Walt Disney World President Jeff Vahle issues statement on Florida's efforts to restructure Reedy Creek Improvement District

Feb 06, 2023 in "The Walt Disney Company"

Forum Forums Tweet Share Tweet Share

Posted: Monday February 6, 2023 4:03pm ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

Walt Disney World President Jeff Vahle has issued a brief statement this afternoon following the state of Florida's latest moves to restructure the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

Walt Disney World President Jeff Vahle

"We are monitoring the progression of the draft legislation, which is complex given the long history of the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Disney works under a number of different models and jurisdictions around the world, and regardless of the outcome, we remain committed to providing the highest quality experience for the millions of guests who visit each year."
Jeff Vahle, President, Walt Disney World Resort

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has previously said that the legislation will result in Reedy Creek board members being appointed by the Florida Governor and Disney paying upwards of $700 million in Reedy Creek debt.

The action by DeSantis comes in retaliation to Disney's public opposition to the parental rights law, which took place under the ex-CEO Bob Chapek.

Former Disney CEO Bob Chapek and Ron DeSantis clashed over Disney's opposition to the new law

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

lazyboy97o18 minutes 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.

peter1143545 minutes 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.

mkt1 hour 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 Alucobond1 hour 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.

LittleBuford2 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.2 hours ago

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

peter114353 hours ago

Well… they’re not supposed to be able to

Chi844 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.

Dranth4 hours ago

Irony at its best.

peter114355 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?

mmascari5 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.

MR.Dis5 hours ago

Once again we see personal biases. So if Disney was so blameless, why did they give in to a compromise. Most on this forum stated it was a slam dunk win in both State and Federal Court. Hold on, Disney totally threw in the towel at the State level and has put on hold their Federal Case. Does that sound like a party that was totally right. Yes, most keep bringing up the same issues regarding how Disney was targeted in this forum, but there are those who tried to be more balanced and stated what Disney did wrong. I am not going down the path and restating all the issues, again there 1254 pages that go thru all the issues. What I suggest is to not just read those posts that agree with your opinions, but read the posts that are contrary--that is the only way you will truly see why a compromise was the only way to go.

peter114356 hours ago

Can you explain what “major mistake” Disney made?

Dranth6 hours ago

You may want to reread those 1254 pages because you seem to not be grasping the basics. One side did nothing wrong and then was targeted for opportunistic political gain for doing something we are all afforded the opportunity to do without Government reprisal. The Government, you know, the entity specially called out as not allowed to punish for political speech, came out and publicly announced to anyone who would listen they were punishing Disney for political speech. Doesn't sound very nuanced and certainly doesn't sound like the ridiculous claim that both sides were wrong. Bottom line, there has been one wrong side this entire time and there is still one wrong side today despite the compromise that itself only exists because it was no longer politically convenient to continue the fight for the state and as a business, Disney can't continue to fight indefinitely. None of that makes what happened okay.