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

[PsylockeSmythe]

I‘m not trying to change the subject, and we can go right back to discussing the millage rate, but I was just checking out the CFTOD Facebook page and was surprised to see that while ”abolishing“ DEI from the District, the majority of the interns they have been parading about seem to be in the minority demographic. Isn’t that kind of the opposite of what the administrator said they’re doing? Or do I not understand how DEI works?

What they are more than likely talking about is for construction type of contracts. What that means, is that on a lot of public projects, the owner would like a certain percentage of the work to be performed/supplied by a minority company. We see it all the time to where the General Contractor has been directed by the owner that they would like 20 to 25% of the work to be supplied or performed by minority companies.

The problem is that this can cause the project to cost more. For example, where I work, we can buy the material directly from the manufacture and we self-perform 99% of the work that we bid on. For us to have minority participation, that means that we would have to either buy the materials from a 3rd party minority company or subcontract out the labor portion to a minority company or a combination of the two. Getting a price from the minority company means the price of the material on the project ends up X (manufacture price) times Z (the minority company markup), times Y (our markup) and that would be priced into our bid. So something that would cost us a $1,000 to buy direct can end up costing us $1,400 to buy from the minority company. Which we then markup and place that value on our bid, which means that the owner/GC' project ends up costing more to complete, then it would without the minority participation requirement.

These types of directives are designed to try and help minority owned businesses but can and do increase the costs of most projects.

So, I'm pretty sure that this is what they are talking about costing the district millions of dollars more then would be necessary if the district didn't require minority participation.

Psy

 

[wdwmagic]

DeSantis appointee to Disney board taught seminar using discredited research claiming White people were slaves in America​

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/kfile-desantis-appointee-discredited-research-white-slaves/index.html

 

[Cliff]

DeSantis appointee to Disney board taught seminar using discredited research claiming White people were slaves in America​

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/kfile-desantis-appointee-discredited-research-white-slaves/index.html

I commented on this earlier,....uggg. Wonderful.

The CFTOD is brand new and it already needs some cleaning....it's not off to a good start.

 

[GrumpyFan]

I commented on this earlier,....uggg. Wonderful.

The CFTOD is brand new and it already needs some cleaning....it's not off to a good start.

Not surprising really. Every form of government and it's members has issues. None are perfect nor are they made up of perfect people.

I'm not saying this as an excuse to CFTOD, this board member nor addressing what they've said or done, just pointing out partly in response to your previous post about complaints and issues with RCID, that all forms of government have issues and criticisms. There are no perfect solutions to entities such as this. They fit a specific need or set of needs and fulfill a purpose. Sometimes people that are part of these entities do bad things and it causes hurt or damage to other people or property. We, as a society, judge their actions and make corrections as needed with the people, laws and regulations governing these bodies to try and prevent the same issues from re-occurring.

RCID wasn't perfect, and clearly CFTOD isn't either. Replacing one private board with another appointed by the governor doesn't solve all the problems, and as witnessed here, sometimes it just creates more and a different set of problems.

 

[James Alucobond]

RCID wasn't perfect, and clearly CFTOD isn't either. Replacing one private board with another appointed by the governor doesn't solve all the problems, and as witnessed here, sometimes it just creates more and a different set of problems.

This is still an unfair characterization of what happened, though. The relative “perfection” of the prior board was never in question; they were not accused of negligence or misappropriation of funds. The inciting incident was The Walt Disney Company’s stance on recent legislation in Florida. Why even try to “both sides” this thing with regard to the conduct of the district’s politicians when that wasn’t the reason the district structure was altered in the first place?

 

[GrumpyFan]

This is still an unfair characterization of what happened, though. The relative “perfection” of the prior board was never in question; they were not accused of negligence or misappropriation of funds. The inciting incident was The Walt Disney Company’s stance on recent legislation in Florida. Why even try to “both sides” this thing with regard to the conduct of the district’s politicians when that wasn’t the reason the district structure was altered in the first place?

I'm in agreement with you, but my comment was directed more toward @Cliff's who brought into question issues with how RCID was previously managed, based in part by some complaints about the district. At least that's my understanding of his remarks.
Again, that's not to say that I think it was a perfect solution for all parties, just that it has worked well for more than 50 years, and didn't necessarily need such a drastic and politically motivated overhaul.

 

[mmascari]

Replacing one private board with another appointed by the governor doesn't solve all the problems, and as witnessed here, sometimes it just creates more and a different set of problems.

The prior board wasn’t privately appointed. It was elected by those it governs. It was was accountable to those it governed and could be replaced by the governed through elections.

The CFTOD board is appointed by an outside entity, has no accountability to those it governs, and no recourse by the governed for anything. It is imposed with no recourse.

They are are not same. Not even close.

 

[James Alucobond]

I'm in agreement with you, but my comment was directed more toward @Cliff's who brought into question issues with how RCID was previously managed, based in part by some complaints about the district. At least that's my understanding of his remarks.
Again, that's not to say that I think it was a perfect solution for all parties, just that it has worked well for more than 50 years, and didn't necessarily need such a drastic and politically motivated overhaul.

I just don't think it's a helpful angle to take. It insinuates some sort of misconduct on the part of the previous board that was literally never alleged as part of this takeover, even by the folks perpetrating it. The rationale for the takeover was clearly stated, so why cast aspersions where none existed?

 

[GrumpyFan]

The prior board wasn’t privately appointed. It was elected by those it governs. It was was accountable to those it governed and could be replaced by the governed through elections.

The CFTOD board is appointed by an outside entity, has no accountability to those it governs, and no recourse by the governed for anything. It is imposed with no recourse.

They are are not same. Not even close.

We're splitting hairs, but, I mostly agree with you, they are not the same, nor was that the implication.

It was "private" in the sense that they were not real citizens of a district, they were employees of the company that owns and pays the bulk of taxes for the district. This part bothers some people, and they see it as potential for conflict of interest.

 

[mmascari]

We're splitting hairs, but, I mostly agree with you, they are not the same, nor was that the implication.

It was "private" in the sense that they were not real citizens of a district, they were employees of the company that owns and pays the bulk of taxes for the district. This part bothers some people, and they see it as potential for conflict of interest.

It’s not splitting hairs though, it’s fundamental to the structure of the district. The shorthand that treats the former district board, or the district itself as if they’re the same as Disney is the one that’s incorrect. It’s a lazy shorthand that creates a false impression.

There’s almost 2,000 districts in FL. If the way districts are structured is the concern, people should be out of their minds upset about all of them.

Beyond that, nothing that was changed about district was because of any district structure along with not being done to any other district.

It’s a sideshow being used by some to distract. A straw man fictional argument that can be discussed but has nothing to do with what occurred or the actual facts.

It’s like arguing that Disney had to much influence on the district actions and this disenfranchised the others that own property within the district. As if there are vast numbers of people in that scenario. When the reality is that there are none and the few other organizations that do own property all acquired it with full knowledge of the structure prior to purchase.

 

[GrumpyFan]

It’s not splitting hairs though, it’s fundamental to the structure of the district. The shorthand that treats the former district board, or the district itself as if they’re the same as Disney is the one that’s incorrect. It’s a lazy shorthand that creates a false impression.

There’s almost 2,000 districts in FL. If the way districts are structured is the concern, people should be out of their minds upset about all of them.

Beyond that, nothing that was changed about district was because of any district structure along with not being done to any other district.

It’s a sideshow being used by some to distract. A straw man fictional argument that can be discussed but has nothing to do with what occurred or the actual facts.

It’s like arguing that Disney had to much influence on the district actions and this disenfranchised the others that own property within the district. As if there are vast numbers of people in that scenario. When the reality is that there are none and the few other organizations that do own property all acquired it with full knowledge of the structure prior to purchase.

I’m quite familiar with how it works, look at my previous comments. I’m vehemently against and angered at the governor’s politically driven takeover of Disney’s board.

 

[Cliff]

This is still an unfair characterization of what happened, though. The relative “perfection” of the prior board was never in question; they were not accused of negligence or misappropriation of funds. The inciting incident was The Walt Disney Company’s stance on recent legislation in Florida. Why even try to “both sides” this thing with regard to the conduct of the district’s politicians when that wasn’t the reason the district structure was altered in the first place?

I think that for decades the Disney/RCID configuration has been criticized by both political sides. This is really nothing new. It just seems that politicians eventually wound up grumbling and mumbling as they looked the other way. For decades, Disney did a REALLY good job of quieting both sides and keeping PEACE with the politicians and THAT went a really long way at keeping the status quo secure.

Again, Disney worked carefully with BOTH sides pretty equally for a long time. They were somewhat "politically protected" by BOTH sides. Well?.....until last year when they decided to change that successful tactic. They PUBLICALLY planted their war flag on ONE side and pointed their finger at the other. The new opposition screamed: "Yeah Disney???...that's how it's going to be now??...OK, we are NOT looking away any longer".

Disney turned their 100 year old brand into a political football and jumped head-long into the fire pit, polarized culture war....a place where nobody wins!

The rest is up to future history books as to how this mess will turn out for Disney and it's...."once upon a time"...universally beloved and trusted brand halo....

 

[RamblinWreck]

I think that for decades the Disney/RCID configuration has been criticized by both political sides. This is really nothing new. It just seems that politicians eventually wound up grumbling and mumbling as they looked the other way. For decades, Disney did a REALLY good job of quieting both sides and keeping PEACE with the politicians and THAT went a really long way at keeping the status quo secure.

Again, Disney worked carefully with BOTH sides pretty equally for a long time. They were somewhat "politically protected" by BOTH sides. Well?.....until last year when they decided to change that successful tactic. They PUBLICALLY planted their war flag on ONE side and pointed their finger at the other. The new opposition screamed: "Yeah Disney???...that's how it's going to be now??...OK, we are NOT looking away any longer".

Disney turned their 100 year old brand into a political football and jumped head-long into the fire pit, polarized culture war....a place where nobody wins!

The rest is up to future history books as to how this mess will turn out for Disney and it's...."once upon a time"...universally beloved and trusted brand halo....

This is a heavily skewed and generally false analysis of the situation.

 

[Cliff]

This is a heavily skewed and generally false analysis of the situation.

Fair enough but that's the way I see it from my perspective. (for whatever it's worth)

How is your opinion of Disney's situation different?

 

[James Alucobond]

I think that for decades the Disney/RCID configuration has been criticized by both political sides. This is really nothing new. It just seems that politicians eventually wound up grumbling and mumbling as they looked the other way. For decades, Disney did a REALLY good job of quieting both sides and keeping PEACE with the politicians and THAT went a really long way at keeping the status quo secure.

Again, Disney worked carefully with BOTH sides pretty equally for a long time. They were somewhat "politically protected" by BOTH sides. Well?.....until last year when they decided to change that successful tactic. They PUBLICALLY planted their war flag on ONE side and pointed their finger at the other. The new opposition screamed: "Yeah Disney???...that's how it's going to be now??...OK, we are NOT looking away any longer".

Disney turned their 100 year old brand into a political football and jumped head-long into the fire pit, polarized culture war....a place where nobody wins!

The rest is up to future history books as to how this mess will turn out for Disney and it's...."once upon a time"...universally beloved and trusted brand halo....

But this isn't what happened. At all. Politicians didn't look the other way. They reviewed the situation whenever it was brought forward, and they determined time and again that the district was being run effectively as intended within the terms of the charter. You keep suggesting that there is something wrong with Disney's arrangement with RCID and that favors, hush money, or some delicate balance of political appeasement was necessary to keep it in place.

The state of Florida couldn't reasonably have said, "We're not looking away any longer," when they never looked away in the first place. And again, what specifically do you think they were looking away from? DeSantis in particular wasn't even personally familiar enough with the way that Disney's arrangement worked to realize the consequences of unraveling it, and he made no move to rethink similarly designed districts elsewhere in Florida. It is well documented that he made the decision to punish them before he ever looked into RCID.

 

[Vacationeer]

I think that for decades the Disney/RCID configuration has been criticized by both political sides. This is really nothing new. It just seems that politicians eventually wound up grumbling and mumbling as they looked the other way.

What were the issues criticized?

Again, Disney worked carefully with BOTH sides pretty equally for a long time. They were somewhat "politically protected" by BOTH sides. Well?.....until last year when they decided to change that successful tactic. They PUBLICALLY planted their war flag on ONE side and pointed their finger at the other.

War flag? That’s quite a stretch to most people. There was one point they did not agree with And they made it known. If they wanted to instigate, there’s dozens of things they could have questioned and antagonized. They did not. They spoke out on one subject because they (along with many others) see it as a human rights violation.

 

[Chi84]

At this point, I have to assume some part of the moderation team wants it to continue, considering how quickly action is taken on other posts and previous warnings in this very thread.

I doubt they care about a handful of people chasing their tails as long as no one is being outrageous.

Being ungodly repetitive is not against the terms of service, but it does tend to derail the thread.

 

[Rich Brownn]

We're splitting hairs, but, I mostly agree with you, they are not the same, nor was that the implication.

It was "private" in the sense that they were not real citizens of a district, they were employees of the company that owns and pays the bulk of taxes for the district. This part bothers some people, and they see it as potential for conflict of interest.

RCID didn't always just rubber stamp what Disney wanted. There were a few times RCID said no, due to environmental concerns

 

[CaptainNicko]

I implore you all. Please just stop replying. Every few weeks this happens. People are entitled to their feelings. If those feelings don't seem based in fact, you are entitled to ignore them. Honestly, many of these folks are the same people just popping in to repeat what they said 30 pages ago.

 

[Stripes]

Criticism of the prior Reedy Creek structure is fair even though I think time has shown that it was a structure that worked pretty well. However, I don’t understand criticism of the prior structure while ignoring the structure of the new board. The new structure has no mechanism in place to maintain accountability to taxpayers, which in my opinion is much, much worse than the prior structure.

Here’s a quote from one of Disney’s legal filings:

In public comments, the Governor asserts that the laws simply make Disney subject to the same regulatory structure applicable to other Florida businesses, thereby creating a “level playing field.” That contention is an outright falsehood. Most businesses and other property owners in Florida are regulated by elected, politically-accountable municipal bodies. Few Florida businesses are subject, as Disney now is, to governance by a special district with a Governor-controlled Board that closely regulates the use of private property with no accountability to local property owners and taxpayers.