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

lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Cliff said:
And the millage rate on the assessment?

So if we speculate on what team is going to the Super Bowl, or speculate how a company stock will perform or speculate who will win a public election or speculate what will happen in a war.....to "you", that is all just "lying".

Wow,...you have a REALLY broad definition of the word. To the rest of the world, "lying" and "speculating" are two very different things.
Click to expand...
What about the millage rate? It is a public record. It is higher and in addition to the county rates. The funds it generates are part of the budget, a public record. So what are these shenanigans?

They are different things. Speculation is not just making things up. “I think the Cowboys are going to make it to the Super Bowl” is not the same as “I think the Cowboys are going to make it to the Super Bowl because they’ve been cheating all season.” Even more so when claims to cheating are repeatedly shown to be false. Speculating becomes lying when it is done to present false information as plausible.
 
LSLS

LSLS

Well-Known Member
Cliff said:
And the millage rate on the assessment?

So if we speculate on what team is going to the Super Bowl, or speculate how a company stock will perform or speculate who will win a public election or speculate what will happen in a war.....to "you", that is all just "lying".

Wow,...you have a REALLY broad definition of the word. To the rest of the world, "lying" and "speculating" are two very different things.
Click to expand...
Wait, the millage rate? That's the thing the new board actually LOWERED, right? So, Disney was purposely paying a higher millage rate than they should have been, and you are calling corruption on it?
 
donsullivan

donsullivan

Premium Member
LSLS said:
Wait, the millage rate? That's the thing the new board actually LOWERED, right? So, Disney was purposely paying a higher millage rate than they should have been, and you are calling corruption on it?
Click to expand...
That's the part that people keep getting wrong on this. Disney is paying the full property tax rate of Orange and Osceola counties based on the properties that span each district. Then, on top of that they are paying property taxes to RCID/CFTOD for the services provided within the district. This ridiculous talking point that they were getting some sort of corporate welfare has always been false and ridiculous. They pay more in property taxes than everyone else in order to take care of what they need themselves. RCID takes care of the roads, and water and sewer and emergency services instead of the counties paying for it.
 
C

Cliff

Well-Known Member
Look,...I'm not saying the CFTOD is all right here. I was looking up some of those board members this morning and I'm NOT liking what I see. This paster Ron Peri seems to have said some pretty whacky things that don't sit well with me. No!,..I do NOT want "activists" in RCID/CFTOD. I do not want activists that are "pro-Disney" OR "anti-Disney". Ultimately,..in a perfect world...I want CTOFD to be FAIR and NEUTRAL to everybody and without corruption. But dang,...this is an unrealistic dream.

I just have this suspicion that this RCID/CTOFD district is NEVER going to fly the way it's supposed do...no matter who get's on the board. lol (Oh,.....legal note: This statement is hearsay, hypothetical and NOT factually supported)
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
C

Cliff

Well-Known Member
No,...I have no intentions to "derail" any plan or narrative here.

If this forum is supposed to be an RCID "safe space", believe me, I'm not trying to ruin that. That would be a futile goal anyway here. But no,...a normal discussion is the only thing I'm interested in. I have no dastardly "intentions" of any kind.
 
Last edited:
J

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Cliff said:
Ultimately,..in a perfect world...I want CTOFD to be FAIR and NEUTRAL to everybody and without corruption. But dang,...this is an unrealistic dream.

I just have this suspicion that this RCID/CTOFD district is NEVER going to fly the way it's supposed do...no matter who get's on the board. lol (Oh,.....legal note: This statement is hearsay, hypothetical and NOT factually supported)
Click to expand...
What specifically was not fair or neutral about the way it ran for the past half century? What was being done that ran counter to the original charter and intention? Why was it repeatedly left alone even when re-examined in the past?

How do you imagine that transferring all power to select the board to a person who has publicly stated that he wants the primary resident, employer, and developer of the area to suffer will make things fairer?
 
C

Cliff

Well-Known Member

Here is a Penn state Law Review paper the details many RCID structural criticism and complaints. It also highlights some good things too and has a focus on Disney/RCID environmental impact.

RCID structural complaints and criticism did NOT start in the past year. Both parties have been complaining about it for decades. In the end,...everybody just looked the other way. (until recently)

No,..this paper has nothing to do with Disney's "current" political activism. This was written in 2006.

More RCID criticism in this article from 2001

The decades of RCID complaints are endless. You can Google them yourself. You can throw out anything form from the past year and just look at the writings before all this Florida vs Disney issue started.
 
Last edited:
LSLS

LSLS

Well-Known Member
Cliff said:

Here is a Penn state Law Review paper the details many RCID structural criticism and complaints. It also highlights some good things too and has a focus on Disney/RCID environmental impact.

RCID structural complaints and criticism did NOT start in the past year. Both parties have been complaining about it for decades. In the end,...everybody just looked the other way. (until recently)

No,..this paper has nothing to do with Disney's "current" political activism. This was written in 2006.
Click to expand...
I mean, again, who said it hadn't been discussed before? Pretty sure @lazyboy97o has talked MULTIPLE times about there being a study commissioned by the legislature (think it was early 2000's? He can weigh in more). Heck, the law review even praises the agreement in most of it's conclusions, while cautioning that you'd be hard pressed to find one that works this well elsewhere for both parties.
 
MagicHappens1971

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
LSLS said:
I mean, again, who said it hadn't been discussed before? Pretty sure @lazyboy97o has talked MULTIPLE times about there being a study commissioned by the legislature (think it was early 2000's? He can weigh in more). Heck, the law review even praises the agreement in most of it's conclusions, while cautioning that you'd be hard pressed to find one that works this well elsewhere for both parties.
Click to expand...
I had referenced the study done by the legislature several times back in March. It’s a 2006(? Pretty sure) report by the Department of Governmental Accountability office. Anyone can Google the report
 
T

TtocsMc

Active Member
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?
 
Last edited:
C

Cliff

Well-Known Member
TtocsMc said:
I‘m not trying to change the subject, and we can go right back to discussing the mileage 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?
Click to expand...
Nobody needs DEI to hire minorities. If your company does not have DEI...then you can simply hire the best people you can find. If they all happen to be minorities? Excellent!....but that shouldn't really matter anyway.

My parents pounded this simple concept into my young brain:

"Cliff,....do not EVER judge people based on how they look....doing that is immoral"

However,...some DEI programs seem to teach society TO judge people by the way they look!!

The exact opposite thing my parents taught me.
 
T

TtocsMc

Active Member
Cliff said:
Nobody needs DEI to hire minorities. If your company does not have DEI...then you can simply hire the best people you can find. If they all happen to be minorities? Excellent!....but that shouldn't really matter anyway.

My parents pounded this simple concept into my young brain:

"Cliff,....do not EVER judge people based on how they look....doing that is immoral"

However,...some DEI programs seem to teach society TO judge people by the way they look!!

The exact opposite thing my parents taught me.
Click to expand...
I guess what I’m wondering is were specific schools or students “chosen” for this opportunity because they were the most qualified or because it would be better PR for the administrator if they were a certain demographic.
 
P

PsylockeSmythe

New Member
TtocsMc said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
GrumpyFan

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
Cliff said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
J

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
GrumpyFan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
James Alucobond said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom