Florida Legislators Want To Remove The Reedy Creek Improvement District

peter11435

Well-Known Member
No, they definitely have to get permits from RCID. What they do get to do is set their own permit fees. If they had to seek permits from an entity they didn't control (for example, Orange County), then they would be more or less at that entity's mercy on fee expenses. More specifically, there were a handful earlier in the thread insistent that Disney had actually fooled the Florida state government into absolving them of $2 billion in debt. My response was that if Orange County (or the state of Florida) had been saddled with this $2 billion debt (and I don't accept that they have, I'm simply accepting the premise for purposes of playing out the discussion) that same entity could easily recover the money from Disney through the use of increased "fees" (used generally to mean fees, taxes, and other expenses). This would include increased permitting fees that apply only to Disney (or more specifically, only to companies that have more than 50k employees in the county, or only to companies that make more than 100 permit applications in a year).
Reedy creek does not charge less for permitting fees than Orange County.

What you propose would be illegal and challenged in court and Disney would win.

Even if it was possible, which it’s not. How much do you propose they charge per permit? Do you have any concept of how long it would take to “easily” collect $1 billion.
 
Last edited:

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
No, they definitely have to get permits from RCID. What they do get to do is set their own permit fees. If they had to seek permits from an entity they didn't control (for example, Orange County), then they would be more or less at that entity's mercy on fee expenses. More specifically, there were a handful earlier in the thread insistent that Disney had actually fooled the Florida state government into absolving them of $2 billion in debt. My response was that if Orange County (or the state of Florida) had been saddled with this $2 billion debt (and I don't accept that they have, I'm simply accepting the premise for purposes of playing out the discussion) that same entity could easily recover the money from Disney through the use of increased "fees" (used generally to mean fees, taxes, and other expenses). This would include increased permitting fees that apply only to Disney (or more specifically, only to companies that have more than 50k employees in the county, or only to companies that make more than 100 permit applications in a year).

It doesn't work that way. And even if it did, it wouldn't make a dent in the debt that would be absorbed (closer to $1B than $2B, but still a very large amount).
 

Figgy1

Premium Member
No, they definitely have to get permits from RCID. What they do get to do is set their own permit fees. If they had to seek permits from an entity they didn't control (for example, Orange County), then they would be more or less at that entity's mercy on fee expenses. More specifically, there were a handful earlier in the thread insistent that Disney had actually fooled the Florida state government into absolving them of $2 billion in debt. My response was that if Orange County (or the state of Florida) had been saddled with this $2 billion debt (and I don't accept that they have, I'm simply accepting the premise for purposes of playing out the discussion) that same entity could easily recover the money from Disney through the use of increased "fees" (used generally to mean fees, taxes, and other expenses). This would include increased permitting fees that apply only to Disney (or more specifically, only to companies that have more than 50k employees in the county, or only to companies that make more than 100 permit applications in a year).
Permits filed per year may hit UNI more as they're building an entire park right now
 

Prince-1

Well-Known Member
Well now you know.

1650597873457.gif
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
I wish they would stop kicking that can down the road.
A detour, but what can they realistically do? They take the insurance companies money and allow them to run the game. Sometime Florida will get hit with a 30B storm but in the meantime a bunch of office complexes with insurance processors will get built with premium income in "safe" states.
I did 3 years with lender placed insurance as I could not get a policy at any price for my home. It is a joke that I had to buy at any price and in my new abode in another state with a greater value I pay 1/3 what Florida was.
No hurricanes but how can the legislature fix that in Florida? I duno
 

donaldtoo

Well-Known Member
We obviously have opposing views of the bill. I am writing what I believe to be the truth and facts. You are choosing something else. I standby it. I am sure you can find other sites that fit your views. This one isn't it.

Why are you giving views on any political issues in the first place…?!?!?!
Right around the time of the last election, y’all closed down the “Politics and Social Issues” forum, and declared in grand fashion how that type of discussion is not allowed here anymore…make your minds the heck up already…are politics and social issues discussion allowed here or not…?!?!?!?!?! :facepalm:
How y’all don’t even have a modicum of a clue how mixed your signals are is just baffling… :cyclops:
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
Why are you giving views on any political issues in the first place…?!?!?!
Right around the time of the last election, y’all closed down the “Politics and Social Issues” forum, and declared in grand fashion how that type of discussion is not allowed here anymore…make your minds the heck up already…are politics and social issues discussion allowed here or not…?!?!?!?!?! :facepalm:
How y’all don’t even have a modicum of a clue how mixed your signals are is just baffling… :cyclops:

I guess the same could be said about DeSantis and every legislator who voted to dissolve RCID. If they don't want CEOs of major companies voicing their opinions then they shouldn't accept any corporate donations for their campaigns. Mixed signals - except this is a private site as opposed to a state government so one is held to a different legal standard than the other.
 

donaldtoo

Well-Known Member
I can’t even find an alert I saw this morning regarding one of my earlier posts, as it appears to have been deleted, so I’ll just answer here…to whomever you are…

A.) I have never reported a single post here in the almost decade I’ve been here, nor on the other site I was a member of before this. I’m just not the tattle-tale type, nor have I ever been.

B.) I’m not losing sleep over any of this, as it’s actually kinda’ entertaining…!!!!! :hilarious:
 

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
I didn’t know I was “going after” anyone, much less whoever keeps the place running. I already stated I didn’t see a post telling people to leave if they don’t like it. But I politely expressed my thoughts. I also don’t even know how to count my post contributions. I didn’t know this was a status thing. There seems to be a clique on here, as many forums, where you kind of form alliances, and pander to one another. And if anyone says something that you don’t like, one might get ganged up on like the Lion King hyenas, and go “over here heres one!”
This is a nice forum. Lots of interesting and engaging people who know a lot of Disney inside info. I enjoy it and thank whoever funds it manages it. I’ve learned a lot of insight about Reedy Creek that helps educate my opinions.
Status has nothing to do with it. I looked at your post count after seeing you nicely implied the owner of the site was a hypocrite and to my total lack of shock, I saw you hadn't said much around here prior to this thread and yeah, I have no issue calling that kind of contributor out.

For me personally, this particular thread has mostly been a dumpster fire I can't look away from. (I'll fully admit that)

I've intentionally not been active in this discussion up to the point that someone inevitably started claiming things weren't fair with the way the forum was being run or with the way the main site was talking about something. You weren't the only one but you were the one I responded to. This is because more often than not, it's the ones who only have something to say when it's 'political' that seem to take issue with the rules.

Maybe you could call it a clique thing but it's more of a "someone created a new account just to argue" or "someone sat around for years not talking and this is where they choose to present themselves" kind of a thing to me.

A ton of people in this thread have said stuff I don't like or agree with (on both sides) but the owner and the moderator put a whole lot of effort into trying to give people space while maintaining order. In situations like this, those efforts are always thankless.

Personally, knowing how hard it is to maintain this site and these forums, I don't take lightly when people decide to be critical of them, especially people who otherwise have not contributed to the community.

Now that you're talking, maybe you can do a little of it on other threads?

It is after all, as you seem to know from silently watching for so long, an actual online community. Yeah, plenty of people argue and plenty take grudges from one discussion into the next but plenty of others don't.
 
Last edited:

donaldtoo

Well-Known Member
I guess the same could be said about DeSantis and every legislator who voted to dissolve RCID. If they don't want CEOs of major companies voicing their opinions then they shouldn't accept any corporate donations for their campaigns. Mixed signals - except this is a private site as opposed to a state government so one is held to a different legal standard than the other.

I’m not discussing legalities.
I don’t ever remember any politicians stating that they were all not allowed to discuss politics and social issues…can you just imagine…?!?!?!!!!! 🤪:hilarious:
This site clearly did…why not just open the “Politics and Social Issues” forum up again…it would make the folks that run this place look less like hypocrites.
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
I would rather companies stand up for their employees' rights when they are under direct attack, thank you

I would rather companies stand up for their employees' rights when they are under direct attack, thank you.
But who is under "direct attack". What am I missing? "Attack" from who or what? I dont see any "attack" happening on anybody...from anybody.

What is it that you see that I dont?
 

FullSailDan

Well-Known Member
No, they definitely have to get permits from RCID. What they do get to do is set their own permit fees. If they had to seek permits from an entity they didn't control (for example, Orange County), then they would be more or less at that entity's mercy on fee expenses. More specifically, there were a handful earlier in the thread insistent that Disney had actually fooled the Florida state government into absolving them of $2 billion in debt. My response was that if Orange County (or the state of Florida) had been saddled with this $2 billion debt (and I don't accept that they have, I'm simply accepting the premise for purposes of playing out the discussion) that same entity could easily recover the money from Disney through the use of increased "fees" (used generally to mean fees, taxes, and other expenses). This would include increased permitting fees that apply only to Disney (or more specifically, only to companies that have more than 50k employees in the county, or only to companies that make more than 100 permit applications in a year).
There have been several lawsuits across the nation about profiting from permitting and charging for permits unequally. In almost all cases, the counties or cities have lost. Basically permits can’t be used a means of gatekeeping, they exist to ensure public safety.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom