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

[mmascari]

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

And you have an example of this?

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.

Nothing has been cited. So, there’s no need to hand waive away anything. Roads is not a generalization, I referred specifically to public roads and asked if RCID was used to fund any not public roads. Splitting hairs very closely on exactly what the spending is on. The opposite of a generalization.

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.

So, cite someone who was impacted here? Who did the district take advantage of?

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.

What taxes did the state lose out on?

Specifically, what taxes are being avoided through use of the district? If the state lost something like the impact fee, but also no longer has the cost that goes with that, sounds like a wash. Unless we’re saying those are profit centers the take in more than they cost. In which case, what did they lose?

These are honest questions. The only hand waiving I see is that everyone just knows it’s messed up.

 

[flynnibus]

And you have an example of this?

It's been covered - not repeating myself yet again.

Nothing has been cited. So, there’s no need to hand waive away anything. Roads is not a generalization, I referred specifically to public roads and asked if RCID was used to fund any not public roads. Splitting hairs very closely on exactly what the spending is on. The opposite of a generalization.

I already answered this. You tried to make this distinction that it has to be private roads to be an issue - that's a false pretense. It has already been stated how in other circumstances how private entities are expected to pay for public shared services -- and not just through general taxes.

So, cite someone who was impacted here? Who did the district take advantage of?

Already been mentioned. The state and county.

What taxes did the state lose out on?

Sales taxes. The whole reason it's favorable for Disney to run these projects through the district in the first place. Cheap financing and tax free purchasing.

"Reedy Creek, like other local governments, often makes direct purchases on behalf of its construction contractors to take advantage of the exemption. Reedy Creek said it expects to save roughly $1.4 million in sales tax. Other local government officials told the Sentinel the tax savings could be anywhere from $1 million to $3 million."

Reedy Creek to build parking garages for Downtown Disney expansion

Of all the additions Walt Disney World will make during the next few years as it transforms its Downtown Disney shopping district into the larger “Disney Springs,” none will be more imp…

www.orlandosentinel.com

Also by Disney not owning the garages they don't pay the property taxes on those improvements.

Specifically, what taxes are being avoided through use of the district? If the state lost something like the impact fee, but also no longer has the cost that goes with that, sounds like a wash. Unless we’re saying those are profit centers the take in more than they cost. In which case, what did they lose?

Rly? We're going back this far? Local governments don't pay taxes. This has been covered a year plus ago.

By having the District build and own these things - Disney gets to avoid taxes they would have paid otherwise if they were improvements Disney built themselves.

Additionally, Disney gets to lower their taxable income by offsetting revenue with paid taxes.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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"

It is a magic wand when you’re trying to claim something is unique. You keep making generalizations that don’t really apply to the context of Florida.

 

[flynnibus]

It is a magic wand when you’re trying to claim something is unique. You keep making generalizations that don’t really apply to the context of Florida.

Proffers apply to Florida.
Developer Concessions apply to Florida

This all applies to florida. It just doesn't apply to the old RCID because the government would jump when Disney said jump.

 

[mkt]

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

Really Good Artist

Very good drawings.

reallygoodartist.com

 

[lazyboy97o]

Proffers apply to Florida.
Developer Concessions apply to Florida

This all applies to florida. It just doesn't apply to the old RCID because the government would jump when Disney said jump.

And all of the many other districts controlled by landowners…

 

[mmascari]

I already answered this. You tried to make this distinction that it has to be private roads to be an issue - that's a false pretense. It has already been stated how in other circumstances how private entities are expected to pay for public shared services -- and not just through general taxes.

You’re confusing the distinction. I’ve asked what thing Disney has gotten the district to do that some other government wouldn’t do. Governments maintain public roads, so if it’s a road that’s at issue, it must not be a public road. There’s examples everywhere of governments not forcing private entities to pay for public services. If the district is paying for stuff that it shouldn’t, give specific examples of things it’s paying for that are for Disney privately and not for the general public passing through the district. This should be easy if it is common.

Sales taxes. The whole reason it's favorable for Disney to run these projects through the district in the first place. Cheap financing and tax free purchasing.

"Reedy Creek, like other local governments, often makes direct purchases on behalf of its construction contractors to take advantage of the exemption. Reedy Creek said it expects to save roughly $1.4 million in sales tax. Other local government officials told the Sentinel the tax savings could be anywhere from $1 million to $3 million."

Reedy Creek to build parking garages for Downtown Disney expansion

Of all the additions Walt Disney World will make during the next few years as it transforms its Downtown Disney shopping district into the larger “Disney Springs,” none will be more imp…

www.orlandosentinel.com

So, which project wasn’t for public use but was for private Disney use?

Also by Disney not owning the garages they don't pay the property taxes on those improvements.

So, your point? RCID owning the garages isn’t special. It’s a thing governments that support public infrastructure do.

By having the District build and own these things - Disney gets to avoid taxes they would have paid otherwise if they were improvements Disney built themselves.

Again, what are all these things the district owns that aren’t for public use but are private Disney things? There must be more than just the parking garages.

 

[MagicRat]

Really Good Artist

Very good drawings.

reallygoodartist.com

Thanks! I will check the site out!

 

[flynnibus]

And all of the many other districts controlled by landowners…

So which is it? The points don't apply to Florida... or are we just going to keep moving the goal posts?

Again, 'not the only one' doesn't give carte blanche to the behavior nor nullify criticism of it.

 

[peter11435]

Also by Disney not owning the garages they don't pay the property taxes on those improvements.

You know Disney doesn’t own the Mickey and Friends parking garage in Anaheim either right? It was paid for and owned by the city. Yet Disney operates it and profits off of it. And the garages construction was funded through bonds. And you know RCID doesn’t exist in Anaheim….

 

[flynnibus]

You’re confusing the distinction. I’ve asked what thing Disney has gotten the district to do that some other government wouldn’t do.

You're making up criteria that simply don't matter to the point. "that some other governments wouldn't do" -- There is no exclusivity requirement here. You keep coming up with filtering criteria that simply don't matter.

It's not about 'being different' -- It's that it's done and obviously done to the extreme in the case of the district. No it's not unique, nor illegal -- but that doesn't mean it's not an advantage for Disney when they can basically get the district to do whatever they wanted... including funding massive hundred million dollar projects.

Governments maintain public roads, so if it’s a road that’s at issue, it must not be a public road.

Wrong - and already gave you examples to the contrary. Developers are forced to proffer PUBLIC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS all the freaking time. It's one of the leading ways local governments fund public road improvements. Building a new shopping center? Pay for the traffic control. Building a new housing development that will increase trips on the nearby underbuilt road? Pay to add another lane to it etc.

There’s examples everywhere of governments not forcing private entities to pay for public services. If the district is paying for stuff that it shouldn’t, give specific examples of things it’s paying for that are for Disney privately and not for the general public passing through the district. This should be easy if it is common.

Again with these other non-sensical criteria... "that are for Disney privately and not for the general public passing through the district". This means nothing. If you increase traffic to an area, you can expect scrutiny from your local government if you need zoning approvals. You have this notion that there is a line drawn between 'exclusive use' or benefit. There is no such line when it comes to proffers and required improvements.

Again, what are all these things the district owns that aren’t for public use but are private Disney things? There must be more than just the parking garages.

You clearly don't understand the premise... so there is no point in continuing.

I encourage you to pay attention to your local news and land development coverage. You have a lot to catch up on.

 

[flynnibus]

You know Disney doesn’t own the Mickey and Friends parking garage in Anaheim either right? It was paid for and owned by the city. Yet Disney operates it and profits off of it. And the garages construction was funded through bonds. And you know RCID doesn’t exist in Anaheim….

Again with the whataboutism... this changes nothing in the discussion. Did it happen? YES. Is it a benefit for Disney? YES

Is the same arragement in Anaheim under huge scrutiny? YES Why? Oh yeah, because people were complaining the government was on Disney's teet and gave away concessions they shouldn't have.

 

[Stripes]

If the district built the parking garages for serving the guests of Magic Kingdom or Hollywood Studios then I’d have a problem with it. But the garages are for the public to enjoy free parking at a massive shopping, entertainment, and dining destination where the vast majority of businesses are not owned by Disney and said destination doesn’t require a cent for admission.

I view the parking garages as a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars in order to support the growth and development of many dozens of businesses and thousands of local jobs.

For context, Florida was going to give Disney $570 million in tax breaks for building their Lake Nona campus and staffing it primarily with employees moving from California. I’d say the parking garages are a much better use of taxpayer dollars.

 

[mmascari]

You're making up criteria that simply don't matter to the point. "that some other governments wouldn't do" -- There is no exclusivity requirement here. You keep coming up with filtering criteria that simply don't matter.

I haven't moved the goal posts once. You clearly don't like RCID. Not because there's some specific thing that is different about RCID, you just don't like the policy decisions that it makes and allows within its definition and creation. A definition and creation that is very common and exists throughout special districts in FL.

The actions taken to change RCID were not actions to change how all special districts in FL work. They were not general reform. They were not changes to what types of policy special districts should allow or not. They were specific to some unique situation that exists only for RCID.

You keep saying stuff like "it may have been legal but it wasn't right". That's a policy distinction then. That's a reason to look for general special district reform. Change them all, update how special districts can work, level the playing field and change what is possible. That's fine, it has nothing to do with what was done.

I'm looking for examples of specifically where Disney and RCID did something that warrants reforming only RCID and not all special districts. Since that is the action that was taken. Only RCID was changed. The rest of the functions of how special districts generally work in FL was not changed at all. Following that, there must be something that RCID did that was different and not something every other special district is also allowed to do. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a reason to single out RCID. Changes would have targeted all special districts that are able to do the same things.

It's not about 'being different' -- It's that it's done and obviously done to the extreme in the case of the district. No it's not unique, nor illegal -- but that doesn't mean it's not an advantage for Disney when they can basically get the district to do whatever they wanted... including funding massive hundred million dollar projects.

So, special districts can be an advantage? Is that some gottcha? It's 100% about being different. Special Districts and how they function were not changed. Only RCID was changed. So, either RCID is different somehow, a difference that makes it worth singling out RCID, or it's not different and this was a targeted attack with no justification.

Are you saying this is a targeted attack with no justification for why only RCID should be reformed and not all special districts? Perhaps that just Disney shouldn't be allowed these policy decisions, but others with special districts can make what you view as bad policy decisions?

Wrong - and already gave you examples to the contrary. Developers are forced to proffer PUBLIC ROAD IMPROVEMENTS all the freaking time. It's one of the leading ways local governments fund public road improvements. Building a new shopping center? Pay for the traffic control. Building a new housing development that will increase trips on the nearby underbuilt road? Pay to add another lane to it etc.

I did not suggest that developers never pay. In fact, I was very explicit that sometimes developers pay, sometimes governments pay, sometimes they split the costs. That the decision about who and how to fund these types of things is a local decision. Different localities make the decision differently. You seem to be saying none of them ever do. Just look at any stadium project, governments help fund all kinds of stuff around them all the time. Not every one, and not every cost, but lots of stuff. It's a local decision. A decision that is perfectly acceptable for RCID to make one way or the other. One that every special district in FL makes, likely in both directions. So, what makes RCID different that this decision is worth targeting? That you don't like that they made this policy decision is clear. People don't like policy decisions all the time, that doesn't make them all incorrect or nefarious or worth reforming the organization that made them. To raise to to that level, there needs to be more then "would have done it different".

Again with these other non-sensical criteria... "that are for Disney privately and not for the general public passing through the district". This means nothing. If you increase traffic to an area, you can expect scrutiny from your local government if you need zoning approvals. You have this notion that there is a line drawn between 'exclusive use' or benefit. There is no such line when it comes to proffers and required improvements.

There is a complete difference between spending on public use and private use infrastructure. If Disney was using RCID to build attractions, to dredge bay lake, fix the sidewalks in the Magic Kingdom, those would all clearly be wrong. They would be good reasons to target specifically RCID for reform. If RCID or Disney pay to redo a sidewalk on Hotel Plaza Blvd, that's not some strange question. Either would be totally normal. It's a public sidewalk, sometimes public governments pay for that, sometimes the land owner. Sometimes both in the same town.

You clearly don't understand the premise... so there is no point in continuing.

You clearly dislike RCID and just want to rationalize changing it. That you cannot separate RCID from Disney and hence view everything RCID as wrong is clear. You're obviously not going to provide any example reason that RCID and not all special districts in FL should be reformed, yet that is what is going on. I can only assume that a dislike of Disney means you are happy that they are being targeted specifically.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

You’re confusing the distinction. I’ve asked what thing Disney has gotten the district to do that some other government wouldn’t do. Governments maintain public roads, so if it’s a road that’s at issue, it must not be a public road. There’s examples everywhere of governments not forcing private entities to pay for public services. If the district is paying for stuff that it shouldn’t, give specific examples of things it’s paying for that are for Disney privately and not for the general public passing through the district. This should be easy if it is common.



So, which project wasn’t for public use but was for private Disney use?


So, your point? RCID owning the garages isn’t special. It’s a thing governments that support public infrastructure do.



Again, what are all these things the district owns that aren’t for public use but are private Disney things? There must be more than just the parking garages.

Agreed - if the parking garage was at a resort or theme park then it would be an issue. At Disney Springs, there are dozens of other businesses that benefit from the parking garages. They literally allow more people to park their cars than if there was only a flat parking lot in each garage's place. That's additional customers who either wouldn't be able to access Disney Springs or would have to find another way to get there (less of an issue for resort guests, but a huge deterrent for locals). Since the garages benefit all businesses in Disney Springs and not just Disney, it makes sense that the expense wouldn't belong to only Disney. It's the District's land and benefits all businesses in that area (including the gas station across the street which gets increased traffic from the additional cars driving to Disney Springs).

 

[MisterPenguin]

when they can basically get the district to do whatever they wanted... including funding massive hundred million dollar projects.

And Disney pays the district hundreds of millions of dollars for those projects. It's why the district was created since the swamplamd that was Orange County couldn't provide those services.

The unfair advantage here is the ability to pay extra taxes.

 

[flynnibus]

And Disney pays the district hundreds of millions of dollars for those projects. It's why the district was created since the swamplamd that was Orange County couldn't provide those services.

The unfair advantage here is the ability to pay extra taxes.

And the entire point is that this is a tax advantaged way to get these things done. Not that they are free or something.

Pay attention

 

[mmascari]

they can basically get the district to do whatever they wanted... including funding massive hundred million dollar projects.

I missed this part of the reply.

Is that really true? Do you believe that is really true?
Could Disney basically get RCID to do whatever they wanted? No bounds, no constraints, no limits to the types of things they could possibly ask for?

Could Disney have asked RCID to build a new theater inside of Magic Kingdom? Would that have been possible? Is that outside the bounds of "basically"?

Assuming that is outside the bounds of "basically", then what defines the bounds of "basically"? Is the definition the same for all special districts in FL or is there a different definition of "basically" that is only true for this one district?

Continuing on, did Disney ask the district to do something outsides the bounds of "basically"? Did Disney ask the district to do something in the unique RCID definition of "basically" that is not available to other districts in FL?

This gets to the root of the question here. Is there unique difference with RCID that does not exist for other special districts and would be a reason to change only RCID and not others.

Lots of people can have lots of different issues with special districts as a whole. All kinds of policy differences that could lead to changes for how special districts work. That's not what is going on or this discussion though. Only RCID was targeted.

 

[Nevermore525]

Just a note, the only thing associated with the report the board recently provided that’s readily available on the Oversight District’s website is the report itself. All 78 Exhibits were not included in the meeting minutes for the report and there appears to be no direct links to them anywhere on the site.

So unless you have a hyperlink in your browser history for all 78 of them they are not easily accessible it seems.

 

[flynnibus]

Agreed - if the parking garage was at a resort or theme park then it would be an issue. At Disney Springs, there are dozens of other businesses that benefit from the parking garages

This is nonsense. There is only one developer and owner at Disney Springs — Disney. Everyone else is a tenant. This was to service one beneficiary- Disney.

A mall developer or office building owner doesn’t get to claim ‘look at all these businesses you are helping if you give me my zoning approval’ or approve my setbacks. The applicant is the developer.

This is not downtown parking… or area parking. It’s the parking lot for a shopping center. The interchange to the interstate and road realignments they did in the redevelopment were the primary benefits to the area - by keeping the feeder traffic off the adjacent roads.

The common good benefits to the district are the traffic improvements and the commitment by disney to new growth/activity.

And the garages were needed not because of traffic in general, but traffic due to the development. Disney basically doubled the activity at DTD and took away existing parking.