Can you give an example of someone who is in the RCID local community? Someone within it's borders not a neighbor of the local community.
There is something to be said for 'not operating as an island'. In reality, we expect entities to interact and work together with their neighbors. We don't expect entities to take NIMBY to the extreme, but expect them to work for the 'common good' even if that means tradeoffs or consequences for their own interests if the net gain for the union is better.
Example, counties working together to build infrastructure and sharing costs, even if not exactly proportioned to their own physical presence. Or planning infrastructure together - to create systems instead of disjointed messes. Or counties/cities collaborating on where things should go... in relation to other comparable or inter-dependent services.. instead of looking at their boundaries as uncrossable lines. Example: Where a hospital may be placed.
That said, that doesn't mean it's all charity... it doesn't mean we should expect entity A to carry entity B's bag for them.
The problem with the narrative being spun by the CFTOD board now is... they are taking these ideas to the extreme and painting the absence of something within the district as an abuse on it's neighbors. Instead of saying "creating jobs was good for the region" - they are spinning the story that RCID empowered Disney from paying it's share of it's impact to the area because the district didn't build the elements to support those jobs and allowed Disney to escape paying it's share to provide those services. Like social services, housing, etc. That the district didn't plan for supporting the burden of that development, but instead laid out a plan that served only Disney's development needs.
I mean, yes, there is a side of truth in that - the land management is setup to support Disney's initiatives - not general community development. But if that is "wrong" or not, is where the board's conclusions are completely slanted and presumptuous. Should Reed Creek have been a self-sustaining community with housing, community needs, hospitals, schools, etc? If this were just unincorporated land with a local goverment setup trying to drive growth of the population... maybe? But that's not what Reedy Creek was, and not what it's actual landowners were trying to do.
This is where the disconnect between governance and representation in the CFTOD is fatal and problematic.
What do you want your area to be? Rural Farmland? Thriving Suburbs? Urban metroplex? Every area of the country faces such debates all the time, and local governments manage these topics based on the idea of providing sound representation of their constituents and their desires. Their job is to be stewards of the common good of their constituents and that includes interacting and often interweaving with their adjacencies and inter-dependent governments. If they try to shape your region into something the residents don't want.. residents will replace them.
Reedy Creek was never a general purpose area that would be develped into general purpose self-sustaining communities. It's absurd that the CFTOD is painting that picture that RCID failed to deliver on that... because it's a false premise to begin with. And it's not what the actual constituents of the district wanted for the area either.
The whole impact fees and other planning omissions they are trying to spin into failures now are all based on false assumptions from the get go. And being done so to paint the idea of developing RCID into Disney's kingdom as an abuse -- instead of accepting it was an execution of a plan that served the audience as actually intended.
