5 ms·

I am not sure I follow this reasoning. I have two questions first what bonds would tax payers be on the hook for? Second exactly where would Disney pull up an

I am not sure I follow this reasoning. I have two questions first what bonds would tax payers be on the hook for? Second exactly where would Disney pull up and go to if they left Orlando? I ask as it was challenging for them to buy up all that land way back in the 60's, they had to be very circumspect about doing it to avoid making the land prices sky rocket. As of today where can they buy that much land now and then rebuild the entire infrastructure of a Disney world? Keeping in mind that it would have to be somewhere warm and sunny most of the year so you are looking at CA, TX, and FL as the most likely contenders.

mkdirpepper 5y ago
Austin
- jleyank 5y ago
  Or, they throw their weight behind breaking the Cuban Embargo and aim for Disney Havana.
  - jleyank 5y ago
    It’s a semi humorous undercurrent here that Canadians should go to Cuba before the yanks can go there..
- colburnmh 5y ago
  TX is only ~15 minutes behind FL in terms of fascist legislative agendas. Moving from FL to TX would just be moving into the same environment. They would probably want to go somewhere that would have at least a chance of being an actual welcoming and productive environment for them.
jleyank 5y ago
I'm sure Disney is as good with financial modeling as any Wall Street firm. If they have responsibilities for things like water/sewer because they were an extra-governmental region, why would they not try to drop them like a stone if this was removed? Private companies aren't responsible for water, sewer, fire, police, ... all of the things needed to keep the peace. It's not like private companies are nice, friendly things, and The Mouse has been more company-like than most. Also, they have to do a determination on stay/go. Do they put more $$ into Florida or not? Is there a marketing risk operating there vs. not? Is there a business risk mucking about with theme parks or are they a 20th century phenomenon. Is expansion in the US the way to go or outside the US (Hard Rock Cafe voted for the latter a decade or more ago)? Which customer base has more disposable income that can be siphoned into the Mouse's pocket? If their tax position changes, the financial benefit changes. Given the push for unionization that is occurring (Starbucks, Amazon), it might not be worth pissing around with lots of (formerly) cheap labour. If their bonds or bottom-line is significantly affected by such a change, they'll have to act quickly to avoid Netflix-like damage. Or, all of this is BS, they hunker down and hope it passes in a year or two. However, it's been building up for 5-10 so far so that's probably naive. They can try funding the opposition, but that presupposes that there is a viable opposition in Florida. Disney Orlando requires tourism going to Florida to generate revenue, so they're damaged by stuff outside their control - people can get their mouse fix anywhere. And if the current Florida administration wins, the next round will be worse. So, unless Disney really goes along with what's going down, they're in an unenviable position. Losing control of the marketing and ending up as Hillbilly Heaven would hurt them bad outside the US.
- colburnmh 5y ago
  Because, unlike most businesses, Disney's park straddles two different counties (Orange and Osceola). Therefore, they have to deal with two different counties to get anything done in a consistent fashion. Further, by having control of their own infrastructure, they can control the standard of quality. Pass that to two different counties, and some of the differences between how the counties are managed will start to affect Disney's business. Image part of the park losing power due to one county deferring maintenance on their power grid, etc. Part of the "magic" of Disney is that they get to control the experience from road maintenance to providing power to the park. Now that control will move to the counties with no guarantee that they will continue to provide that infrastructure to the same standard as Disney currently does.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    But that “magic” is because of legal arrangement only Disney has. At the least, aren’t there anti trust issues here? If other investors wanted to create a Disneyworld like park - they couldn’t. At the very least they’d have to spend lots of time and money getting zoning approval.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    >two different counties This was a hedge done on purpose, so that (among other reasons) they wouldn't be 100% at the mercy of a single governing entity. There's a loss of consistency between the two, but that's a feature, not a bug. If one county doesn't cooperate with what's needed for, eg, a new park, Disney can threaten to put it in the other county instead.
colburnmh 5y ago
Apparently the RCID has $2 billion in bonds, which would result in ~$2,200 levy on the residents of Osceola and Orange counties. Further, the RCID district operates at a loss, but that is offset by Disney's profit from the park. Now those losses will become the taxpayer's problem, and Disney will get to pocket the profit. It's also not clear whether the counties are actually able to operate Disney's power, water, EMS, and other services without significant training and additional expenses, given that infrastructure may not conform to what the counties currently operate, or may not conform to their regulatory requirements. It's important to understand that the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) was established, in part, to ease the logistical and bureaucratic issues that Disney would have to deal with working with two different counties. If the RCID is dissolved, most everything that has infrastructure, legal, or regulatory requirements would have to be handled by both counties, in order to allow the park to have a set of consistent rules and services. (Imagine that Disney could serve alcohol in one half of the park, but not the other, because a liquor license was granted by one county, but not the other. Admittedly, if that were the case, then Disney wouldn't serve alcohol at all, but it illustrates the point.)
- beerandt 5y ago
  The district has tax revenue that (to oversimplify) will now be replaced with the regular county taxes, which makes it more or less revenue neutral. You say "handled by the county" as if it's a burden, but that's literally the purpose of government. The real burden is now on Disney, who has to demonstrate to the governing body that any given desired improvement is worthwhile to be approved. Part of that is usually the "developer" contributing to the project cost. Everyone is focusing on the money, but this is really about the ability to bypass government control. Which is why Disney was so insistent on bearing these costs in the first place.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mkdirpepper 5y ago

Austin

jleyank 5y ago
Or, they throw their weight behind breaking the Cuban Embargo and aim for Disney Havana.
- jleyank 5y ago
  It’s a semi humorous undercurrent here that Canadians should go to Cuba before the yanks can go there..
colburnmh 5y ago
TX is only ~15 minutes behind FL in terms of fascist legislative agendas. Moving from FL to TX would just be moving into the same environment. They would probably want to go somewhere that would have at least a chance of being an actual welcoming and productive environment for them.

jleyank 5y ago

I'm sure Disney is as good with financial modeling as any Wall Street firm. If they have responsibilities for things like water/sewer because they were an extra-governmental region, why would they not try to drop them like a stone if this was removed? Private companies aren't responsible for water, sewer, fire, police, ... all of the things needed to keep the peace. It's not like private companies are nice, friendly things, and The Mouse has been more company-like than most. Also, they have to do a determination on stay/go. Do they put more $$ into Florida or not? Is there a marketing risk operating there vs. not? Is there a business risk mucking about with theme parks or are they a 20th century phenomenon. Is expansion in the US the way to go or outside the US (Hard Rock Cafe voted for the latter a decade or more ago)? Which customer base has more disposable income that can be siphoned into the Mouse's pocket? If their tax position changes, the financial benefit changes. Given the push for unionization that is occurring (Starbucks, Amazon), it might not be worth pissing around with lots of (formerly) cheap labour. If their bonds or bottom-line is significantly affected by such a change, they'll have to act quickly to avoid Netflix-like damage. Or, all of this is BS, they hunker down and hope it passes in a year or two. However, it's been building up for 5-10 so far so that's probably naive. They can try funding the opposition, but that presupposes that there is a viable opposition in Florida. Disney Orlando requires tourism going to Florida to generate revenue, so they're damaged by stuff outside their control - people can get their mouse fix anywhere. And if the current Florida administration wins, the next round will be worse. So, unless Disney really goes along with what's going down, they're in an unenviable position. Losing control of the marketing and ending up as Hillbilly Heaven would hurt them bad outside the US.

colburnmh 5y ago
Because, unlike most businesses, Disney's park straddles two different counties (Orange and Osceola). Therefore, they have to deal with two different counties to get anything done in a consistent fashion. Further, by having control of their own infrastructure, they can control the standard of quality. Pass that to two different counties, and some of the differences between how the counties are managed will start to affect Disney's business. Image part of the park losing power due to one county deferring maintenance on their power grid, etc. Part of the "magic" of Disney is that they get to control the experience from road maintenance to providing power to the park. Now that control will move to the counties with no guarantee that they will continue to provide that infrastructure to the same standard as Disney currently does.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  But that “magic” is because of legal arrangement only Disney has. At the least, aren’t there anti trust issues here? If other investors wanted to create a Disneyworld like park - they couldn’t. At the very least they’d have to spend lots of time and money getting zoning approval.
- beerandt 5y ago
  >two different counties This was a hedge done on purpose, so that (among other reasons) they wouldn't be 100% at the mercy of a single governing entity. There's a loss of consistency between the two, but that's a feature, not a bug. If one county doesn't cooperate with what's needed for, eg, a new park, Disney can threaten to put it in the other county instead.

colburnmh 5y ago

Apparently the RCID has $2 billion in bonds, which would result in ~$2,200 levy on the residents of Osceola and Orange counties. Further, the RCID district operates at a loss, but that is offset by Disney's profit from the park. Now those losses will become the taxpayer's problem, and Disney will get to pocket the profit. It's also not clear whether the counties are actually able to operate Disney's power, water, EMS, and other services without significant training and additional expenses, given that infrastructure may not conform to what the counties currently operate, or may not conform to their regulatory requirements. It's important to understand that the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) was established, in part, to ease the logistical and bureaucratic issues that Disney would have to deal with working with two different counties. If the RCID is dissolved, most everything that has infrastructure, legal, or regulatory requirements would have to be handled by both counties, in order to allow the park to have a set of consistent rules and services. (Imagine that Disney could serve alcohol in one half of the park, but not the other, because a liquor license was granted by one county, but not the other. Admittedly, if that were the case, then Disney wouldn't serve alcohol at all, but it illustrates the point.)

beerandt 5y ago
The district has tax revenue that (to oversimplify) will now be replaced with the regular county taxes, which makes it more or less revenue neutral. You say "handled by the county" as if it's a burden, but that's literally the purpose of government. The real burden is now on Disney, who has to demonstrate to the governing body that any given desired improvement is worthwhile to be approved. Part of that is usually the "developer" contributing to the project cost. Everyone is focusing on the money, but this is really about the ability to bypass government control. Which is why Disney was so insistent on bearing these costs in the first place.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]