I guess if you have to mislead to point out a fault with RCID, it's not really a fault then. My bent is to people not just making stuff up to then argue against. If that's all you have, then you are correct about one thing, it's not worth the conversation.
How land can be used is a major factor in its value. The rates of taxation can even change depending on use.
Hmm, maybe the bondholders should have insisted that power be included when they bought the bonds as originally issued. But they didn't. The text is the text.
Examples of why it should be reformed:
The pledge from the state is part of the deal.
1) Orlando does not allow the hundreds of thousands of individuals that live near it to participate in its management.
There was no community desire to take over the district or its functions. The community doesn’t heavily regulate large amusement developments. It was the counties who were most concerns about having to absorb the assets and liabilities of the District. They almost certainly would have just zoned all of Walt Disney World as a Planned Dvelooment and let Disney continue to do as they desire with even less public input.
The state pledged to not alter any power necessary for the RCID to complete the terms of their bond. I have shown you the text of the bond where the specific powers needed to execute the bond were listed. The zoning was not listed.
Do I get say in how your local government works? Why not? What's the definition of "near" that allows those outside the boundary to get input even while being outside? Do the residents of Miami get a say? Do the residents of Lake Nona get a say? Should the residents of Kingsland GA get a say in either the FL state government or in RCID? They certainly deal with traffic passing through headed to FL tourism destinations. If we're going to ignore governance boundaries, what's the new measure? Should we dissolve all local government and only have state or federal governance?
Do you have an example of a poor governance decision that was taken? Obviously RCID was influenced by Disney. This isn't a bad thing, but the contrary to be expected. Disney is the primary constituent of RCID, almost the only one. Governance organizations should be influenced by those they govern. How about an example of where RCID made a governance decision that favored Disney at the expense of some other constituent within the district?
The parking garages, that satisfy a local business development and infrastructure could be thought of similar to roads. A decision that is made by governments all over the country. Sometimes governments build them, sometimes they incentivize private groups to, sometimes they just let parking be bad.
Of course they were concerned. The way the process was handled was not sound or methodical. They had a long list of questions with very few answers. I always have argued that reforms needed to be done in a methodical way. The community shouldn't have had the issue sprung on them.
They knew plenty of answers, namely that they lacked mechanisms to increase revenue in order to provide expanded services.
What community? There is virtually no community at all within the RCID boundary. The community within the RCID boundary is the Walt Disney World Resort. Along with some land sold that includes conditions where the Walt Disney World Resort retains significant control over how it is used and developed.
It’s the community outside. The one that, even after some shenanigans, happily gave Universal effective zoning control, funding for new roads, and their own special district with the full powers of Chapter 190.
We hold corporations to a different standard than fellow citizens. You telling a community you're not a part of how to run that community is meaningfully different from a community holding a gigantic firm accountable. It would be one thing if the RCID was filled with fellow citizens, but it's dominated by a single entertainment complex.
Correct, after the community reviewed Universal's proposal, it zoned a property to a specific purpose. Now Universal can act with impunity in the area because it was zoned appropriately. Hmm, doesn't sound so bad.
Once again, no it was not. No specific plan was reviewed nor was the property given a specific zoning designation.
I'm beginning to think this poster is one of the CFTOD board members.
I never said that Walt Disney World wasn't zoned appropriately. That seems to have been your own extrapolation.
Groan.
I know that groan from anywhere, Bridget!