lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Correct, Disney was trying to block access to Bonnet Creek but you’re not allowed to buy up the property around someone and then prevent them from getting to their property.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
Nevermore525
Well-Known Member
Did RCID side with Disney’s wishes at any point or did they agree at the onset to provide that access?
How sure are you we're not an AI model?
pdude81
Well-Known Member
Because you break down very long posts into logical chunks. And you have different voices.How sure are you we're not an AI model?
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Like many AI products I’m actually just a bunch of people in the Philippines.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
How sure are you we're not an AI model?
flynnibus
Premium Member
Disney paying it indirectly through taxes is true, but irrelevant to the thread in question. The statement was Disney is able to move projects from their CapEx spend to the District. This is true and a huge benefit.
It's not a critique of the action or it's justification to acknowledge this reality.
Batman'sParents
Active Member
For WDI or Universal Creative ?
Besides the parking garages, and public roads owned by RCID, what other project has Disney ever been able to move?
Any private roads? Limited access roads? Any resort amenities? Some other example of Disney using the District to avoid the CapEx on Disney's books.
CaptainNicko
Active Member
Beginning? I pegged them for a second cousin all along.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Again "improper" or not was never part of the comment being made.
When a new shopping center or project comes along and generates more traffic on the main road - it's still the public road, but you will often find the local government forcing the developer to fund or provide the infrastructure improvements that their project will lead to being necessary or that they benefit from.
When a new development wants to be built and get the zoning approvals to do so... they will often be forced to sweeten the deal with the local government to pay for the infrastructure impacts or provide incentives like offer land for parks, or schools, or other community interests outside of the developers own plans.
When RCID is submissive to Disney alone... the district can choose to approve projects, changes, etc without requiring any compromises from Disney and can choose to fund and built infrastructure on their own, instead of forcing Disney to do it.
Now maybe the improvements are for the greater good -- Like I said, this is not a claim that the projects are improper. But the fact the district's decisions are not independent of Disney's wishes leads to the situation where the parties can simply pick the option that is most beneficial to Disney. This would not be the same if the two were independent.
flynnibus
Premium Member
"besides the things I can't deny you are right about...." Why is that even relevant to the discussion? If I were to offer you 30% off one of your major expenses... Are you going to nickpick "well it's not all my expenses..."
When you are a major land developer - infrastructure and services build outs are a huge deal. If you have a friendly government willing to do all that work on their tax free, low interest checking account... vs making you supply it... It's a big deal. Even if it only has limited applications.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It would have been possible for all of Walt Disney World to be private roads. Some of the utility services such chilled and hot water are typically self-generated in a campus setting or other large development area.
Except it kind of was and is. Statements about Disney can transfer CapEx to the District and this gives them an unfair competitive advantage. Along with the suggestion that this transfer allows Disney to fund Disney projects using municipal bonds which would be a large issue. All of this is suggested in the context of a reason the District should be dissolved or control of it handed over to an unaccountable appointed group.
Disney cannot just transfer arbitrary CapEx to the district.
In those scenarios, this is the local government, representing it's constituents, trying to prevent increased public expenditures caused by some private development from impacting the constituents that are not causing the impact. This scenario doesn't exist in the district. When Disney, the company, does something, say they build a new theme park expansion that will increase car traffic 30%, causing a raise in costs for the public and private roads leading to the theme park parking lot. The district that maintains the public part of that can look to fund the increased costs two ways. They can require Disney the developer to fund it through some deal and zoning and planning restrictions applied to the theme park expansion. Alternatively, the district can just use tax funds to pay for the increased public road costs. When the district goes to it's constituent tax payers and says "so sorry, evil mega corp Disney is expanding a theme park and it's going to cost us 30% more to maintain the public roads, you OK with that?", those district constituents, which is just Disney, just shrug and say "it's fine". While Disney the corporation has to directly fund increased costs to the private driveway that leads from the public road into the parking lot. They're not able to transfer that cost to the district.
To the the constituents of the district. RCID took direction based on what the constituents of the district wanted to prioritize. That sounds like a responsive form of government.
Because those two things are not Disney transferring CapEx to the district as some thing that is a generic transfer. Those are things that governments all over the country fund as public expenditures frequently. An opinion about the district shouldn't have spent it's money this way for things that governments routinely fund and everyone within and funding the district agrees was a good way for the district to spend it's money isn't some smoking gun reason to remove the district. This discussion about transferring expenses to the district was cited as a reason to dissolve the district. Those two examples don't come anywhere near supporting that argument. They barely with the slimmest margin support the idea of Disney transferring costs.
Governments all of the country support this type of spending to attract businesses. Spending they fund by taxing large constituent bases where many of those constituents would rather they not spend the money this way. At least in RCID there was no confusion, the RCID constituents wanted to spend the money this way.
I'm looking for someone who is so sure that the district was an abusive setup that needed to be dissolved because of it's many issues to point out some of those issues that rise to the level of removing the district. The one pointed out was the ability to transfer CapEx from Disney to RCID. Followed by the only examples of that transfer being to fund public garages and roads and then nothing else. That's it. In 55 years, the reason the district should be dissolved is because someone thinks they made a bad decision on which public infrastructure to fund.
Agree. The entire area would have looked different.
I've commented before that if Disney had kept everything private, one huge private compound, just pushed the ticket booth gates all the way out to the district boundaries. Put the entrance gates at Hotel Plaza Blvd and 535, the I-4 Epcot Center Drive exit becomes a Walt Disney World Resort driveway instead of a public road. Plus all the the other spots. Nobody cutting through RCID if they're all private roads, since there wouldn't be an RCID, that would be people cutting through the private Walt Disney World Resort compound.
In that scenario, municipal bonds wouldn't have been an option. Just like there wouldn't be any public access. Something like Disney Springs becomes an issue too. It's hard to have a mall in the middle of a private compound. Maybe they put that eastern tollbooth just west of the mall, making that part of Hotel Plaza Blvd from 535 just a mall access road.
If it had been built this way, the counties probably wouldn't have done as well as they did with the current implementation.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
No wonder you type with an accent...
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Private roads don’t have to restrict access. I believe Osceola Pkwy becomes a private, Disney-owned road near Disney’s Animal Kingdom and nobody would know.