Do I get say in how your local government works? Why not? What's the definition of "near" that allows those outside the boundary to get input even while being outside? Do the residents of Miami get a say? Do the residents of Lake Nona get a say? Should the residents of Kingsland GA get a say in either the FL state government or in RCID? They certainly deal with traffic passing through headed to FL tourism destinations. If we're going to ignore governance boundaries, what's the new measure? Should we dissolve all local government and only have state or federal governance?
How is adding outside control of RCID governance any different than those scenarios? I'm trying to understand if this is a problem with how governance boundaries work (which seems to be the complaint) and should apply to every special district in FL, or if it is just a rationalization of why not to like RCID.
Do you have an example of a poor governance decision that was taken? Obviously RCID was influenced by Disney. This isn't a bad thing, but the contrary to be expected. Disney is the primary constituent of RCID, almost the only one. Governance organizations should be influenced by those they govern. How about an example of where RCID made a governance decision that favored Disney at the expense of some other constituent within the district?
The parking garages, that satisfy a local business development and infrastructure could be thought of similar to roads. A decision that is made by governments all over the country. Sometimes governments build them, sometimes they incentivize private groups to, sometimes they just let parking be bad.
Is there some other, beyond the parking garages, example of Disney shifting CapEx to RCID? Maybe a theme park parking lot? Perhaps a road inside a restricted access area instead of a public road? A roller coaster? Did RCID fund a theme park ride, I think everyone here would agree that would be a significant problem.