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

[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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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

It does when that is the intended, expected behavior. That’s why people keep telling you that the issue is with Florida special districts generally. The whole reason CDDs typically start based on landownership is because they’re supposed to jump when the landowner (and yes singular, because thats all you need and they’re sought by developers) says jump. They’re supposed to provide a tax advantage way to build things like roads and water systems that in a lot of places are just the responsibility of the developer, even if they are handed over to the local jurisdiction.

The new Shingle Creek district’s board is all people affiliated with Universal. They’ve already started to jump as Universal says and have an interlocal agreement with the county in place to start working on projects Universal wants. The district’s primary purpose is to build a train station Universal wants for another private company. And if they want they are also completely free to use it do other things like future road improvements, build garages, establish their own fire department all of which will do what Universal wants because they’re the overwhelming landowner. Nobody batted at an eye at the request, it was created with an ordinance that’s only a few pages long, because it’s an established framework for doing certain types of work that is widely available.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

They are on the website and linked in this thread.

I already saved them all local too in case someone gets spooked

 

[Nevermore525]

There are individual links for each exhibit on the CFTOD website - you can find them all at this link.

They are on the website and linked in this thread.

I already saved them all local too in case someone gets spooked

They were previously available at the link provided by DCBaker which is a link for the current board meeting. That link has since changed to the recently canceled meeting that was supposed to occur yesterday.

There isn’t a way to directly find the exhibits on the District’s website anymore.

 

[flynnibus]

does when that is the intended, expected behavior. That’s why people keep telling you that the issue is with Florida special districts generally.

Special districts are a framework- we already all know RCID was unique. We also all know it was created in a different era in a completely different central Florida. And citing CDD is pretty pointless when they are not the same nor universal in purpose. These types of entities are structures to meet an objective. The conversation is not what the legal structures are.

The discussion of ‘why should there be reform of RCID’ is just not a question of what all special districts should be of can be. The district was and can be a bespoke thing.

When someone asks ‘why should there be reform?’ It is not just a question of ‘what are special districts allowed to do’ Or challenging if the actions were allowable.

It can include criticism of what the setup was and even they are even necessary going forward. So that can mean you can be critical if a special district of that sort is even the right choice.

Ppl wasting there time trying to tell me whats allowable or not - it’s not even the conversation. I’ve been contributing to the fact finding from the start of this thread and people are acting like i have no idea what RCID was…

 

[flynnibus]

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 have news for you… this is not some cluster of independent businesses. This is a shopping center created and developed by a single entity done with the purpose to generate revenue and profit for that single entity.

This was not a community action group of independent businesses banding together asking for improvements. This was a single developer who redeveloped an existing property who also happens to have tenants in addition to their own properties.

Community likes the mix - but af the end of the day for this discussion- this is a disney development, controlled exclusively by disney, done to benefit disney. The presence of tenants doesn’t change that awareness when someone tries to determine if a developer should self fund or not. It’s normally driven by the promise of prosperity or as a lure to make the change.

Does anyone feel RCID was lobbying Disney to please revamp Disney Springs?

 

[Stripes]

I have news for you… this is not some cluster of independent businesses. This is a shopping center created and developed by a single entity done with the purpose to generate revenue and profit for that single entity.

The Disney Springs complex itself was developed by Disney for Disney’s benefit, of course. However, the vast majority of employees at that destination do not work for Disney and the vast majority of the revenue doesn’t end up in Disney‘s pockets. And the garage is open to the public at no charge. The garages are clearly beneficial to the public and loads of businesses independent of Disney. The fact that Disney is the developer of the complex doesn’t change that.

Again, I view the expenditure as a legitimate use of taxpayer funds. Certainly a much better use of funds than the $570 million in tax breaks Florida was offering the company.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

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.

Sorry, but that just ignores the reality of the situation. There is a clear economic benefit to parties other than Disney. Each of the businesses in Disney Springs benefits. Just because they may benefit less than Disney makes no difference because they still benefit - and even if we were to agree that it did,l matter in some way, Disney pays the vast majority of the property taxes, so the proportionate benefit is reflected in that anyway. You can't just ignore the various businesses that benefit just because it doesn't support your argument. Do you really think any of the tenants were outraged by the increased property taxes that came along with the increased customer traffic driven by the ease of access? No. And those businesses seeing more revenue impacts the greater Orlando economy, too. There are small, local businesses there mixed in with the larger ones. Those smaller businesses keep that money in the local economy more than some large chain.

And the increased development at Downtown Disney/Disney Springs helped bring more foot traffic to the existing stores while also creating more jobs for locals as new locations opened. So no matter how you slice it, there was a benefit there to more than just Disney.

 

[mmascari]

Here's an example of government spending like the RCID garages: https://wapo.st/3RGNB4Z

Two aides to Younkgin who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share confidential details of the plan said the state would contribute $150 million to $200 million in transportation improvements for the project and issue $1.4 billion in bonds through a newly created sports and entertainment authority. The bonds would be repaid over 40 years, in part with a portion of tax revenue generated from the first phase of the project, arena parking revenue and annual rent paid by Monumental.

Youngkin said Monumental’s upfront contribution to the project will be “more than $400 million.” The plan would ultimately allow Monumental to control two local arenas for live entertainment and boost the number of events it could host per year.

Two people briefed on the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss deliberations said they were told rent would be about $30 million a year. Monumental would get to sell naming rights for the arena, but the state could sell naming rights for the broader entertainment district, with those proceeds also going to pay down the bonds.

Two Youngkin aides said the bonds would be paid back with income taxes on players, executives and workers at the site, plus business, sales, ticket and hotel tax revenue generated only from the first phase of the development, which would include the arena, convention center, concert venue, two hotels and an unknown number of apartments. Any portion of those taxes earmarked under state law for transportation, education and the locality would not be used for the bonds, and no new taxes will be imposed as part of the plan, the aides said.

Under the deal, Bethesda-based developer JBG Smith would sell the Potomac Yard land it owns to a Virginia stadium authority, which would lease the property to Monumental. The stadium authority would issue bonds for the project, allowing the developer to leverage below-market state and municipal interest rates.

Looks like sometimes governments do fund the project and don't make the developer pay all the costs. Who knew.

If this is a good policy decision for Virginia or not is a different question. It certainly looks like a good one for Monumental and JBG Smith.

 

[Disney Analyst]

If funding parking garages results in more accessibility, free parking, and results in higher attendance which benefits the local businesses who are tenants at Disney springs, which helps the Florida economy, and the economy of the resort district, it was a good use of tax payer dollars (majority of which come from Disney).

 

[flynnibus]

Sorry, but that just ignores the reality of the situation. There is a clear economic benefit to parties other than Disney.

My comments were not about 'who benefits' from the end result. They were specifically about the decision a government makes when facing zoning approvals and concessions.

When the development is put to the government entities, it is represented by the developer and landowners -- not tenants. When it's negotiated what they must do themselves or what the government will provide it is not discussion including all your future tenants. (which don't forget, were unnamed and unknown at this time as well). The government is looking at the planned retail and dining business the developer is presenting as their proposal. Even tenants maybe pitched to make it attractive - but those tenants aren't party to the process.

Yes the government looks at the benefit of the project and who benefits - but the whole discussion here is about land development and what governments require developers to do. So in terms of parties of interest - the tenants aren't players. They usually are just cherries the developer tries to swoon the government with to project worth or value to the project.

And I say again.. does anyone here even believe RCID was the one courting Disney to redevelop DTD? Governments give concessions to encourage behavior. Salvaging DTD was something Disney was going to have to do no matter what. Disney had to solve it's acreage problem no matter what. Disney had to solve the bottleneck issues it was generating. The district building the garages was a concession the district didn't need to do. Disney Springs was going to happen regardless...

 

[flynnibus]

Looks like sometimes governments do fund the project and don't make the developer pay all the costs. Who knew.

If this is a good policy decision for Virginia or not is a different question. It certainly looks like a good one for Monumental and JBG Smith.

The key word you are looking for is INCENTIVE

Here you have the Gov and the city trying to lure a massive new private investment into an area the city is desperately trying to redevelop. (look up the history of Potomac Yards ... aka industrial wasteland)

That is why the government is willing to partner to invest in all that stuff.

So do you think RCID was courting Disney to redevelop DTD and dangling hundreds of millions in incentives to convince Disney that this expansion was needed?

and besides... how many times must it be said no one is denying government subsidities exist. You keep ignoring that it's the exception, not the norm... and who usually holds the cards.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

My comments were not about 'who benefits' from the end result. They were specifically about the decision a government makes when facing zoning approvals and concessions.

When the development is put to the government entities, it is represented by the developer and landowners -- not tenants. When it's negotiated what they must do themselves or what the government will provide it is not discussion including all your future tenants. (which don't forget, were unnamed and unknown at this time as well). The government is looking at the planned retail and dining business the developer is presenting as their proposal. Even tenants maybe pitched to make it attractive - but those tenants aren't party to the process.

Yes the government looks at the benefit of the project and who benefits - but the whole discussion here is about land development and what governments require developers to do. So in terms of parties of interest - the tenants aren't players. They usually are just cherries the developer tries to swoon the government with to project worth or value to the project.

And I say again.. does anyone here even believe RCID was the one courting Disney to redevelop DTD? Governments give concessions to encourage behavior. Salvaging DTD was something Disney was going to have to do no matter what. Disney had to solve it's acreage problem no matter what. Disney had to solve the bottleneck issues it was generating. The district building the garages was a concession the district didn't need to do. Disney Springs was going to happen regardless...

What reason would there be to NOT approve and fund the garages? They are a clear improvement over the alternative, aren't outside the bounds of the District's Comprehensive Plan or zoning (after all, commercial properties need adequate parking), and have a clear benefit to the taxpayers (both direct - Disney - and indirect - the tenants paying the property taxes as part of their leases). Also, inadequate parking would just push customers to other nearby shopping outside the RCID borders because nobody wants to deal with the frustration of drivi g there just to find the lots full. It's a clear example of what a local government SHOULD be doing - funding improvements that benefit the taxpayers/community. This whole issue was initially brought up by another poster as an example of something shady and unethical. I think it is readily apparent that it is nothing of the sort and the lack of a fuss from any other RCID taxpayers (even if it was just to put PR pressure on the District to change its mind) supports that.

 

[flynnibus]

What reason would there be to NOT approve and fund the garages?

Simple - they are within the capabilities and realm of the developer to provide themselves, without burdening anyone else.

Same way they wouldn't pay for their parking lots just because they are opening new stores - that too could generate new business opportunities in the area. Same way they could tell a developer their new shopping center will cause new traffic impacts and you need to put in a traffic light.

They are a clear improvement over the alternative, aren't outside the bounds of the District's Comprehensive Plan or zoning (after all, commercial properties need adequate parking), and have a clear benefit to the taxpayers (both direct - Disney - and indirect - the tenants paying the property taxes as part of their leases).

So you're saying the district should be paying for parking lots for any retail activity within the district? Does McDonalds and speedway know that?

Also, inadequate parking would just push customers to other nearby shopping outside the RCID borders because nobody wants to deal with the frustration of drivi g there just to find the lots full.

The alternative isn't no parking lots - the alternative is the developer paying for what their project needs themselves as part of the process to get the project approved. You know... like every other project.

It's a clear example of what a local government SHOULD be doing - funding improvements that benefit the taxpayers/community. This whole issue was initially brought up by another poster as an example of something shady and unethical.

No, it's been a topic since the deal was announced. It was just brought up again as an example of what people didn't like about the district's choices and people want to paint this picture of 'well this is the way it SHOULD be' or here you even saying it has to be this way. No, it doesn't, and 'should' is a matter of opinion and why there is more than one outcome. I can assure you my local city didn't pay for all the parking garages to build the local mall.

I think it is readily apparent that it is nothing of the sort and the lack of a fuss from any other RCID taxpayers (even if it was just to put PR pressure on the District to change its mind) supports that.

Why do you think the orlando sentinel wrote about this 10years ago including specifically an analysis and research into why the district was building the garages and the arrangement with Disney?

 

[Twirlnhurl]

Disney doesn't have to negotiate and horse trade with the local government like people do elsewhere.

In a perfect world, developers would never have to horse trade unless they wanted to. Every conceivable land use would be allowed as of right, with pre-determined impact fees or mitigation requirements perfectly proportionate to the impact on others, so there would be nothing to horse trade about. The property owner could enter the project information into a table and know exactly what it would take to build something instantly.

But we don't live in that world. The number of possible combinations of impacts is too great. There will always need to be exceptions. But that doesn't mean we should encourage the creation of exceptions. Exceptions that lead to horse trading are a failure of government. For that means that instead of rule by law, we are getting rule by men.

Rule by law can be capricious and stupid. But rule by men can be capricious, stupid, and unpredictable (see Ron DeSantis). At least problems with law can be discovered and rectified in advance or mitigated against because they are predictable.

I am sympathetic to the view that governments as a general rule should not do some of the things that RCID and many other local governments do. But I also think that is an unfair standard with which to judge the actions of the district.

RCID should not be compared against a hypothetical utopia of perfect governance in which governments never provide private goods or serve the interests of specific interest groups. Instead, it should be compared to the reasonably expected actual alternative.

The CFTOD does not appear to have an incentive structure to rectify any of the (minor and common) issues raised*--there is no reason to assume that the next governor of Florida will provide wise board members. Nor is there reason to believe that Disney or Central Florida would be better served if the RCID (and Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista's) actions were somehow taken over by Orange and Osceola counties.

*I am still not aware of any serious issues or issues uncommon in local governance.

 

[scottieRoss]

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.

Except, many other businesses do the same thing all across the country.
-build me a stadium with public money
-put in more luxury boxes 10 years later
-build a parking garage next to the River Walk
-build a parking garage next to my theme park
-condemn the old building, take it by eminent domain and lease it to me for $1 a year
-I will move my corporate HQ here and build electric cars, build me a new highway to get the workers there
-I will redevelop the old mall into a commercial hub, pay me $2 million dollars and keep the title in the cities name so there are no property taxes.
-I want to build a data center here, improve the utilities and waive the property taxes for 20 years
-I want to turn the abandoned retail warehouse into loft apartments, but waive the propery tax for 10 years and give me 1 million dollars to help pay for it.

These are all real world examples, most from central Texas where local governments give incentives to get the project, not make developers fund improvements to 'get approval'.

 

[flynnibus]

These are all real world examples, most from central Texas where local governments give incentives to get the project, not make

There’s that magic word again… ‘incentive’

Do you think disney needed government incentive to do the ds project?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Simple - they are within the capabilities and realm of the developer to provide themselves, without burdening anyone else.

But your point wasn't just the funding - it was the the approval, too. Now you're shifting to just the funding.

Same way they wouldn't pay for their parking lots just because they are opening new stores - that too could generate new business opportunities in the area. Same way they could tell a developer their new shopping center will cause new traffic impacts and you need to put in a traffic light.

And that COULD apply here if there was a study showing that there would be a negative traffic impact AND the District wasn't created specifically to handle exactly that type of infrastructure issue.

So you're saying the district should be paying for parking lots for any retail activity within the district? Does McDonalds and speedway know that?

Obviously that's not what I'm saying, which is why a previous post of mine cited the difference between Disney Springs and Magic Kingdom. In your McDonald's scenario, there's only 1 entity benefitting vs. dozens of taxpayers benefitting at Disney Springs such as AMC, House of Blues, etc. plus the neighboring businesses that see benefits such as Speedway and the nearby hotels.

The alternative isn't no parking lots - the alternative is the developer paying for what their project needs themselves as part of the process to get the project approved. You know... like every other project.

Again, your previous post cited the approval and zoning (never-ending that there's not separate zoning for parking lots), not just the funding. You're shifting your position whenever your points are refuted.

No, it's been a topic since the deal was announced. It was just brought up again as an example of what people didn't like about the district's choices and people want to paint this picture of 'well this is the way it SHOULD be' or here you even saying it has to be this way. No, it doesn't, and 'should' is a matter of opinion and why there is more than one outcome. I can assure you my local city didn't pay for all the parking garages to build the local mall.

And your city wasn't created specifically to promote tourism in what had been underdeveloped swamp land.

Why do you think the orlando sentinel wrote about this 10years ago including specifically an analysis and research into why the district was building the garages and the arrangement with Disney?

I asked about District taxpayers. Do you have an article showing that there was outrage among taxpayers over the garages or are you trying to substitute a reference to an article explaining the relationship between Disney and RCID for the lack of outrage. Every taxpayer in the District knew what they were buying (or leasing) into. Even when the governor and legislature came after Disney, I haven't heard a peep from anyone who was actually negatively impacted by Disney's so-called improper behavior.

 

[flynnibus]

But your point wasn't just the funding - it was the the approval, too. Now you're shifting to just the funding.

Uhh… the zoning procesess, proffers, design and concessions are intrinsically intertwined. These are not independent thoughts. There is no shift here - its all part of the process of how garages were incorporated into this development.

And that COULD apply here if there was a study showing that there would be a negative traffic impact AND the District wasn't created specifically to handle exactly that type of infrastructure issue.

The district’s scope does not dictate that they self fund all transportation needs in the district.

Obviously that's not what I'm saying, which is why a previous post of mine cited the difference between Disney Springs and Magic Kingdom. In your McDonald's scenario, there's only 1 entity benefitting vs. dozens of taxpayers benefitting at Disney Springs such as AMC, House of Blues, etc.

But what about all the employees and visitors of the district that benefit from the presence of a gas station and mcdonalds of that size on property?? Instead of having to go all the way out of the district?? You know that very argument you made about parking?

Think about how far people have to go if these services were not there… surely this benefits more than just the business owner… right?

Again, your previous post cited the approval and zoning (never-ending that there's not separate zoning for parking lots), not just the funding. You're shifting your position whenever your points are refuted.

I think you don’t have the basis to understand how the topics are in fact one and the same.

And your city wasn't created specifically to promote tourism in what had been underdeveloped swamp land.

The city has the very same initiatives to promote the growth and well being of its community.

I asked about District taxpayers. Do you have an article showing that there was outrage among taxpayers over the garages or are you trying to substitute a reference to an article explaining the relationship between Disney and RCID for the lack of outrage. Every taxpayer in the District knew what they were buying (or leasing) into.

Every district resident is a disney pawn and every tenant and business knows the mouse is a ruthless unilateral king inside the kingdom. You think they are going to openly criticize the landlord who would take away their golden opportunity and wipe out their potential to be in this extremely exclusive spot?

You wonder why they don’t criticize the king in the press?

And it’s already been covered how the impact to lost taxes impacts more than the district.

Even when the governor and legislature came after Disney, I haven't heard a peep from anyone who was actually negatively impacted by Disney's so-called improper behavior.

Because they want to keep the mouse happy. It’s called picking your battles

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Uhh… the zoning procesess, proffers, design and concessions are intrinsically intertwined. These are not independent thoughts. There is no shift here - its all part of the process of how garages were incorporated into this development.

I don't think you understand how zoning works. There was never a need to zone for parking. Just waving your hand and repeating "Intertwined!" doesn't change that.

The district’s scope does not dictate that they self fund all transportation needs in the district.

Transportation is an important responsibility of any local government. Municipal parking garages are quite common. The big difference here is that the DS garages are free while the more typical arrangement is to charge for parking even if there is no longer any debt to pay.

But what about all the employees and visitors of the district that benefit from the presence of a gas station and mcdonalds of that size on property?? Instead of having to go all the way out of the district?? You know that very argument you made about parking?

Think about how far people have to go if these services were not there… surely this benefits more than just the business owner… right?

Nobody goes into RCID specifically for McDonald's or gas. Both are just something you might need/want while there. People do, however, drive into RCID for Disney Springs to shop or see a Cirque de Soliel show. It's more than just WDW resort guests. To compare the 2 is either dishonest or a sign that you don't understand what Disney Springs really is. I assume you know what it is, though.

I think you don’t have the basis to understand how the topics are in fact one and the same.

Laughable considering you keep trying to equate McDonald's to a tourist destination as if there is no difference between the two.

The city has the very same initiatives to promote the growth and well being of its community.


Every district resident is a disney pawn and every tenant and business knows the mouse is a ruthless unilateral king inside the kingdom. You think they are going to openly criticize the landlord who would take away their golden opportunity and wipe out their potential to be in this extremely exclusive spot?

You wonder why they don’t criticize the king in the press?
View attachment 758939

So your argument is that Hilton is afraid of Disney? They could shutter their Disney Springs hotel tomorrow and survive just fine. Maybe Wyndham is shaking in their boots? The tax impact on any of these businesses is minimal. Disney foots the vast majority of the property tax bill.

And it’s already been covered how the impact to lost taxes impacts more than the district.

The "lost" taxes pale in comparison to the tax revenues generated by WDW. And let's not pretend that Orange County didn't foot the bill for a parking garage for Universal, so what did Disney and RCID do that isn't done elsewhere?

Because they want to keep the mouse happy. It’s called picking your battles

OR there was no negative impact. Think about this logically. If operating in WDW is having a negative impact on these other businesses, why should they care about pleasing Disney? What's Disney going to do, terminate their lease? That would be a positive outcome according to your logic. Yet businesses keep happily agreeing to Disney's terms.