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

[Lilofan]

Only cast members need that, silly.

Rewatch that clip; you're clearly looking at a last-generation animatronic.

Practice what you preach but he is not preaching lately after the debacle of Reedy Creek under his watch. He spoke up but got burned by the vengeful DeSantis. Goodness if another of his perceived enemies ticks him off, he will show his true colors again.

 

[CAV]

Chapek is a bad CEO who has been dealt an unbelievably bad hand at every turn. A once-in-a-century pandemic, a US culture war unlike anything seen since the 60s, a governor willing to violate the Constitution to punish his perceived enemies, a European war, a predecessor who won't leave or signal confidence in Chapek's abilities - Chapek's problem isn't that he's an arrogant juggernaut, its that he's a colorless number cruncher who would be unequal to the task of running perhaps the world's largest, most scrutinized culture industry in the best of times - and he's been faced with some of the worst. Honestly, he's almost a sympathetic figure. If anyone deserves outright contempt, its Iger for setting Chapek and Disney up for failure to burnish his own reputation.

Oh, and by the way, the government punishing private entities for views they don't like is absolutely unconstitutional. Up until about six years ago it was a third rail of US politics - violating it would have rightfully ended a political career. But a lot of people have found it easier to abandon the foundational principles of the USA rather then doing the unpleasant work of being honest about what is happening in the political and social arenas. So instead, we get, "Yeah, its blatantly unconstitutional, but its directed at people saying things I don't like, so I'll continue to support the people violating everything the country stands for."

There are a couple of problems with your assertion that the government is punishing Disney. 1) its not 2) it affects all IDs created before a specifi

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Does WDW now have to pay their "fair share" to both Oceola and Orange counties along with the State of Florida?

Good lord, amidst all the discussion of the moderation policy here I sincerely read this as
"Does WDWMagic now have to pay their 'fair share' to both Oceola and Orange counties along with the State of Florida?"

You're on notice, Steve, that you better change your ways or you might not like a certain bill being prepared for the Florida legislator dealing with UK-based sites that opened during the 1990s covering Central Florida area attractions!

 

[peter11435]

Except they wouldn't be gatekeeping; quite the contrary, the entire purpose would be to generate revenue, specifically from the company that uses the permitting process the most.

The whole issue is really moot, as I would think the most efficient way for Florida to extort money from Disney (if that was its goal) would be through roadway tolls into and out of the resort. If the Port Authority can charge $16 a car to cross the river into NYC to the tune of approximately $350 million a year, surely the state of Florida could justify a $25 per car toll on all of Disney's employees and customers as they entered the resort. If the WDC felt obligated to offset this increased cost through higher wages/compensation (employees) and lower parking fees (customers), that would be up to them.

It's all nonsense anyway ... Disney's debt burden is not going to disappear unless Disney no longer intends to use utilities (electricity) at its resort in the future. RCID's utilities-providing infrastructure is going to land in either the state or county governments' lap and that entity is going to charge Disney appropriately for those utilities going forward (just as RCID would have).

No it would exactly be gatekeeping.

You would be inhibiting projects and growth by a single entity and treating them differently and harmfully.

If they use the permitting process the most then they are already paying more than anyone else in fees.

The cost of reviewing a permit does not change based on the number of permits an entity files or number of employees they have. There would be no justification to charge them more based on these factors.

And again even if they could do this I don’t think you understand how long it would take to recoup even just $1 billion.

You repeatedly post suggestions that are either not feasible or not legal or in most cases both

 

[CaptainAmerica]

No it would exactly be gatekeeping.

You would be inhibiting projects and growth by a single entity and treating them differently and harmfully.

If they use the permitting process the most then they are already paying more than anyone else in fees.

The cost of reviewing a permit does not change based on the number of permits an entity files or number of employees they have. There would be no justification to charge them more based on these factors.

And again even if they could do this I don’t think you understand how long it would take to recoup even just $1 billion.

You repeatedly post suggestions that are either not feasible or not legal or in most cases both

I'm sorry this just isn't true. You can absolutely have policies that only apply to a single taxpayer or small subset of taxpayers if those taxpayers are fundamentally different than other taxpayers in a bona fide way.

My town charges a special property tax on RVs. The fact that only a tiny percentage of residents own RVs doesn't mean the tax is illegitimate. If ONE guy in town owned his own airplane, and the town wanted to pass some kind of ordinance regarding airplanes, they could do so.

 

[peter11435]

I'm sorry this just isn't true. You can absolutely have policies that only apply to a single taxpayer or small subset of taxpayers if those taxpayers are fundamentally different than other taxpayers in a bona fide way.

My town charges a special property tax on RVs. The fact that only a tiny percentage of residents own RVs doesn't mean the tax is illegitimate. If ONE guy in town owned his own airplane, and the town wanted to pass some kind of ordinance regarding airplanes, they could do so.

That’s different. What you are saying would be like If you wanted to pass a tax in Orange County that applied a separate tax for owning roller coasters. That is not the same thing as taking a fee that applies to everyone and charging some more for arbitrary reasons not related to the execution of whatever that fee is for.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That’s different. What you are saying would be like If you wanted to pass a tax in Orange County that applied a separate tax for owning roller coasters. That is not the same thing as taking a fee that applies to everyone and charging some more for arbitrary reasons not related to the execution of whatever that fee is for.

My bad, I didn't click back through the full string of quoted posts.

I guess my main point is that the counties here should be able to come up with a creative tax regime to generate the revenue from Disney that Disney otherwise would have paid to RCID, thus avoiding this doomsday scenario where "everyone's" property taxes go up 25%. I agree with you that permit fees are unlikely to be that mechanism.

 

[Diamond Dot]

Now that the Florida legislation has voted to strip WDW of it's special district status and will lose it's tax breaks if it goes ahead then how do you think WDW will compensate for that?
Start saving, because that Disney vacation is going to get even more expensive.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Now that the Florida legislation has voted to strip WDW of it's special district status and will lose it's tax breaks if it goes ahead then how do you think WDW will compensate for that?
Start saving, because that Disney vacation is going to get even more expensive.

The District does not provide Disney with tax breaks. It charges Disney additional taxes.

 

[peter11435]

My bad, I didn't click back through the full string of quoted posts.

I guess my main point is that the counties here should be able to come up with a creative tax regime to generate the revenue from Disney that Disney otherwise would have paid to RCID, thus avoiding this doomsday scenario where "everyone's" property taxes go up 25%. I agree with you that permit fees are unlikely to be that mechanism.

I think it is likely that Disney would want to avoid the negative PR of saddling the area with increased taxes and debt. And they would likely be willing to still fund the services and operations they rely on and expect to maintain the guest experience and status quo.

So it is likely Disney and the counties would work out deals that are mutually beneficial to keep things mostly as they are.

That said this was still a stupid, unjustified, and legally questionable action by the governor and Florida legislature.

 

[Diamond Dot]

The District does not provide Disney with tax breaks. It charges Disney additional taxes.

Wrong. Why don't you google what will happen if Disney loses its status and check several sources, not just the first one you see.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Wrong.

Then you be the one to provide us examples of taxes Disney does not pay because of the District.

 

[peter11435]

Now that the Florida legislation has voted to strip WDW of it's special district status and will lose it's tax breaks if it goes ahead then how do you think WDW will compensate for that?
Start saving, because that Disney vacation is going to get even more expensive.

Reedy creek is not a tax break. Disney pays all necessary taxes with or without RCID. Reedy creek is a special tax district that applies an ADDITIONAL tax on Disney.

 

[peter11435]

Wrong.

Wrong

 

[lazyboy97o]

RCID is a perk. It provides Disney with preferential treatment. Disney does not have a right to this perk.

Except it really doesn’t. It places more regulation on Disney that other theme park operators do not have to follow. That Orange County might one day change it’s entire approach to zoning and win all of those legal battles isn’t much in the way of preferential treatment.

 

[KrzyKtty]

I’m not discussing legalities.
I don’t ever remember any politicians stating that they were all not allowed to discuss politics and social issues…can you just imagine…?!?!?!!!!!
This site clearly did…why not just open the “Politics and Social Issues” forum up again…it would make the folks that run this place look less like hypocrites.

What is being hypocritical? They shut down that thread years ago saying politics and social issues were no longer allowed. They've said almost that exacting in relation to this thread numerous times. Dissolving RCID has direct impacts on Walt Disney World, which this site is about. They have stated we are allowed to talk about that exact thing but not all the politics and social issues revolving around it. It's a narrow scope and a fine line but it's not hypocritical.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I think it is likely that Disney would want to avoid the negative PR of saddling the area with increased taxes and debt. And they would likely be willing to still fund the services and operations they rely on and expect to maintain the guest experience and status quo.

So it is likely Disney and the counties would work out deals that are mutually beneficial to keep things mostly as they are.

That said this was still a stupid, unjustified, and legally questionable action by the governor and Florida legislature.

Completely agree. Disney is not going to try and burn through all of its community goodwill and start piling debt and increased taxes on local residents, however justified they may be in trying to allow the natural consequences of this legislation to unfold.

Disney's silence on this so has been prudent, I think. They don't seem to want to raise the political stakes by coming out swinging against DeSantis and presumably hope sympathy is generally with them beyond the "go woke, go broke" crowd which is probably a sector of the market they can do without as was the case with the Southern Baptist boycott back in the day.

I still think they should quietly cancel Lake Nona, but that's by the by.

 

[Diamond Dot]

www.cnbc.com
Florida taxpayers could face a $1 billion Disney debt bomb if its special ...

www.nytimes.com
Disney to Lose Special Florida Tax Status Amid 'Don't Say Gay' Clash

https://www.reuters.com › world
Factbox: What is the special tax designation Disney might lose?

 

[ohioguy]

I don't anticipate anything will come of this, seems to be a lot of foolish bluster from some politicians who want to do battle with the state's largest private employer in order to score cheap political points with their "base."

Sigh.

Turns out, it wasn't just bluster.

 

[lazyboy97o]

www.cnbc.com
Florida taxpayers could face a $1 billion Disney debt bomb if its special ...

www.nytimes.com
Disney to Lose Special Florida Tax Status Amid 'Don't Say Gay' Clash

https://www.reuters.com › world
Factbox: What is the special tax designation Disney might lose?

All of those links are to homepages, not specific articles. Please provide specifics.