"Golden Oak" Sales Begin Today

[Tekneek]

The more I think about this, the worse it seems. I am not going to pretend that I have some special insight into what Walt Disney preferred to do, but I never got the impression that he wanted to build playgrounds for the rich.

I know the problem is with me, because it has been more than a few decades since Walt passed on and the company has clearly moved beyond the "What would Walt do?" dilemma.

[Ian]

Yeah same here ... definitely don't think this is what Walt had in mind for his "utopian society in Central Florida."

But today's Walt Disney Co. (at least in WDW, anyway) has clearly left Walt's ideals in the dust while they pursue massive profts.

[BellesRose]

I don't know who would buy it in this economy. Yes, the billionaires obviously aren't that affected, but believe me, I know a few billionaires and they are watching every penny! Of course, I'm assuming Disney did major research and possibly even sold some before they even built them.

[Tekneek]

Of course, I'm assuming Disney did major research and possibly even sold some before they even built them.

Have they built any? These are just pre-sales. There is no finished product.

[BellesRose]

Have they built any? These are just pre-sales. There is no finished product.

Oops, could have sworn I saw pictures of one or two finished somewhere. Must have mixed it up with something else!

[princessgirls]

It's nice to dream. YES, Disney will sell these! It's not a sticker shock to me, houses in my town go for this much (not mine...) My friend the orthodontist is interested....

I don't LOVE Central Florida...LOVE going to Disney, but don't like the area off the property lines.

Julie

[Flower]

My guess is that people who buy these homes will not be living there 24-7.

I could see a company buying one of these homes and using it for 'business' aka tax incentive.

Example: If there was a movie production going on in the area, they would house the celebrities or workers while they were on location - not saying that would be the only purpose for the homes, but I am sure quite a few of them would be utilized as such.

[BrerGnat]

My guess is that people who buy these homes will not be living there 24-7.

I could see a company buying one of these homes and using it for 'business' aka tax incentive.

Example: If there was a movie production going on in the area, they would house the celebrities or workers while they were on location - not saying that would be the only purpose for the homes, but I am sure quite a few of them would be utilized as such.

I guarantee you that there is a clause in the HOA contract that forbids that. It's already known that the owners of these houses are NOT allowed to rent them out as vacation homes. I think they really want to preserve the integrity of this as a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood.

[Tekneek]

I guarantee you that there is a clause in the HOA contract that forbids that. It's already known that the owners of these houses are NOT allowed to rent them out as vacation homes. I think they really want to preserve the integrity of this as a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood.

Apparently, Disney has already revealed that longer term rentals of 6 months or more will be allowed. Additionally, there is probably nothing that prevents an executive from buying it and letting people stay there when they would otherwise be in the area. I know of executives of companies that owned residential locations, from houses to condos, in various areas and would let employees arrange to stay in them when in those areas. That wouldn't classify as rentals, in the legal/traditional sense, and aren't so widespread that any regulations are likely to disallow it. This was a nice perk for those employees who could take advantage of it, and the executive got to have the place occupied more often.

[BrerGnat]

Well, long term rentals in excess of 6 months would really qualify as residential rentals anyway. What they don't want is the houses being used as vacation rentals, where a new family moves in every week, and utilizes the amenities/perks that, strictly speaking, don't belong to them.

I'm not sure how they could control certain aspects of the home ownership experience, except to note that, truly, they can make whatever rules they want, in order to protect the OTHER residents of the community. They can certainly make it so that only the homeowner him/herself will have access to any perks, as easy as providing photo i.d. cards that have to be shown in order to access those amenities/perks. Sure, anyone *could* stay at the homes, but what use is that if they cannot access the communities perks? I'm sure they will simply make it very difficult for non residents (in the traditional sense) to feel "at home" there.

[Aurora]

I'm not a purist in the literal sense, and of course I would love to live in Disney World, but there is one thing about this project that bothers me.

It's this: I hate the fact that the company is developing and selling off Walt Disney World land to multimillionaires for the sole purpose of making millions, possibly billions if it's successful, of dollars for the company. I think it's a really bad precedent, smacking of greed and short-sightedness. And before everyone pooh-poohs me and declares that Disney is a business after all, there to make money and not some public utopia or charity, IMHO there is a way to brand your company successfully, and this isn't it.

To sum it up, this just makes me feel yucky about Disney.

[BrerGnat]

I'm not a purist in the literal sense, and of course I would love to live in Disney World, but there is one thing about this project that bothers me.

It's this: I hate the fact that the company is developing and selling off Walt Disney World land to multimillionaires for the sole purpose of making millions, possibly billions if it's successful, of dollars for the company. I think it's a really bad precedent, smacking of greed and short-sightedness. And before everyone pooh-poohs me and declares that Disney is a business after all, there to make money and not some public utopia or charity, IMHO there is a way to brand your company successfully, and this isn't it.

To sum it up, this just makes me feel yucky about Disney.

If those Millions and possibly Billions of dollars are turned into new park attractions, resorts, or other amenities for YOUR enjoyment, will you feel the same?

I'm simply curious. Your feelings are certainly warranted, and I mean no disrespect to your opinion.

[Tekneek]

If those Millions and possibly Billions of dollars are turned into new park attractions, resorts, or other amenities for YOUR enjoyment, will you feel the same?

That's a bit of straw man. You have no knowledge that any of the revenue from this would be put back into Walt Disney World.

[Aurora]

If those Millions and possibly Billions of dollars are turned into new park attractions, resorts, or other amenities for YOUR enjoyment, will you feel the same?

I'm simply curious. Your feelings are certainly warranted, and I mean no disrespect to your opinion.

Hmmm, I've given that question some thought, and bottom line, yes, I honestly would feel the same. The reason is that once the land is gone, it's gone. It's not like they can buy it back later and develop it for guests. And I'm worried about the precedent.

If this is successful, what about, for instance, the expanse of land between the Magic Kingdom and Epcot? Will we someday be gazing down at hundreds of high-priced privately owned homes between the parks instead of woods? Will we still feel we're entrenched in a separate vacation world or will it wind up being what Disney was trying to get away from in California and the very reason he built WDW in the first place -- overdevelopment?

To me, there isn't an attraction, park, resort or amenity in the world that would justify that. And given the dollars involved in the current venture, I'm not so sure that such a scenario is a stretch.

[Ian]

I have to say that, even as a die-hard capitalist, I pretty much feel the same way Aurora does. This makes me feel sort of "yucky" about Disney.

It's one thing to provide housing opportunities near your theme parks ... that I could sort of live with ... but to me it's another thing entirely to essentially build a playground for the rich right in your backyard.

I know that money buys privilege and I'm basically fine with that, but there's just something about the overtness of this and the fact that it is, after all, Disney that really rubs me the wrong way. For some reason, I really expect Disney not to stoop to cheap, tawdry money grabs like this.

[BrerGnat]

That's a bit of straw man. You have no knowledge that any of the revenue from this would be put back into Walt Disney World.

That's why I said IF. I have no knowledge, you are right. I was just providing a hypothetical. Mostly because people (NOT Aurora specifically) like to moan and groan about how Disney should spend more money to improve the parks, add more attractions, etc. But, then when an opportunity arises where Disney's goal is to MAKE MORE MONEY, people jump all over it as a "money grab". So, I just wonder where the money is supposed to come from?

Personally, I'd rather it come from the billionaires who HAVE it to hand over than from MY pocket in the way of raised prices for anything and everything Disney.

This whole thing doesn't bother me in the least. This development is on a patch of land that resort guests never even see, for the most part. It's not like they are building beach front condos on Seven Seas Lagoon or Bay Lake, which WOULD sort of bother me. As long as it remains unseen, I think its fine. And, more power to those people who can afford to buy in. I'm sure it's going to be a beautiful development.

[Tekneek]

Mostly because people (NOT Aurora specifically) like to moan and groan about how Disney should spend more money to improve the parks, add more attractions, etc. But, then when an opportunity arises where Disney's goal is to MAKE MORE MONEY, people jump all over it as a "money grab". So, I just wonder where the money is supposed to come from?

Existing operations. Over the past 10 years maintenance has been cut, attractions have been shuttered and not replaced, attractions have been copied between resorts, and rates have gone up (pretty much across the board) at almost twice the rate of inflation. Where is all that money going?

Personally, I'd rather it come from the billionaires who HAVE it to hand over than from MY pocket in the way of raised prices for anything and everything Disney.

For some, there are values that are not driven solely by the dollars. Granted, we may get caught up in the "magic" of a Disney-era gone by and wish the current company still had those same values. For what it's worth, I expect all the prices to continue to go up faster than inflation, even if Golden Oak sells out quickly. I would even wager that we won't see any evidence of that money being used to improve the experience at Walt Disney World. That's how confident I am that this won't have a positive impact on the experience for anyone that isn't buying into the community.

[Tekneek]

I thought I would add that I continually see the "Disney is a business, after all" line used to explain away criticisms. However, I think it is important to point out that it was ALWAYS a business.

Instead of "Disney is a business" being used to explain away the criticisms, it should actually be reinforcing the criticisms. If Disney, always being a business, was able to survive while staying true to stronger concepts, beliefs, and values, before, then it is a cop-out to claim that being a business today requires the abandonment of those values. It is a choice the executives in the company are making, not something they have to do.

[PopPhan]

That's how confident I am that this won't have a positive impact on the experience for anyone that isn't buying into the community.

BUT, will it have a NEGATIVE impact -- NO! You won't see the development unless you are looking for it; there won't be special transportation within the parks for these 'owners'; there won't be special lounges for these 'owners' in the parks (although some sponsor companies already have special lounges within the parks); this isn't property that was planned for new park development; it wasn't sold off to another company to develop on their own...

What is the big deal? I'm reading a whole lot of 'knee jerk reactions' but not a lot of reasonable reasons for Disney NOT to do this. Unused land that they are paying taxes on.....

[Tekneek]

What is the big deal? I'm reading a whole lot of 'knee jerk reactions' but not a lot of reasonable reasons for Disney NOT to do this. Unused land that they are paying taxes on.....

I suppose it depends on whether you think judging the actions of the company today in comparison to Walt's values and beliefs are reasonable or not. Clearly the company feels it is better to attach this project to Walt, by their choice of name. By doing so, they make it an issue, and I'm not the only one who thinks it doesn't stand up. There is nothing innovative about it. There is nothing ground breaking about it. What frontier are they pushing with this? If they are so anxious to put people on the property, why not at least attempt to employ some EPCOT concepts? Instead, this will be a luxury development, not unlike the kinds you will find all over the land. It won't be a prototype community to test out new methods, at least from anything I have read about it. That is why it is regarded as nothing more than a cash grab from a company that seems to have lost any desire to push new frontiers. They are content to go around recreating the same things over and over.