This is also an example of government acting in secret. DC was completely blindsided that they were about to lose their NBA and NHL teams until this leaked the day before. Neighbors are furious about the massive increase in traffic this will bring to an already congested area.
I never said parking wasn't necessary. I said it didn't require specific zoning, which your previous posts suggested. Obviously any commercial development requires a minimum amount of parking, which is typically determined by the size and type of development. So, yes, the garages were necessary to meet the parking needs of the development.
Why twist words? Of course people need to eat and fill their tanks. However, fast food isn't a necessity and gas stations don't require much in terms of space and resources. If there was ever a situation where a McDonald's or gas station was requesting that the local government build them a parking garage they'd be laughed out of the room. Nobody ever says, "Boy the local economy really picked up once that Exxon station was built." Now, if the gas station was being built in an area that was somehow lacking any gas stations and the local government was having trouble attracting any gas companies to build a station because of a small isolated population or something then maybe a case could be made to help fund the construction of the station. Unfortunately for your case, however, there are plenty of gas stations in the surrounding area. It would be inconvenient if there were zero gas stations within RCID, but not so inconvenient as to justify government funding of the construction. And McDonald's is even less important in that regard.
No, it's not contradictory to anything except the point you were trying to make. There's all of this "think about the other taxpayers" nonsense, but the fact is that none of them are complaining about it themselves. Why? Because they aren't seeing the negative impact that people are trying to insist exists.
If the relationship is bad then there's no reason to worry about risking it. You can't argue that the relationship is too good to risk AND say that the relationship is abusive and unfair. All of these businesses have options. They chose to operate in RCID specifically because of the benefits while fully understanding how the government functions. That's why they signed the leases and the other landowners agreed to deed restrictions when buying land from Disney.
It's absolutely relevant because this while discussion began when these garages were cited as an example of corruption. If something is legal, publicly disclosed, and common then there is no corruption. It is literally the local government doing the will of its constituents. Only in a dictatorship would that be considered bad.
It's not a strawman. You and others are painting these garages as some terrible abuse when the fact is that nobody was harmed.
So we're back to agreeing g that the businesses entered into their agreements knowing that they are profitable for them. These garages helped make Disney Springs as big as it is now, which helps all of those businesses. That's exactly the sort of thing public funds should be used for - to develop the community for the good of the taxpayers.
Not a single poster has suggested that RCID asked for this rather than the other way around. It's completely irrelevant. Most projects line this that are funded with government dollars come to exist the same way - the business approaches the government with a request and tries to show why it is in the public's interest to approve it. The case for the garages is pretty simple: expanded Disney Springs means increased taxable value for the land and increased economic activity within the District. Existing businesses benefit. New businesses get the opportunity to benefit. The District benefits. Where's the issue?
Not to mention the angry shop and restaurant owners near the Capitol One Arena. We were just there last night and it is a vibrant and busy area. If both the NBA and NHL teams move, that area will be a ghost town except on certain concert nights, which won't be enough for some of the businesses to survive. Of course, VA doesn't care how it will hurt DC, only that it might help them. And multiple VA congress persons are already stating that it won't work without billions in infrastructure work on roads and the Metro to make it work. Didn't see anything from VA about helping with that.
I only have one question. How do you know that the local businesses in DS didn't complain to Disney that the parking was limiting the visitors, and that parking garages would help? While we were never privy to the internal discussions, you have to admit that it is possible that some of the businesses brought up the idea of increased traffic flow to help them out.
Wouldn’t be the first time a state has rushed into something without fully realizing the financial ramifications. The initial dissolution attempt of RCID comes to mind…
Steven Schussler (creator of Rainforest Cafe, T-Rex, Yak & Yeti, and The Boathouse to name a few) was very influential in convincing Disney to close Pleasure Island and redevelop Downtown Disney. He was really the one who believed that Downtown Disney could be redeveloped, expanded and be more third-party operated.
I wasn't commenting on if it was good or bad policy. Just that it's a policy decision well within the scope of valid policy decisions.
So that just leads directly into asking for additional parking to add more visitors.
Hopefully not charging us by the word.
So he was the puppet for the parking garages?
Universal built their garages. There was an uproar over the pedestrian bridge built by Orlando to serve Cabana Bay. Orlando though was obligated to build the bridge at Universal’s request because the special district that encompasses the North Campus exists for the purpose of providing transportation improvements for the landowners. It’s a dependent district without its own board and yet the city council didn’t really debate the issue because building the bridge was effectively required.
More parking was required by the District’s development regulations.
Maybe you missed lazyboy97o's post pointing out that the expansion of Disney Springs was suggested/supported by the Boathouse owner. If you have multiple parties advocating for improvements in the District, why should only the largest taxpayer shell out the funds from its own budget?
Sorry, I'm using 'zoning' here as a catch-all because clearly this thread can't handle the nuances of actually getting into the details of what it means for permitting within by-right verse projects that need approval before permitting verse projects that want variances to actually fit within exisitng regulations. Zoning and building codes are the mechanisms by which government regulate development. It is the framework that defines what can be built and what needs approval. Talking about 'zoning' is just an easy simplification to talk about projects that need local planning or development approvals because it's not something that can be done purely by-right.
I suggest you actually look at a map of local gas stations in the area and access... I think you will be suprised. There is a giant hole in the map NW of the I4/192 area... and It's called Reedy Creek and north.
A majority of the population can't even do their own taxes.. and you think they are going to understand how a business benefits from this public subsidity? Hell even in this thread it needs to be revisted countless number of times because people can't grasp how still paying taxes is BETTER than paying less taxes and paying for something outright. The reason you don't see local politicans not complaining is not because there is no negatives, but because they choose to focus on the NET gain. BTW, they also know Disney paid crap wages... but are they screaming at Disney to do more? NO because they also know they are the biggest employer and also one of the biggest influencers in the region.
Again with you making stuff up no one said.
Then I think you are naive. It's called the end game. People tolerate stuff they hate all the time because the net outcome is what they want or need. People hate their boss, but keep working because they need the job. Politicans tolerate undesirables because they bring prosperity they need, etc. Again, lack of noise is not a sign of consent or agreement.
Yes, options they've decided are more valuable to them, then putting at risk to fight the mouse over stuff that isn't even their fight. You're saying exactly why they wouldn't speak up, but failing by taking that to mean they are in agreement or happy with Disney's choices. That's not reality. They tolerate the bad, to get to the good.
It wasn't called corruption. And it's also possible for actions to be UNDESIRABLE in your opinion while still being legal and common.
Yes, because it simply means adding garages IS NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION to a problem. You can convert existing land, you can secure more land, etc. And you can't make generalizations on cost comparisons when you don't have the specifics of what the alternative is. But you can say garages are the most expensive form of parking per spot... which is why they are not the first solution to parking problems - they are used when the alternatives are not practical or undesirable for other reasons. It was simply bounding the statement because it would be stupid to generalize beyond it.
But what he advocated for necessarily required additional parking. So here we are.
Again, if the taxes generated by the impact of the project outweigh those "lost" by having the District build the garages, then they aren't lost at all. No garages = less room for expansion since parking needs to be adequate for the capacity of the commercial space.
When the issue is cited as a reason why RCID was bad, then the "whataboutism" is absolutely relevant because it shows that exactly this type of thing can and does happen quite often without a Special District such as this. The difference here is that the only taxpayers involved in paying those costs are Disney, the entities leasing property from Disney, and the handful of other property owners in the District - all of whom entered into the situation fully aware of what it is/was. The entire thing has been a net gain for the Counties and the State so using those taxes as an example of harm willingly ignores the reality of the economic impact of the District. If this is the one item anyone can point to as a reason why RCID should have been taken over then it's not even an argument.
Have you been to the parking garages? They're as close to the road as they could get. Where is this extra land coming from that could have been used instead? If flat surface parking was a realistic possibility then there would be no reason for Disney to ask for the garages that ultimately raised the company's own taxes. The 15% or so of the cost saved by sharing the burden would easily have been saved by paving some blacktop and calling it a day - but only if the space existed without requiring other more costly adjustments. And if they did go with a parking lot that required rerouting roads, people would just complain that the District shouldn't have approved that plan, either - even though the District was created specifically so that Disney would develop the land and promote tourism in Central FL.
