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

Follow WDWMAGIC on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for more Walt Disney World news and updates

mkt4 days ago

post updates.

castlecake2.04 days ago

Might have to attend this

flyakite4 days ago

This was published in the Orlando Sentinel legal notices this morning: NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 29 th at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in special session at The Wyndham Lake Buena Vista Resort 1850 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida in the Horizons Ballroom. The purpose of the Special Board of Supervisor’s meeting is for the Board to discuss priorities and forthcoming deadlines for the District and to give the District staff and legal counsel direction on the Board’s priorities and deadlines. It is not posted on the Reedy Creek website yet.

MandaM10 days ago

It is rather unique to American politics. Most comparable countries have limits on how much money can be spent for campaigns and/or how much money can be donated.

Willmark12 days ago

It is, but money in politics is not something unique to American politics which is what I was responding to.

GoofGoof12 days ago

I definitely think that’s a factor and depending on what happens with his future plans may be less than 4. There have been 10 Governors of FL since WDW opened and there will probably be 10 more in the next 50 years. They are likely playing the long game to some extent. I also think the goal is that future relations with the Government go back to being more behind closed doors.

pdude8112 days ago

They may have thought the likeliest scenario was that Desantis will be the governor for the next 4 years, and winning this battle could/would cost them more in the long run than just waiting it out.

UNCgolf13 days ago

I'm not going to quote everyone, but that's why I appended (in theory) to my original statement about labor unions. Of course they don't always do things that are supported by 100% of their membership, or even the large majority of the membership. My point was that a labor union exists for the benefit of its members, even if it doesn't always function that way. That's the whole purpose of a labor union. A corporation does not exist for the benefit of its employees. It does exist for the benefit of its shareholders, but when talking about large, publicly held corporations, the majority of shareholders are generally so far removed from the corporate structure (due to so many shares being held by index funds and mutual funds) that they're not really a consideration beyond broad economic markers.

GoofGoof13 days ago

Corporations lobby for things that benefit the corporation. In most cases that is an indirect and sometimes a direct benefit to their employees too. I suppose if for example a corporation lobbied against an increase in minimum wage that would directly hurt a subset of their employees who make minimum wage but it would have no negative impact for any worker earning above minimum wage already and could actually benefit all workers if the increase in minimum wage would result in layoffs or closures. Unions represent the interest of their workers in general but that isn’t always going to be in the best interest of every individual. Again, in the minimum wage example, if a union successfully lobbied for an increase in minimum wage that obviously benefits the minimum wage employees but would be neutral to others making more and could even be harmful if it results in layoffs.

EPCOT-O.G.13 days ago

Yes, but there are numerous instances where unions have lockstep supported candidates or causes that are far afield from its ostensible charter and are in opposition to the views of many of their rank and file members.

Tonto13 days ago

This has turned out to be a big problem for this country! Thank you Supreme Court!

Vegas Disney Fan13 days ago

If unions stuck to work related issues I’d agree, but they delve into a lot of other issues that have absolutely nothing to do with work conditions, that might not reach the level of “hurt” but it’s directly opposite the beliefs of roughly half their members. The biggest problem with money in politics is those with the money ultimately pick the winners, a million people can donate to candidate A and 1 corporation/union/pac/mega rich donor can outspend them and ultimately get candidate B nominated. If you don’t have your own money or at least one huge backer you have little chance of winning anything in American politics.

UNCgolf13 days ago

To an extent, but I still think that's fundamentally different from a labor union. Corporations also lobby for things that will hurt their employees -- they're generally not trying to make things as good for employees as possible; that's often (although not always) a side effect rather than the specific purpose of the lobbying.