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

[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.

 

[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…