Reedy Creek Improvement District long-term land use meeting 2023

[celluloid]

He didn't spend wantonly just in the wrong place imo but they don't pay me millions to run the company so what do I know. There is a very parks-centric view of the company here so it gets warped what he did or didn't do for the company

Well sure, the forum would have that but seeing is how besides cruises the parks is the only living human connected branding of any such caliber it would make sense to cherish how it treats people inside and guests.
Neither were very well the last decade.

Looking at the movie and television side of things, not much better lately. It has been time for new blood, not back a second time.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yeah but the investors thought it was and that is all that matter in this game

…which is why Public Enemy tells you “Don’t believe the hype”…

If a stock like Disney is “speculative”…then it’s not that much different than Crypto 2022 or Oracle 1998

 

[lentesta]

A notice in today's Orlando Sentinel for the next RCID meeting on Jan 25 now lists the maximum number of 'keys' (i.e., hotel rooms) at 53,232.

@danlb_2000 - I have no idea where that number comes from, after looking at the comprehensive plan. Any ideas?

 

[danlb_2000]

A notice in today's Orlando Sentinel for the next RCID meeting on Jan 25 now lists the maximum number of 'keys' (i.e., hotel rooms) at 53,232.

@danlb_2000 - I have no idea where that number comes from, after looking at the comprehensive plan. Any ideas?

Except for the parks, all the maximums listed there are greater then in the 2020 plan. I assume this is the new plan which is not publicly available yet.

 

[lentesta]

Except for the parks, all the maximums listed there are greater then in the 2020 plan. I assume this is the new plan which is not publicly available yet.

OK, cool. Thanks.

The reason I ask is that I think they told the Sentinel last week that the max was around 39,232, and that nothing had changed and it was all BAU.

 

[mysto]

Why would a long term projection for a large area have such a specific number? Why not 53000 and 39000?

It's almost as if someone is making these things up to give them undeserved credibility, how about 51,234?

81.345% of residents want fewer hotels yet 73.0006% also want more jobs.

Just a pet peeve I guess. There's probably some formula they use to decide on a number that absolves them from appearing to issue a 'decree', yet the formula itself is also completely made up. residents * hotel days * MCO flights per day / rate of inflation expected in 7 years + rate of depreciation on rental cars

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

Well sure, the forum would have that but seeing is how besides cruises the parks is the only living human connected branding of any such caliber it would make sense to cherish how it treats people inside and guests.
Neither were very well the last decade.

Looking at the movie and television side of things, not much better lately. It has been time for new blood, not back a second time.

Not sure what the major problem or issues would be looking at movies and television side of things for the same time period (the last decade) would be.

In the last ten years, even leaving aside the marvel/starwars content you have gotten.

Frozen Franchise
Finding Dory
Zootopia
Moanna
coco
Encanto
Big Hero 6
The Good Dinosaur

On the TV front, you had
Descendants Franchise
Zombies Franchise
Clone Wars
Jessie
Bunked
KC Undercover
Secrets of Sulphur springs,
and a bunch of Disney Jr. offerings.

That doesn't seem like a stale or not successful decade of TV/Movies.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why would a long term projection for a large area have such a specific number? Why not 53000 and 39000?

It's almost as if someone is making these things up to give them undeserved credibility, how about 51,234?

81.345% of residents want fewer hotels yet 73.0006% also want more jobs.

Just a pet peeve I guess. There's probably some formula they use to decide on a number that absolves them from appearing to issue a 'decree', yet the formula itself is also completely made up. residents * hotel days * MCO flights per day / rate of inflation expected in 7 years + rate of depreciation on rental cars

They’re based on numbers that exist in different ways that are not controlled to create a certain output. Even if they were, the various formulas do not all align so some number is going to be more specific.

 

[celluloid]

Not sure what the major problem or issues would be looking at movies and television side of things for the same time period (the last decade) would be.

In the last ten years, even leaving aside the marvel/starwars content you have gotten.

Frozen Franchise
Finding Dory
Zootopia
Moanna
coco
Encanto
Big Hero 6
The Good Dinosaur

On the TV front, you had
Descendants Franchise
Zombies Franchise
Clone Wars
Jessie
Bunked
KC Undercover
Secrets of Sulphur springs,
and a bunch of Disney Jr. offerings.

That doesn't seem like a stale or not successful decade of TV/Movies.

A decade is a long time in pop culture. I said lately. As in recent few years compared to the other studios having better success.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

A decade is a long time in pop culture. I said lately. As in recent few years compared to the other studios having better success.

What do you consider lately? You have to give it some period of time, it can't just be looking at a year or two, because sometimes you just have a bad film. Its too small a sample size to say anything about trends or overall quality.

I mean if you consider marvel and star wars this argument doesn't even get started.

But even if you don't Frozen II (2019) is I believe one of the top 15-20 grossing movies of all time, and I believe was the top grossing animated film until Disney beat that out with the new release of the Lion King in 2019 which is now the highest grossing animated film and i think top 10 worldwide. And not far behind is Incredibles 2 (2018)which i think outperformed the original

 

[danlb_2000]

Why would a long term projection for a large area have such a specific number? Why not 53000 and 39000?

It's almost as if someone is making these things up to give them undeserved credibility, how about 51,234?

81.345% of residents want fewer hotels yet 73.0006% also want more jobs.

Just a pet peeve I guess. There's probably some formula they use to decide on a number that absolves them from appearing to issue a 'decree', yet the formula itself is also completely made up. residents * hotel days * MCO flights per day / rate of inflation expected in 7 years + rate of depreciation on rental cars

The plan does use rounded numbers for the increases, but they start from a baseline which is the actual count at that time. For example the 2020 plan started from the count of 28,267 rooms in 2010 and allowed for an increase of 11,300.

 

[celluloid]

What do you consider lately? You have to give it some period of time, it can't just be looking at a year or two, because sometimes you just have a bad film. Its too small a sample size to say anything about trends or overall quality.

I mean if you consider marvel and star wars this argument doesn't even get started.

But even if you don't Frozen II (2019) is I believe one of the top 15-20 grossing movies of all time, and I believe was the top grossing animated film until Disney beat that out with the new release of the Lion King in 2019 which is now the highest grossing animated film and i think top 10 worldwide. And not far behind is Incredibles 2 (2018)which i think outperformed the original

You just have a bunch of tent poles that cost a lot to produce to the profit margin gets lower and the company paints themselves into corners. You also pointed out only Franchises, which they have run dry and oversaturated artistically dry once you go from Lion King Remake to Pinochio.

You are only as good as the last things you have done, and Ecanto on is not that for The Brand when DreamWorks and Illumination, and in some cases even WAG is surpassing things theatrically.

My definition of lately is a year or two, it is different from your definition.

The brand mistrust metrics say it objectively.

 

[Doberge]

If there's any possibility that RCID governance changes then it makes sense make your layups now before the state government postures it will make you take full court length shots or force concessions. While Disney controls everything it should be reducing *any* future leverage the state may identify. Getting a plan in line reduces ambiguity risks and conflict risks (if unaligned) and leaving things like intent up to a third party like a court or arbitrator. This may be similar to contract law concept of "contra proferentum" where in conflicts where one side drew up the documents and there's an ambiguoty then it may go against the drafter, which is essentially Disney. It's be very state law specific. I have no idea if this would mean anything in Florida specifically but the idea that Disney controls everything through RCID and idea that that control may be weakened should be enough to motivate the Board to quickly tie any loose ends.

Remember that we're just dweebs on a message board, but if we could see this coming then surely Florida's governor, legislators, and appointees were many steps ahead. Florida is the one playing chess, right? Like Disney said, this has all been right out there in the open.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Remember that we're just dweebs on a message board, but if we could see this coming then surely Florida's governor, legislators, and appointees were many steps ahead. Florida is the one playing chess, right?

lol…

I needed that.

 

[Touchdown]

Remember that we're just dweebs on a message board, but if we could see this coming then surely Florida's governor, legislators, and appointees were many steps ahead. Florida is the one playing chess, right? Like Disney said, this has all been right out there in the open.

Just a master stroke by Disney. Not only does it maintain the status quo while it gets brought up in court but allows Disney to present arguments in defense that may call into question the boards power in the first place. More importantly, though, it keeps the status quo going through 2024.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Omg!

Power play: Disney handicapped new Reedy Creek board before handing over control

In their final days of controlling the Reedy Creek improvement district’s board, Disney executives and attorneys found a way to poison the authority of the incoming members appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and effectively oversee the area’s development.

news.yahoo.com

Now we know why they didn’t fight it.

Wow.

 

[jpeden]

 

[AdventureHasAName]

The development agreement is between two parties. One of the two parties (Reedy Creek) does not exist anymore. It's not just that the name was changed; it was not. Instead, the entity was dissolved by the state legislature and a new, similar entity was created. This is going to invalidate the development agreement. There's even a provision of the state statute outlining the "development agreement" process that specifically refers to what happens when the state (or federal) government does something in the future that invalidates the agreement (SPOILER ALERT: It's revoked or modified ... and you can't modify an agreement when one of the parties doesn't exist anymore and it has no assigns).

I'd be happy to post this in the other thread, but I haven't been able to post in that thread for months for whatever reason (nobody took the time to explain to me).

EDIT: After reading through HB9B, I think I'm wrong. Under the previous SB4C language, the district was dissolved, but under the 2023 HB9B, it has been renamed (retaining previous contractual obligations and liabilities). The Florida Legislature is going to wind up invalidating this development agreement through one-page legislation. Not a big deal, but I do now think they are going to need to pass actual legislation to fix this and avoid litigation.

 

[Touchdown]

The development agreement is between two parties. One of the two parties (Reedy Creek) does not exist anymore. It's not just that the name was changed; it was not. Instead, the entity was dissolved by the state legislature and a new, similar entity was created. This is going to invalidate the development agreement. There's even a provision of the state statute outlining the "development agreement" process that specifically refers to what happens when the state (or federal) government does something in the future that invalidates the agreement (SPOILER ALERT: It's revoked or modified ... and you can't modify an agreement when one of the parties doesn't exist anymore and it has no assigns).

I'd be happy to post this in the other thread, but I haven't been able to post in that thread for months for whatever reason (nobody took the time to explain to me).

It’s not revoked, the most recent law reversed the dissolution of Reedy Creek. The most recent law simply changed the way Reedy Creeks governmental body is chosen and changes the name. If your argument was true then the bonds would also no longer be valid for the same reason.

 

[jpeden]

The development agreement is between two parties. One of the two parties (Reedy Creek) does not exist anymore. It's not just that the name was changed; it was not. Instead, the entity was dissolved by the state legislature and a new, similar entity was created. This is going to invalidate the development agreement. There's even a provision of the state statute outlining the "development agreement" process that specifically refers to what happens when the state (or federal) government does something in the future that invalidates the agreement (SPOILER ALERT: It's revoked or modified ... and you can't modify an agreement when one of the parties doesn't exist anymore and it has no assigns).

I'd be happy to post this in the other thread, but I haven't been able to post in that thread for months for whatever reason (nobody took the time to explain to me).

They specifically did NOT do this because it would have invalidates the bonds. The district still exists, now with a different name and powers. All previously negotiated agreements by the preceding legal entity still exist.

This is like saying a company was bought out and now that they don’t exist a contract isn’t valid. The company still exists, albeit with new management and names. It’s the point of an acquisition and successor clause.