Florida v. Disney: DeSantis Seeks Reedy Creek Criminal Investigation & Bob Iger Fires Back
So much for the battle between Disney and Florida being in the rearview mirror! The feud between Governor DeSantis and CEO Bob Iger escalated further today, as the former initiated a criminal investigation and the latter fired back during the company’s 2023 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
For his part, Governor DeSantis sent a letter formally requesting that Florida’s Chief Inspector General investigate the former Reedy Creek Improvement District board for its adherence to state civil and criminal laws and ethics requirements and the involvement in Walt Disney World employees and agents in the execution of these actions, among other things.
“These collusive and self-dealing arrangements aim to nullify the recently passed legislation, undercut Florida’s legislative process, and defy the will of Floridians. In addition, based on initial observations of counsel, the RCID board’s actions appear to suffer from serious legal infirmities, including, among other things, inadequate notice, lack of consideration, improper delegation of authority, and ethical violations, such as conflicts of interest and self-dealing,” read the DeSantis letter, in pertinent part.
At issue is a 30-year development agreement made between the Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Walt Disney Company prior to the new Board of Supervisors taking over. Those agreements consist of restrictive covenants, license agreement, and developer’s agreement that were discussed at a public hearing by RCID on February 8. The relevant documents were then published publicly (and can be found online here).
Among other things, the agreements approved by the prior Board of Supervisors contains language that allows the agreement to remain in effect in perpetuity (or “until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England”) without regard for future action by the new board. The agreements also prevent the new board from using the Disney name or any of its “fanciful” characters.
The new board asserts that these agreements render them powerless to offer any oversight over Walt Disney World’s tourist district in Central Florida, beyond maintaining the roads and basic infrastructure. They contend that clandestine covenants were made, tying the hands of future board members for decades, and the agreements were unusual, unlawful, and suspect.
For its part, Disney contends that “all agreements signed between Disney and the district were appropriate and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law.”
In terms of commentary, I don’t have much to say beyond what’s covered in last week’s New Reedy Creek Board Lawyers Up for Battle with Walt Disney World. I’ll start by reiterating (yet again) to not take anything at face value here, because this is more about political theater than it is anything substantive. What the actors involved say is not necessarily what they believe.
I’d also caution against drawing any premature conclusions. In part, this goes back to the ‘team sports’ nature of our system, and people wanting to believe their ‘side’ is in the right and will prevail in the end. It also goes back to all of the twists and turns in the Reedy Creek saga to date, and how no one got this completely right from the beginning. The only thing that’s predictable here is unpredictability.
Finally, I’ll add that almost nobody has subject matter expertise. This standoff is incredibly multifaceted, involving the intersection of law and politics; not just that, but several different areas of law, some of which is arcane and with little precedent. This was already like a law school finals fact pattern; throwing in the Rule Against Perpetuities was just the icing on the cake. If that doesn’t make sense, think of it this way: a podiatrist has more medical knowledge than you and might sound smart when discussing neuroscience, but would you really trust them to conduct surgery on your brain?
Same idea here. No one has an actual legal practice encompassing all these areas of law. The Reedy Creek saga involves myriad complex little-understood legal issues…plus politics. Although certain aspects are ascertainable (and relevant to the legal challenge and its likelihood of success), the eventual outcome as a whole is not. No one should pretend to know how it’ll play out from here.
Unsurprisingly, the question and answers portion of the Walt Disney Company’s 2023 Annual Meeting of Shareholders focused on some of the same underlying issues, either directly or indirectly. (The remainder of questions were either about streaming or something very niche and personal to the questioner.)
Equal unsurprising was Iger’s deft responses to these inquiries, even the most heated ones. His responses ranged from pointed to deferential, with Iger standing his ground in some cases and acknowledging the company’s shortcomings in others. His masterful handling of this underscored precisely why he was brought back. This meeting was a sharp contrast to the fumbling responses and evasive non-answers given by Chapek last year that only served to alienate and annoy everyone.
A couple of the questions specifically asked Iger about the Walt Disney Company’s standoff with the state of Florida.
In response to the first, Iger offered the following: “We love the state of Florida. And I think that’s reflected in not only how much we’ve invested over the last 50 years, but how much we’ve given back in the form of jobs, taxes, and community service…We’ve also always respected and appreciated what the state has done for us. It’s kind of been a two-way street.”
Iger continued: “A year ago, the company took a position on pending Florida legislation, and while the company may have not handled the position that it took very well, a company has a right to freedom of speech just like individuals do. In taking that position, the governor got very angry and he’s decided to retaliate against us, including the naming of a new board to oversee [Walt Disney World], in effect seeking to punish a company for its exercise of a constitutional right.”
“That just seems really wrong to me, not just against any company or individual but particularly against the company that means so much to the state where you live,” he said.
Iger added that Walt Disney World has over 75,000 Cast Members, and the resort complex has created countless thousands of indirect jobs throughout Central Florida, as Disney has transformed the region into a tourism powerhouse. He indicated that approximately 50 million people will visit Walt Disney World in 2023, and that Disney is the largest taxpayer in Florida.
He then concluded by stating that the company is “currently planning now to invest over $17 billion in Walt Disney World over the next 10 years. Those investments we estimate will create 13,000 new jobs at Disney and thousands of other indirect jobs and they’ll also attract more people to the state and generate more taxes. So our point on this is that any action that thwarts those efforts, simply to retaliate for a position the company took, sounds not just anti-business but it sounds anti-Florida, and I’ll just leave it at that.”
There were a couple of times when Iger cut short his answers to ‘leave it at just that’ (more or less), including when asked about the Marvel theme park rights at Walt Disney World (no news to report there, except that Iger wishes they could do more with Marvel in Florida). However, this was not one such instance, as Iger was subsequently asked why the company is weighing in on politics in the first place.
Iger indicated that his job as CEO is striving to do what he thinks is best for business, and that includes enabling Cast Members and employees to flourish. To that point, he said that Disney cannot and should not weigh in on every issue, but that there will be times an issue is “worthy of debate” because of its importance to the business or its employees. He said there are many times he believes the company shouldn’t weigh in on issues, but also feels strongly that it’s the company alone that can make that decision.
He added that corporate America has expressed opinions on countless issues over the decades, including the Civil Rights era and during World War II. He said that some companies that stood silent during times of injustice “still carry the state of indifference.”
Iger added that as long as he’s CEO, he will “be guided by a sense of decency and respect, and trust our instincts that when we do weigh in, we weigh in because the issue is truly relevant to our business and important to the people that work for us.”
Commentary-wise, Iger’s framing of this struck me as savvy. Although this battle will be fought in courts of law, it will also (and more importantly) be waged in the court of public opinion. As we all know, Chapek didn’t do such a hot job of that. It’s also fair to say that some minds are already made up, and nothing anyone says will sway them one way or the other.
That’s not everyone, though. Spinning the state’s approach as being anti-free speech, anti-business and anti-Florida is a sound strategy to sway undecideds. No matter where you stand in this debate, it’s also undeniable that Iger is a more formidable adversary than Chapek. Between that and other presidential candidates sensing there’s blood in the water on this issue, I wonder if there’s a point at which DeSantis sees this battle as politically untenable, washes his hands of it, and moves on to easier targets.
Another through line of a couple questions, and something we’ve seen readers mention here from time to time is that Disney as a company is performing poorly financially and individual movies have bombed because of they are agenda-driven rather than entertainment-driven. In response to this, Iger actually agreed with the underlying premise (when stripped of the heated rhetoric) that the company should focus first on entertainment, while also reflecting the diverse world in which we live.
It probably wasn’t worth correcting the record, but Iger could have questioned the caller’s premises. When you start with your conclusion and work backwards from that, it’s easy to find “evidence” to support your own narrative. That the stock price has fallen because the company made X or Y decision you don’t like, Disney+ is hemorrhaging billions of dollars or losing subscribers because it’s alienating audiences, or that movies bombed because of certain fleeting moments.
People like simple explanations that vindicate our preconceived notions. Personally, I attribute all of the company’s woes in the last two years to discontinuing the Cinderella Castle Dream Lights at Christmas. There’s also the fact that Tokyo Disneyland cancelled Country Bear Christmas, which (indirectly) cast a curse over all of the Walt Disney Company. Fortunately for me, you can’t prove that I’m wrong–the timing lines up, making my assertions unassailable!
Of course, there are other plausible explanations for all of that. Maybe Disney’s stock price plummeted because Wall Street reevaluated streaming services and tech companies, and Disney’s fall is more or less consistent with that sector. Perhaps losing money was always the stated plan with Disney+ as it was in user acquisition mode, and those loses only accelerated because Chapek upped content creation during the peak of the pandemic when it actually seemed like a good idea. (I’m no Chapek fan, but hindsight is 20/20 on that one.)
Maybe the subscriber losses have everything to do with Disney ceding the expensive rights to Indian Premier League, resulting in an exodus of subscribers from India, where the cricket is insanely popular (but where ARPU is 61 cents–a fraction of its normal number) even as North America continued strong growth and outperformed on user metrics.
It’s also possible that certain movies bombed because they just didn’t appeal to audiences, and it had nothing to do with supposed agendas. There were a few recent Disney movies we didn’t see because they seemed pointless or downright bad. (This is something we specifically discussed in Is Disney Ruining Its Reputation? last year.)
This type of thinking is a slippery slope–and also one that cuts both ways. If you assume certain movies did poorly for reasons other than quality, you also have to assume the opposite is also true: that successful movies performed well not because people found them entertaining, but because audiences “appreciated” their agendas.
If you’re chronically online or plugged in, it’s easy to erroneously conclude that everyone is fixated on this stuff. In reality, most people just want to have fun and be entertained. Of course, what type of content resonates differs for different people. But the bottom line is that, if a movie doesn’t look good in trailers or the marketing misses the mark for them, they won’t spend their money and take their time to see it. For most people, potential entertainment value is the see versus skip deciding factor. It’s not that deep.
Planning a Walt Disney World trip? Learn about hotels on our Walt Disney World Hotels Reviews page. For where to eat, read our Walt Disney World Restaurant Reviews. To save money on tickets or determine which type to buy, read our Tips for Saving Money on Walt Disney World Tickets post. Our What to Pack for Disney Trips post takes a unique look at clever items to take. For what to do and when to do it, our Walt Disney World Ride Guides will help. For comprehensive advice, the best place to start is our Walt Disney World Trip Planning Guide for everything you need to know!
YOUR THOUGHTS
What is your reaction to the latest developments in the battle of Florida v. Disney? Think Bob Iger hit the right notes during the Annual Shareholders meeting, or do you agree with the governor’s approach? Or, is this one of this no-win situations where everyone loses the longer it’s drawn out? Keep the comments civil, and avoid personal attacks or perpetuating pointless culture wars. Respectfully debating the change is totally fine, but don’t attack others or troll for controversy. That’s why Facebook was invented.
I have been a Disney stockholder since I was 20 years old and now celebrating my 60th. I don’t ever recall Disney being a political animal back in the 1960s ,70s,80s, in fact that was the secret of the Disney brand is that it stayed out of politics although there were so many hot bed topics back then with segregation, abortion rights, the Vietnam War, Arab- Israeli wars.
politics is bad for business and the next CEO needs to make sure Igers legacy is expunged.
I don’t believe anyone is against free speech. Everyone is free to express their opinion, including a corporation. The reason Disney has set off a firestorm is not because they exercised their right to free speech, but because they strongly voiced opposition to an uncontroversial bill which protected young children from sexually explicit conversations & put the sensitive and private discourse back in the hands of the parents where it belongs. You would think Disney, a traditionally family-focused entertainment empire, would voice their support of a no-nonsense bill which protects children & parents’ rights, instead of doing the opposite & supporting the sexualization of children. I’m sure the reason for Disney’s recent downward turn is multi-faceted and can’t be attributed to just 1 reason, but it would be naive to dismiss the reaction of 1000s of American parents that thought Disney would be FOR families & children, not for their own agendas.
I don’t want to get into a political debate in the comments of Disney blog, but I do feel like someone needs to say that it was not an “uncontroversial bill.” Many people believed/believe the whole thing is homophobic, mean-spirited, and a general attack on the LGBTQ+ community. You are welcome to have a different opinion, but there are a lot of people who don’t agree with it.
You’re right, but the Minor Bob was afraid of a few hundred very vocal members of a special interest group, while ignoring hundreds of thousands of customers. Far too many people these days aren’t happy with equal treatment and demand special treatment.
I am confident the Real Bob can turn things around. I hate that so many people see it as simply satisfying stockholders driving every corporate decision when as you mentioned Disney is (or should be) first and foremost an entertainment company.
@Leslie a lot of people have different opinions and unfortunately it seems a majority are uninformed opinions made from a few headlines or comments and zero actual knowledge. Anyone viewing it as an attack needs to actually try reading and understanding the bill and maybe then they’ll realize they were wrong. No one group is deserving of or should receive special treatment simply because they feel one way or another. We’re all in this together, and the ones screaming the loudest about tolerance seem to be the least tolerant of all. I had to laugh at the comment by someone about ‘corrupt legislature’ earlier today.
Glad I made someone laugh today as it certainly wasn’t my daughters.
I myself don’t know if I should laugh or cry when someone – in the very same sentence wrote: “The reason Disney has set off a firestorm is not because they exercised their right to free speech, but because they strongly voiced opposition to an uncontroversial bill”. Voicing opposition to a bill is exactly what free speech is (and of course its disingenuous to say the bill was uncontroversial, and also irrelevant even it was uncontroversial.) If the government can punish Disney for exercising free speech, imagine what it can do to you.
Why does any adult feel the need to talk to young kids about their sex lives? That Disney stood on the side of those who insist on talking about sexuality with young children is disturbing to millions of decent American parents who love & want to protect their innocent children. That’s why this is controversial. An elementary classroom is no place to talk about adults’ sexual practices, heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise. Disney (in my opinion) should stick to what they do best: providing entertainment to others.
The one thing I just cannot wrap my head around in this whole debate is, why a GOP governor from a PRO republican state would be so anti-business especially over constitutionally protected speech. It seems like its the one thing all republicans can agree on in this time of the freedom arm, the Trump arm, the moderate arm and even the far right Establishment arm. Free enterprise and protecting constitutional rights as written. Why do the Villages keep their protections, because they donate. For the life of me I don’t know why Disney didn’t fight harder before, it may because they had brilliant lawyers come up with the plan B, and that they are willing to fight for it. Seems like Disney was handing Desantis a surefire win by allowing him to seat a new board, while they kept everything they felt was important. The key with it all, nobody knew anything about this agreement, it was in the public but it wasn’t reported. It’s only now that Desantis is making a big deal about it. Now Disney took Desantis best hit, they did a work around it could have been a win win. I just don’t see how Desantis will not end up in a PR nightmare going into primary season. If he doesn’t have a prepared agenda going into debates any candidate will surely hammer him on his decisions around Disney. Who will he go after in the business world next, Tesla, Amazon, Apple, as presidential candidate all major corporations have a solid following, it can really bite him is the *** when it comes to the polls and ballotbox outside of Florida.
Those are very good points and I have wondered the same thing. Doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Disney has donated to all sorts of candidates in the past, and may or may not in the future. As a conservative libertarian I think businesses should be left to their own success or demise in such matters. However, we should end all political donations from corporations, unions, religious and non or not-for-profit organizations, as well as any from outside the area of voting for any office.
Disney is a massive global conglomerate, and while we all favor the parks division, of course, I do not see them having any but the very best lawyers. In this new era of prosecutorial misconduct and false information, who knows what will happen but I am betting on Disney pretty much carrying on, business as usual when the dust settles fully.
Desantis may still have ways – through activists judges and a short term thinking legislature – to keep punishing Disney for exercising free speech – and in most people’s view, violating the Constitution. But what makes no sense – and why the unserious actors charge by Tom – is totally valid – is that what corporation is ever going to want to invest in Florida anymore with how the current politicians are treating Disney? Long term this is going to hurt Florida and its economy, far beyond the short term political benefit Desnatis and the rest of the corrupt legislature is going to receive.
Hi Tom I really appreciate this article. It feels like a great summary of the key points together with balanced, reasonable analysis. Thank you.
At some point, the whole Reedy Creek saga will eventually boil down to five words: “Tell it to the judge”. It’s at that point where I will put my money on Disney’s lawyers, as opposed to lawyers representing the state of Florida. The former being the best in the world and the latter being the best that Florida can afford at the state’s established pay scale. We’ve already seen how lackadaisical that Florida has acted when doing the actual work in this feud. I find it hard to conceive that they would invest sufficient time, money and limited talent to staff the issue well enough to succeed in the end.
As for the question of deliberate diversity in content being the thing that has weighed media productions down, those arguments always come down to tails wagging dogs. My take is not that the inclusions make any particular show/movie bad, but that a focus on hitting certain metrics of content causes producers to forget that product quality has to be addressed as well. To be sure, you can do both simultaneously. But there is a long standing tradition in media production of shoe-horning content elements into existing stories in an attempt to broaden appeal. The old “We need to add a love interest arc to the movie to make it viable as a date movie in theaters” as an example. That’s the point where studios start to meddle in stories for marketing reasons, and the product becomes a muddied, disjointed mess. Good representation AND success happen together when a GOOD STORY is told, which already has those inclusive elements as intrinsic components. But finding those best in class stories (and story tellers) is difficult, time consuming and not scalable. Most of the studio executives (industry wide) see media production as a formulaic process, much akin to running a bakery. You MUST add so much sugar, this many eggs, 400 grams of flower and the amount of vanilla that the highest percentage of focus group research finds appealing. They hand down those instructions, even though the actual bakers might have a great idea for a savory pastry with honey and bacon. You end up with a cakey, overly sweet mess that just didn’t bake well.
I’ll just finish by putting the “Willow” series under the microscope. It didn’t do well with audiences, and I didn’t particularly find it good, despite having a deep appreciation for the original source material. It was not a failure because of the nature of a particular relationship arc between two of the main characters; that didn’t hurt the story, though it was a bit cliche as a plot vehicle. What killed the series was having profoundly unlikable or unbelievable characters (except Boorman, who was an awesome character), a disjointed plot, whiplash inducing pacing, lazy writing, random and capricious changes in dialog tone and inexplicable, jarring, music choices. When the producers try to add a dash of anachronistic dialog, a cup of contemporary cover songs, and a teaspoon of Deadpool-esque self referential humor to a high fantasy recipe, the result will inevitably be a mud pie. Sometimes it’s best to just leave the bakers to do the baking, but it’s not easy to find and hire the best bakers and their recipes aren’t always predictable.
Agree with your first paragraph and strongly agree with the second.
Some of what Disney has done on that front does strike me as superficial; that they want to be patted on the back or check certain boxes for demographic appeal. So I certainly take that point. Aside from Disney, we’ve seen other recent movies flop that reviewed well, but focused on their significance rather than their quality. (I’d argue that’s a failure of marketing more than anything else.)
The difficulty for me is telling where your critique ends and the outrage machine kicking into high gear and making something out of nothing begins. There have been instances of a fleeting moment that received outsized attention and anger…but was never publicized by the studio itself. That could’ve simply been a matter of an animator wanting to see themselves or their family reflected in the film–a total throwaway in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, I think that comes back to my point about this being more complex than meets the eye, and people just wanting simple explanations or narratives that comport with their preconceived notions.
“My take is not that the inclusions make any particular show/movie bad, but that a focus on hitting certain metrics of content causes producers to forget that product quality has to be addressed as well.”
THIS nails it. What was Ford’s motto, Quality Is Job One, and then they forgot that and almost went under? You can’t just half-ass anything for the sake of checking a box on some form. It’s not just 4-year-olds watching Disney movies or reading comics these days.
“The difficulty for me is telling where your critique ends and the outrage machine kicking into high gear and making something out of nothing begins.”
I was writing in a hurry; I’ll be more clear. I don’t actually have any outrage about increasing and broadening representation, even as a conscious decision. I’m just annoyed by the lazy, poor, ham-fisted implementation that is happening quite frequently (but not universally) to the detriment of what could be well told stories. I’m not viewing any of it as some nefarious agenda, but more as the secondary affects of poor management and execution of what could be a positive change in the systemics of media production. Failure to execute well, to the detriment of the product and purpose.
I didn’t think you were–I totally understand what you meant! I wouldn’t have “strongly agreed” with that paragraph if I thought you were viewing it as some nefarious agenda!
Now, I do not at all understand what you mean with the Willow paragraph. My eyes glazed over when reading that (no offense), but that’s only because I have zero experience with the Disney+ series or even the original movie, for that matter.
An excellent analysis, Tom. Thank you. Although both sides have some issues with respect to their approaches, the Governor’s response to criticism of a ridiculous policy by a corporation who seems to want to protect it’s employees, is a bit over the moon. I confess, however, that I take great delight in the fact that, at least for now, DeSantis was outmaneuvered by Mickey Mouse.
Me too! I have my issues with how Disney has treated it’s fan base lately, but this is so much fun to watch. I was wondering why Disney wasn’t speaking out more about all this, and it was because they were being really smart. I love it!
I also think DeSantis’ argument that the board went against the will of Floridians is disingenuous. It’s not like there was a vote on this issue.
“is this one of this no-win situations where everyone loses the longer it’s drawn out”
I dunno, at this point I’m thinking this is a win-win situation where both sides are getting what they want, but perhaps my decision making is faulty. After all, I was a prime age for watching DuckTales 1987 when it came come out, I thought I saw every episode, yet I don’t remember what would have been the coolest thing ever to 12 year old me – a Ludwig Von Drake appearance.
Respectful counterpoint- Iger chose to continue to escalate the situation betting on the public and markets to back him. He could have just said he looks forward to working with the new Board and Governor to address WDW’s growth going forward. And his “I’m for free speech” thing rings REALLY hollow in light of the Gina Carano situation.
Problem is corporations are not seen as neutral arbiters at this time. And the “deal” that the previous board struck before the new Board took authority has some very questionable legal terms that were obvious attempts to circumvent the authority of the new board. Which was approved by a Florida legislature that had a majority voted on by the people of the State and Governor who were elected in overwhelming majorities. So I don’t think Iger did himself or Disney a service by making this a “us vs them” attack.
I agree that Iger could’ve taken a more generic approach on that, as no matter what you believe, you’re generally with one half of the population or the other, no matter what the issue is. This really ramped up starting in 2008 and doesn’t seem to be going away. Corporations are NOT people (and the Citizens United thing was bad for us all) regardless of the ‘legal’ standing as such and should stay completely out of politics, especially polarizing issues and those which might placate a small fraction of very vocal employees as happened in this case and started the whole thing.
As Tom has noted and Iger reiterated here, Disney locating near Orlando is the only reason FL is the #1 tourist destination in the world. Everything else followed them, and the job creation, tax base and economy are because of WDW. While Cap’n Ron and the state are going the right way on almost everything, this fiasco is embarrassing and just dumb. There’s no legitimate reason for this new board and I would do everything possible to neutralize it, were I the CEO of Disney. Ironically, the absurd overreach of government has almost always been from the other ‘side’ and is never a good thing.
“Iger chose to continue to escalate the situation betting on the public and markets to back him.”
This part is not a counterpoint at all. It’s precisely what I believe happened.
I’d go a step further and say that the internal calculus at Disney is that there’s little left to lose. That Disney has already taken as big of a hit as it can in the court of public opinion, and that DeSantis has played all of his cards and earned as much goodwill (or whatever you want to call it) as he can from this. After all, how much more damage does Disney take if the governor accuses them of being a “woke California corporation” again? It doesn’t hit the same the thousandth time as it did the first.
So the thought process is likely that Iger can gain some public support without sustaining much more damage. And his points about economics and free speech are precisely the way to do that–he made the best possible arguments available to him. Whether they’re sincere or hypocritical is irrelevant–this is all theater and no one is being sincere.
Of course, that all pertains to the court of public opinion, and overlooks how this will play out in actual courts, or what the governor might otherwise be able to do to punish Disney. That all requires a more vivid imagination.
Tom made an excellent point, and knowing how calculated Iger and Disney under his watch are, I believe he is right. Disney has already taken the hits from DeSantis and the alleged woke accusations. They set themselves up in a position with recent moves that required Florida to leave them alone or be the one who challenges Disney in court, and not the other way around. Now Disney, ie Iger, can be the ones who push back or speak out. Also, knowing Iger’s, and Disney’s history, I personally do not believe he is on his own here. He would have full backing behind him from the company, their attorneys, and likely businesses outside of Disney also.
A private company firing someone for expressing views in opposition to their company values isn’t the same as the government attacking a company for their values.
The management and executives of a private company weren’t elected by the public to serve all members of their community equally. They aren’t paid with taxpayer money and neither are their endeavors.
If a super visible employee is running afoul of their mission, vision and values, showing them the door isn’t a free speech issue. The *government* attacking you for your speech is because they are elected and work for the people, off of your tax dollars. Free speech doesn’t mean “my speech can never have consequences,” it means it shouldn’t have consequences from the government.
People have conditions on their work. I work in the public sector, there’s stuff I can’t say in public, there’s stuff I can’t say to media, I agreed to that when I took my job.
Iger should run for governor.
Oh wait, he makes a crazy amount of money, why would he want to?
DeSantis seems pretty whackadoo.
Haha, that describes Gav Newsom to a tee! Talk about a real nutjob…
I thought. Iger’s comments were very good. I also thought the new Reedy Creek Board was only supposed to deal with roads and infrastructure. Sound like to Desantis wanted them to take over the complete operation of Walt Disney World.
According to Wikipedia the most critical event in Orlando’s economy occurred in 1965 when it was announced Disney would build Walt Disney World. After that and up until today business was booming for the area. Why can’t Desantis just say thank you rather than upsetting everything.
I studied your blog and we did our bucket list one time Disney World trip in Feb 2022 (coming from Seattle), but I continue to read your blog because of pieces like this. I am a bit of a political junkie, and I know this is a Disney blog, but Tom, maybe you should consider some op eds for much bigger papers because you are great at reporting the facts and quoting people, making it easy for anyone to understand the issues.
Tom there is an unwritten rule that prohibits any discussion of the RAP (or fertile octaginarians) in any WDW discussion. Worlds are colliding… no! That said both sides are going down a dangerous path. They each have something to lose. If either one was my client I’d say scale down the rhetoric and start mediation – or pre-lit pre-mediating ASAP. Get decision makers in a room and start talking and talking and talking. This is not a good path for either party & I think “clever” King Charles references are not headed in the right direction. I get it, I get they are trying to defend themselves, but whatever they think they’ve accomplished they’ve ruined in creating ire. . .. de-escalate. Lawsuits not the way to go.
Time will tell but it seems like DeSantis is really misplacing this. He should have just taken the “win” of putting the new board in place and left it at that, it would have completely disappeared from the mainstream. There are surely more important issues out there he could focus on that will serve him better for 2024 and that are easier to tackle (at least from the perspective of his possible voters)
It’s entirely possible that now is when DeSantis claims the win.
Criminal investigations take a lot of time, and if he’s asked about this going forward, he can simply say, “that’s a pending legal matter and I don’t want to comment, but I’m looking forward to any illegal activity being brought to light and addressed to the fullest extent of the law.” He could use that line until 2024 if he were so inclined.
Not saying I think that’s what will happen, but if he senses the tides turning, that would be the savvy play.
Wonderfully written article.
I very much appreciate your analogy re: expertise and the podiatrist and brain surgery. I might have to steal that for use in the real world.
I didn’t realize Iger articulated the arguments against using the power of the state against private enterprise during the earnings call. For me, that’s the most important point, and it *should* resonate with most folks. You would hope people could see that no matter where you stand on certain issues, you just don’t want to live in an environment where that’s the norm/acceptable behavior.
Iger really hammered on every point we should’ve to ‘win’ in the court of public opinion, while also offering concessions and admitting how things have been mishandled (albeit by his predecessor). It was a “no notes” kind of performance; a night and day difference from Chapek last year.
Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Federal agencies trying illegally make or rewrite laws with ‘rules’ where they have no such authority. States, counties, cities screwing over people and small businesses, etc. Our system is sometimes intentionally convoluted in efforts to prevent or limit these abuses.
RCID was a brilliant way to obviate the needless burdens of bureaucracy by outside agencies to allow Disney to build and maintain things and has worked beautifully.
@ Mr. Nico. Agree with you!!! I think RCID is (was) one of the best examples of how a private organization COULD run their “public” infrastructure efficiently and with a superb outcome. It’s not just roads. Reedy Creek manages water resources (both supply and excellent wastewater treatment), power (they generate a lot internally with some very impressive solar fields), as well as a pretty good system of transportation. I have used RCID as a shining example of what COULD be done in several of my classes on environmental quality. AND they did it on the Disney dime and paid taxes to boot. The takeover of the operation by the State (by packing the board of directors) is almost guaranteed to lower the quality of the product, i.e. the environment of the Disney property and its surroundings. I have no idea where this will end, but it simply cannot be an improvement over a good system that was in place before.