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.
Personally this whole DeSantis/RCID episode turned me off to such a degree I did my own news blackout. After seeing recent headlines, I finally relented and read this post. Thanks Tom for a great piece. The other thing that jumped out to me is the good dialog in the reader comments (I hope I don’t jinx it). It’s enjoyable to have thoughtful discussions on without the vitriol.
“The other thing that jumped out to me is the good dialog in the reader comments (I hope I don’t jinx it).”
I’ve been pleasantly surprised by this, for the most part. The regular readers are pretty good about respectfully disagreeing, and not just slinging around buzzwords, etc.
Once this starts making the rounds on Facebook tonight, all bets are off.
“There were a few recent Disney movies we didn’t see because they seemed pointless or downright bad.” posted just under a picture of you standing with the “real” Buzz Lightyear in a meet and greet. I see what you did there.
Ironically, “pointless or downright bad” could also apply to that meet & greet!
“The new board asserts that these agreements render them powerless to offer any oversight over Walt Disney World’s tourist district in Central Florida,” which is exactly the point of what was done…
Dear Tom,
Please start a political commentary blog. Your no-BS approach is refreshing.
Sincerely,
The Politically Jaded
I like the term “exhausted majority.”
I don’t think a political commentary blog by me would be particularly popular or interesting. Lots of takes about objectively boring issues that modern politicians have moved away from.
Sigh, I am one of the exhausted majority, and would LOVE to have boring rational policy discussion take center stage.
It’s a shame that all of this is happening in Florida where DeSantis has a say, but what about when he moves his presidential campaign out of state? Will he be as popular in the other 49 states as he is in Florida? That’s my big question. Maybe, as you said Tom, he’ll move on to other subjects and lose interest in the Disney agenda as time goes on and he gets busier going in other directions.
As for Disney+, back in 1980 when cable was first introduced, my first question was, who in their right mind would pay for TV when you can get it at no cost? Well, we know the answer to that – all of us. Between cable, streaming, social media and other types of technology, there are too many choices. People also seem to be going towards binge watching certain shows. Too many choices. In order to remain competitive, Disney has to up the ante. Offer viewers what they want – good content at a reasonable cost. And mix it in with some extra perks. Also (this is important), don’t be so money hungry.
A big part of his focus in the last year-plus has been raising his national profile and name recognition. He has done that quite successfully, but not without cost. At some point, a pivot is inevitable. Not just away from Disney as a punching bag, but away from the culture wars in general. Even if that is the path to success in a general election (colossal “if”), there’s already a candidate who has carved out that lane for himself.
As Walt Disney once said, “you can’t top pigs with pigs.”
“Even if that is the path to success in a general election (colossal “if”)…”
This is why I’m so confused! 2020 would seem to indicate that this is *not* a homerun strategy for a national election. A lot of what DeSantis has done in Florida to raise his national profile seems likely to come back to bite him during the general election (assuming he makes it through the primary). I just don’t see how adding this to the pile helps him.
“Personally, I attribute all of the company’s woes in the last two years to discontinuing the Cinderella Castle Dream Lights at Christmas……which (indirectly) cast a curse over all of the Walt Disney Company.” Nailed it!!! If I don’t see Elsa lighting up that castle this year, I will riot. Seriously though, this entire fiasco is entertaining. I’m sure you can guess who I am rooting for, merely based on the fact that I’m commenting on a Disney blog. It certainly seems like someone is playing checkers while someone else is playing chess.
Florida, where freedom of speech goes to die by the sword of DeSantis’ political retaliation. DeSantis and his minions can not run the Walt Disney Corporation. Keep Ron’s obnoxious culture war out of the Magic Kingdom. Fight him Bob, with everything you’ve got. It’s a battle that must be won!
Sorry Charlie, but that’s not accurate and overly simplistic.
Just wanted to say I really appreciate your insight. I’m always keen to read your take on all things Disney and your articles are very well rounded. I also think you’re really onto something saying the issues of the last few years can be attributed to the castle dream lights being discontinued. Fingers crossed the eyes of those in charge of those decisions are opened and all will be made right again 😉
“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.” “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.” I agree with these 2 quotes completely Tom. That is way I barely ever go on Disney + or to the theatres to see something. What I want is very simple, let me have the ability to delete the movies or shows that I know 100% I will never watch from my Disney + account so I don’t have to waste my time going through so many options of movies or shows I will never like. YES I understand they have a Wishlist option on the Disney + account but it’s not big enough to fit all the movies and shows I love. I tried it once and all the shows I places there first on the bottom of the list disappeared when I finished and went back to it to start watching. This way people will be more likely to come back to streaming (I think), it’s simple and not so overwhelming with all those options. And IF (not sure if other people would feel comfortable with this, but I personally have no problem with it) IF they keep a record of what other people place as their favorites then make a statistic chart maybe it will give them an idea of what people are interested in seeing and make better movies or shows going forward theoretically.
Thanks for a very insightful summary – I’ll keep watching this space!
DeSantis is a lot smarter than the general population is giving him credit for. He paid attention in 2015. He saw a man get elevated to the nation’s highest job by pandering to a specific group of people. He played into their fears and prejudice in topics he himself probably cares very little about. He isn’t going to cut his losses and walk away from Disney because ultimately he is after the presidency. Disney is a polarizing company and he is using it to gain support for the Republican nomination. This goes away when he loses that, loses the presidency, or becomes President.
Haha, not just 2015. It happened 8 years before that, 4 years before that, and four years after that as well. People have short attention spans and memory, it seems. Us vs them prevails, sadly.
It’s my understanding, and I may be wrong, that Disney gave the board all this information, right in their hands to sign, talked it through openly in a public meeting in early February (I think I saw it covered on the blogs) and the new board members signed onto it without reading it or paying any actual attention to what the company was doing — Is that Disney’s fault?
I just hope this crap doesn’t delay Disney even further in developing attractions – they already move at a snail’s pace…..
I know there’s a lot of political theater going on here, but I feel like DeSantis and his newly installed board really did think they would be able to sway what kind of content Disney produces from its California based studios. Which sounds absurd, but unfortunately the past 6-8 years have shown a lot of politicians have a really tenuous grasp on how our government works.
It is shocking to me DeSantis doesn’t have an advisor telling him this isn’t worth his time. For every person who wants to see him “beat” Disney there’s someone else who wants Disney to win, and at least another 3 that don’t care either way.
I cannot (or perhaps more accurately, will not) speak to the new board, but DeSantis is incredibly intelligent. Think whatever else you want about him, but don’t make that mistake. Everything he does is calculated and methodical.
That’s precisely why I wonder if there’s a point that he cuts his losses and moves on. For a while last year, this battle was very much worth his time–and he was winning. The calculus should have changed when Iger returned; that’s why the rumors at the time made complete sense that Florida and Disney were working on a win-win face-saving compromise where each appointed some board members.
I suspect that some movies bombed because COVID essentially killed theaters. The last movie I saw in a theater was Little Women, in early 2020, and my kid and I used to see *everything* that was appealing to her. I noticed that she and her friends never come up with going to a movie as a thing to do on the weekend, but they will inflate the inflatable screen and watch a movie in the backyard.
I think that’s definitely part of it, but not all of it. The new Minions and Shrek sequels/spinoffs both did really well last year.
Lightyear was a movie no one asked for, the premise of which could not be concisely explained. It also looked like it was a Toy Story bootleg and had middling reviews. I certainly wouldn’t pay to see it in theaters, and haven’t even bothered to watch it for “free” at home. To each their own, though.
It’s hard to support your, “COVID has kept people from going to movies” when both Top Gun Maverick and Avatar II both finished in the top 10 in all time domestic box office sales. People will go to the movies to see a quality product, as both of those movies proved that in 2022. While I understand Tom’s theory of working backwards to prove a position, its’ really hard to look at the actual numbers on movies that have without question been agenda driven. Regardless of what that agenda might be, American’s are pretty unanimous that they don’t like going to entertainment venues to be preached to. The numbers don’t lie.
Eric – The numbers do not lie but interpretation of the numbers is entirely subjective. Catwoman makes for an extremely relevant example, as the reason it was interpreted to do poorly was because ‘people didn’t want to see a female superhero lead,’ as opposed to the fact that it was an objectively terrible movie. That was clearly the wrong take anyhow, as may subsequent female-led films have proven. There is literally nothing different about this, and it will become more obvious the further we get from it. In the meantime, people of diversity will continue to show up in media, because people of diversity exist in real life. Our existence is not an agenda. In a decade, we will wonder why this was even an argument.
Well, some movies may sound like a great idea at first, and then go on to ruin an awesome character while still being immensely popular. Luckily, comic book heroes can generally withstand such failures. Black Panther, a great character, but horrific movie which reinforced negative stereotypes with bad writing and acting. Others were just bad all around, like Aquaman. But I am much more likely to see a sequel to the latter one versus what looks ten times worse in the former example. Cats I didn’t see because it wasn’t interesting in any aspect to me. Many hated Jungle Cruise, but I thought it was a good Disney movie, much better than the trite changes made to the attraction. Maybe because I like the actors and that the cgi wasn’t as bad as most modern movies.
“its’ really hard to look at the actual numbers on movies that have without question been agenda driven.”
Except it *isn’t* “without question”. It’s your personal opinion. If you are looking for an agenda in a movie, you’ll find it. Like MrNico appears to with Black Panther, which was – of course – a huge blockbuster that many agree had a great story with great writing. He found an agenda so he didn’t enjoy it. To each his own.
The1998 animated Mulan featured two openly gay actors in male leads. The movie heavily featured cross dressing. I’m quite sure the people who made that movie had an agenda. But it was released before these culture wars so that was never brought up. Btw it pulled in over $300m with a budget of $90m.
Make a good movie and people will come. If a small portion of consumers think it’s ‘woke’ (see Black Panther) it won’t make a difference.
Yeah, the only ‘agenda’ with Black Panther was maybe to feature an under-represented (on film, anyway) but really cool character who happens to be black. The movie sucked (regardless of revenue) because of poor writing and mediocre acting. Reinforcing what are now viewed as negative stereotypes of other cultures is nothing new and certainly does not represent quality film-making. One could argue that as it’s based on comic books it’s not supposed to be realistic, but the premise of a wealthy and incredibly technologically-advanced society selecting a leader by a fight to the death is just absurd in spite of having multiple great actors starring. Maybe I’ll try watching it again, but after seeing it twice, it’s just a disappointment. Luke Cage was so, so much better.
Similarly, one of the human characters in Aquaman getting hit in the head by a torpedo with no ill effects ruined the movie for me. There has to be some kind of reality in physics and science…
And there are enough technical inconsistencies in Top Gun Maverick (which was all-in-all pretty good) to make it harder to watch if you know much about technology or military history, etc.
Watchmen and V For Vendetta, amazing comics by Alan Moore which address societal issues, were both disappointing movies because of changes made to the original plots for no logical reason.
A Knight’s Tale was hard to watch because of the annoying and incongruous use of modern music in it. If it was acoustic instrumental, like Metallica songs used in Westworld and others, it would’ve been fine. But electric guitars in a medieval setting, no.
The gay innuendos in Jungle Cruise which bothered a few people for whatever reason weren’t crude or detractive from the story, and we found it highly entertaining.
There were multiple unrealistic and inaccurate things in The Patriot, but it was still a great movie. The list goes on and on… But hey, just like theme park attractions or vehicles, there’s something for everyone and Disney isn’t going to go under because some folks don’t like one movie or ride. I’m just hoping for an overall improvement in quality under The Real Bob’s direction once again.
What oversight did the old board have except on roads and infrastructure? Sounds like the new board has the notion that they’ve been appointed as the board of directors for ‘Disney World Corp.’.
Just want to add a comment to say how much I appreciate your style of reporting on these issues, and your adept navigation of rocky waters – especially the last few paragraphs here. I didn’t expect to laugh given the subject matter, but clearly the lack of Holiday-clad bears really is to blame!
Thanks for the kind words!
Listen for me on the next shareholders call, delivering a 14 minute diatribe about how Disney has doomed itself to failure by not mandating that Country Bear Christmas be shown by OLC.
Then I will personally provide you with a rocking chair, a cane, and a porch to shake it from!
Great write up. I seriously hate the “Disney lost money because it’s too woke”, etc. It is such a simplistic look at business and the world. It completely discounts all the struggles you highlighted with streaming and just bad decisions made by Disney regarding business. I trust Iger and recent changes will turn that around with a focus on “entertainment.”
Regarding this matter, it’s terrible because it will always become a political issue. DeSantis targeted Disney due to perceived politics with his base. Iger’s response was masterful imo, discussing that companies shouldn’t involve itself in political decisions unless they believe it is necessary. First, that allows Disney to portray itself and position itself as someone fighting for good/justice when he raised issues such as civil rights, etc. while at yhe same time, reinforcing the fact that it is a private company and can exercise it’s voice in any way it wants without fearing political.or legal repercussions. Iger is so much better at that than Chapek and other CEOs.
It’s been discussed before, but I believe this is the best route for Disney. Their move was, seemingly, completely legal, and forces Florida to sue them. Now Disney can sit back and point at Florida as being the ones bringing the lawsuit, while still providing Disney the opportunity to litigate the issue. The discovery process in that case could be fascinating, as well as not being very good for DeSantis. especially if he has bigger aspirations.
Agree with everything until your last paragraph. At that point, I think “seemingly” is doing some heavy lifting. 😉
I’d also add that legality of the agreement isn’t the end-all, be-all of this. Even if it is legal, that’s not to say further maneuvers won’t be made by the state to claw back (or give the new board) added powers.
“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.”
Part of what is personally interesting to me about this saga is that I DO have “an actual legal practice encompassing [most of] these areas of law”, or at least I do by analogy since I am in Canada. Most of the legal issues are encompassed in what we in Canada describe as “Municipal Government Law”, and a subset of that called “Planning Law”, both of which are largely specific specialized areas of Administrative Law (I recall in a different article you shuddering with horror at reference to that). And Administrative Law often overlaps with Constitutional law, and both of them almost invariably have a political component. And Planning is also heavily intertwined with real estate / property law. All of those things come into play on many Municipal Government matters I have been involved with …. In CANADA anyway.
As a result, I have always had a (super nerdy) soft spot in my heart for the Reedy Creek Improvement District’s existence and structure, even long before last year. It is not as unprecedented as you might think – in some ways it is commonplace – it is merely the enormous scale of it that is unprecedented. I can give examples, but this is already turning into a very long comment.
For what it is worth (*exactly the amount you’re paying for it*) from what I have been able to glean and understand, I think (a) there has never been anything shady or backroom about RCID, which if nothing else has had the effect of sparing local rate-payers the enormous costs associate with WDW’s infrastructure and downloading them all on to … tourists like me, which seems more than fair! (b) RCID has never had any powers over the direct operations of Disney or the right to use Disney’s fanciful characters EVER. If it used them previously, it was only because Disney licenced it to them, and what Disney giveth, Disney can take away (c) the Development Agreement and Restrictive Covenants strike as likely to be entirely legal and enforceable.
(Also (d) There is no reason the Rule of Perpetuities would apply here at all. That clause was surely inserted as a “just in case it does” measure.)
But again: I am NOT a Florida lawyer and I do not know. Just my two cents from outside looking in, as a sort of kind of expert.
I also have more experience than I care to think about in this area, having worked for a city government in contracts administration, for large contractor building heavy highways and utilities, and as a design engineer in land development. I do not care to ever attend another city council or Planning and Zoning committee meeting, or deal with local yokel nitwits who think they should be able to tell me what to do with my property or name a road I am paying to build, etc. I was once at a city council meeting where our client’s subdivision plans, which complied 100% with the city subdivision code, were being complained about by some NIMBY neighbors and an inexperienced councilor asked out loud if they (the council) could “table the discussion until we can get the subdivision code changed” and you would not believe how fast the city attorney jumped and ran around to tell him to shut up before he got the city sued. RCID is simply an active operation of what is often referred to as a planned unit development, where you master plan an area so you have certain options in the future regardless of what anyone else, including the city, does as long as you keep your side of the agreement up, albeit on a much larger and admittedly more complex scale… As I firmly see most zoning restrictions as unconstitutional (and don’t get me started on eminent domain), the formation of RCID was brilliant and the FL legislature did not agree to the terms haphazardly. I too am a huge fan of RCID and what they have done for the area and all WDW fans.
“Personally, I attribute all of the company’s woes in the last two years to discontinuing the Cinderella Castle Dream Lights at Christmas.” I don’t think you’re wrong, Tom. Going for trendy, low-hanging fruit (like projections) instead of doing hard work to make classically cool things that everyone loves (like the dream lights) may be exactly why Disney is having trouble.
And thanks for keeping us posted. Now that they’ve invoked the Rule Against Perpetuities I know I’m out of my depth.
“Now that they’ve invoked the Rule Against Perpetuities I know I’m out of my depth.”
Almost anyone who went to law school will also admit that their eyes glazed over when having the Rule Against Perpetuities explained to them, and having that same “I’m out of my depth” feeling. The only reason I remember it at all is because it was arcane (even by legal standards) and highlighted as a red flag for the bar exam.
I personally blame the release of the Cats movie for all the world’s woes. I’m just saying everyone was going along their business at the end of 2019, then those creepy CGI cats were released and suddenly no one can leave their house, there are no Christmas lights, and expat Appalachian bears lose all festive spirit. Coincidence???
https://www.disneytouristblog.com/cats-disney/
I heard someone genuinely, sincerely argue that the King Charles III reference made the entire agreement invalid because he is correctly styled as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so there is no “King of England.”
I backed away slowly, never turning my back.
I saw that, but also saw a lot of Brits draw attention to there being no “King of England” without any additional commentary.
I bit my tongue, but wanted to tell them that Americans do not care. Don’t let our cultural fixation with the royal family fool anyone, that’s about celebrity culture and fascination with fairytales.
Iger may be more deft (defter?) than Chapek but companies should avoid wading into culture wars and identity politics at the pressure of employees.
.You’ll find shareholders on both sides if the political fence who either agree Or don’t agree with the approach.
The main goal of Disney is to add value for shareholders.
I agree with you to an extent about culture wars. For the most part, there are no winners there, only losers. I would expect Disney and other companies to pull back on getting themselves actively embroiled in political battles. But what’s done is done there, and Iger needs to navigate that situation now.
When it comes to content, what’s characterized as a culture war by certain groups is more accurately expanding the audience and types of stories that are told. There is a market that has been largely untapped until the last decade, and appealing to growing demographics is a savvy business move. I’m not sure how Disney can avoid this type of controversy, especially when there’s a 24/7 market for outrage, and that machine needs constant fuel.
It’s important to not let the tail wag the dog, and still lead with entertainment/enjoyment/fun. But I think to the extent that movies have succeeded or failed, it has been due to that, and little else.
Totally agree Frank. When Governor DeSantis took offense at Disney’s mis-naming that Bill as “Don’t Say Gay”, he was not only defending his state, but championing all of us who agreed with him. Hopefully Disney can get back to the wholesome entertainment we grew up with from Walt and his creatives whom made Disney great. Enough with the “black box warnings” at the beginning of the classics… It is wrong now and would’ve been wrong then to disparage them. You want “wrong now”? Look no further than such as Proud Family.
That’s the problem, far too many mischaracterizing something because they heard something, but never bothered to read anything about it before making a decision. Dave Chappelle had a bit in one of his Netflix specials (The Closer I think) about this very thing and how he has been smeared by a group for some misunderstood nonsense years ago.
Oof Greg Carlson..
Disney didn’t name it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Not sure why you think they did?
Also, Disney also isn’t the only company putting “black box” warnings on movies (or cartoons – see WB Merry Melodies). It’s not wrong to point out that material is culturally insensitive. Again, not sure why you think it is?
Apparently everything is culturally insensitive to someone these days. We don’t need warnings on movies any more than labels to not use a hair dryer in the bathtub or eat Tide Pods. We need parents to be parents and raise their children to be thoughtful and make their own conclusions. It sucks seeing all those dumb lead paint signs on every structure at Disneyland, detracting form theming big-time just like the snake/gator signs all over WDW now.
I spent many, many hours as a kid watching Disney stuff, Looney Tunes, etc and never cared about Bugs dressing like a girl or PePe Le Pew’s aggressiveness. I read a lot as well. I think I first read Swiss Family Robinson in 3rd grade. Parents were teachers and we couldn’t afford to travel the world, but we went to WDW several times and many places across these USA, meeting all kinds of people from all over the world and I gained an appreciation of various cultures and that I could learn interesting things form people. SO no, we do not need those warning labels, we need better parenting.