Chairman out as chaos reigns at Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

Mar 13, 2024 in "Reedy Creek Improvement District"

Forum Forums Tweet Share Tweet Share

Posted: Wednesday March 13, 2024 2:00pm ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

According to the Associated Press, Martin Garcia, board chairman of the Ron DeSantis-appointed Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, is out.

Garcia's departure comes just days after CFTOD administrator Glen Gilzean took a new job as Supervisor of Elections in Orange County, filling the vacancy left by former supervisor Bill Cowles' retirement in January. Gilzean will head the Orange County Supervisor of Elections Office as the state begins preparations for the 2024 presidential election.

In an email to the AP, DeSantis' communications director, Bryan Griffin, thanked Garcia for "successfully navigating" the transition of the district and added that Garcia "developed a new district focused on transparency and the elimination of corporate welfare."

The next CFTOD board meeting is scheduled for March 27, 2024.

Central Florida Tourism Oversight District near Disney Springs

Garcia was initially appointed as board chairman through February 2027 and was an original member of DeSantis' new organization, which replaced Disney's Reedy Creek Improvement District in June 2023.

Garcia has been one of the most outspoken critics of Disney, recently saying the Disney-controlled Reedy Creek Improvement District was "arguably the most egregious example of corporate cronyism in the history of modern America."

Garcia is the second board member to leave, with Michael Sasso resigning from his board position after less than four months on the job.

It was reported in October 2023 that over thirty employees have resigned from the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District since the DeSantis takeover. This mass exodus includes almost half of its senior leadership, raising serious concerns about operational stability and political influence.

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

lazyboy97o3 minutes ago

Control of what? A new development agreement, which has to lock in what already exists, still hasn’t even been presented for public review.

mkt2 hours ago

I'll call them pragmatists. Pragmatists with control.

Dcgc2810 hours ago

Not sure you’ve said this enough times since they ended the lawsuit. Perhaps if you type it out 3-4 more times someone will care

lazyboy97o10 hours ago

They don’t have control. They are cowards who are hedging for the near future that they might be targets on a wider scale.

peter1143511 hours ago

Sure. In hindsight they shouldn’t have done it because the state decided to illegally retaliate in response. If I leave my house to go to the store and on the way I get mugged… sure you could say it wouldn’t have happened if I had stayed home. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have gone out or that going out was a mistake. And it would certainly be ridiculous to refer to the situation by saying that me and the mugger both made mistakes.

mkt11 hours ago

It's not a compromise. Disney doesn't actually care about the free speech argument. Disney has quietly restarted political contributions (the true reason behind all of this) and now maintains control over their land with a board that will be friendlier while reserving the right to restart the federal appeal if an unfriendly board re-emerges. At the same time DeSantis can claim he won, and his supporters will not question it. All Disney wanted was control and to stop the damage to their image.

James Alucobond12 hours ago

He was saying it was unwise to do that knowing that they were coexisting with a loose cannon. It was unwise in the same way that walking through a sketchy neighborhood at night is kind of a bad idea, but no reasonable person would say that it was your fault if you got mugged or shot as a result.

LittleBuford13 hours ago

You don’t see a difference between an action that some may not approve of (Disney wading into politics) and an action that flies in the face of established constitutional protections (a government punishing an entity for exercising its right to free speech)? Those both fall under the category of “mistake” in your view?

Tom P.13 hours ago

Bob Iger himself has said that Disney should not have waded into the political issues the way they did under Chapek.

peter1143513 hours ago

Well… they’re not supposed to be able to

Chi8415 hours ago

The only problem with that is that Disney didn’t do anything wrong to justify retaliatory legislation. If the governor made Disney the target of his stump speeches that would have been fine. If the governor told people not to go to Disney that would have been fine. In this country the government cannot use the power we delegate to it to punish political speech.

Dranth15 hours ago

Irony at its best.

peter1143515 hours ago

I see you didn’t answer but I’ll ask again. What “major mistake” did Disney make. I’m not asking you to restate all of the issues with everything that happened… just what major mistake Disney made. That should be easy right?

mmascari15 hours ago

Presumably, it was cheaper. Since Disney was paying the costs for both sides. Disney finding some type of agreement satisfactory enough to resolve the issue for them is not the same as Disney agreeing that they were wrong about anything. Not the same as Disney saying they couldn't win more. It simply Disney saying this solution is "good enough". Not "good", "not preferred", not a "win" or "loss", just "good enough". In fact, didn't they explicitly state if the agreement isn't good enough, they reserve the right to continue to fight it. That's all it tells us. There's no greater meaning in this resolution with insight about any additional details.