• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Florida Legislators Want To Remove The Reedy Creek Improvement District

VelocityRaptor

Active Member
I think they will insert legislation on constitutional carry and fixing the RC mess during the may special session. To be honest it was always a bit fishy that he called the May special session in the first place.
I would love constitutional carry. But I highly doubt it would happen. I think Desantis talks a big game about it, saying he will sign it if it arrives at his desk. But I don’t think he’ll be making any pushes for it
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
I would love constitutional carry. But I highly doubt it would happen. I think Desantis talks a big game about it, saying he will sign it if it arrives at his desk. But I don’t think he’ll be making any pushes for it
I’m not saying it will happen. I’m saying it will be used as a distraction and a way to score political points. Just as the reedy creek bill was used to distract from the district maps.
 

denyuntilcaught

Well-Known Member
It's fun to speculate.

Chapeck initially tried to mind in own business (TWDC) and stay out of the social justice fight over HB 1557, but was pressured to use TWDC to fight it and that resulted in the targeted removal of RCID by DeSantis.

In my opinion, both sides did wrong here.

Iger would have been against HB 1557 right from the start, there would be no flip flop. We can only speculate what he would have done.

Either leader could have said something like -

"Walt Disney World and Florida are partners and sometimes partners can disagree. Walt and his brother Roy did not agree on things but still worked together to grow TWDC. Although TWDC and Florida disagree on this bill, we will still work as partners to serve the state of Florida and the millions of guests that choose to vacation at WDW."
As someone with a career in PR and crisis, your statement is eerily spot on for what exactly what should have been done/said from the start. Make Disney seem like the mature one here,
 

Patcheslee

Well-Known Member
So curious about something. If RCID is done away with come June 2023 vs reestablished, do all roads in Disney become public property vs Disney property. And if it becomes public property, does that mean people would be able to protest in much closer proximity to parks and resorts?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
So curious about something. If RCID is done away with come June 2023 vs reestablished, do all roads in Disney become public property vs Disney property. And if it becomes public property, does that mean people would be able to protest in much closer proximity to parks and resorts?
Reedy Creek is not owned by Disney. If it’s fully a Reedy Creek road then it is already public property.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
So curious about something. If RCID is done away with come June 2023 vs reestablished, do all roads in Disney become public property vs Disney property. And if it becomes public property, does that mean people would be able to protest in much closer proximity to parks and resorts?
That is not a question that is answered -- because the very concept of 'being reestablished' is completely up to whatever they reestablish it as and with what terms.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
Summary for the cheapskates?
Basically, they outline four potential solutions, each with major drawbacks. :
  • Dissolve district and assets/debt move to the counties; result in either tax increases or loss of services; not clear this can happen because of the bonds though, as the counties don't have the same ad valorum taxing capability as Reedy Creek (limited by FL constitution) and that would be in violation of the bond contracts.
  • The state could argue that the 1967 pledge in the bond contracts is invalid - but that would have catastrophic effects on the state's bond rating
  • The state could use eminent domain to seize the assets of the district and Disney and use that to pay off the bonds - but they can only do that when the district is officially dissolved (June 2023), and in the intervening year, Disney could simply divest those assets to LBV and Bay Lake. This would reduce Disney's tax bill further when the district goes away.
  • Create an MSTU to replace the district - but that can't happen under state law because two municipalities are involved and they have self-governing rights under the FL constitution
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
So curious about something. If RCID is done away with come June 2023 vs reestablished, do all roads in Disney become public property vs Disney property. And if it becomes public property, does that mean people would be able to protest in much closer proximity to parks and resorts?
Where do they protest now?

I had been looking at this map someone posted earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District#/map/0

However, someone else posted this link yesterday: https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/RCID_City_Owner2019.pdf

If I'm reading that right, any of the roads (and water) shaded yellow are already public, owned by RCID. I assume the water is part of the water management system.

Looks like World Drive is RCID heading north until after you cross the new fly over, then it changes.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
Basically, they outline four potential solutions, each with major drawbacks. :
  • Dissolve district and assets/debt move to the counties; result in either tax increases or loss of services; not clear this can happen because of the bonds though, as the counties don't have the same ad valorum taxing capability as Reedy Creek (limited by FL constitution) and that would be in violation of the bond contracts.
  • The state could argue that the 1967 pledge in the bond contracts is invalid - but that would have catastrophic effects on the state's bond rating
  • The state could use eminent domain to seize the assets of the district and Disney and use that to pay off the bonds - but they can only do that when the district is officially dissolved (June 2023), and in the intervening year, Disney could simply divest those assets to LBV and Bay Lake. This would reduce Disney's tax bill further when the district goes away.
  • Create an MSTU to replace the district - but that can't happen under state law because two municipalities are involved and they have self-governing rights under the FL constitution

Imagine DeSantis trying to seize any Disney property and still claiming it's not a First Amendment violation. I'd hope that he's not that big of a fool.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Imagine DeSantis trying to seize any Disney property and still claiming it's not a First Amendment violation. I'd hope that he's not that big of a fool.
And again… it’s not Disney’s debt. It’s the districts debt. So if that scenario were actually attempted it would be the government seizing private property to pay public debt. I think the article was probably actually referring to the state seizing district assets and not Disney assets.
 
Last edited:

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
Basically, they outline four potential solutions, each with major drawbacks. :
  • Dissolve district and assets/debt move to the counties; result in either tax increases or loss of services; not clear this can happen because of the bonds though, as the counties don't have the same ad valorum taxing capability as Reedy Creek (limited by FL constitution) and that would be in violation of the bond contracts.
  • The state could argue that the 1967 pledge in the bond contracts is invalid - but that would have catastrophic effects on the state's bond rating
  • The state could use eminent domain to seize the assets of the district and Disney and use that to pay off the bonds - but they can only do that when the district is officially dissolved (June 2023), and in the intervening year, Disney could simply divest those assets to LBV and Bay Lake. This would reduce Disney's tax bill further when the district goes away.
  • Create an MSTU to replace the district - but that can't happen under state law because two municipalities are involved and they have self-governing rights under the FL constitution
Here is a good YouTube video about what could happen. If this is true and accurate, I would be happy.
 

Patcheslee

Well-Known Member
Where do they protest now?

I had been looking at this map someone posted earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District#/map/0

However, someone else posted this link yesterday: https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/RCID_City_Owner2019.pdf

If I'm reading that right, any of the roads (and water) shaded yellow are already public, owned by RCID. I assume the water is part of the water management system.

Looks like World Drive is RCID heading north until after you cross the new fly over, then it changes.
S.R. 535 and Hotel Plaza Blvd intersection at/along the Disney sign. Eastern border of Disney or RCID property. They obtained a permit from the city to be there. What I wouldn't want is changes that could bring them closer to parks and deal with harassment.
 

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

Top Bottom