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

[mkt]

I'm not from America. So its a mute point and this isn't the thread.

Where are you from friend? So that I may offer conversion rates of US political nonsense to where you're at's political nonsense?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

That stated intent would not be written into the legislation itself. Instead the legal justification would be something like being an unfair advantage or having fulfilled its purpose and no longer being necessary. Improper motives are not themselves not necessarily illegal.

Of course they wouldn't state their intent in the actual legislation. That doesn't give them legal cover to do it, though, and doesn't mean that the already-stated intent can be ignored. The words have already been stated publicly and the courts wouldn't pretend otherwise. Disney's and RCID's lawyers would have a field day in court, especially since punishment for expressing their views is literally the only reason stated by the legislator suggesting the change.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why Reedy Creek Improvement District was essential in 1965...
View attachment 629653


But why is it needed now that that dream will never come to pass?

That Disney did not built EPCOT is one of the oldest arguments made for dissolving the District. But if you read the WHEREAS statements at the beginning of the enabling legislation they start with several statements on tourism. Residential communities and attracting new permanent residents are mentioned but they are not a focus. The Florida Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling on State of Florida v Reedy Creek Improvement District also doesn’t mention any sort of city building, but does consider the development of tourism to be a valid interest of the state and purpose for the District.

 

[World_Showcase_Lover007]

I do wonder…what would the impact of this be on Disney? How much do they actually gain presently from the arrangement. It’s not as though they can flout laws as they see fit, as some imagine. This seems like a political statement to score votes but not something that would have that much real impact…if it even happens.

The impact would be huge on Disney. The Reedy Creek arrangement allows Disney to pass its own building permits without the typical red tape, delays and hearings that usually occur in the real world.

Disney still builds everything to code, but gets to bypass the local govt bureaucracy… because, well, they are the local govt in this very unique situation.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

You have a nice emotional argument here - but it really doesn't matter. The state can argue plenty of other justifiable reasons as well. RCID is basically a gift the state gave... not having RCID would put Disney on the same footing as everyone else. You'd have a hard time arguing 'punishment' for an end-state that is 'equal'.

I stated facts. They can argue other justifiable reasons all they want, but the only one stated publicly was one of retaliation over expressed political views. Arguing in court that "well, we also had other reasons, too, but just chose not to mention them," isn't a recipe for success.

Not really - if they identify a need they could do it with RCID too. RCID is limited in scope, its existence is not some bubble. But the entire discussion was about tax payer burden IF RCID was removed.. so I really don't understand your point. Yes, it was talking about if RCID was removed.

What need would exist within RCID for the State to impose a separate tax that hasn't existed for the past 50 years?

An emotional argument easily defeated with the 'only charge those who use it, not everyone' mantra. Politician says "I don't want to raise taxes on everyone... we'll just tax those who use it". Majority who don't use it.. say 'sounds good to me.. make those people pay'. Problem solved.

Problem solved . . . unless you're one of the millions of Floridians who visit WDW and would have to pay the added spite tax on any purchases made. That should go over well.

 

[flynnibus]

I stated facts. They can argue other justifiable reasons all they want, but the only one stated publicly was one of retaliation over expressed political views. Arguing in court that "well, we also had other reasons, too, but just chose not to mention them," isn't a recipe for success.

But it's not actionable. Like I said, the state is being 'mean'... so what. Unless it's something that would prevent the action legally it's a 'woe is me' argument that doesn't change anything. For all the people that would be upset about 'targeting Disney' they'd be able to find a lot of people saying "Stop giving Disney gifts...".

So yes, you can state a fact they made such statements - but it's not a fact that it would prevent the legislation from being legal or possible.

What need would exist within RCID for the State to impose a separate tax that hasn't existed for the past 50 years?

Possible proffers that exist today that may not happen going forward. The previously mentioned fire protection services, additional land management needs, etc.

You can't have it both ways... You have been saying there is all this additional tax burden that would happen.. now you're saying there isn't any burden on the state/county so I should spell out what it could be? Make up your mind.

Problem solved . . . unless you're one of the millions of Floridians who visit WDW and would have to pay the added spite tax on any purchases made. That should go over well.

Hey Millions of Floridians... do you wanna pay a tax every day based on other people's needs... or do you wanna pay a tax only when you goto WDW and only based on what you spend?

Do you not know how people play to the mob who don't care about other people??

 

[Chip Chipperson]

But it's not actionable. Like I said, the state is being 'mean'... so what. Unless it's something that would prevent the action legally it's a 'woe is me' argument that doesn't change anything. For all the people that would be upset about 'targeting Disney' they'd be able to find a lot of people saying "Stop giving Disney gifts...".

So yes, you can state a fact they made such statements - but it's not a fact that it would prevent the legislation from being legal or possible.

It's not a matter of "being mean," it's a matter of Constitutional law. Anything else is irrelevant. "Stop giving Disney gifts" would be choosing not to provide them with some other benefit that they don't currently have, like if they were considering giving them a tax break for moving employees from CA to FL. Taking away RCID is a punitive measure being threatened solely as retaliation for voicing displeasure about a piece of legislation. Officials can resort to whatever name-calling they see fit for all I care, but they don't get to blatantly ignore the Constitution.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The impact would be huge on Disney. The Reedy Creek arrangement allows Disney to pass its own building permits without the typical red tape, delays and hearings that usually occur in the real world.

Disney still builds everything to code, but gets to bypass the local govt bureaucracy… because, well, they are the local govt in this very unique situation.

When was there a hearing for each of the attractions at Epic Universe? When was the hearing for the new coasters at SeaWorld? Orange County already allows the parks to develop largely as they desire.

I stated facts. They can argue other justifiable reasons all they want, but the only one stated publicly was one of retaliation over expressed political views. Arguing in court that "well, we also had other reasons, too, but just chose not to mention them," isn't a recipe for success.

The court would be concerned with the powers of legislature, not necessarily the motivations of individual legislators. If this were the governor or another state officer trying to act individually then motivation would likely have more impact.

 

[flynnibus]

It's not a matter of "being mean," it's a matter of Constitutional law. Anything else is irrelevant. "Stop giving Disney gifts" would be choosing not to provide them with some other benefit that they don't currently have, like if they were considering giving them a tax break for moving employees from CA to FL. Taking away RCID is a punitive measure being threatened solely as retaliation for voicing displeasure about a piece of legislation. Officials can resort to whatever name-calling they see fit for all I care, but they don't get to blatantly ignore the Constitution.

Your belief... but when you ignore all the legitimate reasons your argument falls apart. "They are targeting me" does not give them immunity against legitimate actionable changes. So yes... its just 'being mean' because it doesn't invalidate the other objective reasons that can be made.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Your belief... but when you ignore all the legitimate reasons your argument falls apart. "They are targeting me" does not give them immunity against legitimate actionable changes. So yes... its just 'being mean'

The Constitution literally does exactly that - particularly when no legitimate reasons were given by the person suggesting the change - but we may be veering into territory that the mods don't want this thread to get into so I'll leave it at that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The Constitution literally does exactly that - particularly when no legitimate reasons were given by the person suggesting the change - but we may be veering into territory that the mods don't want this thread to get into so I'll leave it at that.

This is a loophole. It doesn’t restrict speech. It doesn’t even technically involve the party whose speech is disliked as that legal separation between Disney and the District is important to maintain.

Ever heard of Dr Venable Memorial Park? It’s a park outside St. Louis. Dr. Venable was a black man who purchased two lots in a neighborhood. The existing white neighbors were successful in pushing out other potential black residents through a variety of means but they couldn’t get Dr. Venable. He paid cash for his property so he owned it free and clear. Eventually the city took his property by eminent domain and turned it into a park. This was clearly done because of Dr. Venable’s skin color but it was allowed because cities are allowed to take land to build parks.

 

[Lilofan]

The impact would be huge on Disney. The Reedy Creek arrangement allows Disney to pass its own building permits without the typical red tape, delays and hearings that usually occur in the real world.

Disney still builds everything to code, but gets to bypass the local govt bureaucracy… because, well, they are the local govt in this very unique situation.

Universal Studios FL had been planning to build as early as the early 1980s. Roadblocks of county red tape was what they dealt with over the years. USF finally opened in 1990. WDW and Reedy Creek who bypassed all the red tape a few years later planned for DHS. DHS opened in 1989. Efficiency, unregulated works when red tape does not get in the way. If under Orange and Osceola counties, look for typical red tape to get in the way.

 

[flynnibus]

The Constitution literally does exactly that - particularly when no legitimate reasons were given by the person suggesting the change - but we may be veering into territory that the mods don't want this thread to get into so I'll leave it at that.

Gov can't stop your speech - but they can still tax you, write laws against your other activities, or punish you for other crimes.

Gov can't tell you to stop speaking out about Pot Legalization - but they can still arrest you for smoking pot or write laws limiting your use of it... even if they focus on you more than someone else. Being outspoken is not immunity for other legal actions against you.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Universal Studios FL had been planning to build as early as the early 1980s. Roadblocks of county red tape was what they dealt with over the years. USF finally opened in 1990. WDW and Reedy Creek who bypassed all the red tape a few years later planned for DHS. DHS opened in 1989. Efficiency, unregulated works when red tape does not get in the way. If under Orange and Osceola counties, look for typical red tape to get in the way.

Universal Studios Florida got stuck in development hell because Universal didn’t want to pay for it by themselves. That’s why they met with Paramount. The Disney-MGM Studios was a much smaller, less ambitious project. It’s also located within the City of Orlando so it would even be an example of Orange County’s red tape.

 

[Lilofan]

Universal Studios Florida got stuck in development hell because Universal didn’t want to pay for it by themselves. That’s why they met with Paramount. The Disney-MGM Studios was a much smaller, less ambitious project. It’s also located within the City of Orlando so it would even be an example of Orange County’s red tape.

Odd that Universal wanted to build a park but didn't want to pay for it themselves?

 

[bpiper]

I've seen it happen in the past.

That is true. One of the big hold ups in getting unemployment checks started is that the state's unemployment agency has to contact your former employer to see why you left the company. The hold up is that they can be slow to respond. So whether you get or don't get unemployment depends upon how the company answers the question.

A company may encourage an employee to resign by stating that they would allow them to collect or allow them to collect if they don't publicly air dirty laundry.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Odd that Universal wanted to build a park but didn't want to pay for it themselves?

Disney was doing the same thing in a much more legally complicated way at the same time with Euro Disney.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Gov can't stop your speech - but they can still tax you, write laws against your other activities, or punish you for other crimes.

Gov can't tell you to stop speaking out about Pot Legalization - but they can still arrest you for smoking pot or write laws limiting your use of it... even if they focus on you more than someone else. Being outspoken is not immunity for other legal actions against you.

What crime has been committed?

 

[Lilofan]

Disney was doing the same thing in a much more legally complicated way at the same time with Euro Disney.

Ah the problem that should not have been built called Euro Disney. TWDC saved this struggling mistake several years ago by taking on more ownership.

 

[CAV]

I asked this on another thread - wouldn't this mean the taxpayers in Orange County would have to foot the bill for all the services that Disney currently pays the cost for? Water, fire protection, etc. ...

Yeesh.

They already do. Orange and Osceola County with in the RCID is taxed at its own millage rate. All that money goes to the RCID for operating costs. If RCID is dissolved, that tax money would go to the counties, no?