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

[sam_gordon]

I do think @Douglas Dubh has somewhat of a point. The person who did the audit is not affiliated with Disney, therefore "Independent". However, I do think that's stretching things a little, but still technically true.

 

[Sweettears]

I do think @Douglas Dubh has somewhat of a point. The person who did the audit is not affiliated with Disney, therefore "Independent". However, I do think that's stretching things a little, but still technically true.

In the corporate terms of independence it doesn’t have a chance.

 

[whiteness]

I do think @Douglas Dubh has somewhat of a point. The person who did the audit is not affiliated with Disney, therefore "Independent". However, I do think that's stretching things a little, but still technically true.

I look forward to seeing Disney's own audit refuting some or all of the findings.

If the people of Florida was fully confident that the Special District has been truly independent of Disney, nobody would care what Ron DeSantis or the legislature had to say about any of this.

The only reason anyone is willing to give any of the allegations contained in the report the time of day is because there is a widespread public perception in the state of Florida that Reedy Creek was not truly independent of Disney. That, for example:
1. The decision making was not always fully transparent and public.
2. Many of the decision makers and legal representatives had direct or indirect ties with Disney.
3. The District and Disney shared common accounting books and their money was at time mixed in the same accounts.
4. Some of the public bonds issued by Reedy Creek were effectively on behalf of Disney.
5. Disney controlled who could become a legal resident of the District, to maintain their control over the District's governance.

Etc. The more I've looked into this, the more I've realized that all of those things, and more, were pre-existing "whispers and rumors" that were perceived to be "true" by the general public. Ron Desantis didn't dream it all up and foist that upon the unsuspecting public: frankl, the man doesn't appear to be capable of creating such a complex conspiracy theory on his own. He was just repeating concerns that were already held by the public, and he apparently decided that the time was politically right for him to act on those concerns. So he did.

If all of the stuff in the report is false, I'm sure Disney will be able to prove it. They surely wouldn't be lacking for evidence, since they were one of the parties involved, and most of the folks are still associated with Disney.

We were just in EPCOT yesterday. We probably visit Disney World once a week. I do not want Disney leaving Florida or stopping investment here. But corporations, even beloved ones, still need to follow the law.

Besides, I think it would be a good thing to have stronger competition for my amusement park $$$ here in Orlando: hopefully, ensuring that the "playing field" is perceived to be level and fair will encourage competitors to invest more money, and that will benefit me as a consumer and local resident.

 

[sam_gordon]

I look forward to seeing Disney's own audit refuting some or all of the findings.

If the people of Florida was fully confident that the Special District has been truly independent of Disney, nobody would care what Ron DeSantis or the legislature had to say about any of this.

The only reason anyone is willing to give any of the allegations contained in the report the time of day is because there is a widespread public perception in the state of Florida that Reedy Creek was not truly independent of Disney. That, for example:
1. The decision making was not always fully transparent and public.
2. Many of the decision makers and legal representatives had direct or indirect ties with Disney.
3. The District and Disney shared common accounting books and their money was at time mixed in the same accounts.
4. Some of the public bonds issued by Reedy Creek were effectively on behalf of Disney.
5. Disney controlled who could become a legal resident of the District, to maintain their control over the District's governance.

But why did the special district NEED to be "truly independent of Disney"? I didn't think it was any secret Disney & RCID were tied together.

Etc. The more I've looked into this, the more I've realized that all of those things, and more, were pre-existing "whispers and rumors" that were perceived to be "true" by the general public. Ron Desantis didn't dream it all up and foist that upon the unsuspecting public: frankl, the man doesn't appear to be capable of creating such a complex conspiracy theory on his own. He was just repeating concerns that were already held by the public, and he apparently decided that the time was politically right for him to act on those concerns. So he did.

Honestly, I don't think the public CARED one bit whether RCID was controlled by Disney or not. So I'm not sure what "concerns that were already held by the public" you're referring to. So you think it had absolutely nothing to do with Disney commenting about the "Don't Say Gay" bill?

If all of the stuff in the report is false, I'm sure Disney will be able to prove it. They surely wouldn't be lacking for evidence, since they were one of the parties involved, and most of the folks are still associated with Disney.

We were just in EPCOT yesterday. We probably visit Disney World once a week. I do not want Disney leaving Florida or stopping investment here. But corporations, even beloved ones, still need to follow the law.

Besides, I think it would be a good thing to have stronger competition for my amusement park $$$ here in Orlando: hopefully, ensuring that the "playing field" is perceived to be level and fair will encourage competitors to invest more money, and that will benefit me as a consumer and local resident.

You want competition for your amusement park $$$...
* Universal
* Sea World
* Lego Land
* Bush Gardens
* Gator Land (I assume it's still around)
* City Walk

How much more do you want?

 

[Sweettears]

But why did the special district NEED to be "truly independent of Disney"? I didn't think it was any secret Disney & RCID were tied together.

Honestly, I don't think the public CARED one bit whether RCID was controlled by Disney or not. So I'm not sure what "concerns that were already held by the public" you're referring to. So you think it had absolutely nothing to do with Disney commenting about the "Don't Say Gay" bill?

You want competition for your amusement park $$$...
* Universal
* Sea World
* Lego Land
* Bush Gardens
* Gator Land (I assume it's still around)
* City Walk

How much more do you want?

Nailed it Sam

 

[LuvOrlando]

I don't care what slant things are written in, I care what is true.

A bunch of people getting together and creating a little government under the cover of a business so they were untouchable is appalling.

I find myself wondering what sorts of health injuries, crimes and damages may have happened throughout the decades that were likely covered up by having their own world & frankly would like all legal proceeding emanating out of what seems like an illegal arrangement and such blown wide open. I mean what sort of sexual harassment went on? How did the police department work? How did the courts work? The more I think about it the scarier it gets, that is a lot of concentrated power without representation because there were so few voters and my God the money at their disposal is more than some countries so the scope is massive.

 

[whiteness]

But why did the special district NEED to be "truly independent of Disney"? I didn't think it was any secret Disney & RCID were tied together.

Honestly, I don't think the public CARED one bit whether RCID was controlled by Disney or not. So I'm not sure what "concerns that were already held by the public" you're referring to. So you think it had absolutely nothing to do with Disney commenting about the "Don't Say Gay" bill?

You want competition for your amusement park $$$...
* Universal
* Sea World
* Lego Land
* Bush Gardens
* Gator Land (I assume it's still around)
* City Walk

How much more do you want?

If the district didn't need to be independent then Disney will be able to prove that legally and in the court of public opinion.

I think some of the public did care and does care about these issues. If nobody cared, then DeSantis would have been ignored and rightly so. He's a politician and he is expected to act on behalf of the people he represents. If he's not doing that, we have every right to question and oppose his actions.

And, yes, that includes corporations like Disney: Disney has a right to question and oppose any political policy that affects them. Or even if it doesn't affect them. But, the problem with Disney taking political positions is that it also conflicts with their other responsibilities towards their shareholders. Disney's shareholders would prefer that Disney appeal to as large an audience as possible, and alienate as few potential customers as possible: by remaining neutral on issues that a sizable number of their potential customers feel very passionately, and focusing on providing them the best entertainment value possible, it is more likely that Disney will maximize their income potential. Which is in the best interests of their shareholders. That's what I've always argued, and nothing that I've read posted here has convinced me otherwise.

Unfortunately for many companies, like Disney, is that the current climate makes it very hard for them to balance the best interests of their shareholders with the demands of activist consumers that attempt to push their agenda on those corporations, and openly declare "what side they are on" in very divisive public debates. As profit making corporation, purely interested in maximizing current and future profits, it really isn't in the best interest of most corporations that do business with a diverse public to publically take political positions that those potential customers may not fully agree with. Again, this has always been my position, and nothing I've read here or elsewhere changes that. I understand why people with strongly held political or social belief might want profit making companies that they do business with to openly support their cause, and those people seem determined to force companies to do so, but that doesn't make it in the best interest of the company. And companies have a duty to their shareholders to resist those demands and push back, when it will negatively impact their shareholders' best interests.

Yes, you named many wonderful companies that are currently investing in the area. And I want the government make them all to feel equally welcome and supported. Any special deals or hindrances should be applied equally to every current and potential competitor. Even the perception of special treatment may discourage some of them from investing as much as they might otherwise be inclined. It is very hard to know how much Reedy Creek would potentially have affected local investment by companies other than Disney, so dissolving Reedy Creek may not have the desired effect of increasing investment by Disney's competitors. My intuition is that it will. You may not agree. That's your right. But I think it is unfair to claim that the decision was made purely to punish Disney without any possible benefit: I think a reasonable case has been made that there is a potential benefit to the competitive field, and I am very hopeful that it will result in improved consumer choice and better entertainment value.

 

[Christine]

I don't care what slant things are written in, I care what is true.

A bunch of people getting together and creating a little government under the cover of a business so they were untouchable is appalling.

I find myself wondering what sorts of health injuries, crimes and damages may have happened throughout the decades that were likely covered up by having their own world & frankly would like all legal proceeding emanating out of what seems like an illegal arrangement and such blown wide open. I mean what sort of sexual harassment went on? How did the police department work? How did the courts work? The more I think about it the scarier it gets, that is a lot of concentrated power without representation because there were so few voters.

Except the Disney "government" isn't the only area in Florida that operates this way. There are a lot of the special districts that run themselves and are able to self-govern to some degree rather than having to rely on state funding or approvals for their improvements. The Villages is probably the next most notable self-governed district. Again, not fully self-governed but they can skip the county and state approvals for road improvements, buildings, etc. Without having the data, I would assume Disney is the most profitable district with the most improvements/changes etc but don't underestimate the Villages!

 

[john7994]

I look forward to seeing Disney's own audit refuting some or all of the findings.

If the people of Florida was fully confident that the Special District has been truly independent of Disney, nobody would care what Ron DeSantis or the legislature had to say about any of this.

The only reason anyone is willing to give any of the allegations contained in the report the time of day is because there is a widespread public perception in the state of Florida that Reedy Creek was not truly independent of Disney. That, for example:
1. The decision making was not always fully transparent and public.
2. Many of the decision makers and legal representatives had direct or indirect ties with Disney.
3. The District and Disney shared common accounting books and their money was at time mixed in the same accounts.
4. Some of the public bonds issued by Reedy Creek were effectively on behalf of Disney.
5. Disney controlled who could become a legal resident of the District, to maintain their control over the District's governance.

Etc. The more I've looked into this, the more I've realized that all of those things, and more, were pre-existing "whispers and rumors" that were perceived to be "true" by the general public. Ron Desantis didn't dream it all up and foist that upon the unsuspecting public: frankl, the man doesn't appear to be capable of creating such a complex conspiracy theory on his own. He was just repeating concerns that were already held by the public, and he apparently decided that the time was politically right for him to act on those concerns. So he did.

If all of the stuff in the report is false, I'm sure Disney will be able to prove it. They surely wouldn't be lacking for evidence, since they were one of the parties involved, and most of the folks are still associated with Disney.

We were just in EPCOT yesterday. We probably visit Disney World once a week. I do not want Disney leaving Florida or stopping investment here. But corporations, even beloved ones, still need to follow the law.

Besides, I think it would be a good thing to have stronger competition for my amusement park $$$ here in Orlando: hopefully, ensuring that the "playing field" is perceived to be level and fair will encourage competitors to invest more money, and that will benefit me as a consumer and local resident.

Yes, you have captured the after the fact talking points (and defense focus being circulated online) from the DeSantis shuffle and oopsies to clean it up and make it all feel legit due to the very poorly mishandled and widely documented retaliatory behavior. This is not new news. The courts will figure it out - at a continued cost to taxpayers / consumers

No need to worry though - despite all this - Disney will not be able to roll it all back and the dreams for “woke” payback will likely still have some teeth in the final outcome. This has been known from the beginning by both sides of the equation.

But keep up the “outrage” - it makes for a good diversion.

 

[Sweettears]

If the district didn't need to be independent then Disney will be able to prove that legally and in the court of public opinion.

I think some of the public did care and does care about these issues. If nobody cared, then DeSantis would have been ignored and rightly so. He's a politician and he is expected to act on behalf of the people he represents. If he's not doing that, we have every right to question and oppose his actions.

And, yes, that includes corporations like Disney: Disney has a right to question and oppose any political policy that affects them. Or even if it doesn't affect them. But, the problem with Disney taking political positions is that it also conflicts with their other responsibilities towards their shareholders. Disney's shareholders would prefer that Disney appeal to as large an audience as possible, and alienate as few potential customers as possible: by remaining neutral on issues that a sizable number of their potential customers feel very passionately, and focusing on providing them the best entertainment value possible, it is more likely that Disney will maximize their income potential. Which is in the best interests of their shareholders. That's what I've always argued, and nothing that I've read posted here has convinced me otherwise.

Unfortunately for many companies, like Disney, is that the current climate makes it very hard for them to balance the best interests of their shareholders with the demands of activist consumers that attempt to push their agenda on those corporations, and openly declare "what side they are on" in very divisive public debates. As profit making corporation, purely interested in maximizing current and future profits, it really isn't in the best interest of most corporations that do business with a diverse public to publically take political positions that those potential customers may not fully agree with. Again, this has always been my position, and nothing I've read here or elsewhere changes that. I understand why people with strongly held political or social belief might want profit making companies that they do business with to openly support their cause, and those people seem determined to force companies to do so, but that doesn't make it in the best interest of the company. And companies have a duty to their shareholders to resist those demands and push back, when it will negatively impact their shareholders' best interests.

Yes, you named many wonderful companies that are currently investing in the area. And I want the government make them all to feel equally welcome and supported. Any special deals or hindrances should be applied equally to every current and potential competitor. Even the perception of special treatment may discourage some of them from investing as much as they might otherwise be inclined. It is very hard to know how much Reedy Creek would potentially have affected local investment by companies other than Disney, so dissolving Reedy Creek may not have the desired effect of increasing investment by Disney's competitors. My intuition is that it will. You may not agree. That's your right. But I think it is unfair to claim that the decision was made purely to punish Disney without any possible benefit: I think a reasonable case has been made that there is a potential benefit to the competitive field, and I am very hopeful that it will result in improved consumer choice and better entertainment value.

You miss the whole point. Disney would not exist as it does today without the RCID. It was necessary in order to develop a functioning tourist attraction in the middle of useless swamp acreage. Gain some historic and relevant perspective.

 

[Sweettears]

Yes, you have captured the after the fact talking points (and defense focus being circulated online) from the DeSantis shuffle and oopsies to clean it up and make it all feel legit due to the very poorly mishandled and widely documented retaliatory behavior. This is not new news. The courts will figure it out - at a continued cost to taxpayers / consumers

No need to worry though - despite all this - Disney will not be able to roll it all back and the dreams for “woke” payback will likely still have some teeth in the final outcome. This has been known from the beginning by both sides of the equation.

But keep up the “outrage” - it makes for a good diversion.

Nice

 

[sam_gordon]

If the district didn't need to be independent then Disney will be able to prove that legally and in the court of public opinion.

I think some of the public did care and does care about these issues. If nobody cared, then DeSantis would have been ignored and rightly so. He's a politician and he is expected to act on behalf of the people he represents. If he's not doing that, we have every right to question and oppose his actions.

And, yes, that includes corporations like Disney: Disney has a right to question and oppose any political policy that affects them. Or even if it doesn't affect them. But, the problem with Disney taking political positions is that it also conflicts with their other responsibilities towards their shareholders. Disney's shareholders would prefer that Disney appeal to as large an audience as possible, and alienate as few potential customers as possible: by remaining neutral on issues that a sizable number of their potential customers feel very passionately, and focusing on providing them the best entertainment value possible, it is more likely that Disney will maximize their income potential. Which is in the best interests of their shareholders. That's what I've always argued, and nothing that I've read posted here has convinced me otherwise.

Unfortunately for many companies, like Disney, is that the current climate makes it very hard for them to balance the best interests of their shareholders with the demands of activist consumers that attempt to push their agenda on those corporations, and openly declare "what side they are on" in very divisive public debates. As profit making corporation, purely interested in maximizing current and future profits, it really isn't in the best interest of most corporations that do business with a diverse public to publically take political positions that those potential customers may not fully agree with. Again, this has always been my position, and nothing I've read here or elsewhere changes that. I understand why people with strongly held political or social belief might want profit making companies that they do business with to openly support their cause, and those people seem determined to force companies to do so, but that doesn't make it in the best interest of the company. And companies have a duty to their shareholders to resist those demands and push back, when it will negatively impact their shareholders' best interests.

Yes, you named many wonderful companies that are currently investing in the area. And I want the government make them all to feel equally welcome and supported. Any special deals or hindrances should be applied equally to every current and potential competitor. Even the perception of special treatment may discourage some of them from investing as much as they might otherwise be inclined. It is very hard to know how much Reedy Creek would potentially have affected local investment by companies other than Disney, so dissolving Reedy Creek may not have the desired effect of increasing investment by Disney's competitors. My intuition is that it will. You may not agree. That's your right. But I think it is unfair to claim that the decision was made purely to punish Disney without any possible benefit: I think a reasonable case has been made that there is a potential benefit to the competitive field, and I am very hopeful that it will result in improved consumer choice and better entertainment value.

You keep bringing up "Disney should stay out of politics for shareholders." But that's not in question here. I've asked you four to five times and you have yet to give an answer... Do you think DeSantis took action against Disney because of their response to the "Don't Say Gay" bill?

I'm not buying the it was a "politically good time" argument. He didn't need public support to pass the bill. He needed legislative support. And don't for a second try to argue that legislative support and public support are the same thing. If he or the legislature had included "disband RCID" as part of their campaign AND people had voted for it, then I would accept that.

As far as WHY Disney elected to speak out against the bill, as I understand it, they were silent for quite a while. But they got pressure, I believe from the employees, to make a statement.

Regarding the bolded... so I'm guessing you feel all the special districts in Florida should be turned over to the government, right?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

There are a lot of the special districts that run themselves and are able to self-govern to some degree rather than having to rely on state funding or approvals for their improvements. The Villages is probably the next most notable self-governed district.

But anyone can buy a house in the Villages and run for the improvement district board. That wasn’t true of Reedy Creek.

 

[Sweettears]

You keep bringing up "Disney should stay out of politics for shareholders." But that's not in question here. I've asked you four to five times and you have yet to give an answer... Do you think DeSantis took action against Disney because of their response to the "Don't Say Gay" bill?

I'm not buying the it was a "politically good time" argument. He didn't need public support to pass the bill. He needed legislative support. And don't for a second try to argue that legislative support and public support are the same thing. If he or the legislature had included "disband RCID" as part of their campaign AND people had voted for it, then I would accept that.

As far as WHY Disney elected to speak out against the bill, as I understand it, they were silent for quite a while. But they got pressure, I believe from the employees, to make a statement.

Regarding the bolded... so I'm guessing you feel all the special districts in Florida should be turned over to the government, right?

Yep. Sums it it up nicely.

 

[Sweettears]

But anyone can buy a house in the Villages and run for the improvement district board. That wasn’t true of Reedy Creek.

It’s not an elected position. What does this have do with anything?

 

[john7994]

But anyone can buy a house in the Villages and run for the improvement district board. That wasn’t true of Reedy Creek.

There’s more to it than that, I observe things …

 

[Suger Mag]

Yes, you have captured the after the fact talking points (and defense focus being circulated online) from the DeSantis shuffle and oopsies to clean it up and make it all feel legit due to the very poorly mishandled and widely documented retaliatory behavior. This is not new news. The courts will figure it out - at a continued cost to taxpayers / consumers

No need to worry though - despite all this - Disney will not be able to roll it all back and the dreams for “woke” payback will likely still have some teeth in the final outcome. This has been known from the beginning by both sides of the equation.

But keep up the “outrage” - it makes for a good diversion.

-and DeSantis will still not get the Republican presidential nomination that all this performative political theater was aimed at.... It will be interesting to see how this plays out for the rest of his political career when all is said and done and the dust settles... rhetoric that sounds great in a book or a stump speech often does not work the same in a court of law..... or if there is a real Republican challenger for Gov (and not a former Democrat recently turned Republican).

Politicians come and go. My money is on Disney for the long game... well figuratively lol... don't play with stocks, so if DVC counts then I have skin in the game

 

[Sykes]

I find myself wondering what sorts of health injuries, crimes and damages may have happened throughout the decades that were likely covered up by having their own world & frankly would like all legal proceeding emanating out of what seems like an illegal arrangement and such blown wide open. I mean what sort of sexual harassment went on? How did the police department work? How did the courts work? The more I think about it the scarier it gets, that is a lot of concentrated power without representation because there were so few voters and my God the money at their disposal is more than some countries so the scope is massive.

What a bizarre statement that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how RCID actually operated. To start with, all of the policing for the district is provided by the Orange and Osceola County Sheriff's departments, along with Florida Highway Patrol. (RCID did have the power to establish its own police department but chose not to.) The county courts had jurisdiction over the district so that was also out of Disney's hands. While generally speaking the not-really-an-audit report is terribly biased, I recommend at least reading the "Powers and Authorities" section starting on Page 23 of the PDF (page number 15 of the report) to understand how limited and boring the scope of RCID really was.

RCID existed almost entirely so that Disney had some control over its own infrastructure needs (which the existing local governments weren't equipped to support when it was formed anyway), so they could use municipal bonds to fund that infrastructure on favorable financial terms, and to streamline zoning, permitting, and code enforcement. (IMO, letting Disney ostensibly enact and enforce its own set of building codes is the only potentially "scary" part of it, although by all accounts Disney's standards were as high or higher than those used by surrounding communities.)

 

[john7994]

You keep bringing up "Disney should stay out of politics for shareholders." But that's not in question here. I've asked you four to five times and you have yet to give an answer... Do you think DeSantis took action against Disney because of their response to the "Don't Say Gay" bill?

I'm not buying the it was a "politically good time" argument. He didn't need public support to pass the bill. He needed legislative support. And don't for a second try to argue that legislative support and public support are the same thing. If he or the legislature had included "disband RCID" as part of their campaign AND people had voted for it, then I would accept that.

As far as WHY Disney elected to speak out against the bill, as I understand it, they were silent for quite a while. But they got pressure, I believe from the employees, to make a statement.

Regarding the bolded... so I'm guessing you feel all the special districts in Florida should be turned over to the government, right?

Yes, Disney should just give up their lunch money and they won’t get hurt … isn’t that what the “staying in their own lane” position is really about?

 

[Sweettears]

-and DeSantis will still not get the Republican presidential nomination that all this performative political theater was aimed at.... It will be interesting to see how this plays out for the rest of his political career when all is said and done and the dust settles... rhetoric that sounds great in a book or a stump speech often does not work the same in a court of law..... or if there is a real Republican challenger for Gov (and not a former Democrat recently turned Republican).

Politicians come and go. My money is on Disney for the long game... well figuratively lol... don't play with stocks, so if DVC counts then I have skin in the game

Not to mention the desperation here in that Florida has term limits