-The Anaheim Resort District has thousands of rooms and 90 hotels. While it’s true Disneyland Resort is relatively more reliant on local Californians, it would be unfair to characterize it as anything other than a resort with regional and international pull. Lots of people come and stay in Anaheim. But I agree aggressive increases of hotel tax rates to 15% would not beneficial or needed. That's why I suggested 9%. Though... Anaheim manages to fund 63% of their General Fund on the proceeds of the various taxes they levy against the Anaheim Resort District. It's not inconceivable that the two counties might start wanting a bigger piece of the theme park pie. The theme park industry has been given extreme latitude to operate with minimal taxation. And many of the taxes that are levied tend to be put right back into the tourism industry.
Just because it is conceivable that Orlando's theme parks could survive higher levels of taxation, doesn't mean that they should be subject to it. RCID allowed Disney to charge itself a higher tax rate to get better infrastructure for itself. But I a not aware of any theory of good governance that suggests that local governments should extract the maximum rents from their constituents. Even if that was the will of the people (I don't think it is) doesn't make it right or good governance.
Universal took their proposal to the regional planning authorities and got approval. A regional planning authority that is accountable to voters in the county. That’s something Disney hasn’t had to do since the Lyndon Johnson administration. Imagine if Walt Disney World had to get development approval for changes to its plan like Disneyland did or Universal did? It’s a nice thought.
The process that Universal goes through to get planning permission from Orlando or Orange County has very little in common with that of Disneyland, because the jurisdictions Universal has to work with have a much better framework for evaluating the the projects of their constituents.
(The following is a somewhat off-topic rant, so maybe disregard?) In general, public engagement for planning is very unproductive. The public rarely has any valuable input. Usually you don't get any comments of substance from the public until a specific design is presented.
But land use regulation cannot be determined ad-hoc for each individual project (by definition, that wouldn't be planning). In some cases, property owners may choose to enter into an agreement to let a specific party have that kind of input (like when I purchased a home in a deed-restricted development granting the right to let the HOA make arbitrary rules about how I use my property). But city or county planning don't work that way.
Public engagement for development review by definition cannot be representative of the public--the project will be built in the future, impacting future neighbors--so public engagement is more like arbitrary discussion with busybodies.
The idea that the people who show up at the meetings today are representative of the public today is laughable--public engagement engages people with a weird hobby of going to public meetings with their free time, not a representative sample. But even if it was possible for you to engage with the public in a representative way, it would be representative of the people here today, not the people who will be here in 5 to 10 years when the project is built.
Every week, the population of greater Orlando increases by over 1,000 new people. Are you really going to ask people in Ohio, New Jersey, and Columbia who haven't even decided that they want to live here to have a say?
So let's not fetishize public engagement as it relates to planning. Urban planners do valuable work determining the impacts to infrastructure, the environment, and neighboring property owners. Public engagement rarely adds constructively to that process.
(End rant. But feel free to update your opinion of everything I say based on the above. I know that my perspective is unpopular.)
The plan was developed and endorsed with cooperation from Sea World, the local chamber of commerce, the Mayor of Orlando, hotels in the area, and of course final approval fell to Orange County. You’re right it was self-serving for Universal Orlando to agitate for the change. But by partnering with these community partners they turned it into a win for all those stakeholders. Even Brightline eventually joined in the project and threw its support behind the new route. This district was created with a specific mission. Build and maintain a train station. A train station that will help Universal, but that also will add value to all those stakeholders.
I am not certain that it added value to Brightline. Personally, I believe it dramatically reduced the odds that Brightline will ever provide service beyond MCO. It certainly increased the required taxpayer contribution to the required infrastructure, if it were ever to happen. But I hope I am wrong and it still eventually gets built.
It’s curious about Sunrail. It would be a shame if they didn’t use the infrastructure they’re building. I’ll watch for further developments. It would be a very expensive and empty station if they don’t make use of it.
Just because Sunrail might not use the station doesn't mean that Brightline won't. A lot of people get hung up on the idea that Brightline is an intercity-service provider. This is true, but it is not a requirement for all future services. Brightline can choose to offer whatever service they want to. So if they wanted to provide a frequent commuter transit service, the only thing that would get in their way is the signaling and equipment, which they control.
I contrast all of the above with Disney’s infrastructure projects within Walt Disney World that help only Disney. Governments are created to help the communities they reside in. Picking up the bill for Disney’s CapEx is not a government function.
If Disney were to sell off Disney Springs to each of the individual operating participants, Animal Kingdom to Sea World Parks and Entertainment, Hollywood Studios to Comcast, Magic Kingdom to OLC, Epcot to Six Flags, and auction off each resort so some were owned by Marriott, Hilton, Harris Rosen, and others, would anything the RCID has built and maintained be something a local government wouldn't be happy to support and maintain from property taxes from this diverse ownership group?
Within its Jurisdiction, RCID has built quality infrastructure not very different from what you would expect if it were controlled by dozens of operators. At the end of the day, RCID operates urban infrastructure to serve the uses in its district. I don't know what you would expect to be different or more equitable to the region if it were arranged differently.
