State will pay a lease on the building too?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Who said it would? A replacement board cannot stop Disney from operating their parks as they see fit. The Orange County CA board is elected by the people not appointed by the Governor to punish Disney. Big difference.

A new board could get in the way of certain new infrastructure projects and they will likely make it more expensive to get things done. Once you hand board seats over to people as political favors they will pull stunts like hire their cousin to pave the roads at 3x the cost. There is also the justifiable fear that any time Disney does anything that bothers the Governor he will use his control to punish them again. Release a movie with content he doesn’t approve of, raise their taxes. Speak out for employee rights, deny approval for project.

A hostile district absolutely could interfered with daily operations. Attractions and facilities could be shut down by order of the district.

 

[ThatMouse]

I like Disney's comment, let me translate: "Disney is a big company that has to comply with 100,000 municipalities all over the world, including the strange ones in China. We'll try to manage lol!"

 

[flynnibus]

You’re missing a lot.

It's as if Disneylands woes with the City Council of the last decade just magically vanished...

 

[GoofGoof]

A hostile district absolutely could interfered with daily operations. Attractions and facilities could be shut down by order of the district.

For what? I didn’t think RCID had anything to do with ride safety or health inspections. Fire code violations is all I can think of but they would have to justify that.

 

[flynnibus]

For what? I didn’t think RCID had anything to do with ride safety or health inspections.

But the new one in this code does...

 

[peter11435]

A hostile district absolutely could interfered with daily operations. Attractions and facilities could be shut down by order of the district.

Yep. They could really interfere with all aspects of the operation of the resort. And they could use the threat of this interference to attempt to control all aspects of the company’s output. Not simply public statements like the one that started this, but also film and television output, news reporting, theme park content, training and hiring practices, and the overall social guidance of the company.

This could also lead to a very noticeable and significant loss of the “Disney bubble”. The implications of the state/governor having full control of roads, resources, and land within the district has not been adequately discussed in this thread.

 

[lazyboy97o]

For what? I didn’t think RCID had anything to do with ride safety or health inspections. Fire code violations is all I can think of but they would have to justify that.

The proposal is to give the district authority over amusement safety. The fire department has immense power and leeway, and finding violations at a place like Walt Disney World would not be difficult.

 

[GoofGoof]

But the new one in this code does...

The proposal is to give the district authority over amusement safety. The fire department has immense power and leeway, and finding violations at a place like Walt Disney World would not be difficult.

I didn’t know they were moving amusement safety. That makes no sense. I guess none of this does.

 

[GoofGoof]

The reason I said makes no sense is that ride safety and safety inspections are already governed by the state in FL but there is an exception for parks that have over 1,000 employees and also have their own in house inspectors. So is that law superseded or just for Disney and not everyone else?

 

[drnilescrane]

Well….yeah. I can’t disagree. The reason I said makes no sense is that ride safety and safety inspections are already governed by the state in FL but there is an exception for parks that have over 1,000 employees and also have their own in house inspectors. So is that law superseded or just for Disney and not everyone else?

Feels like they are trying to maintain the fiction that it's the "Central Florida Theme Park Oversight District"

 

[Disstevefan1]

The tail don't wag the dog.

Permits like these are formalities and administrative overhead once the actual criteria stuff is done. It's not like the permits are some fleeting window of opportunity to get something. They are just administrative overhead. The 5% isn't going to force the 95% to change.

Well, I am hoping for the best but expecting the worst.

Let's see what happens.

 

[The Mom]

If you are unable to post without crossing the line into opinions about political/social issues than please do not post.

 

[flynnibus]

The reason I said makes no sense is that ride safety and safety inspections are already governed by the state in FL but there is an exception for parks that have over 1,000 employees and also have their own in house inspectors. So is that law superseded or just for Disney and not everyone else?

TBD - like I mentioned when highlighting the text from the bill the other day, I'm not sure how this power would interact with existing state level oversight.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yep. They could really interfere with all aspects of the operation of the resort. And they could use the threat of this interference to attempt to control all aspects of the company’s output. Not simply public statements like the one that started this, but also film and television output, news reporting, theme park content, training and hiring practices, and the overall social guidance of the company.

This could also lead to a very noticeable and significant loss of the “Disney bubble”. The implications of the state/governor having full control of roads, resources, and land within the district has not been adequately discussed in this thread.

This is exactly why I keep saying that this is not actually about one issue or statement. It’s about a whole swath of issues. The board has no motivation for reasonableness.

I would agree that sending in the fire department or a new ride safety department to shut things down during the day or night sounds extreme and too blatant, but there are easy ways to make it sound reasonable. The district could require something as little as more paperwork on ride maintenance which would be an additional cost. You could have random inspections. Requiring the fire department to do more random inspections and clear out a building if they find an issue related to life safety as a precaution while they take a more thorough look seems fairly reasonable and exactly in line with providing more oversight, but in practice is a low bar that could easily be triggered by a misplaced ECV.

 

[flynnibus]

..basically the problem with any regulation that is ran by people you can't escalate around or motivate yourself. You're stuck with whatever they give you.. and in this case the board really is only accountable to the gov. So what, you gotta go grovel to the gov to lean on his goons to stop being so difficult?

Now you see how it will play out if done this way. The board can play difficult while still keeping the image of being impartial.. while not actually being impartial.

 

[sedati]

Now I'm actually hoping this escalates in a way that forces other companies to take a side. With silence being a form of acceptance, that may begin to not sit well with the employees and customers of the other big players in town. What then?

 

[GhostHost1000]

Now I'm actually hoping this escalates in a way that forces other companies to take a side. With silence being a form of acceptance, that may begin to not sit well with the employees and customers of the other big players in town. What then?

Companies should not take a side. Individuals can, but companies should focus on running their business. Companies taking any side publicly will likely cause more issues than it solves with the country and likely some employees, shareholders, and customers divided on various issues.

 

[GoofGoof]

Now I'm actually hoping this escalates in a way that forces other companies to take a side. With silence being a form of acceptance, that may begin to not sit well with the employees and customers of the other big players in town. What then?

They already have. Comcast/Universal was one of the corporations who signed the petition that was posted here many, many pages back that denounced the same types of bills Disney spoke out against. So did most of the major airlines and hotel chains, a number of restaurant companies and most of the cell phone and tech companies. The only difference is Disney was singled out for political gain. If people wanted to boycott every company who “has an opinion” they’d be living in a cave hunting their own food.

 

[Dranth]

Companies should not take a side. Individuals can, but companies should focus on running their business. Companies taking any side publicly will likely cause more issues than it solves with the country and likely some employees, shareholders, and customers divided on various issues.

SCOTUS disagrees with you.