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

lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
FutureCEO said:
Should Disney get away with this - probably not. It sets a bad example for the future.

It's like Hyatt getting bought out by Marriott and at the last minute Hyatt coming up with something through their lawyers saying your can't fired anyone for five years.
Click to expand...
Is the Anaheim Resort District a bad example for the future? What about the new Universal Orlando Resort South Campus?

This wasn’t something snuck in at the last minute. It was a process started before the state revealed their plan and rushed it through the legislature. It was the state that was trying to be sneaky and wasn’t paying attention.
 
Figgy1

Figgy1

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
The articles are all over the internet today. The governor is going to have to respond somehow.
Click to expand...
1680206104412.png
 
el_super

el_super

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
That's not dissimilar to how things already work. That's the biggest reason corporations spend so much money lobbying -- so that elected officials will do what they want.
Click to expand...

There is a difference here, albeit a subtle one. Disney isn't asking that the zoning requirements for the resort district be changed to a new specific, they are asking the city to give them a blanket approval for whatever decisions they may or may not make in the future.

So instead of commiting to build another 5,000 hotel rooms or a third park, Disney could just convert the land entirely into parking lots or a golf course. I am uncomfortable with the idea that Disney can build whatever they want with no direct input from the government or residents. even though I generally know Disney isn't planning to abuse this in any real dangerous way.

I do acknowledge it is different in that Reedy Creek was never a real government and was setup specifically to avoid having to deal with a resident government. I still don't like the idea of a corporation exempting itself from an actual government.
 
Thebrerrabbit

Thebrerrabbit

Member
JohnD said:
There are plenty of people in the State of Florida who wouldn't be sad to see Disney go whether administrative offices or theme parks, including those on the left and environmentalists. And not just because of this bill. But because of the growth and sprawl that Disney brought to central Florida. Seeing Florida going back to being known primarily for its beaches, rivers, springs, and oranges would be perfectly fine with many people. I realize that's a sentiment and not a likely scenario.
Click to expand...
What a dumb comment
 
DisAl

DisAl

Well-Known Member
If Disney ejected themselves from RCID does that mean they are now under the purview of the local governments and their codes and permitting systems? If so they may have jumped out of the skillet and right into the fire.
 
Spokker

Spokker

New Member
Riviera Rita said:
Going after a corporation because it simply didn't agree with them is also unacceptable. That is the sign of a wannabe dictator.
Click to expand...
States provide and remove privileges, benefits and incentives from companies because they agree/disagree with them all the time. Government, after all, picks winners and losers, and Disney receiving a benefit is a de facto punishment against its competitors. This benefit/privilege may have been wise when the land was undeveloped, but today it's a lot harder to justify.

I previously tried to provide some examples of CA removing benefits and privileges from companies/people they disagree with, but I seemed to have run into a word filter and the post was filtered.

Regardless, Florida is perfectly within its right to elect representatives and leaders that will remove privileges from companies when the voters don't like what they are doing. It's no different from government creating a benefit for solar panel makers or punishing an oil company. They did not try to place Disney below any other company, only remove some privileges they no longer want to offer a company that goes against the values of their voters.
 
trainplane3

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
DisAl said:
If Disney ejected themselves from RCID does that mean they are now under the purview of the local governments and their codes and permitting systems? If so they may have jumped out of the skillet and right into the fire.
Click to expand...
My understanding is this locks Disney into land usage rights. They still need to follow the laws of RCID or whatever it's now but they are in complete control of their property and don't need to listen to RCID on what they're allowed to build. Permits and such will need to be filed of course plus usual inspections need to take place.

General summary that may not be correct.
 
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
UNCgolf said:
I'd be shocked if they didn't have some outside counsel assistance. It's pretty rare for large corporations to handle anything like this entirely in-house (I wouldn't have a job if they did!).
Click to expand...
Yea but does outside counsel get complimentary passes for them and family to the theme parks?😀
 
kong1802

kong1802

Well-Known Member
Spokker said:
States provide and remove privileges, benefits and incentives from companies because they agree/disagree with them all the time. Government, after all, picks winners and losers, and Disney receiving a benefit is a de facto punishment against its competitors. This benefit/privilege may have been wise when the land was undeveloped, but today it's a lot harder to justify.

I previously tried to provide some examples of CA removing benefits and privileges from companies/people they disagree with, but I seemed to have run into a word filter and the post was filtered.

Regardless, Florida is perfectly within its right to elect representatives and leaders that will remove privileges from companies when the voters don't like what they are doing. It's no different from government creating a benefit for solar panel makers or punishing an oil company. They did not try to place Disney below any other company, only remove some privileges they no longer want to offer a company that goes against the values of their voters.
Click to expand...

That's funny, I don't recall seeing any of this on a ballot...
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
Spokker said:
States provide and remove privileges, benefits and incentives from companies because they agree/disagree with them all the time. Government, after all, picks winners and losers, and Disney receiving a benefit is a de facto punishment against its competitors. This benefit/privilege may have been wise when the land was undeveloped, but today it's a lot harder to justify.

I previously tried to provide some examples of CA removing benefits and privileges from companies/people they disagree with, but I seemed to have run into a word filter and the post was filtered.

Regardless, Florida is perfectly within its right to elect representatives and leaders that will remove privileges from companies when the voters don't like what they are doing. It's no different from government creating a benefit for solar panel makers or punishing an oil company. They did not try to place Disney below any other company, only remove some privileges they no longer want to offer a company that goes against the values of their voters.
Click to expand...
Then maybe they should elect representatives who can actually do those things without trampling on a valid exercise of constitutional rights.

Edit: Or in light of today’s news maybe I should have stopped after “can actually do those things” 😂
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom