flynnibus
Premium Member
No, it's exactly how the law is written.
House Bill 425 (2023) - The Florida Senate
www.flsenate.gov
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
www.flsenate.gov
No, it's exactly how the law is written.
View attachment 764960
House Bill 425 (2023) - The Florida Senate
Using that same definition, one could argue that Space Mountain qualifies, since it matches all of those requirements.
The law doesn't specify the purpose of those systems, which is vague enough for a government not acting in good faith to take action.
A better question might be, if the new regulation becomes a problem and is used in a bad faith way, what would it take to change the Disney Monorail from a 'fixed guideway transportation system' into an amusement park ride?
Meaning, what could be done to the Disney Monorail to make it more like Peter Pan or Space Mountain and less like the MCO terminal train?
Brian
Well-Known Member
Virtual queue only?
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
Loops.
Stripes
Premium Member
Didn’t you just ask how CFTOD‘s actions have negatively affected Disney? Disney is now paying millions of dollars more in property taxes to the district, receiving worse services, and paying for both sides of a lawsuit against themselves. Meanwhile, the people spending Disney’s money are not accountable to their constituents. It’s taxation without representation.
And the worst is potentially yet to come. The district‘s primary leverage over Disney is their power over land use. Disney has, for the time being, tied the districts hand with the contracts. If those contracts are thrown out, which is what the district is seeking, I’ll guarantee you’ll be seeing some changes that will drastically harm WDW and its future expansion. The chairman has repeatedly expressed a desire to rezone Disney’s land for use cases Disney has zero interest in.
Last edited:
I read your comments the first time. There is nothing to lead me to believe whether those covenants stay or are made invalid that it will effect how Disney conducts its business. So if those covenants are cancelled, does that mean the CFTOD now is a Disney board members and make decisions? Nope, it will still be business as usual. However, I understand to keep this thread interesting there those who will continue to do fear mongering.
Take a peek at the Hogwarts Express down the street at Universal for your answers.
flynnibus
Premium Member
You're getting tangential - but this would pretty much be a dead end because of history that the fed has already done that interpretation and decided the NTSB did have scope over the monorail. Sure that is fed vs state... but you're kinda ing into the wind after that.
Someone should be more worried about things like the railroad.
Stripes
Premium Member
The only fault lies with Florida and the new board. You asked how Disney was affected, yes? Disney is now paying millions more in property taxes for worse services. I call that being “affected.”
Also, contrary to your assertion, the people living in the district are not impacted by the tax increases because they rent their land from Disney and are not subject to property taxes. Disney, being the landowner, is responsible for the property taxes.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
First, I wasn’t talking about the covenants. If the board wasn’t interested in changing the zoning they wouldn’t have made themselves the planning board and be suing to be able to change the zoning.
It's a property tax, the payer details have been posted in the thread before. The vast majority of the taxes are paid by Disney, since they own the vast majority of land subject to the tax.
Which makes your argument "the only people affected are Disney, but people visiting the park don't notice any impact so Disney isn't really affected".
That's kind of a twisted logic.
Minthorne
Well-Known Member
ILL tickets only.
It is nicer than the old.
And using just "district" is a cheeky way of not coming down on the competing Boards. They won't have to re-do it if it goes back to RCID.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Nah - the stupid orange tree would go away.
That's a good example. Should the same oversight be applied to the railroad too? If not, what makes it different?
It's related though. The logical route here is that the new oversight legislation was done to create leverage over Disney, not for actual safety reasons. With that logic, the obvious question is, how many different things could the legislation apply to based on how it's written. Meaning, what makes it the monorail only and not Peter Pan or the railroad.
One path of that logic says the legislation is vague enough that it applies to all of them. The leverage could be applied by including Perter Pan in the oversight and forcing Disney to fight or comply with that.
The other path of logic says, they're clearly different and the legislation doesn't apply to both.
If we accept the first, anything that even looks like it might apply can be used as leverage. On the other hand, if we discard that as simply ridiculous and we're on the second path, the question changes slightly. It becomes, is the new oversight leverage being used in a detrimental way or just applying similar standards as before. If its the same as before, just a different label on the safety forms but the same actual real work, then it just gets ignored.
However, if the new oversight is being used for leverage and in an onerous way, how to mitigate that leverage becomes important. They could fight the law. They could fight that the law is being applied in an invalid way. They could just shutdown the monorail, eliminating any impacts from oversight but losing the capability. Or, they could change the monorail so that it no longer meets the definition of what is subject to oversight.
If we accept that the monorail and Peter Pan are different, or the monorail and the train. The last option to remove the leverage is to change the monorail so it's no longer subject to this oversight. Even if that replaces it with different oversight. I'm assuming all amusement park rides are subject to oversight too, just by something different. Clearly, the change would need to be enough to satisfy everyone, including the NTSB here. Unless the NTSB also oversees amusement park rides.
Is it just putting up tap points and requiring a Magic Kingdom ticket or Epcot ticket depending on which route you want to ride? Or, would it be more extensive? Do they have to more the platforms inside the park fences? For instance, is the track all on Disney property or is some of it district right of way? It's probably hard to have an amusement park ride on a public right of way.
This all assumes that the new oversight is creating problems, which may not be the case at all and it doesn't matter.
I'm not sure that would do it. Just requiring tickets would clearly not be enough. Lots of systems that fall in the definition charge to ride. Maybe some nuance that it's tied to already have a park ticket too, maybe. Just charging to ride clearly wouldn't be enough.
Since the District is formed, funded, and based on land ownership, one would hope the land owners get a vote in the leadership of the District. That's kind of how representative government is supposed to work.
If it was formed based on something else, then that something else. Say, how the county government is based on residency and residents get to vote on the county leadership.
Currently, the CFTOD leadership is appointed by an external entity with no accountability to those CFTOD governs. The ability of those subject to CFTOD governance and taxing to impact that external entity is non existent relative the population the external entity is accountable to. Many orders of magnitude more people determine the external entity and are not subject to CFTOD at all.
I mean, it's not a terrible name. But couldn't they have thrown "Adventure" in there somewhere?