Reedy Creek Improvement District

[JoeCamel]

We’re actually having a pretty good conversation about RCID and whether Disney should’ve had this much power for so long, so with some hesitancy, I post news of the Tourism Oversight Board’s plans for the April 26 Board Meeting.

A void agreement means that Disney will have to take them to court if the think they are in the right, but until proven legal in court, the “King Clause” will be deemed void and the CFTOD Board will have full authority until any potential time where a judge were to overturn this move by the CFTOD if I have it all correct.

That should be the trigger to get this into court

 

[Rhian]

Like I said, great that Disney has been responsible, but with how broad Disney's power was, they could've easily done a lot of things really bad, too. I mean hell, they had the ability to build a Nuclear plant on site if they wanted to. That's simply too much power for a company to have over such a large area.

This is where the idea of agreements made in "good faith" come into play.

As we've seen in other parts of the US government a lot of laws and agreements weren't often narrowed down to extreme specifics or shored up against blatant abuse because it wasn't thought that such things could happen. I'm sure it was assumed such people specifically seeking office to exploit such gaps, which could just as easily be used for the betterment of people, would've never made it past the voting block. Times have changed, however.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the point of the Board here, but wasn't the original design so that Disney could do its thing and the Board just double checked it was within the State's guidelines? I'm simplifying but I think that was the idea?

Even if they wanted to build a nuclear plant it wasn't like it would've been some hobby project with little to no regulation. Considering Hulk's power requirements at IoA and Universal needing to build their own turbines to power a single ride, needing to build a nuclear plant for the Disney's original plans doesn't seem so out there. And even then it was a "we need this ability just in case" not "we're absolutely going to use this ability." Again, powers given over in good faith during a different time period.

Now could we argue that perhaps in 'modern' times the agreement could be looked at and modified to be within with Disney's current day-to-day requirements? I suppose so, although again, why now? I mean up until this situation was escalated by a particular individual—I'm aware of how there's a want to avoid the topic and focus only on the current Board but that is nearly impossible to do because we wouldn't even be here if not for that for various reasons—it really wasn't an issue. Rather, it would have to be demonstrated that Disney's actions over the years were decidedly different than any one of the other special districts in the state and as such, the district deserves the microscopic attention it's currently receiving.

All that aside, it's hard to fault Disney for what they did right before the switch. First, I don't believe it would've been done unless they didn't think there was any other way. While it's true that a single company shouldn't have that much power, Disney didn't do anything like this until now.

The second thing is that Disney has do what's best in the interest of itself, investors, other stakeholders, and guests. Considering the new Board's stated intentions about controlling Disney's content even before taking over, it's very telling that the company found the threat credible enough to do this to begin with, at least to me. Disney's stakeholders have to be more than aware of all the risks they're taking by doing this.

The third thing is that even though those emails may make Disney look bad one thing to remember is that they were hand-picked to do so by the current Board's lawyers. Personally I'd like to see the full email chain containing all the events leading up to those emails to understand the whole story, the motivations behind each of these actions.

How it all plays out in court is anyone's game but I wouldn't be surprised if Disney's side pushed hard on why these actions were even necessary. I know it's been mentioned that this is unusual for a company to do such things but this entire situation is unusual. Iger's already commented that these actions are "anti-Florida" and "anti-business" and it's not like they don't have examples by now.

At the end of the day there is a lot more than Disney's special district on the line. I do wonder if Universal and the other parks are watching carefully while taking notes as Disney works this out?

 

[OrlLover]

This is where the idea of agreements made in "good faith" come into play.

As we've seen in other parts of the US government a lot of laws and agreements weren't often narrowed down to extreme specifics or shored up against blatant abuse because it wasn't thought that such things could happen. I'm sure it was assumed such people specifically seeking office to exploit such gaps, which could just as easily be used for the betterment of people, would've never made it past the voting block. Times have changed, however.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the point of the Board here, but wasn't the original design so that Disney could do its thing and the Board just double checked it was within the State's guidelines? I'm simplifying but I think that was the idea?

Even if they wanted to build a nuclear plant it wasn't like it would've been some hobby project with little to no regulation. Considering Hulk's power requirements at IoA and Universal needing to build their own turbines to power a single ride, needing to build a nuclear plant for the Disney's original plans doesn't seem so out there. And even then it was a "we need this ability just in case" not "we're absolutely going to use this ability." Again, powers given over in good faith during a different time period.

Now could we argue that perhaps in 'modern' times the agreement could be looked at and modified to be within with Disney's current day-to-day requirements? I suppose so, although again, why now? I mean up until this situation was escalated by a particular individual—I'm aware of how there's a want to avoid the topic on focus only on the current Board but that is nearly impossible to do because we wouldn't even be here if not for that for various reasons—it really wasn't an issue. Rather, it would have to be demonstrated that Disney's actions over the years were decidedly different than any one of the other special districts in the state and as such, the district deserves the microscopic attention it's currently receiving.

All that aside, it's hard to fault Disney for what they did right before the switch. First, I don't believe it would've been done unless they didn't think there was any other way. While it's true that a single company shouldn't have that much power, Disney didn't do anything like this until now.

The second thing is that Disney has do what's best in the interest of itself, investors, other stakeholders, and guests. Considering the new Board's stated intentions about controlling Disney's content even before taking over, it's very telling that the company found the threat credible enough to do this to begin with, at least to me. Disney's stakeholders have to be more than aware of all the risks they're taking by doing this.

The third thing is that even though those emails may make Disney look bad one thing to remember is that they were hand-picked to do so by the current Board's lawyers. Personally I'd like to see the full email chain containing all the events leading up to those emails to understand the whole story, the motivations behind each of these actions.

How it all plays out in court is anyone's game but I wouldn't be surprised if Disney's side pushed hard on why these actions were even necessary. I know it's been mentioned that this is unusual for a company to do such things but this entire situation is unusual. Iger's already commented that these actions are "anti-Florida" and "anti-business" and it's not like they don't have examples by now.

At the end of the day there is a lot more than Disney's special district on the line. I do wonder if Universal and the other parks are watching carefully while taking notes as Disney works this out?

Best post so far on this situation.

 

[Nick]

Now could we argue that perhaps in 'modern' times the agreement could be looked at and modified to be within with Disney's current day-to-day requirements? I suppose so, although again, why now?

This has been my point the whole time! Modified power is what has needed to happen. I'm in no way agreeing with steps taken to get to the point we are currently at in case that is not abundantly clear (we're approaching the 10th time i've said that), what i'm saying is exactly what you just said: Modified power.

As for why now? To that i'd answer why not 20+ years ago? To me, it's as simple as corporations should not be able to hold this much power. If there's others with similar power, I hold the same stance.

Also, how is the board supposed to hold Disney in check when Disney was picking the board members by giving them free housing? Does anyone really expect a district run like that to legitimately hold Disney accountable? For example, if the RCID Board cared at all, maybe they would've listened to the Reedy Creek Fire Department screaming from the rooftop that they haven't seen a staffing increase since something like the early 90's yet WDW as a whole has grown exponentially with hotels, theme park attendance, etc.

 

[Rhian]

Best post so far on this situation.

TLDR: Disney's lawyers v

This has been my point the whole time! Modified power is what has needed to happen. I'm in no way agreeing with steps taken to get to the point we are currently at in case that is not abundantly clear (we're approaching the 10th time i've said that), what i'm saying is exactly what you just said: Modified power.

As for why now? To that i'd answer why not 20+ years ago? To me, it's as simple as corporations should not be able to hold this much power. If there's others with similar power, I hold the same stance.

Also, how is the board supposed to hold Disney in check when Disney was picking the board members by giving them free housing? Does anyone really expect a district run like that to legitimately hold Disney accountable? For example, if the RCID Board cared at all, maybe they would've listened to the Reedy Creek Fire Department screaming from the rooftop that they haven't seen a staffing increase since something like the early 90's yet WDW as a whole has grown exponentially with hotels, theme park attendance, etc.

Part of the problem with the current situation is because the steps taken to get here are disingenuous from the start the final result could very likely lead to things beyond "correcting" power limits in the district, and is likely to affect other districts in Florida. "Why this district and why now?" is one of the questions that has to be answered in court.

I'm not arguing against the idea of modifying RCID's abilities but pointing out that it's a purposefully muddled legal battle to set precedent for other things. Never mind the district's rules, the idea a governor can swap a private company's Board of Directors at whim should be a warning to other companies in the state about how much control they ultimately have in their operation; someone signed a bill specifically for this purpose. Again, I'd expect Disney to point this out in court among other things about why it took extreme protective measures at the 11th hour.

To your point about the fire department, that sounds like something that should be brought up by the fire chief in their own suit/motion in court (no idea of the terminology) and dealt with that way. Going back to my impression of how the Board is setup, if they're following State guidelines then is it really Disney that should be getting the brunt of not increasing staff if they're only following the (State's) rules? To further my point, there's a lot of laws that haven't kept up with modern living so making an example out of Disney of all companies stands out as a little odd, and is another thing I'd hope is explained in court.

Ultimately though I guess what I'm saying is, if you think what will come out of this situation would only focus on Disney's abilities within its own district, it won't. I get where you're coming from and I don't disagree with your overall point but in the context of this situation should Disney lose, it wouldn't be limited to things as mundane as managing fire department staffing.

 

[Nick]

To further my point, there's a lot of laws that haven't kept up with modern living so making an example out of Disney of all companies stands out as a little odd, and is another thing I'd hope is explained in court.

Ultimately though I guess what I'm saying is, if you think what will come out of this situation would only focus on Disney's abilities within its own district, it won't. I get where you're coming from and I don't disagree with your overall point but in the context of this situation should Disney lose, it wouldn't be limited to things as mundane as managing fire department staffing.

To me it has nothing to do with making an example out of Disney and more the private entities shouldn't have so much control. For example, there's NO SHOT I would trust someone like Amazon to literally have their own government and for them not to take advantage of the fact that they have such power. It's not really about Disney in what i'm saying. But if i'm not going to trust a big company like Amazon to run their own government (and let us not forget, Amazon could buy Disney many times over), why should Disney themselves or any company get the privilege?

I do understand your point about "why now?" when it pertains to an upcoming court case since that will have to be answered and when a timeline of events is laid out on the table, Disney is going to be the one that comes out looking good.

 

[wutisgood]

To me it has nothing to do with making an example out of Disney and more the private entities shouldn't have so much control. For example, there's NO SHOT I would trust someone like Amazon to literally have their own government and for them not to take advantage of the fact that they have such power. It's not really about Disney in what i'm saying. But if i'm not going to trust a big company like Amazon to run their own government (and let us not forget, Amazon could buy Disney many times over), why should Disney themselves or any company get the privilege?

I do understand your point about "why now?" when it pertains to an upcoming court case since that will have to be answered and when a timeline of events is laid out on the table, Disney is going to be the one that comes out looking good.

The current Florida government is absolutely trying to make an example out of Disney. This is all about scoring political points for Desantis from his supporters. I am certainly no corporate bootlicker so a government has to be pretty terrible for me to side with a large corporation. Ron is a very bad person. Disney has a large amount of lgbtq employees that rightfully feel very threatened by the current Florida government. Inclusion is an important part of Disney culture that I appreciate regardless of my criticism about lack of expansion or price increases. Disney has a right to kneecap the board that was specifically installed to punish them not just to protect their own development plans, but for their guests and employees.

 

[Nick]

The current Florida government is absolutely trying to make an example out of Disney. This is all about scoring political points for Desantis from his supporters. I am certainly no corporate bootlicker so a government has to be pretty terrible for me to side with a large corporation. Ron is a very bad person. Disney has a large amount of lgbtq employees that rightfully feel very threatened by the current Florida government. Inclusion is an important part of Disney culture that I appreciate regardless of my criticism about lack of expansion or price increases. Disney has a right to kneecap the board that was specifically installed to punish them not just for their own development plans, but for their guests and employees.

This is like a page 1 post. Of course all of that is happening, it's how we got here. I've also said over and over again that just because I think that Disney probably shouldn't have had all the power that they had, it also doesn't mean that i'm somehow rooting for that State to win here. That's not what's happening. What's happening is i've had an opinion that on Disney/RCID's relationship ever since I found out about RCID and now there's a whole mess surrounding Disney/RCID and the State. Two totally different things separate from each other, related only by topic of RCID.

 

[SkiBum]

This is like a page 1 post. Of course all of that is happening, it's how we got here. I've also said over and over again that just because I think that Disney probably shouldn't have had all the power that they had, it also doesn't mean that i'm somehow rooting for that State to win here. That's not what's happening. What's happening is i've had an opinion that on Disney/RCID's relationship ever since I found out about RCID and now there's a whole mess surrounding Disney/RCID and the State. Two totally different things separate from each other, related only by topic of RCID.

I have a potential dumb question. Disney owns 27,000 acres, roughly and I read that it represents 2/3 of the RCID area. However, the map and the math make no sense. Is this whole argument centered on the ground surrounding Disney's owned land or does it include that land? This may have been answered a while back but I couldn't find it. it seems like it is all Disney's land or mostly. With that said, I'm guessing oversight comes into play because of the public roads and also oversight of amusement rides. Side note, Ohio's amusement park regulation is in the Department of Agriculture which also amuses me. I am of two minds then on governance.

First, I always think that the owner of the land has the right to do with it as they please so long as they don't violate laws (ex. No dumping radioactive waste on your ranch). However, with the parks/roads/resorts being in use by the public, it seems that government independent of the company should be engaged. So, I find myself at odds in terms of how I think that this should play out. Perfect world is that Disney and State of FL come together to find a nice middle ground that benefits both parties as both parties have an interlaced dependence on each other.

 

[wutisgood]

I have a potential dumb question. Disney owns 27,000 acres, roughly and I read that it represents 2/3 of the RCID area. However, the map and the math make no sense. Is this whole argument centered on the ground surrounding Disney's owned land or does it include that land? This may have been answered a while back but I couldn't find it. it seems like it is all Disney's land or mostly. With that said, I'm guessing oversight comes into play because of the public roads and also oversight of amusement rides. Side note, Ohio's amusement park regulation is in the Department of Agriculture which also amuses me. I am of two minds then on governance.

First, I always think that the owner of the land has the right to do with it as they please so long as they don't violate laws (ex. No dumping radioactive waste on your ranch). However, with the parks/roads/resorts being in use by the public, it seems that government independent of the company should be engaged. So, I find myself at odds in terms of how I think that this should play out. Perfect world is that Disney and State of FL come together to find a nice middle ground that benefits both parties as both parties have an interlaced dependence on each other.

When you have a government that is making decisions based on punishing a company for being inclusive there is not really a middle ground. Florida is not operating from a standpoint of trying to promote good business that helps the state. Most reasonable people would assume that the government and a corporation would come to a compromise on something because their goal would be to make both parties look good and bring in money to both the state and the corporation. But when you get one party with a personal agenda you can't really negotiate anymore. Disney is smartly assuming that the current government is not to be trusted and using their legal expertise to protect themselves or at least to delay things enough in the courts for now.

 

[GAcoaster]

Trying not to be political but...politicians touting freedom and deregulation deciding to micromanage out of spite is very hypocritical, but by the same token the proposal of ride inspections and transportation inspections for the monorails is not out of line with what most other states do. I honestly think the state should be doing those inspections and certifications-- if it was applied to Universal, SeaWorld, and other park operators in the state it would be normal, but targeting one operator specifically is just pettiness.

 

[SkiBum]

Trying not to be political but...politicians touting freedom and deregulation deciding to micromanage out of spite is very hypocritical, but by the same token the proposal of ride inspections and transportation inspections for the monorails is not out of line with what most other states do. I honestly think the state should be doing those inspections and certifications-- if it was applied to Universal, SeaWorld, and other park operators in the state it would be normal, but targeting one operator specifically is just pettiness.

Especially given the recent picture of a monorail support with spalling (not my term). I always worry about the impact of red tape on these areas, though, and wouldn't want the inspectors to stall/dither on completing work to appease a government official. If the governor and Disney want to trade barbs, fine. I'd rather they focus on their actual work but the customers should not be adversely impacted by either side.

 

[Tbad556]

Disney files lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

BREAKING:

www.wesh.com

On Wednesday morning, Disney filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, claiming that the governor is harming the company’s business operations.

The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District’s governor-appointed board of supervisors met and voted just before noon to invalidate a set of agreements Disney made with Reedy Creek earlier this year.

The Walt Disney Company announced shortly after the vote that it is suing the governor and members of the tourism oversight committee, alleging the company "is forced to defend itself against a state weaponizing its power to inflict political punishment."

According to the lawsuit filed by Disney, the complaint describes "a targeted campaign of government retaliation—orchestrated at every step by Governor DeSantis as punishment for Disney’s protected speech—now threatens Disney’s business operations, jeopardizes its economic future in the region, and violates its constitutional rights."

"Today's action is the latest strike: At the Governor's bidding, the State's oversight board has purported to 'void' publicly noticed and duly agreed development contracts, which had laid the foundation for billions of Disney's investment dollars and thousands of jobs," the lawsuit continued. "This government action was patently retaliatory, patently anti-business, and patently unconstitutional. But the Governor and his allies have made clear they do not care and will not stop. The Governor recently declared that his team would not only 'void the development agreement'—just as they did today—but also planned 'to look at things like taxes on the hotels,' 'tolls on the roads,' 'developing some of the property that the district owns' with 'more amusement parks,' and even putting a 'state prison' next to Walt Disney World. 'Who knows? I just think the possibilities are endless,' he said."

 

[Jerroddragon]

Disney files lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

BREAKING:

www.wesh.com

Was about to post this as well

Disney has a pretty solid case, no idea how this will end up but if Disney is suing the lawyers must think the current leaderships public comments have made this possible

 

[Brian G.]

Thread.

 

[Nick]

So is Disney filing a Defamation lawsuit? It sounded like it from what I read scanning it quick but could be wrong.

Those are notoriously hard to prove in court in the US judicial system, but we saw what just happened in the Dominion suit.

 

[Jerroddragon]

So is Disney filing a Defamation lawsuit? It sounded like it from what I read scanning it quick but could be wrong.

Those are notoriously hard to prove in court in the US judicial system, but we saw what just happened in the Dominion suit.

Considering that never went to court I think this will be the same

I agree it can be hard but the Government has made it very clear the reasons for why this is happening (speaking out) and they have continued to confirm that is why so I assume the governors lawyers will advice to just settle unless they want a long fight.

 

[Nick]

Considering that never went to court I think this will be the same

I agree it can be hard but the Government has made it very clear the reasons for why this is happening (speaking out) and they have continued to confirm that is why so I assume the governors lawyers will advice to just settle unless they want a long fight.

Oh I agree if it is Defamation or something similar, Disney should have it in the bag.

 

[Tbad556]

It's a bummer being on the side of the mega-corporation, but it truly seems as open and shut as it gets here. Plenty of direct, targeted quotes showing clear intent. Consistent bills pushed for only this single special district when Florida has roughly 1800 of them. Explicitly targets Disney and not Universal/SeaWorld/etc. with his new proposal for state-led ride inspections. Etc.

I mean, this section of the filed complaint alone is pretty damn clear cut:

As the Florida representative who introduced the Reedy Creek dissolution bill declared to the Florida House State Affairs Committee: “You kick the hornet’s nest, things come up. And I will say this: You got me on one thing, this bill does target one company. It targets The Walt Disney Company.”

 

[Nick]

It's a bummer being on the side of the mega-corporation, but it truly seems as open and shut as it gets here. Plenty of direct, targeted quotes showing clear intent. Consistent bills pushed for only this single special district when Florida has roughly 1800 of them. Explicitly targets Disney and not Universal/SeaWorld/etc. with his new proposal for state-led ride inspections. Etc.

I mean, this section of the filed complaint alone is pretty damn clear cut:

As a pretty big Twitch Streamer I watch (Hasan Piker) has been saying on this, “Politicians only think they hold power in this country.”

As this situation is showing, in reality it’s corporations that do, for better or for worse. Disney is they one with the insane amount of money and can afford the absolute best lawyers and PR team in this situation. They are showing the governor who really holds the power in this state and it’s not him.