Disney powers could be cut, panel says
Takeover bid sparked concern about self-government
By Sean Mussenden
Sentinel Staff Writer
December 14, 2004
When Walt Disney World builds a new theme park or a major hotel, Disney's unique government powers exempt those projects from a regional development review faced by other Florida builders.
To prepare for another takeover bid for Walt Disney Co., state lawmakers could consider taking away that perk, the research arm of the Legislature said in a report published Monday.
The report, prepared by the Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, represents the first state review of Disney World's government -- the Reedy Creek Improvement District -- in nearly four decades.
The Legislature requested the review in April, shortly after Comcast Corp. launched an unsuccessful takeover bid for Disney. At the time, some lawmakers questioned whether Disney's government powers should transfer to a new owner with little history in Central Florida.
The Florida Legislature established the 39-square-mile district in 1967 to lure Disney to the state. It gives Disney, a private business that owns almost all the land within the district, powers generally reserved for governments -- including the ability to issue municipal bonds.
The district also exempts major new projects within its boundaries from Development of Regional Impact reviews, known as DRI reviews, by state growth-management officials. Those reviews force developers to mitigate the effects of large projects on surrounding communities.
The new report concluded that current laws are "sufficient" to keep a new owner from "making drastic changes to district services, operations and development activities" at Walt Disney World.
But, the report added, the Legislature could impose an "additional safeguard" by making future developments within Reedy Creek's boundaries subject to DRI reviews.
Absent that check, the report warned, "A new primary landowner with a different vision for development of their . . . [Reedy Creek] property could implement construction projects without mandatory advance public notice of development plans; critical review on a plan-by-plan basis; and mandatory public input on issues such as traffic, public facilities, and the jobs/housing balance."
State Rep. Andy Gardiner, an Orlando Republican who requested the report, said that he had no plans to push for such a change.
"Looking at everything, all the safeguards that are in place, I don't think it's necessary to go down the road to a DRI," he said.
Officials with Reedy Creek and Disney agreed that no changes were needed.
Under Florida law, Reedy Creek has a "comprehensive plan" that guides future development and already considers the effects of that growth, Reedy Creek District Administrator Ray Maxwell said.
"There's absolutely no reason to do it," he said of the DRI review.
The report focused on the effects a change in ownership could have on the district. It did not look at Disney's stewardship of the district, other than to say that "key stakeholders report that Walt Disney World Co. has been a good corporate citizen."
That view is not universally held. In the past, critics have accused Disney of using its government powers to avoid paying for the effects of its new development on area roads and affordable housing.
Even if the park does not change hands, the Legislature should still consider removing Disney's immunity from the DRI process, said Richard Foglesong, a Rollins College professor who wrote Married to the Mouse, a 2001 book about Orlando's relationship with Disney.
"It enables them to escape from a responsibility that other developers have to address," he said. "There's not a level playing field. It's hard to justify Disney having a benefit not enjoyed by other developers."
Takeover bid sparked concern about self-government
By Sean Mussenden
Sentinel Staff Writer
December 14, 2004
When Walt Disney World builds a new theme park or a major hotel, Disney's unique government powers exempt those projects from a regional development review faced by other Florida builders.
To prepare for another takeover bid for Walt Disney Co., state lawmakers could consider taking away that perk, the research arm of the Legislature said in a report published Monday.
The report, prepared by the Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, represents the first state review of Disney World's government -- the Reedy Creek Improvement District -- in nearly four decades.
The Legislature requested the review in April, shortly after Comcast Corp. launched an unsuccessful takeover bid for Disney. At the time, some lawmakers questioned whether Disney's government powers should transfer to a new owner with little history in Central Florida.
The Florida Legislature established the 39-square-mile district in 1967 to lure Disney to the state. It gives Disney, a private business that owns almost all the land within the district, powers generally reserved for governments -- including the ability to issue municipal bonds.
The district also exempts major new projects within its boundaries from Development of Regional Impact reviews, known as DRI reviews, by state growth-management officials. Those reviews force developers to mitigate the effects of large projects on surrounding communities.
The new report concluded that current laws are "sufficient" to keep a new owner from "making drastic changes to district services, operations and development activities" at Walt Disney World.
But, the report added, the Legislature could impose an "additional safeguard" by making future developments within Reedy Creek's boundaries subject to DRI reviews.
Absent that check, the report warned, "A new primary landowner with a different vision for development of their . . . [Reedy Creek] property could implement construction projects without mandatory advance public notice of development plans; critical review on a plan-by-plan basis; and mandatory public input on issues such as traffic, public facilities, and the jobs/housing balance."
State Rep. Andy Gardiner, an Orlando Republican who requested the report, said that he had no plans to push for such a change.
"Looking at everything, all the safeguards that are in place, I don't think it's necessary to go down the road to a DRI," he said.
Officials with Reedy Creek and Disney agreed that no changes were needed.
Under Florida law, Reedy Creek has a "comprehensive plan" that guides future development and already considers the effects of that growth, Reedy Creek District Administrator Ray Maxwell said.
"There's absolutely no reason to do it," he said of the DRI review.
The report focused on the effects a change in ownership could have on the district. It did not look at Disney's stewardship of the district, other than to say that "key stakeholders report that Walt Disney World Co. has been a good corporate citizen."
That view is not universally held. In the past, critics have accused Disney of using its government powers to avoid paying for the effects of its new development on area roads and affordable housing.
Even if the park does not change hands, the Legislature should still consider removing Disney's immunity from the DRI process, said Richard Foglesong, a Rollins College professor who wrote Married to the Mouse, a 2001 book about Orlando's relationship with Disney.
"It enables them to escape from a responsibility that other developers have to address," he said. "There's not a level playing field. It's hard to justify Disney having a benefit not enjoyed by other developers."
