• 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

flynnibus

Premium Member
well lookie here... a pledge by the state to back old bonds...

4504 Section 57. Pledge by State of Florida to bondholders of
4505 district and to Federal Government.—
4506 (1) For all bonds and other obligations issued before the
4507 effective date of this act, the State of Florida pledges to the
4508 holders of any bonds issued under this act that it will not
4509 limit or alter the rights of the district to own, acquire,
4510 construct, reconstruct, improve, maintain, operate, or furnish
4511 the projects or to levy and collect the taxes, assessments,
4512 rentals, rates, fees, fares, and other charges provided for
4513 herein and to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the
4514 holders of such bonds or other obligations, that it will not in
4515 any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders
, and that
4516 it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation
4517 provided in this act, until all such bonds, together with
4518 interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with
4519 any action or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are
4520 fully met and discharged. The State of Florida pledges to and
4521 agrees with the Federal Government that in the event the Federal
4522 Government or any agency or authority thereof shall construct or
4523 contribute any funds, materials, or property for the
4524 construction, acquisition, extension, improvement, enlargement,
[...]

I read this as a pledge that they won't screw with the powers granted to the new district that would impair their ability to do the refunding bonds.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Can you explain this in more general terms? Is this basically saying the board of supervisors (I assume the state board) can change projects based on their discretion. Isn’t that illegal to have the property owner change something because a state run board said so?

EDIT: Can they be forced to tear down Dumbo (for example) because the board said so?

Projects in this context are District projects - not private property.

The relevance of that section is it's kind of a catch-all that says the District can undertake whatever projects it wants to fit the purpose of the district (instead of having fixed scope like a gov agency should have)
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
It seems to me, and my first skim-thru that:

1. The district isn't really dissolved. It's "rethemed" ( ;) ) into a more modern district. In a model that probably already exists all over Florida as a supercharged Home Owners' Association. The language, I would guess, is a copy-paste from existing Special Districts. It's duties are basically the same as any district's board/council. The language is almost exclusively about the infrastructure.

2. With the district not really dissolved, then the bond issue is moot. The new district just takes up the role of responsibility of all current and any new bonds. Disney still pays county tax and still pays extra tax to the revised district. So, there is no issue of the counties being stuck with RFID's bond bills.

This is what they want you to take away from it... the challenge is can they actually do it in the way they've proposed.

As you highlighted... a monthly minimum BoS seat with only per diem and expenses? yuk
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
You need to include what section these quotes are from.
No I don't - the language is obvious and the line numbers are there for your own reference if it doesn't make sense.

Simply put.. it's putting them in play to regulate Amusement parks.. which could include safety, inspections, oversight, etc. That's more than just building codes and zoning.

Would love to see how that reads with other state level powers.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
The thing about this also is that it could end up allowing non Disney businesses near Disney on Reedy Creek land.

Does Reedy Creek own any usable land?

I did a Google search but can’t find an answer beyond “Disney owns most land within the RCID”, nothing specific about land Disney doesn’t own.

I’m guessing the land under roads, canals, etc has been transferred to RCiD but that’s not really usable land.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Does Reedy Creek own any usable land?

I did a Google search but can’t find an answer beyond “Disney owns most land within the RCID”, nothing specific about land Disney doesn’t own.

I’m guessing the land under roads, canals, etc has been transferred to RCiD but that’s not really usable land.
Yes, the District owns land. It is a lot of roads, but also conservation areas. The district could also acquire land through eminent domain.

Orange County Property Maps:

Osceola County Property Maps:
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Who said anything about "own(ing) the land"? The OP gasped that non-Disney businesses would be allowed on Disney property, something that has existed in Disney property since 1955.
Dude... do I need to break out the crayons?

The difference between operations and sales Disney ALLOWS and DECIDED... vs sales or operations Disney has no say in.
 

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

Top Bottom