If Florida repeals "The Reedy Creek Improvement Charter", how does that change Disney going forward?

[Duckbug.Ducktales]

I don't think RCID will get repealed and cooler heads will prevail in the end. I hope Chaepek will not be renewed as CEO, and if this controversy has something to do with that, fine. But if so, I hope the next CEO will keep the company out of politics. Disney was already been kind to LGBTQ employees and guests even before such support was mainstream. No need to get embroiled in damaging political fights, just keep inspiring with creative endeavors (and hopefully, if there is a new CEO, it'll bea creative type and not a penny pincher)

 

[bcla]

Oh I agree and I never really thought it was appropriate for them to have so much power particularly with police fire and ems...and recently they were poorly staffed and created a safety issue that probably lead to at least one cardiac death (due to extremely poor response time)

But they were on the good side of legislators and these threats are basically "you don't want to get on our bad side"

They don’t really with police. They don’t have a private police force with state police powers. That does actually exist to some degree in the US (think railroad police) but WDW contracts with the Orange County Sheriff for most police services, similar to how a “contract city” would pay if they didn’t. And ultimately the elected Sheriff calls the shots.

EMS and fire services have been private for years. In my county EMS is contracted out to American Medical Response. And there are private fire departments with state certification. Here’s a fairly well known one. I don’t think Disney owns it with the purchase of Lucasfilm, but they do protect Disney assets currently there.

https://www.marinfirehistory.org/skywalker-ranch-fb.html

 

[Disney Bobby]

When the positions are such polar opposites LGBQT supporters vs 'Don't Say Gay", there is no choice without alienating one or the other. Disney chose which side it preferred alienating, personally I agree with Igor, this is not about politics, it is about right vs wrong.

“A lot of these issues are not necessarily political. It’s about right and wrong,” Iger told CNN’s Chris Wallace in an interview that was taped last month.
“I had to contend with this a lot, and the filter that I used to determine whether we should or should not weigh in considered a few factors,” Iger said. “What would its impact have on our employees, on our shareholders and our customers? And if any one of those three constituencies had a deep interest in or would be affected by whatever was the matter at hand, then it was something I thought we should consider weighing in on.”

Disney is committed to inclusion, if you are against that, then feel free to stay home and not be included.

I agree, that the calls to repeal Reedy Creek is a lot of bluster and attention getting, I dont believe it will happen.

No, there is a choice. Stay out of it altogether.

And it doesn't mean "you are against inclusion" if you don't go along with every nutty idea that comes across the table. It's not about "inclusion". But it is about right vs wrong. And what is right or wrong when it comes to those types of discussions with my 5-8 year old kids would be MY decision. If Mr Iger wants to get on his high horse about right vs wrong, I suggest he take a long, hard look in his diamond-encrusted mirror. The only litmus test of right and wrong for him and these other self-serving, pandering goons is what makes them hundreds of millions of dollars personally.

That's the funniest thing about this is how deal. Some people suddenly think the uber-weahtly CEOs are some bastion of morality. lol. They would literally add an ISIS feature to Epcot if they thought it would raise the stock price 15 cents. They are compromised by their own greed, and nobody should give a Ratatouille's tail about what they think outside of the bubble of Disney. They will ALWAYS side with their own pocketbooks.

 

[DeeBee3]

To the "dreamers of all ages" who keep mentioning "right vs. wrong," I implore you to step back and think of all the other business decisions Disney makes that are unethical. May I introduce to you...the Uyghurs!!!

Disney does millions and millions of dollars of business with the Chinese government - theme parks, merchandise production, movies, etc. Disney does not care 1 fig about morality or right vs wrong. They care about money and what they think looks good politically to make more money. This is how corporations work. It's sad, but it's true.

So, don't delude yourself thinking this is some sign of virtue. Any time I bring up the Uyghur population, people shrug it off and say "but..." If you are ok with concentration camps, family separation, and complete annihilation of a culture, then sure, go ahead and think Disney is doing the right thing in Florida.

 

[EPCOTForever1]

That’s simply not the case. There are many of us who support LBGQT and don’t want sex being taught to our young children.

If this is where you stand, I believe a majority including myself would happily agree with you. Unfortunately, the bill that was passed doesn't actually address instruction on sexual activity. It prohibits instruction on “sexual orientation and gender identity”.

Several members on both sides of the political spectrum tried to change the language of the bill to be less vague and do exactly as what most believe the bill is accomplishing.

Rep. Carlos Smith proposed an amendment that would prohibit discussion of sexual activity, rather than sexual orientation or gender identity. It failed.
Sen. Jeff Brandes proposed an amendment to make it about human sexuality more broadly. It failed.
Sen. Lauren Book proposed an amendment to clarify that discussing same-sex families, history, bullying, questions asked by students, etc. would be permitted. It failed.
Sen. Randolph Bracy and Rep. Woodson proposed amendments to clarify that conversations among LGBT students would be permitted. Those amendments were rejected.
Sen. Tina Polsky proposed an amendment clarifying that sexual orientation and gender identity include heterosexuality and cisgender identity – that was rejected.
The current Department of Education guidelines on teaching sexual education instruct that students be taught the “benefits of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.” An amendment was proposed to change the wording to simply “marriage”. That was rejected.

Many people are grossly misinformed about the bill. No opponent of the bill sought to expand sex ed to K-3 students - they sought to ensure that LGBT people and families could still be discussed and not erased, and for some reason they were voted down by the conservative majority every time.

 

[Pyotr]

Oh please no one is teaching "sex" to children, or at least not how the pearl clutching folks think it is.... but you say that like it is a bad thing, LOL as a college level anatomy professor who teaches to pre medical students... many people have an appalling lack of education not only about the human body, but also about healthy and safe sexual practices so perhaps they should be teaching more sex... I firmly support (and benefitted from) age appropriate sex education taught throughout all education levels.

But like all things, first will come the court challenges, and if it stands, the law must be applied equally... heterosexuality is also a sexuality and binary gender norms are also gender.

I not arguing whether there a need for the bill nor am I arguing against sex education for older children. This bill addresses K-3. It doesn’t directly effect Disney and Chapek should have stayed out of it.

Politics are ugly.

 

[LYSE]

They don’t really with police. They don’t have a private police force with state police powers. That does actually exist to some degree in the US (think railroad police) but WDW contracts with the Orange County Sheriff for most police services, similar to how a “contract city” would pay if they didn’t. And ultimately the elected Sheriff calls the shots.

EMS and fire services have been private for years. In my county EMS is contracted out to American Medical Response. And there are private fire departments with state certification. Here’s a fairly well known one. I don’t think Disney owns it with the purchase of Lucasfilm, but they do protect Disney assets currently there.

https://www.marinfirehistory.org/skywalker-ranch-fb.html

I get that fire and ems are commonly contracted and same goes for sherifs departments the problem is the extra pull and direct control of things like staffing that the "customer" for lack of a better word has over the contracted services (potential conflicts of interest) normally that's a public entity this all ties to a single private entity

Generally it's worked and I admit i am No expert but that is what's concerning

 

[Disney Bobby]

If this is where you stand, I believe a majority including myself would happily agree with you. Unfortunately, the bill that was passed doesn't actually address instruction on sexual activity. It prohibits instruction on “sexual orientation and gender identity”.

Several members on both sides of the political spectrum tried to change the language of the bill to be less vague and do exactly as what most believe the bill is accomplishing.

Rep. Carlos Smith proposed an amendment that would prohibit discussion of sexual activity, rather than sexual orientation or gender identity. It failed.
Sen. Jeff Brandes proposed an amendment to make it about human sexuality more broadly. It failed.
Sen. Lauren Book proposed an amendment to clarify that discussing same-sex families, history, bullying, questions asked by students, etc. would be permitted. It failed.
Sen. Randolph Bracy and Rep. Woodson proposed amendments to clarify that conversations among LGBT students would be permitted. Those amendments were rejected.
Sen. Tina Polsky proposed an amendment clarifying that sexual orientation and gender identity include heterosexuality and cisgender identity – that was rejected.
The current Department of Education guidelines on teaching sexual education instruct that students be taught the “benefits of monogamous, heterosexual marriage.” An amendment was proposed to change the wording to simply “marriage”. That was rejected.

Many people are grossly misinformed about the bill. No opponent of the bill sought to expand sex ed to K-3 students - they sought to ensure that LGBT people and families could still be discussed and not erased, and for some reason they were voted down by the conservative majority every time.

Discussing sexual orientation is sex education. The sexual orientation of parents isn't a topic for 4-8 year olds.

 

[EPCOTForever1]

Discussing sexual orientation is sex education. The sexual orientation of parents isn't a topic for 4-8 year olds.

Would any mention or depiction of a relationship be considered inappropriate then? I am not disagreeing with you, however, I do believe sexual orientation can be brought up in an age-appropriate way that does not allude to sexual activities. Certainly, heterosexual relationships have been introduced to those ages for many years without much (if at all) pushback. The depiction of "mother" or "father" as well as "husband" or "wife" would also allude to sexual orientation, no?

This is my issue with the bill - it's so vague that Mickey and Minnie being in a relationship would not comply with the bill's standards. A prince and princess kissing would be inappropriate. "Gender identity" would also encompass mentioning "boys" and "girls" as well as gendered pronouns such as "he" and "she". Traditional gender-specific honorifics such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", and "Ms.", would also not be compliant. Do you not see an issue with the can of worms the bill opens up?

 

[TLSnell1981]

Would any mention or depiction of a relationship be considered inappropriate then? I am not disagreeing with you, however, I do believe sexual orientation can be brought up in an age-appropriate way that does not allude to sexual activities. Certainly, heterosexual relationships have been introduced to those ages for many years without much (if at all) pushback. The depiction of "mother" or "father" as well as "husband" or "wife" would also allude to sexual orientation, no?

This is my issue with the bill - it's so vague that Mickey and Minnie being in a relationship would not comply with the bill's standards. A prince and princess kissing would be inappropriate. "Gender identity" would also encompass mentioning "boys" and "girls" as well as gendered pronouns such as "he" and "she". Traditional gender-specific honorifics such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", and "Ms.", would also not be compliant. Do you not see an issue with the can of worms the bill opens up?

The interpretation will be left to the court system. Extreme people will always take it to the next level.

A recent conversation with my 7 year old.
7yo“So and so has two mommies”.
Me “Okay.”
Childs skips off…no big deal.
Weeks later…
7yo “Can girls marry each other?”
Me “Yes they can.”
Child skips off…no big deal.

Children are naturally curious. There will be more questions but you respond to what they ask. No need for a lecture.

 

[EPCOTForever1]

The interpretation will be left to the court system. Extreme people will always take it to the next level.

A recent conversation with my 7 year old.
7yo“So and so has two mommies”.
Me “Okay.”
Childs skips off…no big deal.
Weeks later…
7yo “Can girls marry each other?”
Me “Yes they can.”
Child skips off…no big deal.

Children are naturally curious. There will be more questions but you respond to what they ask. No need for a lecture.

I don't consider public schools needing to spend tons of money to defend themselves over frivolous lawsuits with their already limited budget as a "win" for education in my book, but I digress.

I believe this bill could have had good intentions. I believe parents should be more involved with their child's education. I do not believe this bill's purpose was legitimately aimed to accomplish that. And I'll leave it there since I know it's going off-topic.

 

[DeeBee3]

When the Imagineers and Corporate start walking out and standing up to China, then I'll take them seriously. Do you think there are even any LGBT rights in China? Ha. The hypocrisy is unreal. Not saying you shouldn't be kind and respectful in the US (yes, we should and are), but there are countries that give no rights and no representation at all, and Disney isn't saying a word about the politics in China. So when they are seriously standing up for that population, they will open their mouth and their wallet in kind.

 

[bcla]

Would any mention or depiction of a relationship be considered inappropriate then? I am not disagreeing with you, however, I do believe sexual orientation can be brought up in an age-appropriate way that does not allude to sexual activities. Certainly, heterosexual relationships have been introduced to those ages for many years without much (if at all) pushback. The depiction of "mother" or "father" as well as "husband" or "wife" would also allude to sexual orientation, no?

This is my issue with the bill - it's so vague that Mickey and Minnie being in a relationship would not comply with the bill's standards. A prince and princess kissing would be inappropriate. "Gender identity" would also encompass mentioning "boys" and "girls" as well as gendered pronouns such as "he" and "she". Traditional gender-specific honorifics such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", and "Ms.", would also not be compliant. Do you not see an issue with the can of worms the bill opens up?

Yeah - it's basically "I know it when I see it" which probably means the loudest voices get to choose what is or isn't covered and who can sue over what might be discussed. Its vagueness isn't a flaw but a designed feature.

I mean - in my kid's schools (as far back as private preschools) there have been gay staff members, including those who have had pictures of their partners. I don't find that inappropriate. Kids are curious, and teaching about family structure has been something taught in K-3 at an age appropriate level. If there's one teacher who might have a photos of a spouse on a desk, kids are going to ask about it. I could see this getting to the point where a lesbian teacher is disciplined or even fired for having such a photo, because it's clear that it's not going to be used to punish anyone for describing a hetero relationship.

I could easily see this going to federal court with a challenge that it violates the requirements for equal protection as required by the Constitution. Because I'm sure that it wasn't meant to actually ban the discussion of sexual orientation in general with a neutral point of view, but to eliminate the discussion of same-sex relationships on some misguided idea that kids can't handle it.

 

[bcla]

When the Imagineers and Corporate start walking out and standing up to China, then I'll take them seriously. Do you think there are even any LGBT rights in China? Ha. The hypocrisy is unreal. Not saying you shouldn't be kind and respectful in the US (yes, we should and are), but there are countries that give no rights and no representation at all, and Disney isn't saying a word about the politics in China. So when they are seriously standing up for that population, they will open their mouth and their wallet in kind.

While China has a lot of problems with regards to freedom and expression, it's really not what you paint it out to be. They actually allow legal gender transitions, and same-sex relationships may not be legally recognized, but aren't specifically illegal. Nothing is terribly consistent as the rule of law is often what the government wishes things to be and changes its mind often, but I look at this new law and the vagueness concerns me as something that will be selectively prosecuted against unfavored group by those in power.

They're slowly coming around.

https://qz.com/935170/for-a-change-...h-gay-moment-in-disneys-beauty-and-the-beast/

Strangely enough, I think that Singapore may be tougher than China on LGBT.

 

[DeeBee3]

While China has a lot of problems with regards to freedom and expression, it's really not what you paint it out to be. They actually allow legal gender transitions, and same-sex relationships may not be legally recognized, but aren't specifically illegal. Nothing is terribly consistent as the rule of law is often what the government wishes things to be and changes its mind often, but I look at this new law and the vagueness concerns me as something that will be selectively prosecuted against unfavored group by those in power.

They're slowly coming around.

https://qz.com/935170/for-a-change-...h-gay-moment-in-disneys-beauty-and-the-beast/

Strangely enough, I think that Singapore may be tougher than China on LGBT.

I would respectfully state that some of your information is not accurate. Under President Xi, things have not gotten better. They do censor shows and movies. The movie your article references is a Disney movie...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/news...y-in-china-has-gotten-harder-under-xi-jinping

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/...hina-gay-homosexuality-textbooks-lawsuit.html

 

[TLSnell1981]

I don't consider public schools needing to spend tons of money to defend themselves over frivolous lawsuits with their already limited budget as a "win" for education in my book, but I digress

I believe this bill could have had good intentions. I believe parents should be more involved with their child's education. I do not believe this bill's purpose was legitimately aimed to accomplish that. And I'll leave it there since I know it's going off-topic.

 

[PinkPixel]

Florida easily has the upper hand in this, its not like they are going to up and move the theme parks. Florida will win no matter what.

Win what?

 

[Pyotr]

Yeah - it's basically "I know it when I see it" which probably means the loudest voices get to choose what is or isn't covered and who can sue over what might be discussed. Its vagueness isn't a flaw but a designed feature.

I mean - in my kid's schools (as far back as private preschools) there have been gay staff members, including those who have had pictures of their partners. I don't find that inappropriate. Kids are curious, and teaching about family structure has been something taught in K-3 at an age appropriate level. If there's one teacher who might have a photos of a spouse on a desk, kids are going to ask about it. I could see this getting to the point where a lesbian teacher is disciplined or even fired for having such a photo, because it's clear that it's not going to be used to punish anyone for describing a hetero relationship.

I could easily see this going to federal court with a challenge that it violates the requirements for equal protection as required by the Constitution. Because I'm sure that it wasn't meant to actually ban the discussion of sexual orientation in general with a neutral point of view, but to eliminate the discussion of same-sex relationships on some misguided idea that kids can't handle it.

My elementary school teachers wouldn’t even tell me their first name.

 

[starlite_]

My elementary school teachers wouldn’t even tell me their first name.

I think we can all agree that it has been a while since then.

 

[HopperFan]

It's a bit more than just the Reedy Creek Improvement District, other than it specifically covers Disney property only by design. But another really oddball thing is that WDW isn't simply in unincorporated Orange County, Florida, but that that they established two incorporated cities (Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista) that are completely within Disney property and where Disney pretty much controls the voting population by determining who gets to live there.

However, I don't really see the status quo changing.

Yes the RCID is a big "operation" that does do more than most CIDs. RCID is willing to invest more in the property and provide more services than most CIDs do.

It is not at all odd that Disney removed Celebration and Golden Oaks from the district. Those are residential properties and that means voters that really shouldn't have any input into a private companies decisions. Add that they learned hard when Celebration's basically failed and Disney then decided to back out of it's "support".

I agree with you that it won't change. Orange County will be the one ultimately hurt here with any changes. Right now they reap all the rewards of WDW without most the costs.

Disney's Reddy Creek Improvement District (RCID) has powers beyond the typical Community Development District (CDD).

A CDD typically is a special-purpose extension of a local government with a focus on financing, constructing, and operating a local community. A CDD is effectively a "super" homeowner's association.

A typical CDD is setup so that its board is controlled by the people who move into the community. You and I get to vote on board members when we move into the neighborhood.

The Village's CDD was setup so that it was permanently controlled by its original developers. As such, the IRS gave The Villages CDD a lot of grief about its tax-exempt status.

RCID is, in effect, completely controlled by The Walt Disney Company, with Disney getting to decide who lives in the community. These almost always are long-time Disney employees. (Note that the lands occupied by Celebration and Golden Oak were intentionally removed from RCID so that people living there could not influence RCID.)

Really, RCID should not be a tax-exempt entity as Disney completely controls it.

In addition, RCID is authorized to operate its own police (contracted through Orange County) and fire departments.

Suggesting RCID is just another CDD is misleading.

I think my post did acknowledge there is a difference between a CID and a CDD. And Disney's CID provides over and above what most CIDs do provide.

I only provided The Villages as an example because most people recognize the name, size and purported power this community has in the state. I am sure The Villages are way more powerful than most CDDs and their political structure as complex.

Disney controlling who lives there ... while seems strange to some people ... would be the only way to go when all of it is private property. Why should voters control how a company runs it's business? It would have been a huge mistake to ever let there be residential property ON WDW property that was not company owned.

I never suggested RCID is CDD in my post. But they do fall in the same basic category of government business. They are both considered "Independent Districts" by the government under the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, both under the same statute.

I did acknowledge Disney provides it's own Emergency Services - if RCID is removed then Orange County pays for all of it, that would be a loss to OC. Given that Reedy Creek FD claims they are grossly understaffed (numbers support that) if Orange County were to take over they likely would have to increase services, greater increase in cost to them.

What is misleading is those here and elsewhere on social media saying that Disney does not pay property taxes to Orange County and somehow is skipping out on their obligation. Disney pays millions every year to Orange County while getting virtually no services from them. Do they get any corporate tax breaks from the state? I don't know that but would have nothing to do with RCID taxation.

What is misleading is those here and elsewhere in social media saying that Disney can do whatever they please, build whatever they want and answer to no one. Disney spends years in getting approved from the water district for projects, spending millions to add untouched land in order to get approvals. Disney has volumes of information they have to provide to Orange County for permits to do anything. Disney has to get a permit from Orange County just to change a sign. Disney jumps through more hoops to construct than most projects in FL.