Celebration Criticism and rant - Disney MGM Studios Information and Guide

Before I continue my discussion this week about the town of Celebration, I would like to take a brief moment to express my disappointment with the Walt Disney Company over Epcot’s 25th anniversary. Recently on Deb Wills’ site AllEarsNet, Deb interviews Epcot Vice-President Brad Rex. According to her interview, which can be found here, Brad Rex states that “although 2007 marks Epcot's 25th anniversary, there was no big celebration planned, although there would be private observances behind-the-scenes for cast members.” I understand that the general public does not have the same affection toward Epcot as the Magic Kingdom and that Disney marketing would have trouble publicizing the event over the Year of a Million Dreams. Nevertheless, the theme park born out of Walt’s vision deserves to be celebrated with the masses, and not only in private observances held backstage. There are many that would attend and want to be a part for this landmark anniversary of a truly innovative and diverse park.

What in the world Disney?

For some critics, the Walt Disney Company is about control. For example, how do you make sure guests view the same showing of Pirates of the Caribbean? You make the pirates out of audio-animatronics devices instead of relying on actors. How do you keep out restaurants, hotels, and motels from springing up all over Walt Disney World like they had in Disneyland? You purchase tens of thousands of acres to create a buffer between you and them. This desire for control was the centerpiece of one journalist from Florida, who stated back in 1998, “Disney's expertise at making places and synthesizing urban experience cannot be separated from its legendary obsession with control. It is, even more than most, a corporation that lives by scripts of its own scrupulous devising.” The following article will detail some of Celebration’s history with the above quote in mind. We will then examine how Celebration is governed. Finally, I will leave you with a quote to think about when you consider the dual nature of Celebration (that is, compare last week’s article to this one).

The Town of Celebration’s history, not surprisingly, is intertwined with the Reedy Creek Improvement District (discussion can be found here). For a long time, the site of Celebration was part of the RCID, the 28,000-acre special district established by the Florida legislature in 1967. The district allowed the Walt Disney Company to control its own planning and development without having to answer to voters. This, however, would change if 20,000 Celebration residents were allowed to settle within the RCID. The vast number of residents would have meant more voters to contend with, which would mean that Disney could lose its control of the district. In order to prevent this, the Celebration town site was deannexed so that the new residents of Celebration would not be considered a part of the RCID.

Since the RCID shed the site for Celebration from its jurisdiction, Celebration became the first Disney project required to apply for state approval as a “development of regional impact.” Moreover, it was the first time many state and local officials had ever dealt with Disney in their official capacities. However, the introduction of the regulatory process in the development of one of its projects did not mean disaster for Disney. In fact, many officials greeted the project with open arms. The upscale homes would mean one thing for Orange and Osceola Counties: an increased tax base and more tax dollars. The counties worked with Disney to approve its Celebration project, and in the process the Disney agreed to pay $66 million in roadway improvements, over a million dollars to help Osceola county residents make housing down payments, and an agreement establishing the 8,500-acre Disney Wilderness Preserve. Disney was permitted to build. However, once Celebration was built, how would Disney’s desire to keep a uniform experience for all affect the governance of this new town.

One peculiarity of the town early on was that it was run by The Celebration Company, a fully owned subsidiary of the Disney Company, rather than by elected officials. The result of this has been that some decisions made on behalf of the residents of the community were made with Disney's profits in mind rather than the townspeople’s desires – for example, the downtown area contains several shops selling collectibles, but no gas station or video rental store. Disney had control over the boards of the homeowners association and the two community development district that raise money for municipal services. While residents were allowed to vote for members of the homeowners’ association, Disney remained the largest landowner because most of the land had not yet been developed, and therefore, could cast the majority of the votes. However, as the build-out of the town continued, the Disney Company gradually relinquished its control of the boards. Residents have now gained elected positions on the board of the Celebration Residential Owners' Association (CROA). Governed by a seven-member Board of Directors, the Association is responsible for “preserving, protecting and enhancing the common areas and recreational facilities and value of the community.” CROA also provides for the operation, care, upkeep and maintenance of the common areas and contracts for the repair, additions or improvements to the common areas. Celebration is divided into five districts, each district has a representative elected to the board by the homeowners in the district, and another two seats are elected “at large.”

Despite the change of power from Disney to the residents, the company still wields a significant power. Among the pages and pages of restrictive covenants residents are required to sign when they move into Celebration is a section that gives Disney veto power over any substantial decision by the homeowners’ association. The veto power is good for as long as Disney owns at least a single piece of property within Celebration. Any attempts by the homeowners’ association to radically change architectural scheme of the town, or to disband the association altogether, Disney can step in and veto that decision.

As mentioned above, Celebration residents are governed by the use restrictive covenants (that are enforced by the homeowners’ association) to protect the 'feel' of the community. For example, residents must keep lawns mowed, they are not allowed to park boats or RVs in streets or driveways, and residents must keep the street appearance of the house (everything including "for sale" signs, house numbers, lawn furniture like birdbaths, and exterior paint colors) within prescribed bounds. These rules and regulations are intended to keep the town aesthetically pleasing for its residents and guests. Despite their intention, these covenants require residents to comply with rules they would not normally have to if they lived elsewhere. As with all covenant communities in the United States, residents are required to sacrifice some of their freedoms to live in Celebration. According to Celebration, U.S.A., a book written by former Celebration residents Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins, there is a “willingness of people to move to a place where rules and regulations restricted personal freedom . . . [they] are willing to swap certain freedoms in order to live in what they think are safer, better communities.”

There is no doubt that Disney’s foray into community building and real-life urban planning has been a success. However, whether that success is worth the cost is not something so easily decided.

Agree with what I said? Disagree? Have a story to share sparked by this column? Share your own idea by posting a comment below.

What in the World?