I wonder what would happen if .....

[RamblingMad]

Never happen. Makes too much money. And it would destroy Orlando’s economy.

All that’s going to happen is that Disney will spend its lobbying budget more wisely.

 

[Jimmy Mouse]

Never happen. Makes too much money. And it would destroy Orlando’s economy.

All that’s going to happen is that Disney will spend its lobbying budget more wisely.

Like I said, It was a hypothetical question, a "What if". I was just curious what people THINK would happen to the area IF it were to happen. We all know were more likely to find intelligent life on another planet before WDW closes down permanently.

 

[goofyernmost]

Because Orlando still has Universal, I don't think we'd see a Rust Belt level of decline. Especially with Epic Universe going in, I suspect that a lot of Disney fans would give Universal a try. So it would likely blunt the impact. But there would still be enormous shock waves. The massive increase in unemployment would likely tank the local economy, at least short term. Lots of restaurants/bars/hotels/smaller tourist attractions would close, causing even more unemployment. Housing prices would take a massive hit. The Florida Constitution forbids a state income tax, so I'm not sure where they would make up the revenue. I do believe that DeSantis wouldn't be reelected, but Florida has no provisions for a recall election, so he'd still be in charge for the rest of his (brand new) term.

I don't think that selling the parks would be as easy as some seem to believe. Granted it was never a cash cow, or a vital part of the city in any way, but Six Flags New Orleans comes to mind. It closed for Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and never reopened. Yes, it was flooded and not incredibly salvageable without a full rebuild. But SO MANY developers came in over the years with big plans for everything from a shopping mall to an entirely reimagined theme park. And none of them ever actually happened. Literally a couple of weeks ago, 18 years after it closed, a final development plan was approved. Turns out that buying and redeveloping a closed theme park is an expensive, difficult, and extremely political process. And that's just ONE park, with no hotels or anything.

New Orleans isn't really a good example unless you connect it to "location, location location". Six Flags New Orleans was a mistake from the get go. Who goes to New Orleans for the purpose of riding a coaster. If Katrina hadn't happened that park would probably have been closed before to long anyway.

New Orleans had two (or more) things going against it for Six Flags. One is that is a party town which in itself is a theme park. Unique in so many ways that the thought of going to an amusement park, even for the locals, seems wrong on many levels. Two is that in the summer it is a massively tropical location due mostly to not only being surrounded by water, the actual place is under sea level and require constant pumping just to keep it literally afloat. The heat and HUMIDITY is so severe that it makes Florida seem like a desert. It's a place where if you have glasses and you step out of AC your lenses immediately become opaque. Who would want to stand in line in that heat for a 4 minute ride when you can just go to Bourbon Street, have a couple Hurricanes (the beverage) and you will feel the same way. New Orleans is a great place and should be visited at least once by everyone, but no one is likely to travel from all over the world to New Orleans because they had a Six Flags there. Disney on the other hand is the identity of central Florida. No ever traveled there to explore Kissimmee. That property that Disney owns is now complete with up to date infrastructure, power sources, streets, highways and flood controls. Can you imagine how much they could get just for the land alone?

 

[Southernmiss]

Meh. The New Orleans area successfully maintained Ponchartrain Beach Amusement Park for 60 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontchartrain_Beach

Generations of people have fond memories of days spent there

Jazzland was a great local park until Katrina. Our family was there just weeks before Katrina. Our day got rained out and we got raincheck passes that we never got a chance to go back and use because Katrina destroyed it. I kept those in a drawer for many years.

 

[JLTraveling]

New Orleans isn't really a good example unless you connect it to "location, location location". Six Flags New Orleans was a mistake from the get go. Who goes to New Orleans for the purpose of riding a coaster. If Katrina hadn't happened that park would probably have been closed before to long anyway.

New Orleans had two (or more) things going against it for Six Flags. One is that is a party town which in itself is a theme park. Unique in so many ways that the thought of going to an amusement park, even for the locals, seems wrong on many levels. Two is that in the summer it is a massively tropical location due mostly to not only being surrounded by water, the actual place is under sea level and require constant pumping just to keep it literally afloat. The heat and HUMIDITY is so severe that it makes Florida seem like a desert. It's a place where if you have glasses and you step out of AC your lenses immediately become opaque. Who would want to stand in line in that heat for a 4 minute ride when you can just go to Bourbon Street, have a couple Hurricanes (the beverage) and you will feel the same way. New Orleans is a great place and should be visited at least once by everyone, but no one is likely to travel from all over the world to New Orleans because they had a Six Flags there. Disney on the other hand is the identity of central Florida. No ever traveled there to explore Kissimmee. That property that Disney owns is now complete with up to date infrastructure, power sources, streets, highways and flood controls. Can you imagine how much they could get just for the land alone?

Oh, I don't disagree at all with your points about New Orleans. I worked at that Six Flags briefly. It's also in New Orleans East, which isn't exactly a tourist mecca. BUT, a lot of the developers who have presented plans over the years weren't planning to turn it back into a theme park at all. It's still a lot of land in a city that the world wants to visit, and could be used for all sorts of different purposes. Yet it's proved pretty much impossible for anyone to thread the needle between local opinion and politics and financing and on and on and on. Supposedly the final development plan has now been approved, but most of us won't believe anything's actually happening until we see it.

Here are some of the issues I see with any sort of potential Disney sale:

1) What happens to all the "stuff" on the land? Disney owns the rides and the hotels and the popcorn stands and the trash cans. One of the initial holdups at Six Flags was legal wrangling over the "stuff." Six Flags started moving rides and things to their other properties, but they were in the middle of a 75-year lease with the city, and the city wanted to sell it all to recoup some of their losses. Obviously that wouldn't apply at Disney, but that's a lot of stuff. It would take years for the company to move it. I doubt they'd want to just roll it all into the sale, because I can't imagine that it would add much if any value to a potential developer. Who wants to deal with all the Disney branded stuff when they're trying to create something new? But Disney wouldn't want to just lose everything they've spent on it.

2) Who could afford it and why would they want it? If Disney moved out, there would be an incredible public outcry. I can't even begin to imagine what the selling price would be for the whole shebang, but obviously the buyer would have to have incredibly deep pockets. Organizations with pockets that deep are looking for a tremendous return on investment--how do they possibly get there? WHAT could be built on that land that would not only turn a profit big enough to recoup the initial investment, plus the extraordinary costs of demolition, while also not angering the public so much that the well is poisoned before whatever it is ever opens? That was one of the development issues with Six Flags. Locals, especially those living nearby, took it very personally when Six Flags abandoned the site. And they became very protective of it. More than one potentially good idea got shouted down in public meetings. And that's just a local Six Flags. Orlando residents and global tourists alike are not going to be happy with pretty much any idea that would bulldoze Disney and start over. But they also wouldn't be happy with a replacement theme park because, well, it wouldn't be the Disney brand.

3) If Disney closed because of the political/business climate in Florida, why would another business want to go into its spot? Disney is Disney. They're one of the most iconic brands in history. If they got sick of it and said enough is enough, wouldn't that have a chilling effect on any other company's belief in their ability to succeed? Of all the places in the country, not to mention the world, what would be attractive about trying to be Disney's successor in what would undoubtedly be perceived as a business-unfriendly climate?

There's more, but I think those are the biggies.

 

[wabbott]

I've been waiting all week for someone to point out the most immediate and destructive impact resulting from such a course of action, but no one has. And that impact would be upon those who everyone claims to "support."

The 77,000 cast members who work for Disney in the Greater Orlando area would have their livelihood taken from them - and just like that.

 

[hopemax]

I've been waiting all week for someone to point out the most immediate and destructive impact resulting from such a course of action, but no one has. And that impact would be upon those who everyone claims to "support."

The 77,000 cast members who work for Disney in the Greater Orlando area would have their livelihood taken from them - and just like that.

I'm pretty sure Post #5 pointed it out.

Disney employs almost 75,000 people in central Florida. I think having to absorb that level of unemployment would be a big hit to the state, and the Orlando area would go downhill.

 

[goofyernmost]

Oh, I don't disagree at all with your points about New Orleans. I worked at that Six Flags briefly. It's also in New Orleans East, which isn't exactly a tourist mecca. BUT, a lot of the developers who have presented plans over the years weren't planning to turn it back into a theme park at all. It's still a lot of land in a city that the world wants to visit, and could be used for all sorts of different purposes. Yet it's proved pretty much impossible for anyone to thread the needle between local opinion and politics and financing and on and on and on. Supposedly the final development plan has now been approved, but most of us won't believe anything's actually happening until we see it.

Here are some of the issues I see with any sort of potential Disney sale:

1) What happens to all the "stuff" on the land? Disney owns the rides and the hotels and the popcorn stands and the trash cans. One of the initial holdups at Six Flags was legal wrangling over the "stuff." Six Flags started moving rides and things to their other properties, but they were in the middle of a 75-year lease with the city, and the city wanted to sell it all to recoup some of their losses. Obviously that wouldn't apply at Disney, but that's a lot of stuff. It would take years for the company to move it. I doubt they'd want to just roll it all into the sale, because I can't imagine that it would add much if any value to a potential developer. Who wants to deal with all the Disney branded stuff when they're trying to create something new? But Disney wouldn't want to just lose everything they've spent on it.

2) Who could afford it and why would they want it? If Disney moved out, there would be an incredible public outcry. I can't even begin to imagine what the selling price would be for the whole shebang, but obviously the buyer would have to have incredibly deep pockets. Organizations with pockets that deep are looking for a tremendous return on investment--how do they possibly get there? WHAT could be built on that land that would not only turn a profit big enough to recoup the initial investment, plus the extraordinary costs of demolition, while also not angering the public so much that the well is poisoned before whatever it is ever opens? That was one of the development issues with Six Flags. Locals, especially those living nearby, took it very personally when Six Flags abandoned the site. And they became very protective of it. More than one potentially good idea got shouted down in public meetings. And that's just a local Six Flags. Orlando residents and global tourists alike are not going to be happy with pretty much any idea that would bulldoze Disney and start over. But they also wouldn't be happy with a replacement theme park because, well, it wouldn't be the Disney brand.

3) If Disney closed because of the political/business climate in Florida, why would another business want to go into its spot? Disney is Disney. They're one of the most iconic brands in history. If they got sick of it and said enough is enough, wouldn't that have a chilling effect on any other company's belief in their ability to succeed? Of all the places in the country, not to mention the world, what would be attractive about trying to be Disney's successor in what would undoubtedly be perceived as a business-unfriendly climate?

There's more, but I think those are the biggies.

In answer to your #3 question, it's were old people go to die, not just woke. And retirees were doing that long before Disney showed up.

As for the first two... Ever heard of the Carrousel of Progress. They moved that twice, once from the NY worlds fair in the 60's to Disneyland and then from there to Florida. All they have to do is create the buildings and ship the pieces parts to wherever they decide to go.

The money and cost would be huge if someone was going to build a theme park on it and considering it's history, that would be a motive for people to be attracted to the area, but it would most likely be much less value if just a development, but still more than most of us can even imagine. Or Disney might make it a franchise and let someone else worry about Florida and it's foolishness. That would be very costly needing deep, deep, deep pockets.

It's all just a fun speculation anyway, the tide will turn, as it always does and all will be cool again. But it doesn't hurt to that the idea floating around for some honest and intelligent people to hear and take seriously.

 

[JLTraveling]

In answer to your #3 question, it's were old people go to die, not just woke. And retirees were doing that long before Disney showed up.

As for the first two... Ever heard of the Carrousel of Progress. They moved that twice, once from the NY worlds fair in the 60's to Disneyland and then from there to Florida. All they have to do is create the buildings and ship the pieces parts to wherever they decide to go.

The money and cost would be huge if someone was going to build a theme park on it and considering it's history, that would be a motive for people to be attracted to the area, but it would most likely be much less value if just a development, but still more than most of us can even imagine. Or Disney might make it a franchise and let someone else worry about Florida and it's foolishness. That would be very costly needing deep, deep, deep pockets.

It's all just a fun speculation anyway, the tide will turn, as it always does and all will be cool again. But it doesn't hurt to that the idea floating around for some honest and intelligent people to hear and take seriously.

Of course I know about the Carousel of Progress. But that's ONE attraction. Even with Disney's resources, how much money and time would it realistically take to empty all the theme parks and water parks and hotels and Disney Springs and all of not only every attraction but every popcorn wagon and T-shirt stand and mattress and piece of artwork?

I agree, it's all fun speculation. But when you really get down to it, the sheer size of the undertaking would be breathtaking.

 

[mousefan73]

Hypothetically speaking, if Disney, as an island completely shut down, the first direct impact would be MCO. Airlines would reduce capacity and the airport would have to let folks go. then it would snowball into other things like hotel car rentals.

Outlet malls would close because most of the people spending high in products. There are usually those coming to Central Florida driven by Walt Disney World. Sure Universal brings in a large crowd, but not like Disney.

Give it two years, the state of FL will be dumbfounded on how to balance the budget and will then have to implement a state income tax.
That’s my fantasy speculation, but I can definitely say .1 about the airport would happen.

 

[mousefan73]

Those 30 million or so missing people would be extremely detrimental.

I also wonder of that 50/30 split did maybe 15 or 20 million do both? My last trip to WDW included a two night extension at Universal.


Now one can argue was it Disney that drove people to Universal or did Universal people drive business to Disney. my hunch is that Disney was the trigger of the overall trip and people extended a few days at Universal

 

[wabbott]

Of course I know about the Carousel of Progress. But that's ONE attraction. Even with Disney's resources, how much money and time would it realistically take to empty all the theme parks and water parks and hotels and Disney Springs and all of not only every attraction but every popcorn wagon and T-shirt stand and mattress and piece of artwork?

I agree, it's all fun speculation. But when you really get down to it, the sheer size of the undertaking would be breathtaking.

It could never get that far. Immediately after any shutdown of Florida operations, the subsequent loss of revenue and income would collapse the company's stock price, and Comcast (or someone else) would take over the company. Disney, as it has been known for 100 years, would no longer exist.

 

[mousefan73]

It could never get that far. Immediately after any shutdown of Florida operations, the subsequent loss of revenue and income would collapse the company's stock price, and Comcast (or someone else) would take over the company. Disney, as it has been known for 100 years, would no longer exist.

Disney is a company is very diversified and WDW in Florida is just a small portion. Not an irrelevant portion but it’s not the main revenue for the company as a whole. I’m a stock owner so maybe I should look more deeply into the financials as I’m now generously curious What role WDW plays in the overall them park portion. Keep in mind they will definitely lose a big chunk of revenue from the theme parks division, but they would also save a lot of costs. Comes more down to bottom line.

 

[mom2rtk]

WDW has been the ATM of the company for some time. Disney needs FL as much as FL needs Disney.

 

[wabbott]

Disney is a company is very diversified and WDW in Florida is just a small portion. Not an irrelevant portion but it’s not the main revenue for the company as a whole. I’m a stock owner so maybe I should look more deeply into the financials as I’m now generously curious What role WDW plays in the overall them park portion. Keep in mind they will definitely lose a big chunk of revenue from the theme parks division, but they would also save a lot of costs. Comes more down to bottom line.

https://www.investopedia.com/how-disney-makes-money-4799164

Parks & Experiences (parks, cruises, merchandising) provides 1/3 of the revenues and 2/3 of the profit company-wide, compared to entertainment. WDW's annual attendance is more than all the rest of the parks put together worldwide. That's where the money's made. If WDW shuts down, the company cannot survive long term.

 

[goofyernmost]

Of course I know about the Carousel of Progress. But that's ONE attraction. Even with Disney's resources, how much money and time would it realistically take to empty all the theme parks and water parks and hotels and Disney Springs and all of not only every attraction but every popcorn wagon and T-shirt stand and mattress and piece of artwork?

I agree, it's all fun speculation. But when you really get down to it, the sheer size of the undertaking would be breathtaking.

Yes, it would be a massive process and just imagine how many wadded up newspapers and bubble wrap that would be needed. Disney Springs could remain but they would have to clean out The World Of Disney. I imagine they would have to rent a U-Haul or two and call all their friends in to help them move. Buy a few pizza's to feed them, perhaps a case or two of Bud Light and get them all together on a Saturday morning and before you know it all that will be left is to vacuum up and hit the road. That's how most of us do it.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

I wouldn't anticipate Disney just closing and locking the door behind them but it is within the possibility that they might sell the place. It almost happened before and it could happen again, but even if someone bought it to use as a theme park resort it would no longer be Disney. None of the characters and the music that is so much a part of Disney would be gone.

There was talk back in the early 80's that some were just interested in buying it and scraping everything with no intention of having any theme park. Perhaps a development like the Villages. I mean all the infrastructure is there already. That is possible, how real, I'm sure I don't know but they would have some buyers I guarantee it. There are a number of states close to Florida that would wet their collective pants to get a Disney park or two. Even a place like NC that has almost no winter and very few really cold days would be a lot more central to the east coast and still with a lot of facilities for international travel.

They could build new theme parks and be open again, at least partially, in three years. Not much longer than the Pandemic shut things down. Hell, they might even be secretly drawing up plans for one as we speak.

Not the way Disney builds things. How long did it take to complete Tron? There's no way they could complete even one park in three years. That's a pie in the sky dream.

DVC wouldn't close, it's owned and maintained by the DVC members.

I don't think this would ever happen; Disney has too much invested to even think about closing WDW. However, if they did, I do believe it would be a major blow to the area.

As far as the cost to govern the area, if those who have lost their jobs decide to relocate to another state (as others have suggested) wouldn't the overall cost to the governing body go down as well? Less people = less money needed for services?

 

[dvcgirl67]

It obviously will never happen, but to get an idea of how it would affect the local economy, just look at what happened to Anaheim when Disney was forced to be closed for 14 months during the pandemic. It was bad. Very bad.

This is what I thought of too. The entire local economy would take a massive hit. The whole this is so stupid, and all for an engineered vendetta designed to ramp up support for one man's personal gain. Also...it's not working....apparently the Mouse has better/smarter attorneys, lol. Disney has long tangled with extremists and they're still standing.

 

[goofyernmost]

Not the way Disney builds things. How long did it take to complete Tron? There's no way they could complete even one park in three years. That's a pie in the sky dream.

DVC wouldn't close, it's owned and maintained by the DVC members.

I don't think this would ever happen; Disney has too much invested to even think about closing WDW. However, if they did, I do believe it would be a major blow to the area.

As far as the cost to govern the area, if those who have lost their jobs decide to relocate to another state (as others have suggested) wouldn't the overall cost to the governing body go down as well? Less people = less money needed for services?

You seem to forget the process of building it all at once. If each building were to be built at the same time with a well defined sequence of building specialties all could be built in the 3 year target. If you can build one attraction in 3 years then expanding the work force to the degree that enables all to be built at the same time, all will be done in 3 years. That's what they did with EPCOT and except for the cost of the additional labor it's all one big project staffed accordingly.

Let me once again state that I don't believe they would ever do that, but that doesn't mean that if they throw enough money at it and have tight planning, it can't be done. Just not likely to be attempted.

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm pretty sure Post #5 pointed it out.

That post was about the impact of the job loss on the local area. The other comment was about the impact of the job losses on the people losing them.