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

[jinx8402]

Oh no, they hosted a Holiday Party. Wonder which Disney resort they funneled that money to? Oh, it was Swan & Dolphin, not even owned by Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

I hate to rain on the Moms for Liberty bashing parade, but if you review the ethics report, you'll find that Disney gave RCID board members 'improper cash gifts' as well as 'lavish spending' on district employees.

I look forward to the excuse-making.

I'm still reading it... but the report really doesn't start off on a level footing at all.

1 - The report was supposed to be to fillfull the requirement for the district to generate "a report that includes a review of all remaining powers and authorities included herein and any recommendations for consideration of eliminating said powers and authorities for potential repeal by the Legislature" -- This is not supposed to be some expose or investigative reporting on ethics or whatever this thing tried to dig up.

2 - It doesn't get off to a good footing when the introduction includes lines like "His stroke of the pen formed a special district—one that facilitated the most egregious exhibition of corporate cronyism in modern American history."

I still have to read through this, but right from the start it sure looks like an egregious abuse of the district's funds to try to setup a witchhunt report under the guise of auditing the scope of the special district's definition.

The report even labels itself "What follows then is the first substantive independent audit of an entity that fueled the rise and shielded the dominance of a company at the expense of the public good. Its revelations are, simply put, shocking"

This is not the purpose of the law passed in 2023 which is to report on the district -- not the district that no longer exists.

 

[Brian]

Isn't the list of items reported under "lavish spending" just the list of RCID employee benefits we already knew about? The district chose to pay for these things and offer them as benefits to attract and retain employees. That is their prerogative, and there is nothing inherently problematic about it. Most of the accusations in the document are vague and suggest that the arrangement leaves the doors open to abuse, but very little real abuse is described that doesn't seem to be a massive stretch. At the very least, nothing explains why or how a governer-appointed board better serves the district's constituents.

Document linked above by @DCBaker.

The 'lavish spending' refers to the benefits, similar to what Disney provides to its own CMs, which originally Disney provided to RCID at no cost, but later the district took on as expenses. When they took them on as expenses, they did not pay the taxes for the benefit to the IRS, either by deducting from the employees' pay, or reporting it on the employees' pay and paying it on their behalf. When it was brought to Classe's attention that it was a taxable benefit, he declined to treat it that way and classified it as 'employee training.'

The 'improper cash gifts' refers to how Disney would not only provide at no cost the parcels of land to board members (during their term), but also pay their property taxes, further entrenching them in the "Someday - and that day may never come - I'll call upon you to do a service for me" mentality.

 

[mkt]

Page(s)?

I'm reading it. It's clear that this was written to paint Disney in as negative a light as possible.

Bringing lots of things to light which were already public knowledge and making them seen illegal and unethical... which they weren't.

What I find hilarious is "potential corruption" paragraph, when the current CFTOD is the entity that's actually corrupt. That's like me being accused of "potential murder" because I accidentally bumped into someone in a hallway.

 

[jinx8402]

Not to get into the validity on any claim, or how far reality is stretched to fit a narrative, but perhaps the state should have sanctioned this report BEFORE making the changes and pointing to it as the reason for legislature. Honestly, if they did and the governor kept his mouth shut on the real reason why it was done then Disney would probably have 0 chance in a lawsuit. But the governor needed a quick win and wanted to boast how and why he did it for his presidential campaign. Waiting until now for this report would have been pointless to his campaign as it stands.

 

[Lilofan]

Oh no, they hosted a Holiday Party. Wonder which Disney resort they funneled that money to? Oh, it was Swan & Dolphin, not even owned by Disney.

The Mouse still makes money off of Swan and Dolphin via the hotels paying the lease to Mickey.

 

[mmascari]

I'm still reading it... but the report really doesn't start off on a level footing at all.

I didn't get very far, but noticed this:

On February 27, 2023, Ron DeSantis, the 46th Governor of Florida, signed a bill abolishing the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Fifty-five years had passed since the creation of the special district. During that period of more than a half century, man landed on the moon, the microprocessor and internet were invented, the Soviet Union collapsed, the “global war on terror” began, and artificial intelligence became omnipotent. In short, the world had changed immensely.

That sounds factually incorrect to me. Didn't the law go out of it's way to say that RCID was not being removed and just renamed.

In February 2023, the Florida Legislature and Governor DeSantis reconstituted the district as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (“CFTOD”) and installed a new five-person board.

That sounds like it is implying that a new district was created, to replace the one abolished above. Which, again, didn't the law specifically say this is not what was being done? Along with, aren't the methods to create a new district well defined and not what was done.

In addition to the structural advantages for Disney of the RCID arrangement, Disney also worked to completely capture not only the RCID Board of Supervisors but all RCID employees—the employees that were charged with overseeing and carrying out the government functions in the District. Disney accomplished this regulatory capture by showering gifts and lavish spending on RCID employees and creating the impression that these employees worked to achieve the interests of Disney, not of the District or other property owners. RCID management and the Board of Supervisors facilitated this capture of RCID employees, and they did not disclose to the employees that the benefits they received were improper.

Both "not the District" and "other property owners" are carrying a lot of implications here. Are their any "other property owners" within the District that are not already restricted to oversight and approval by Disney for anything they want to do? That the "District" would have priorities that are in conflict with their constituents as a goal also comes across as wrong for a government that is accountable to it's constituents.

Assuming the rest of the document plays this loose with facts, what's the point. It might as well be treated as fiction.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not to get into the validity on any claim, or how far reality is stretched to fit a narrative, but perhaps the state should have sanctioned this report BEFORE making the changes and pointing to it as the reason for legislature. Honestly, if they did and the governor kept his mouth shut on the real reason why it was done then Disney would probably have 0 chance in a lawsuit. But the governor needed a quick win and wanted to boast how and why he did it for his presidential campaign. Waiting until now for this report would have been pointless to his campaign as it stands.

The problem though is that any report with a modicum of honesty would have had serious negative implications for major donors and constituents.

 

[Figgy1]

I'm reading it. It's clear that this was written to paint Disney in as negative a light as possible.

Bringing lots of things to light which were already public knowledge and making them seen illegal and unethical... which they weren't.

What I find hilarious is "potential corruption" paragraph, when the current CFTOD is the entity that's actually corrupt. That's like me being accused of "potential murder" because I accidentally bumped into someone in a hallway.

I just did a quick scan and that's all I saw as well. Wasn't all that covered several dozen./maybe hundred pages ago?

Exactly. SSDD

 

[castlecake2.0]

Lost me at “lavish”, it’s clear this report in immensely biased

 

[Figgy1]

I didn't get very far, but noticed this:


That sounds factually incorrect to me. Didn't the law go out of it's way to say that RCID was not being removed and just renamed.


That sounds like it is implying that a new district was created, to replace the one abolished above. Which, again, didn't the law specifically say this is not what was being done? Along with, aren't the methods to create a new district well defined and not what was done.


Both "not the District" and "other property owners" are carrying a lot of implications here. Are their any "other property owners" within the District that are not already restricted to oversight and approval by Disney for anything they want to do? That the "District" would have priorities that are in conflict with their constituents as a goal also comes across as wrong for a government that is accountable to it's constituents.

Assuming the rest of the document plays this loose with facts, what's the point. It might as well be treated as fiction.

IMHO The Gilded Age last night rang truer and in that episode

Spoiler

The robber baron wound up sort of on the side of the workers

 

[jinx8402]

The Mouse still makes money off of Swan and Dolphin via the hotels paying the lease to Mickey.

Sure, but doesn't Disney get that lease payment regardless if a holiday party is hosted at Swan and Dolphin? The way it was written (Walt Disney Swan and Dolphin, no footnote stating it's owned an operated by a 3rd party) it makes it seem like it was improper way of funneling money back to Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

If there is any doubt about the political slant of this report... statements like this should tell you everything you need to know.

"The RCID had inadequate procurement policies that did not ensure the District obtained the best price or highest quality goods and services for its contracts. Instead, the District engaged in race-conscious DEI programs that discriminated against contractors on the basis of race"

 

[Brian]

If there is any doubt about the political slant of this report... statements like this should tell you everything you need to know.

"The RCID had inadequate procurement policies that did not ensure the District obtained the best price or highest quality goods and services for its contracts. Instead, the District engaged in race-conscious DEI programs that discriminated against contractors on the basis of race"

Is it not racist to discriminate on the basis of race? Worse yet, is it appropriate to make selections for vendors based on their race instead of which will offer the highest quality at the lowest price?

Of all the politically-tinged elements of this report, I'm shocked you picked such weak sauce.

 

[flynnibus]

I didn't get very far, but noticed this:


That sounds factually incorrect to me. Didn't the law go out of it's way to say that RCID was not being removed and just renamed.


That sounds like it is implying that a new district was created, to replace the one abolished above. Which, again, didn't the law specifically say this is not what was being done? Along with, aren't the methods to create a new district well defined and not what was done.

I think you're splitting hairs. The first law passed did in fact abolish the district (tho of course we never hit the date before the law was essentially replaced). And the second statement is written in a kind of sequential method that doesn't really invalidate what it says... because reconstituted here can be interpreted to simply mean the repeal of the old law+new changes.. which is what the second law did.

 

[mmascari]

I think you're splitting hairs. The first law passed did in fact abolish the district (tho of course we never hit the date before the law was essentially replaced).

Not "On February 27, 2023" it didn't. If you play fast and loose with facts in an official report, what's the point. Other facts may be just as fast and loose. If the report reader needs to research them all, what's the point?

And the second statement is written in a kind of sequential method that doesn't really invalidate what it says... because reconstituted here can be interpreted to simply mean the repeal of the old law+new changes.. which is what the second law did.

Had the kept the first law, and then created a new district, sure reconstituted one. But, again, aren't there all kinds of other laws about how to create a special district? Ones that were not modified, overridden, or followed. Slapping a new name on it, while explicitly saying it is not going away, isn't really reconstituted.

I could probably see that it's just worded super poorly and really means "reconstituted the governing board of the district", since it does run on to say "installed a new five-person board". However, I don't think that was just worded poorly but done on purpose to imply something different than what occurred.

That type of implication and misdirection seems to be the goal of lots of the report.

 

[monothingie]

Disney's tax district accused of shady dealings amid DeSantis standoff: 'Akin to bribes'

A board appointed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis called out Disney for what it said was decades of tax breaks and schemes "akin to bribes" at the expense of Florida residents.

www.foxbusiness.com

Funny how this doesn’t make it to the front page of this site, but when a bitter ex-employee wants to advance their own agenda it gets a banner story about “Desantis’ CFTOD does bad thing”.

 

[Isamar]

They sent their 'report' to some media outlets in advance. Based on what I've seen on Twitter so far I'm guessing they only sent it to friendly outlets. Has anyone seen reporting on it in the broader media spectrum yet?

 

[flynnibus]

They sent their 'report' to some media outlets in advance. Based on what I've seen on Twitter so far I'm guessing they only sent it to friendly outlets. Has anyone seen reporting on it in the broader media spectrum yet?

Work keeps interupting me from reading it... but just the introduction alone makes you believe the whole thing is political theater.

Only real substantial thing I've read so far that isn't eye rolling is they say the district wasn't claiming the Disney benefits to employees as a taxable benefit. And that I agree with.. probably should have been.

The rest is so hard to read through - because you literally take notes on the absurdity like every paragraph. Then work keeps pulling me away.

 

[castlecake2.0]

Can someone explain why the district is saying it’s employees need to pay taxes on their park pass benefit? I don’t understand how that works.