Independent Audit Blasts Disney For Pulling ‘Bait And Switch’ On Florida: ‘A Mousetrap’

[LuvOrlando]

Not sure how you get from next door to the moon. But everything Disney did was legal and sanctioned by the state of Florida and was operating well without harming anyone and benefited the taxpayers as Disney was basically footing the bill. What changed? I don’t think that the present government in Florida is capable of analyzing this or cares to do so from an economic perspective

I am no judge so it is for law enforcement to say but if it is true that they did not open bids for tasks paid for with tax money there is a problem.

As a citizen I want the practice of all Reedy Creek like enterprises to stop everywhere, regardless of how they sprung up and with whose nods of approval. This buys no sway from me.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

1) Wouldn't you agree that their employees are part of Disney's "interests"? And the employees were concerned about the bill?

What about the employees that supported the bill?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

How about make some sense

You first.

 

[sam_gordon]

Alinsky’s rule No 4 - "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

And I'll ask you since apparently @whiteness refuses to answer...

Do you think the dissolution of Reedy Creek was done because of Disney coming out against the Don't Say Gay bill? Or in other words, if Disney HADN'T said anything, RCID would still be in place today.

I eagerly await your response.

 

[john7994]

Alinsky’s rule No 4 - "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

Sure, that one sounds like it’s right out of the war room and keeping one’s powder dry …

And, it does work both ways. Essentially, Disney has the pockets to fight - I know that sticks in your craw - but Alinsky’s rule is another Bully’s argument but not rule of law. Sadly, yet another hypocritical position to be on the wrong side of. I almost feel the contortions stretching the laws of physics here.

 

[MillauFr]

Except Disney wasn’t standing up for itself. That would be understandable. Instead it meddled in a matter that had nothing to do with its interests.

They wanted to move the imagineers to Lake Nona from Burbank. That apparently was in Disney's interests otherwise the company would have never proposed it. However a large % of those employees refused to move as the state of Florida is not a welcoming place for them. Disney attempted to push back on some unnecessary government regulations.

 

[luv2cheer92]

I am no judge so it is for law enforcement to say but if it is true that they did not open bids for tasks paid for with tax money there is a problem.

As a citizen I want the practice of all Reedy Creek like enterprises to stop everywhere, regardless of how they sprung up and with whose nods of approval.

I suggest doing some research before making such broad generalizations. Based on your posts, you don't seem to have a very good understanding about what you are saying.

 

[sam_gordon]

What about the employees that supported the bill?

What about them? Are you part politician? You can't give an answer? Disney decided to side against the Don't Say Gay bill, for whatever reason. Maybe that means employees leave the company. Maybe that means consumers boycott the company. Maybe that means stock prices fall. That would have been "free market" at work.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I suggest doing some research before making such broad generalizations. Based on your posts, you don't seem to have a very good understanding about what you are saying.

I know I don't want little walled off areas that operate on their own in the US.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Do you think the dissolution of Reedy Creek was done because of Disney coming out against the Don't Say Gay bill? Or in other words, if Disney HADN'T said anything, RCID would still be in place today.

Why does it matter what I think about that? If I say yes, what changes?

 

[Christine]

What about the employees that supported the bill?

It would seem that more Disney employees were outraged by the bill than there were Disney employees who supported it. Just going off a statement made by Bob Chapek back in 2022 when Disney made the public statement. While I don't have the statistics, it would seem there was enough internal employee outrage about the bill. I would think that an employer, especially a large one, would then be concerned with that, especially after you had plans to move a large cohort of the California Disney employees to Florida (which I think they've since backed off on). *If* Disney has a large share of LGBTQ+ employees, they would want to ensure that these employees felt represented where they live. If they had a force of employees supporting the bill, I'm sure they would have taken that into consideration also.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Sure, that one sounds like it’s right out of the war room and keeping one’s powder dry …

And, it does work both ways. Essentially, Disney has the pockets to fight - I know that sticks in your craw - but Alinsky’s rule is another Bully’s argument but not rule of law. Sadly, yet another hypocritical position to be on the wrong side of. I almost feel the contortions stretching the laws of physics here.

Are you saying you’ve always been against cancel culture? And spoke out against it whenever it happened?

 

[Christine]

I know I don't want little walled off areas that operate on their own in the US.

I think you should read up on this more--you're jumping to a lot of conclusions. They aren't walled off and operating on their own. There are close to 2,000 of these districts within Florida and each has a different purpose for what they are doing. Most of the larger ones just become a special district so they can make improvements (roads, services, etc on their own timeline without having the government bog down the process).

 

[sam_gordon]

Why does it matter what I think about that? If I say yes, what changes?

You ARE part politician.

In the grand scheme of things, nothing changes. It doesn't make one iota of difference on what you believe. Just like it doesn't make a difference on what I believe or what anyone on this thread believes.

HOWEVER, I would like to know how you justify the government "going after" a business because of an OPINION of that business?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

What about them? Are you part politician? You can't give an answer? Disney decided to side against the Don't Say Gay bill, for whatever reason. Maybe that means employees leave the company. Maybe that means consumers boycott the company. Maybe that means stock prices fall. That would have been "free market" at work.

Maybe that means the State changes the Special District which oversees development, which it has the right to do.

 

[sam_gordon]

Maybe that means the State changes the Special District which oversees development, which it has the right to do.

So you're ok with the State taking action against someone (remember, businesses are 'people' now) based on their beliefs. There, that wasn't hard to admit, was it?

 

[LuvOrlando]

I think you should read up on this more--you're jumping to a lot of conclusions. They aren't walled off and operating on their own. There are close to 2,000 of these districts within Florida and each has a different purpose for what they are doing. Most of the larger ones just become a special district so they can make improvements (roads, services, etc on their own timeline without having the government bog down the process).

That's the thing of it though, to my mind Government regulates things and does not "bog down the process."

When it is permitted to function without interference it promotes the will of the people via voters, I am no fan of anything that interferes.

 

[bcla]

They wanted to move the imagineers to Lake Nona from Burbank. That apparently was in Disney's interests otherwise the company would have never proposed it. However a large % of those employees refused to move as the state of Florida is not a welcoming place for them. Disney attempted to push back on some unnecessary government regulations.

There were a combination of things (your suggestions among them), although a lot of it had to do with families settled in Southern California. Spouses have jobs and employees have mortgages that they don't want to walk away from. Especially jobs in the entertainment industry that won't just materialize in Florida.

If any of my employers asked to move my group/job to Florida, I would have said no. I've been laid off before and it would suck to be stuck in Florida where there are few jobs in my industry. Most of Imagineering was creative and could (and did) find related jobs in Southern California.

 

[MillauFr]

There were a combination of things (your suggestions among them), although a lot of it had to do with families settled in Southern
If any of my employers asked to move my group/job to Florida, I would have said no. I've been laid off before and it would suck to be stuck in Florida where there are few jobs in my industry. Most of Imagineering was creative and could (and did) find related jobs in Southern California.

Exactly. The LGTBQ employees would be crazy to move to Florida. The state of California doesn't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.

 

[Disneychick13]

Many of their employees are part of the targeted subject.

Maybe that’s true, but Disney clearly didn’t think this was the case originally. Keep in mind that Disney DID NOT lobby against the bill until after it was passed. Disney is a powerful lobby in the state of FL. And this was not a bill they chose to lobby against. Because I assume they didn’t think it was beneficial to them. So standing up for their employees? Please.

The argument of Disney staying in their own lane (to have not been outspoken on state legislation in the first place) - is often positioned as an after the fact argument to suggest all of this current back and forth could have been easily avoided. Essentially, it’s Disney’s own fault - if you hadn’t stood up for yourself, you wouldn’t have gotten hurt and you would still have your lunch money (the bully’s argument).

What makes this even more fun is when this is also coupled with the after the fact argument that RCID was a “problem” for years that just happened to finally get addressed in context of Disney’s outspokenness - essentially this is a variation on theme of framing the real bully as Disney, because the actual bully needed a justification for teacher in what they did.

Can’t wait to see the next arguments - because the mental and ethical contortions are becoming really inventive.

Even that being said, that Disney made a pathetic attempt to “save face” after they clearly showed they didn’t give 2 craps about the legislation, I wholeheartedly agree that Disney (or whatever other business) should be able to say whatever they want about whatever subject they want to. I mean obviously this whole she-bang wouldn‘t have happened if they 1) would’ve simply worked behind the scenes in the beginning (and, gasp, maybe would have made an actual impact on the legislation being passed) or 2) stopped short of calling for a war against the state of FL. BUT they still should have and can say whatever they want without the fear of punishment from the government.

I still happen to think that the repeal of RCID was a reaction to the whims of the political gods and not punitive but I’ll let the courts sort that out. I just can’t get past the fact the the calculations by both entities (the state of FL and Disney) were so woefully wrong by people on both sides that certainly should have known better.

As far as how RCID was run and did they do anything wrong. They probably ran it well. I mean I don’t want the government in charge of anything they don’t have to be so because they screw everything up. Did they do some stuff wrong. Yeah, I mean at least with the Disney employee discounts that were given to RCID employees that probably crossed the line. I think they didn’t tax all the benefits they could give correctly. I think some of the bidding processes were probably heavily skewed. Probably some fairly minimal things (as far as corporate wrongdoing goes) when all is said and done. I wish a reasonable process of evaluating the district would have occurred. But it didn’t. Can’t put that genie back in the bottle.

I don’t like companies professing their undying love for anything in the public square. (I mean of course they can but I don’t like it). As long as they are doing things behind the scenes and making donations and decisions in their business model that promote whatever they believe strongly in, that should be enough for those people (that like to decide what businesses they patronize based on issues they do/don’t support) to be able to do research and see for themselves not by words but by actions.