Fuskie,
Denver is a great place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there. Seriously, I have cousins who do live there and have visited many times. While they are acclimated to the climate, for most, the high altitude and thin air would be hard to live in.
I also have visited often, and thus have grown quite familiar with the Denver area. My godson and his parents moved there from Massachusetts in 1997.
In terms of altitude and thin air, Interstate 25, which passes North-South through downtown Denver, basically follows the demarcation between Rocky Mountains to the west and the great plains to the east. The plains are pretty level and low enough, at an elevation of 5,000-6,000 feet, so most people don’t have difficulty breathing – but that’s the base of the Rocky Mountains to the west. The Rocky Mountains obviously are another matter – the thin air in the mountains would be an issue for many people of all ages. I rather think that winter weather would be the greater challenge for a resort centered on theme parks, making it a more seasonal business.
And the ski industry would lobby heavily against Disney building an entire theme park at the base of the Rockies because it would compete with their rocky mountain operations.
I doubt that it would be much of an issue. As I noted in an earlier post, Denver International Airport has plenty of room for expansion of both the terminal facilities and the air field to accommodate the additional traffic that a complex of theme parks analogous to Disney World would bring. And there might even be a market for vacation packages that would include a few days at a theme park complex and a few days at a ski/golf resort, in the same way that Disney sells packages that combine a 3-4 nights at Disney World with a cruise of 3-4 nights to the Bahamas from Port Canaveral.
Who notes any state that has potential land for a Disney resort and multiple theme parks today had the same if not more land available 58 years ago when Walt selected Orlando as the location for his EPCOT…
True.
Norm.
Albaby,
Disney may re-think some of their non-tourist facing investments in Florida, but I doubt that will be much affected by the RCID bill. Rather, Florida has been getting much more “red” politically over the last several decades - which might make it hard for Disney to attract the kind of labor force it wants/needs for many of its projects. Regardless of whether the GOP ‘makes nice’ with Disney or not, Florida is a red state and getting redder.
That said, the ironic thing is that Orlando has been getting much more “blue” politically over the last several decades, as the metro area morphs from a sleepy southern town (that happened to have Disney) into a much larger urban area, and a Democratic stronghold with a very large LGBTQ population. There’s probably less of a cultural gap on LGBTQ issues between living in Burbank and living in Orlando today, even with that red-state shift, than there ever has been before. (boldface in original)
The bigger problem with attracting a labor force in the Orlando area is that the cost of living, and especially housing, has risen astronomically over the last several decades due to the growth of Disney World, Universal Studios, and other attractions in the area coupled with an explosion of retirees settling there. People can’t work where they can’t afford to live.
Norm.
The bigger problem with attracting a labor force in the Orlando area is that the cost of living, and especially housing, has risen astronomically over the last several decades due to the growth of Disney World, Universal Studios, and other attractions in the area coupled with an explosion of retirees settling there. People can’t work where they can’t afford to live.
True, and that’s certainly changed over the last fifty years. I grew up in Miami, and I recall the early days of pre-EPCOT WDW. Orlando was a tiny town.
But that was a long time ago. Orlando hasn’t been a tiny town for quite a while (the metro area probably exceeded a million people two decades ago). And while it’s certainly more expensive to live there than in days of yore, it still compares favorably with expensive metros like LA.
For all the pain that being in a red state might cause them, it’s hard to see how Disney would be better off shifting resources out of Florida. That probably includes future investment as well. They have so much land, so many existing investments, and are still able to reap enormous political advantages by being the hugest fish in a still-relatively small Orange County pond. They’re never going to be able to replicate that anywhere else.
Albaby
Albaby,
And while [Orlando is] certainly more expensive to live there than in days of yore, it still compares favorably with expensive metros like LA.
True, but I’m not persuaded that the LA metro area is the appropriate comparison because there’s not much land available for development of new resorts therein. The comparison would have to be with an area where there’s a large tract of undeveloped land. The existence of a major airport with room for expansion nearby would be a significant plus, though undeveloped land would enable a new resort on the scale of Disney World to build a major airport of its own within that tract of land if there’s an area that’s flat enough.
Of course, there are other considerations here. Florida’s weather allows Disney World to operate all year, whereas the weather of the plains of eastern Colorado, where land is readily available, probably would not.
For all the pain that being in a red state might cause them, it’s hard to see how Disney would be better off shifting resources out of Florida. That probably includes future investment as well. They have so much land, so many existing investments, and are still able to reap enormous political advantages by being the hugest fish in a still-relatively small Orange County pond. They’re never going to be able to replicate that anywhere else.
This seems reasonably accurate. Most of the original attractions of the Magic Kingdom actually were moved there from the 1964-1965 New York World’s Fair – including the “It’s a Small World” ride, which made its debut as the Disney Pavillion at that fair – and these attractions obviously were designed to be relocated. However, many of the attractions subsequently built on sight at Disney World probably were not designed for relocation, so moving them probably would be a monumental task. I doubt that Disney will abandon Disney World.
True, but I’m not persuaded that the LA metro area is the appropriate comparison because there’s not much land available for development of new resorts therein. The comparison would have to be with an area where there’s a large tract of undeveloped land. The existence of a major airport with room for expansion nearby would be a significant plus, though undeveloped land would enable a new resort on the scale of Disney World to build a major airport of its own within that tract of land if there’s an area that’s flat enough.
I don’t believe “starting over” in a new location is a viable option for Disney. With multiple theme parks and tens of thousands of hotel rooms that have been developed over five decades, the Florida facility is just too big to replicate anywhere else.
They do have the option of diverting future investments to their existing locations in Burbank or Anaheim - basically reversing some of their recent moves. That might address the ‘red state’ issue, but wouldn’t address affordability.
Albaby,
I don’t believe “starting over” in a new location is a viable option for Disney. With multiple theme parks and tens of thousands of hotel rooms that have been developed over five decades, the Florida facility is just too big to replicate anywhere else.
I’m not so sure that “starting over” is an accurate description. It really would be development of a new location. Disney has developed plenty of new locations in the past, including locations in Europe and Asia. In reality, Disney World was the company’s first new location, with development starting in back in the mid-1960’s.
Norm.
I’m not so sure that “starting over” is an accurate description. It really would be development of a new location. Disney has developed plenty of new locations in the past, including locations in Europe and Asia. In reality, Disney World was the company’s first new location, with development starting in back in the mid-1960’s.
True - but three locations in the same country? I’m skeptical the market could support that. Especially since the third location would lack many of the attributes that Orlando has. Sure, you can buy a lot of vacant land and put in an airport (maybe). But Orlando is also the largest convention host in the nation, has 20 million people within a four-hour drive, and is close to one of the larger cruise ports in the country (and three hours from the largest). And as noted in this thread, there just aren’t any warm weather blue states (save CA and NV).
Opening a third resort would be such a huge undertaking that I also can’t imagine that the decision would be affected even by this most recent provocation by the Legislature. I can’t see Disney looking at third site in response to this. But I can certainly imagine them rethinking how they allocate resources between CA and FL.
Albaby
1 Like
Albaby,
True - but three locations in the same country? I’m skeptical the market could support that. (boldface in original)
That obviously is part of the calculation that the company’s management must do as part of its decision. I’m not going to speculate one way or the other.
Especially since the third location would lack many of the attributes that Orlando has. Sure, you can buy a lot of vacant land and put in an airport (maybe). But Orlando is also the largest convention host in the nation, has 20 million people within a four-hour drive, and is close to one of the larger cruise ports in the country (and three hours from the largest). And as noted in this thread, there just aren’t any warm weather blue states (save CA and NV).
It’s not clear to me that a location outside of Las Vegas or a location outside of Denver would not have similar local draw, and either location would have an existing major airport. Note that Las Vegas has a huge convention business.
It’s less clear to what extent the lack of a nearby cruise port would be an issue. But, JTOL, Las Vegas is only a few hours by bus from both Los Angeles and San Diego, potentially making cruise and resort packages feasible.
Opening a third resort would be such a huge undertaking that I also can’t imagine that the decision would be affected even by this most recent provocation by the Legislature. I can’t see Disney looking at third site in response to this. But I can certainly imagine them rethinking how they allocate resources between CA and FL.
That, again, is a decision that rests solely with the company’s executives and Board of Directors.
Norm.
It’s not clear to me that a location outside of Las Vegas or a location outside of Denver would not have similar local draw, and either location would have an existing major airport. Note that Las Vegas has a huge convention business.
True - but TBH, Nevada is so close to their existing California park it simply didn’t occur to me that it might be a viable third location.
BTW, in addition to the various financial reasons why the Legislature’s unlikely to stick to the dissolution of the district, RCID’s official response has been to point out that the various bond covenants issued for the District’s debt would be violated if the state dissolves the district. That’s a whole 'nother world from the area that I practice in - but my limited understanding is that breaching bond covenants and negatively affecting how the bond market regards the state is a completely different order of magnitude issue than even a few lawsuits over a single district. So I would be even more confident than ever that this ends up being resolved in a way that keeps the district around as a legal entity.
Albaby
1 Like
Albaby,
True - but TBH, Nevada is so close to their existing California park it simply didn’t occur to me that it might be a viable third location.
I was just thinking in terms of where there are very large tracts of open land near major airports.
BTW, in addition to the various financial reasons why the Legislature’s unlikely to stick to the dissolution of the district, RCID’s official response has been to point out that the various bond covenants issued for the District’s debt would be violated if the state dissolves the district. That’s a whole 'nother world from the area that I practice in - but my limited understanding is that breaching bond covenants and negatively affecting how the bond market regards the state is a completely different order of magnitude issue than even a few lawsuits over a single district. So I would be even more confident than ever that this ends up being resolved in a way that keeps the district around as a legal entity.
To be clear, a law dissolving Reedy Creek would have to provide a mechanism to repay all outstanding bonds – that’s a federal constitutional requirement. But that mechanism could consist of some sort of receivership in which the entities within the district pay a supplemental real estate tax that goes to pay the bonds in addition to the taxes levied by the respective counties, which assume normal operation of the territory that’s within their borders. I think that most of these special development districts are intended to dissolve when they fulfill their missions.
That said, the development district is a distinct legal entity from both the state and the counties within which it lies, so it should have a separate bond rating.
Norm.
To be clear, a law dissolving Reedy Creek would have to provide a mechanism to repay all outstanding bonds – that’s a federal constitutional requirement. But that mechanism could consist of some sort of receivership in which the entities within the district pay a supplemental real estate tax that goes to pay the bonds in addition to the taxes levied by the respective counties, which assume normal operation of the territory that’s within their borders. I think that most of these special development districts are intended to dissolve when they fulfill their missions.
I’m not sure a receivership can be given taxing authority. The Florida constitution has some very specific rules on property taxes and who can impose them. Rather than a receivership, they’ll probably just continue with some type of special district in place - either maintaining the RCID itself, but with stripped down powers, or a successor district.
I work with a lot of special districts, and there’s different kinds. Some are development districts, where they exist to build public infrastructure and then service the debt used to finance it - those will indeed dissolve when they’re done. Others, though, are intended to be perpetual. They exist not only to build public infrastructure, but to provide ongoing maintenance or to provide governmental services: things like drainage system districts, mosquito control districts, stormwater management districts, and the like.
RCID has attributes of both. They were instrumental in building massive amounts of infrastructure back in the day. But they also provide lots of ongoing services - basically service as that area’s public works department, fire department, solid waste department (I think?), water and sewer department, and building department. They have bond obligations and union contracts and pension funds and nearly everything else that a municipality might have. So it’s going to be very messy to wind it down.
Albaby
2 Likes
Albaby,
I’m not sure a receivership can be given taxing authority.
A receiver of a government entity usually assumes full control of that government entity, which includes whatever power it possesses to levy and to collect taxes. The big difference is that the receiver is appointed by a higher government authority (the bankruptcy court in the case of a bankruptcy, which this isn’t).
Rather than a receivership, they’ll probably just continue with some type of special district in place - either maintaining the RCID itself, but with stripped down powers, or a successor district.
That’s certainly another option. But the big difference, as I see it, is that Disney would not have the power to appoint the receiver.
I work with a lot of special districts, and there’s different kinds. Some are development districts, where they exist to build public infrastructure and then service the debt used to finance it - those will indeed dissolve when they’re done. Others, though, are intended to be perpetual. They exist not only to build public infrastructure, but to provide ongoing maintenance or to provide governmental services: things like drainage system districts, mosquito control districts, stormwater management districts, and the like.
Yes, the objectives being better coordination of planning and a streamlined approval process with only one authority in charge of the whole area.
Norm.
A receiver of a government entity usually assumes full control of that government entity, which includes whatever power it possesses to levy and to collect taxes. The big difference is that the receiver is appointed by a higher government authority (the bankruptcy court in the case of a bankruptcy, which this isn’t).
They don’t need to mess around with a receiver (or any process to create one), since they can just change RCID from an independent to a dependent special district. The distinction is that for the latter, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners would serve as the Board of Directors of the District. A lot of special districts are set up that way - rather than having the Board be elected separately by the landowners, the head of the general purpose governmental jurisdiction is the Board. If all they want to do is deprive Disney of autonomy, that’s likely the simplest way to do it.
Albaby
Albaby,
They don’t need to mess around with a receiver (or any process to create one), since they can just change RCID from an independent to a dependent special district.
Sure, there are plenty of other legal options, but a receiver seems to be the simplest if the intent is for Reedy Creek to be dissolved.
The distinction is that for the latter, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners would serve as the Board of Directors of the District.
That probably is not the right answer, as reedy Creek encompasses land in two counties. I suspect that the commissioners of the other county would want some say in this.
Norm.
1 Like