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

Cliff

Well-Known Member
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.
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Shower thoughts: is there a way to see if any of these board members own shares in TWDC?
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.

 

fotofx

Well-Known Member
I work events occasionally and we are often parked in the STOLPort lot, which yes is basically under the EPCOT beam
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

Premium 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.


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.
 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
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.

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.
 

mmascari

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.
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.
 

flynnibus

Premium 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.

Yet we all the the ‘gift’ you mention is basically worthless to the recipient and is just a way to facilitate something….

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
Yet we all the the ‘gift’ you mention is basically worthless to the recipient and is just a way to facilitate something….

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….
Also without any qualifications
 

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

Back
Top Bottom