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

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
The State of Florida should claim a huge acreage through eminent domain to build sustainable affordable housing within RCID, thereby fulfilling the district’s original intent of being an experimental, prototype city of tomorrow.
Disney announced two weeks ago theyre building an affordable housing project.
According to the map on the RCID website, Celebration does appear to be part of RCID
correct, Celebration is pretty much an island surrounded by Reedy Creek lands, with random pockets of drainage systems interwoven. Fun fact though is the towns telecommunications is managed by Reedy Creeks phone operator SmartCity.
 

Imhere

Well-Known Member
This all may turn out as politics used to be.

Big bold moves by each side gain tons of press, but, when the negotiations end everything gets so watered down a change is hardly recognized.

The "Don't say discussion", law may not bring any classroom changes except by the most egregious.

Any grand modifications to the RDIC may be distasteful to both parties.

Once both parties have wrung out the maximum of bluster a new shiny thing will appear.

Shows that open with great fanfare frequently close quietly in the dark of night.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Other groups were impacted because other special privileges were determined to have no valid purpose. The fact is there are some that still exist. I know the media loves to say it is only because Disney p***d off the governor but there is no evidence that was the only reason behind the repeal.
At this point continuing to try to claim there is no evidence that this is just about Disney is just lying. The quotes and even video has been provided multiple times.
 
Last edited:

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Big bold moves by each side gain tons of press, but, when the negotiations end everything gets so watered down a change is hardly recognized.
What negotiations? The bill is now law. There is currently no mechanism to water anything down. The governor doesn’t have the power to just ignore the law, unilaterally create districts or unilaterally impose new taxes. The special session is over and a new one has not yet been called. If there was an interest in negotiations this would not have been developed in secret without the knowledge of any local officials and then rushed through without necessary details.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Other groups were impacted because other special privileges were determined to have no valid purpose. The fact is there are some that still exist. I know the media loves to say it is only because Disney p***d off the governor but there is no evidence that was the only reason behind the repeal. And I never said companies were allowed to babble about anything they want... but it isn't smart business when it draw attention to you for the wrong reasons. Frankly Disney babbling about this would have been just as stupid if Reedy Creek didn't even exist because it alienate a large portion of the people they are trying to make a profit off of.
Other groups were impacted because they met the same criteria that was chosen in order to target Disney. You can’t argue that the Reedy Creek Improvement District has no valid purpose when it was still actively fulfilling its purpose as defined in the 1967 Reedy Creek Act and in the 1968 unanimous Supreme Court opinion that upheld the districts constitutionality.

The governor and numerous other state officials and legislators have made it clear that this bill was passed in order to harm Disney. They were open and honest about that fact. Purposefully.

It may not have been smart business on Disney’s part. However that is a determination to be made by customers and investors… not the government.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
It actually says "instruction" (not "discussion"), but regardless it's insubordinate because it's malicious and because no reasonable person would believe telling a kid where the men's bathroom is located constitutes classroom instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation. But by all means, I fully encourage all of the zealots to tell their department heads that they no longer intend to use the prefixes Mr. or Mrs. while in the building because it's classroom instruction of gender identity.
The bill preamble clearly says it intends to prevent classroom instruction. You are correct the actual bill language was changed from discussion as it was originally filed to instruction. However given the nature of the classroom environment it’s not hard to successfully argue that any discussion between a teacher and student is instruction.
 

prberk

Well-Known Member
I feel sad.

I understand all of the political winds (of left and right) at play here. I understand the risks of giving special consideration to one entity, as Disney had with Reedy Creek.
But I also understand what they did with it — and how over the years there was a mutually respectful and beneficial relationship between Florida and the Disney organization that, while not perfect, worked together (or in trust) to allow and achieve great new things — many of which actually did achieve many of Walt’s objectives with urban planning and innovation — that would not have been as likely or possible without the special case that Disney had in Florida.
The infrastructure is top-notch and often innovative in a way that in other localities just would get mired down in red tape or not done — and demonstrates the unique success of this special project in a way that always inspired me. Examples that inspired me include: the monorail as actual municipal transportation (not just a ride), the water bridge near the contemporary, the pneumatic trash system, the all-fiber-optic telecommunications system that was the nation’s first, the Skyliner as actual transportation, the canal system, building innovations and hurricane readiness, and even the whimsical overlay on the Reedy Creek Fire Department buildings that support a crew that was training with and actively supporting firefighters from around the state during the wildfires outside of their district.

My point is that the Reedy Creek Development District may have been a questionable proposition — but it allowed both Disney and Florida to benefit and bring great things to the world — all of which was built on trust and adults working together with trust. I am sad to see that come crashing down in what to me amounts to grandstanding on both sides. There is collateral damage here that undermines what, to me, was the innovation, cooperation, and idea generation that Walt Disney World represented in its ideals — even if, as with everything, there are problems to work out. That, in itself, is what is missing — a willingness to work together and hear one another to achieve great things.
I am sad.
 
Last edited:

Dranth

Well-Known Member
I also tend to think the take away from this issue for most people will be "what the heck is going on down in Florida?" The state already had a reputation for being... 'eccentric'.

Whatever their views on the specific legislation, most won't know the particulars and this will appear as a weird story of the Florida government going after one of America's most iconic (and well-liked) tourist destinations and cultural institutions for expressing a view on a controversial piece of legislation. I would guess to most people who are not engaged there may even be some begrudging shock and sympathy for Disney World becoming the latest target of an increasingly toxic political culture in the United States to the point where no-one knows if the resort as it existed for the past 50 years will survive current political battles intact. It seems like another sign of a country tearing itself apart.

Highly politically-engaged conservatives will likely buy into Disney grooming children or whatever else Fox News and DeSantis' allies are saying, but that's still going to be a relatively small percentage of the population and a similar thing happened over Disney being too friendly to the gays in the 1990s.

For me, the interesting question will be how many who disagree with Disney and want to stop supporting them will actually do it. Maybe they don't go to the parks but Disney is SO far reaching at this point. Will these parents hold the line when their kids want to see the next Marvel movie? What if they manage to make a good Star Wars movie and all their friends are seeing it? Once Toy Story 645 comes out and the little one is crying to see it are the parents going to cave in? I'd be willing to bet that in many cases these people give in and for those that don't, at least half of those kids will just go to a friends house and watch the stuff anyway.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
For me, the interesting question will be how many who disagree with Disney and want to stop supporting them will actually do it. Maybe they don't go to the parks but Disney is SO far reaching at this point. Will these parents hold the line when their kids want to see the next Marvel movie? What if they manage to make a good Star Wars movie and all their friends are seeing it? Once Toy Story 645 comes out and the little one is crying to see it are the parents going to cave in? I'd be willing to bet that in many cases these people give in and for those that don't, at least half of those kids will just go to a friends house and watch the stuff anyway.
People are generally about as good at boycotting as they are keeping up with New Years resolutions and giving things up for lent.
 

Thelazer

Well-Known Member
I feel sad.


My point is that the Reedy Creek Development District may have been a questionable proposition — but it allowed both Disney and Florida to benefit and bring great things to the world

I can point too many private construction projects that get done in a timely manner and do innovative things without the need of a special district.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
How many insisted on paying for the vast majority of their own infrastructure on top of paying their taxes that would otherwise help pay for such things?

Also, many of the "private projects" would become public projects under this act (such as any roadwork) - and we all know that governments don't always move quickly or seek to hire the best choice when it comes to repairing (or altering) roads.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
The State of Florida should claim a huge acreage through eminent domain to build sustainable affordable housing within RCID, thereby fulfilling the district’s original intent of being an experimental, prototype city of tomorrow.
I assume this is a joke. TWDC has had to face the possibility of an authoritarian government seizing their property with their Shanghai park. It was built into the political risk premium on that project but the rate of return was still great enough to overcome. I don't think they ever considered that risk for the domestic parks. It’s frightening that citizens of the United States would suggest an action like that where the government seizes the property of a private company because they don’t blindly support the government. Really frightening stuff.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom