News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[Figgy1]

To me, it was no different than what Publix supermarkets do in Florida. They pay for LE to be present at their stores in the evening.

Like I said, Garcia is an idiot if he thought TWDC paying OCSO to provide services was some sort of scam or nefarious.

Serious question. Do any of those involved have any idea of the size and scope of RC? IMHO they're acting like it's the size and scope of a single Publix store

 

[UNCgolf]

To me, it was no different than what Publix supermarkets do in Florida. They pay for LE to be present at their stores in the evening.

Like I said, Garcia is an idiot if he thought TWDC paying OCSO to provide services was some sort of scam or nefarious.

They do it in Georgia too. There's almost always a uniformed police officer at the Publix near me in Atlanta.

 

[mkt]

County sheriff's offices have jurisdiction. I live in an unincorporated area of my county. LCSO respond to everything - accidents, 911, etc.

Not for the reporting of an accident, only for insuring that the victims are safe until FHP arrives.

It's been this way for years, and as recently as 2021.

I'm still searching for the law or policy, but on quickie - on the OC Sherrifs Office page, if you wan to report a traffic accident, it clearly tells you to call FHP: https://www.ocso.com/e-report

 

[mmascari]

To me, it was no different than what Publix supermarkets do in Florida. They pay for LE to be present at their stores in the evening.

To do what though?

Just to stand there near the exit, in uniform, look menacing, discourge someone from stealing by shear force of will, maybe beat someone as part of the store's liability insurance exposure?

Alternatively, are they hand cuffing and dragging off to jail shop lifters, while being protected from liability by qualified immunity?

I completely support Publix and Disney's rights to the first. If that is what Disney is also doing while using taxing and goverment to fund it, that's tax fraud and shoudl be handled as such.

If its the second, that's a government failure and scandal. If it's the second because crime is up and the police are being proactive without charging, no problems at all.

Private enterprise doesn't get to pay directly for actual police service. It's not a thing that is for sale. They may frequently pay for the appearence of police service, but not actual service. In most cases, the appearence is all that is needed.

 

[lazyboy97o]

To do what though?

Just to stand there near the exit, in uniform, look menacing, discourge someone from stealing by shear force of will, maybe beat someone as part of the store's liability insurance exposure?

Alternatively, are they hand cuffing and dragging off to jail shop lifters, while being protected from liability by qualified immunity?

I completely support Publix and Disney's rights to the first. If that is what Disney is also doing while using taxing and goverment to fund it, that's tax fraud and shoudl be handled as such.

If its the second, that's a government failure and scandal. If it's the second because crime is up and the police are being proactive without charging, no problems at all.

Private enterprise doesn't get to pay directly for actual police service. It's not a thing that is for sale. They may frequently pay for the appearence of police service, but not actual service. In most cases, the appearence is all that is needed.

You get the actual service. You’re not just paying someone to stand there in a uniform. They are still acting as law enforcement.

 

[flynnibus]

Looks like the embed is turned off and it lost the time cue when going to youtube. Thanks for cuing it up, not your fault they broke it.

Jump to 1:34:34 - it's not youtube that broke the timestamp link... it's the forum's processing of youtube links - removing hyperlinks for previews only in doing so the only link available 'watch on youtube' doesn't include timestamps in the original URL.

Interesting. I hear that as the police force is understaffed for the level of service required.

Not necessarily. When private entities do things that require more police presence, that burden is often put to the private entity to fund or provide. How depends on the kind of activity it is and what regulation it goes through. For instance, an event permit process may require them to provide the policing to get the permit. A zoning application may require them to provide the services to get approval, etc.

Where it gets messier is when something is a by-right activity. And in the case of something existing, it's hard to tack on after the fact. Here, Disney and the District could have been paying for additional staff based on activity or threat levels above and beyond the normal baselines. Paying overtime doesn't necessarily mean 'understaffed' -- it usually means more shifts were used and they had to pay overtime to get the bodies.

It matters because it's not the same. The Sheriff cannot just go out and offer a private policing force to anyone.

Yes, they can. The officers hired through the off-duty programs as 'Extra-Duty' shifts retain their regular policing powers. They are not just trained goons - they still retain their normal powers. Of course officers can also be hired in non-policing roles... but that's not to their benefit.

Lots of companies hire off duty police to act in a security function. If they were funneling that type of arrangement through a tax structure, I would agree that it is incorrect. Likewise, if they were using official police staff to peform security officer responsiblities, I would agree that is incorrect. Both of those would look like some type of financial fraud.

There isn't really anything incorrect either way - because the District could have made legitimate arguments of why both law enforcement and non-law enforcement roles would be necessary public safety needs that benefit the district's interests and within their delegated authority with the cities.

The only delta here is the sweetheart arrangement between Disney and the District.. which we've already covered ad nauseum. Besides, public safety at large public places (no matter who the business is) is an easy explanation.

The ability to police, and take actions that are restricted to the police is a government monopoly. Different government entities can contract with each other to provide that service explicitly because they are both government entities. A private company cannot hire the police to perform policing actions.

They can and do - but what maybe is the distinction in your statement is they don't perform policing actions at the behest of who hires them, they do so within their established appointment and jurisdiction. You don't hire the police to be 'your private police' -- you hire the police to be there (vs elsewhere) and cover specific responsibilities.

You are going down this path as if the off-duty are hired to be mercenaries doing Disney's bidding... that's not how it works. When you hire off-duty police to work as police - they are infact still police, and will act as such. Just with specific areas of interest, time, and responsibilities.

This has nothing to do with the money coming from a private entity or gov. These officers are working inconjunction with the approval of their employer.

For instance, I live in an unincorpated county area. If someone decides to setup a campsite on the boarder between us and our neighbor, and we both call the police to report trespasses along with pressing charges to have them removed. There's not any choices here. The county is responsible for the police responsibilty. They don't get to say, you didn't pay us directly so we're not doing it. My neighbor doesn't get to say they paid extra to get better service.

I honestly have no idea where you are going with all this.

If you hired an off-duty officer to work as law enforcement on your property, he could infact cite someone for tresspass. You would get a benefit because your response time would be much better. If you didn't hire them, you could still call the police for service, and the responsible jurisdiction would respond, and the outcome would be the same... but it would take a lot longer.

I could pay the police to act in a private capacity as a security guard to discourage the campers from entering my property. In that private capactiy, they'll exhaust what they can do at some point and require non contracted service provided as part of a goverment function to take official police actions.

Yes, and that's the difference between hiring an off-duty police to work as police... vs hiring 'bob' as a non-law enforcement role or just 'bob' directly. But if 'bob' is an off-duty officer, he can still act as an officer within the laws of his jurisdiction. But that would be Bob just acting on his own, not as your employee.

 

[LAKid53]

To do what though?

Just to stand there near the exit, in uniform, look menacing, discourge someone from stealing by shear force of will, maybe beat someone as part of the store's liability insurance exposure?

Alternatively, are they hand cuffing and dragging off to jail shop lifters, while being protected from liability by qualified immunity?

I completely support Publix and Disney's rights to the first. If that is what Disney is also doing while using taxing and goverment to fund it, that's tax fraud and shoudl be handled as such.

If its the second, that's a government failure and scandal. If it's the second because crime is up and the police are being proactive without charging, no problems at all.

Private enterprise doesn't get to pay directly for actual police service. It's not a thing that is for sale. They may frequently pay for the appearence of police service, but not actual service. In most cases, the appearence is all that is needed.

They are providing LE services.

 

[mikejs78]

Regarding things such as traffic enforcement - if the district cuts the funding, then it looks like the county will have jurisdiction on unincorporated roads only if "the county and the parties owning or controlling such roads provide, by written agreement approved by the county's governing body, for county traffic control jurisdiction over the roads." But for any roads within LBV and Bay Lake, in absence of such an agreement, enforcement will fall back to the municipalities, who will either have to create their own police force (not going to happen) or contract directly with Orange County.

Special district, enforcement of traffic laws | My Florida Legal

www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[EeyoreFan#24]

Law enforcement and public safety in general at Disney and Reedy Creek goes way deeper than patrol officers looking for speeders and shoplifters.

My question…is Disney paying their appropriate taxes for government services. If they are then, the bill is what it is to the district.

 

[flynnibus]

Private enterprise doesn't get to pay directly for actual police service. It's not a thing that is for sale. They may frequently pay for the appearence of police service, but not actual service. In most cases, the appearence is all that is needed.

You are wrong.

The appearance and their presence is what most are hiring for... but they are in fact still police, and still have policing powers, and will act as police -- just with a limited duty assignment.

But if the Publix hired cop sees a shooting next door... he's going to act as a police officer would.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

So they "saved" $8 million by cutting the police contract yet plan to raise taxes by $11 million (while crowing about "cutting the tax rate" as if that equals cutting taxes). That's $19 million in total extra spending that has yet to be explained. So where's the money going? If someone were to attend the next meeting, that would be a great question to ask the board. I doubt they'd give a straight answer, though.

 

[MisterPenguin]

So they "saved" $8 million by cutting the police contract yet plan to raise taxes by $11 million (while crowing about "cutting the tax rate" as if that equals cutting taxes). That's $19 million in total extra spending that has yet to be explained. So where's the money going? If someone were to attend the next meeting, that would be a great question to ask the board. I doubt they'd give a straight answer, though.

Lawyers.

 

[mikejs78]

Yes, and that's the difference between hiring an off-duty police to work as police... vs hiring 'bob' as a non-law enforcement role or just 'bob' directly. But if 'bob' is an off-duty officer, he can still act as an officer within the laws of his jurisdiction. But that would be Bob just acting on his own, not as your employee.

I'm still not clear if what we're talking about is hiring off-duty police, or mutual-aid agreements for standard law enforcement? Disney exists within two municipalities and those municipalities don't have a police force of their own - they relied on the district to utilize Orange County law enforcement. If it's the former, I think the district has a decent case here. If it's the latter, it's problematic in my view. And I wouldn't necessarily trust the comment about overtime unless that was more documented somewhere.

 

[LAKid53]

Not for the reporting of an accident, only for insuring that the victims are safe until FHP arrives.

It's been this way for years, and as recently as 2021.

I'm still searching for the law or policy, but on quickie - on the OC Sherrifs Office page, if you wan to report a traffic accident, it clearly tells you to call FHP: https://www.ocso.com/e-report

That may be an OCSO thing. LCSO website makes no reference to calling FHP. It does provide a link to HSMV to self report a minor traffic accident. Even Section 316.065, F.S., says to report to either the local sheriff's office or FHP station if a traffic accident with damage greater than $500 or death or injury occurs outside a municipality.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm still not clear if what we're talking about is hiring off-duty police, or mutual-aid agreements for standard law enforcement?

The conversation was about Disney hiring police directly (as law enforcement)... vs Disney getting policing via the District.

Disney exists within two municipalities and those municipalities don't have a police force of their own - they relied on the district to utilize Orange County law enforcement. If it's the former, I think the district has a decent case here. If it's the latter, it's problematic in my view. And I wouldn't necessarily trust the comment about overtime unless that was more documented somewhere.

The inference is the district was paying for additional police services above and beyond their normal expectation of providing police services specifically for Disney-owned properties. So in excess and to the sole benefit of Disney. Not just their normal policing contracting with the Sherriff for the policing role the District provides.

Of course not really said in Garcia's statement, is how Disney being the largest target and highest traffic area, justifies extra policing vs say... a hotel.

 

[LAKid53]

Law enforcement and public safety in general at Disney and Reedy Creek goes way deeper than patrol officers looking for speeders and shoplifters.

My question…is Disney paying their appropriate taxes for government services. If they are then, the bill is what it is to the district.

Disney is paying the taxes assessed to them by the two counties in which their property lies. Easily verified by going to the county tax collectors' websites. I've done so. Each individual resort, park, etc., is listed.

This whole "Disney isn't paying their fair share in taxes" argument has been repeatedly debunked and therefore moot.

 

[flynnibus]

So they "saved" $8 million by cutting the police contract yet plan to raise taxes by $11 million (while crowing about "cutting the tax rate" as if that equals cutting taxes). That's $19 million in total extra spending that has yet to be explained. So where's the money going?

Watch the video - they talk about lots of additional expenses and knowing they were coming... expenses that are being offset by 'savings' they are finding by scrutinizing the prior budget. Start at about 1hr29 in the video for Garcia's monologue on that very topic.

 

[mkt]

That may be an OCSO thing. LCSO website makes no reference to calling FHP. It does provide a link to HSMV to self report a minor traffic accident. Even Section 316.065, F.S., says to report to either the local sheriff's office or FHP station if a traffic accident with damage greater than $500 or death or injury occurs outside a municipality.

Half of my life's been in Florida, and that's been my experience in Miami-Dade, Broward, Orange, and Osceola Counties, so I would have assumed that Lake operates the same way.

 

[mkt]

My question…is Disney paying their appropriate taxes for government services. If they are then, the bill is what it is to the district.

Yes. I've posted countless screenshots from the OC Tax Collectors website.

Disney pays double taxes to keep things running to a higher standard than what government normally offers.

 

[LAKid53]

Half of my life's been in Florida, and that's been my experience in Miami-Dade, Broward, Orange, and Osceola Counties, so I would have assumed that Lake operates the same way.

Leon, not Lake. And I've lived in the state for 57 years.