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

[flynnibus]

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.

You are taking this as some literal which you know very well is not the case. "transfer" is not a literal accounting term here - it's the concept of moving the responsibility from Disney to the District. You know this, and you're just being disingenuous here to try to nickpick word usage when it never was about the inference you are making.

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.

Wait, we moved into a new universe where Disney is the ONLY constituent now? This isn't true and you know it. And the decision isn't purely based on 'who is impacted' -- It's a question of if its the role of government too. But again, none of this disputes that in any other situation, Disney would face different circumstances than it has.. and there are clear links between RCID's planning and Disney's.

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.

Except we know this isn't how the process actually works - there is no public hearing on the matter, there is no open solicitation between government and it's constituients, and we know the district wasn't objectively evaluating needs independently of Disney.

Because those two things are not Disney transferring CapEx to the district as some thing that is a generic transfer.

Ignore the word transfer - because clearly you are hung up on it and putting head in sand about the rest. "shift burden" or "benefit because of the District's choices" -- use whatever wording you want. You're trying to hide from the obvious through grammer hoops.

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.

So here we are again with the deflection of "well its not a lot" -- The size does not change the statement... just like your "what other examples" retort.


Disney has shifted burden to the District as its an advantageous way to do things. Not a lie. Not illegal. Not immoral. But not a lie either.

 

[mmascari]

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.

They don't have to, but they could. In a world where the district never existed and the entire area was one huge private Walt Disney World Resort, I think they might have done that.

That would certainly create an even better "magic bubble" feeling. See, you passed through the gate right off the highway, we're inside an actual fully privately owned bubble now. Instead of, we're still driving down a public road with theme parks on the left, theme parks on the right.

That there are public roads at all, that's a value that the existence of RCID created.

 

[mmascari]

You are taking this as some literal which you know very well is not the case. "transfer" is not a literal accounting term here - it's the concept of moving the responsibility from Disney to the District. You know this, and you're just being disingenuous here to try to nickpick word usage when it never was about the inference you are making.

I'm not. Transfer the way the projects are funded. How they're paid for, the ability to use municipal bonds, that they're managed by the district. This was cited as an improper use by Disney and a reason the district should be removed. I would like examples of when this was done for an expense that any random normal government entity elsewhere in the country would not also do. Just one example of where Disney was able to offload some responsibility to the district that other governments don't also take care of the same responsibility.

Wait, we moved into a new universe where Disney is the ONLY constituent now? This isn't true and you know it.

Sorry, I didn't qualify this one as "majority Disney, they're not the only land owner and tax payer within the district, just the overwhelming majority one". Probably need to add "all the other land owners have agreements with Disney that give Disney significant control over what those other land owners can do and that all of them became owners after the district already existed and knew how it worked when entering the agreement". It's a huge pain to type that out every time. I thought we all got to that point a hundred plus pages ago.

And the decision isn't purely based on 'who is impacted' -- It's a question of if its the role of government too. But again, none of this disputes that in any other situation, Disney would face different circumstances than it has.. and there are clear links between RCID's planning and Disney's.

In any situation where Disney was trying to convince a government to spend someone else's money? Sure, it would work different if there were 5, 50, 500, or 5,000 different families all paying taxes and voting for the government and Disney was bullying them. Totally different in that scenario. Good thing that doesn't exist in the district.

Except we know this isn't how the process actually works - there is no public hearing on the matter, there is no open solicitation between government and it's constituients, and we know the district wasn't objectively evaluating needs independently of Disney.

Between the district and Disney? Did RCID not have public meetings on anything prior to CFTOD taking over? I get that they would have been totally boring vs today, but did they not exist at all?

"shift burden" or "benefit because of the District's choices" -- use whatever wording you want. You're trying to hide from the obvious through grammer hoops.

I'm not. I'm looking for something where Disney shifted the burden to the district for something that would not be normal for a government to take on. Something that would justify the reason to dismantle the district. There are several posters who continue to state that it doesn't matter why it was dismantled now, it deserved to be because it was doing these improper things. I'm looking for one of them to give an example of an improper thing. Building garages isn't one.

So here we are again with the deflection of "well its not a lot" -- The size does not change the statement... just like your "what other examples" retort.


Disney has shifted burden to the District as its an advantageous way to do things. Not a lie. Not illegal. Not immoral. But not a lie either.

It's not that it's not a lot. It's not that the private public partnership is wrong or doesn't make things better for both the private and the public. It's that the things Disney has shifted to the district are things that governments routinely take on. They've shifted maintenance for all kinds of roads, power lines, garages, drainage canals, fire department, from Disney to the district. If this was one giant private property, they would need to fund those things. It's not a size question, it's a function question. All those things are things that governments routinely do for the public. And because the district does them, they've available to the public. The district is no different here.

So, what thing did Disney shift to the district that isn't normal?

There must be something. I keep reading posts that the district had to go. That it was some improper relationship to Disney. That the combination acted in a way that it should not have. So, let's hear one from someone who thinks there's an issue and the district should have been dissolved now or in the past.

 

[mmascari]

To recap:

The suggestion that RCID has problems that need to be resolved.

I'm just not convinced the RCID was the perfect agreement for the community. I don't think every complaint raised by those who wanted to eliminate the RCID was unreasonable or stupid.

The question asking for an example problem.

Can you point out some specific things about RCID you think should be reformed?

The answer providing an example problem that should be resolved. An answer that doesn't provide any context about what CapEx is being referred to.

3) Disney shifted CapEx from its balance sheet to the local government apparatus, thus obscuring true CapEx

A rebuttal that this isn't a thing that happens. Presumably reading that statement, made with no context, that any type of CapEx could be tranferred.

3. This is an outright lie.

A rebuttal to the rebuttal. Presumably because some amount of CapEx expenditures required to manage the district are handled by the district and not Disney because the district is managing public resources and the entire area is not a private compound. A legitimate scenario where the existence of RCID and those things being public does mean the district takes on that responsibility instead of Disney. However, at this point, the things the district takes on because they are things public governments generally take on no longer satisfies the answer to the question about an example to an RCID problem that need to be resolved.

It's not a lie - it's a simply a question of 'justified' or not.

There is a lot of infrastructure Disney had RCID build instead of Disney building itself.

A follow-up question, looking for examples of a CapEx transfer that would represent a problem and reason RCID needed to be reformed. Looking for an example where Disney was able to transfer the effort to RCID for something that governments do not normally take on or something that was only possible in RCID, something where the transfer created a problem for RCID worth reforming or dissolving RCID.

Are there any roads that RCID funds that it is not possible to drive on without paying Disney to be able to do it? Anything that is restricted access, behind a gate. Something only a cast member, or a guest who has paid to be at Disney can access. Something where someone just cutting across the district wouldn't be able to access the road.

Something like that would be a good example of an improper funding.

For instance, I assume Avenue of the Stars is NOT a district road and that the district doesn't fund it in any way. If this is incorrect and the district does fund Avenue of the Stars, that sounds suspicious.

Followed by like a dozen posts telling me that a transfer does exist and that it's totally fine and being improper has nothing to do with anything. When that was the root question that was never answered.

Which get's us back to: Can ANYONE point out some specific things about RCID they think should be reformed? Something that is an actual problem not a made up fake one.

No, I will not accept that they built parking garages to increase business at the public mall that sits within the district. The reason I will not is that governments all over the county do this exact same thing. It's a local decision, and the locals the district was responsible to were ok with it. In some areas they are, in some they're not. It's not a problem, it's local policy.

Beyond that, we've been given that RCID tried to prevent Bonnet Creek from connecting to it's public road. A situation they correctly lost in court. As it looks like the closest pubic road access to the property.

Can we get another example problem with RCID that requires reform?

(Waiting for someone to say it lets them avoid paying taxes, cause they're special.)

 

[flynnibus]

It's not that it's not a lot. It's not that the private public partnership is wrong or doesn't make things better for both the private and the public. It's that the things Disney has shifted to the district are things that governments routinely take on.

The statement was made "3) Disney shifted CapEx from its balance sheet to the local government apparatus, thus obscuring true CapEx" -- and peter said "that's an outright lie"

It's not - that's what I responded to. The rest of your posts are about "if its justified" or "abnormal". That is a different topic than if it was happening. It's clear RCID took its steerage for development and decision making from Disney.

I'm not trying to say they shouldn't have - but trying to obfuscate things with "well thats normal" or "its not a lot" doesn't change that basic fundamental point -- they did.

 

[Batman'sParents]

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.

Based on the agreements with Osceola county, I think it may be shared, because of that public access might be required. I don’t know for sure.


I know when they were planning animal kingdom, Disney helped part of the extension and redid the financing agreement a few years ago.

 

[mmascari]

It's not - that's what I responded to. The rest of your posts are about "if its justified" or "abnormal". That is a different topic than if it was happening.

But, that's the question I asked. Which I recapped the context in the post above. I asked specifically for things RCID was doing that were reason the poster said they needed to be reformed or dissolved. They answered with "Shifting CapEx" as a thing that was improper. Then, you lectured me for pages on how it's totally proper. Then, that's either not the example they were giving and they meant something else, or they're just wrong. Which get's us back to looking for an example. Either of an improper shift of CapEx or something else.

It's clear RCID took its steerage for development and decision making from Disney.

Well, duh. "Local government takes direction from it's constitutes. None of the constitutes complain about the direction. News at eleven.".

How is that even a thing that matters, much less a reason to reform and change RCID? Frankly, it shows that with few enough constitutes government can make decisions everyone will agree too. That the number is one plus a few that have already agreed independently to give that one significant control control is kind of depressing. One would hope governance scaled better than that.

I'm not trying to say they shouldn't have - but trying to obfuscate things with "well thats normal" or "its not a lot" doesn't change that basic fundamental point -- they did.

Which is it, they shouldn't have or we shouldn't say that's normal? Cause it sure looks like we should say that's the normal way governments are supposed to work. Saying it's normal for governments to work the way they're supposed to work isn't obfuscating anything. The RCID governance worked exactly as it was designed and maintained to explicitly not impact others with it's costs.

You're stuck on this "it's not a lot" which seems to be a reference to that there's only 2 examples people can point out. One that's not an example, and one that maybe barely if you squint is an example, but that was resolved on its own.

This is a district that was suggested needed reform. That everyone knows it needed reform. Surely, if everyone knows this, there must be more examples. It's not that only 2 of something is fine. It's that even those two were a stretch. Especially for something everyone knows.

Can we get an example problem with RCID that requires reform?

 

[flynnibus]

But, that's the question I asked. Which I recapped the context in the post above. I asked specifically for things RCID was doing that were reason the poster said they needed to be reformed or dissolved. They answered with "Shifting CapEx" as a thing that was improper.

His response was an opinion - the retort from Peter was that it didn't happen. It did happen. The issue is the difference in opinion if you think it's actionable or not.

Well, duh. "Local government takes direction from it's constitutes. None of the constitutes complain about the direction. News at eleven.".

Except we know it's not just 'representing the interests of your constituents' and far more intertwined. Remove head from sand.

You're stuck on this "it's not a lot" which seems to be a reference to that there's only 2 examples people can point out. One that's not an example, and one that maybe barely if you squint is an example, but that was resolved on its own.

It's more it's not worth researching for hard numbers when the pattern of behavior is well established. It's futile. To wave your hands at "roads" as a generalization and something the District would always do on their own without holding the new development accountable just shows you'll never be convinced no matter what the cite. Meanwhile, free rides are the exception, not the norm everywhere else. And when they do exist, they are highly criticized. Because there are other people impaired by these actions, they just had no say to influence it.

The state losing out on millions in tax revenue is real. But in the grand scheme, people wouldn't poke the bear. Their lack of reaction doesn't mean the negative actions didn't happen.

This is a district that was suggested needed reform. That everyone knows it needed reform. Surely, if everyone knows this, there must be more examples. It's not that only 2 of something is fine. It's that even those two were a stretch. Especially for something everyone knows.

Can we get an example problem with RCID that requires reform?

Lack of transparency
Lack of objectivity
An election design that allows a single entity to 100% everything with certainty
Apparently a lack of self-auditing abilities
Self-dealing that fails to properly separate Government from private interests

Overlapping interests DO NOT NEGATE the necessity and purpose of independent, objective government.

In the case of RCID, I think its a case of a model that served it's purpose of developing WDW. But I'm not a fool to paint it as optimal, clean, or pure. It was a system that advanced the net good for Florida through it's growth - but its certainly a lopsided deal, that in this age (vs 1967 when it was created) could be reformed to represent the interests of central florida and not just Disney w/o scrutiny or checks and balances.

 

[mikejs78]

independent, objective government.

There's no such thing.

 

[mikejs78]

Except we know it's not just 'representing the interests of your constituents' and far more intertwined.

Evidence?

 

[Dranth]

Lack of transparency - Don't think we had much of that in this case and unless I am misunderstanding, RCID was subject to the same transparency and public records laws as other branches of government in the state.
Lack of objectivity - Feature of a special tax district, not a bug
An election design that allows a single entity to 100% everything with certainty - Feature of a special tax district, not a bug
Apparently a lack of self-auditing abilities - Sure
Self-dealing that fails to properly separate Government from private interests - Feature of a special tax district, not a bug.

I get why people may want to advocate for those things and in government, at least the way we normally think about it, they make perfect sense. However, most of those suggestions are side stepped by design for special tax districts.

Now if people want to argue these shouldn't exist to begin with or want Florida to change how special tax districts work great, have at it. However, anyone subject to one these should have the opportunity to either dissolve it or reconstitute under the new laws before losing some of the main benefits of voluntarily paying additional taxes.

 

[CaptainNicko]

Evidence?

Why does everyone keep responding to posts that are entirely based on feelings expecting facts?

 

[mkt]

I went to Disney Springs today. Someone in a CFTOD shirt gave me the look of death when they saw my T-shirt.

 

[flynnibus]

I get why people may want to advocate for those things and in government, at least the way we normally think about it, they make perfect sense. However, most of those suggestions are side stepped by design for special tax districts.

Now if people want to argue these shouldn't exist to begin with or want Florida to change how special tax districts work great, have at it. However, anyone subject to one these should have the opportunity to either dissolve it or reconstitute under the new laws before losing some of the main benefits of voluntarily paying additional taxes.

Sorry your generalization that says objectivity and more than one is a 'feature' of a special district is not accurate. In THIS district, yes it was setup that way. But this is not some inherent design of all special districts. These districts often have more diverse representation and just because they are focused in purpose means nothing to say lack of objectivity is inherent to them. Special districts are intended to have a narrow focus and work to service that need. This doesn't make them inherently self-serving.

Transparency was lacking in RCID. In both doing the bare minimum for public access, and as documented lots of delegated authority which meant activity could happen without public exposure. Transparency is more than just doing the least possible under the law.

 

[flynnibus]

There's no such thing.

Sure, let's just return to a emperor then... cuz pushing for anything less than perfection is pointless.

 

[flynnibus]

Evidence?

1100 pages in and you haven't seen the district coordinating with Disney behind closed doors?

You really need the links to the emails about draft resolutions? Or the entire dev agreement to begin with? Or any number of other obvious coordinated activities that haven't happened "in the sunshine"?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sorry your generalization that says objectivity and more than one is a 'feature' of a special district is not accurate. In THIS district, yes it was setup that way. But this is not some inherent design of all special districts. These districts often have more diverse representation and just because they are focused in purpose means nothing to say lack of objectivity is inherent to them. Special districts are intended to have a narrow focus and work to service that need. This doesn't make them inherently self-serving.

Not just this district. Many, many districts in Florida are created around and at the behest of a single landowner.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The records between 50 and 225 years old were unfortunately stored in the room below the swimming pool. Nobody thought it would ever leak.

Also, many records in the Library of Congress were lost when they pressure washed the interior.

 

[flynnibus]

Not just this district. Many, many districts in Florida are created around and at the behest of a single landowner.

Again - doesn't make it the only way it can be or inherent to the concept.

The argument of "this is not unique..." is not a magic wand to make all their actions agreeable or favorable. The question was 'why should there be reform?' - That's a matter of opinion to evaluate if the current structure meets your forward looking expectations. Not a evaluation of "if its legal or not"

 

[MagicRat]

I went to Disney Springs today. Someone in a CFTOD shirt gave me the look of death when they saw my T-shirt.



View attachment 758806

Is that an Imogene + Willie shirt? They make some interesting puns on the mouse.