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

[Willmark]

What is so interesting about the current state of politics is the red side was always pro-business. This is one of the most anti-business actions we’ve seen (maybe ever) from a GOP controlled state. States like CA have been known to do things that are preposterous that hurt companies but this is a first in a red state. The culture war is taking priority over the economy which was historically a blue thing. For the GOP economy always trumped social issues. Times have changed but I can tell you for certain there are still old school Republicans who oppose this. They may be called RINOs and attacked by the far right these days.

The people of FL won’t be the winners. It’s already been reported that DeSantis has seen an increase in donations as a result of this fight so his campaign is right now a big winner. I’m guessing a large portion of those donations are coming in from out of state. None of this is about benefiting Floridians. It’s about re-election now and eventually a promotion.

This is correct in almost every particular, good show.

 

[lazyboy97o]

A few things I found just watching the video a bit (anyone more versed in FL law please correct me if I made any mistakes below):

• He claims that Reedy Creek was unique among all the special districts in FL in that it was created by a special act of the legislature. Yet in 5 minutes of Googling, I found that the Daytona International Speedway Special District was also created by special act.
• As @lazyboy97o pointed out, he states that Reedy Creek has no safety standards. This is 100% false.
• His whole statement on the separation of Reedy Creek and Disney in regards to standing doesn't necessarily hold up - yes, they are separate distinct entities, but as the largest landholder in Reedy Creek, Disney has rights under FL law in regards to the district, and that's not mentioned. It's indisputable that the removal of Reedy Creek negatively impacts Disney, and Disney could make the case that the dissolution of Reedy Creek was done soley to harm Disney in retaliation for speech.
• His whole comment on how the bond debt can only be serviced by the lands of Reedy Creek if Reedy Creek goes away makes no sense and doesn't seem consistent with FL law that moves bonds to the controlling government entity if the old government entity is dissolved.
• He claims that Disney owns all the property and would be responsible for the debt if Reedy Creek is dissolved - that landowners would be responsible for municipal bonds. Again, that's not consistent with how municipal bonds work anywhere.

It’s amazing how many people haven’t bothered to spend even 20 minutes reading the Reedy Creek website.

 

[flynnibus]

A few things I found just watching the video a bit (anyone more versed in FL law please correct me if I made any mistakes below):

• He claims that Reedy Creek was unique among all the special districts in FL in that it was created by a special act of the legislature. Yet in 5 minutes of Googling, I found that the Daytona International Speedway Special District was also created by special act.
• As @lazyboy97o pointed out, he states that Reedy Creek has no safety standards. This is 100% false.
• His whole statement on the separation of Reedy Creek and Disney in regards to standing doesn't necessarily hold up - yes, they are separate distinct entities, but as the largest landholder in Reedy Creek, Disney has rights under FL law in regards to the district, and that's not mentioned. It's indisputable that the removal of Reedy Creek negatively impacts Disney, and Disney could make the case that the dissolution of Reedy Creek was done soley to harm Disney in retaliation for speech.
• His whole comment on how the bond debt can only be serviced by the lands of Reedy Creek if Reedy Creek goes away makes no sense and doesn't seem consistent with FL law that moves bonds to the controlling government entity if the old government entity is dissolved.
• He claims that Disney owns all the property and would be responsible for the debt if Reedy Creek is dissolved - that landowners would be responsible for municipal bonds. Again, that's not consistent with how municipal bonds work anywhere.

The TLDR - he makes enough simple mistakes that it erodes all his credibility.

 

[mmascari]

Right so it’s not what I asked it’s what you thought I was implying; especially in light of you admitting to “scaled up”.

And by the way bad form on your part to only quote part of what I said.

ETA: I see you did it twice in two separate posts, didn’t catch it the first time.

I did trim the quote, both times, in the exact same spots too. Full quote, with the part I included in bold below.

Building off your last part.

I’m usually going to side with businesses in almost any matter as well but where I have the most pause is RCID itself. It’s a curious case. I get the hows and why’s of it coming about. But at the heart of it, what is it’s purpose in this day and age?

Seems more than a tad murky IMO.

Is the bold not a full and complete thought?

The bolded part looks like a complete thought, distinct and separate from the parts trimmed off. Is it really only able to stand when it's connected to the rest? The stuff before and after the blank lines appears completely independent and does not add any clarity to the bolded section. The part of the sentence prior to the "where" is an independent thought. I was not commenting on which side you usually go with. That you would "go with a side" is irrelevant to the the "pause" you have about RCID. I didn't trim it after "curious case" as the earlier part is directly related and provides context to the later part. The trimmed parts provide no context. Hence, trimming it down provides only the parts I'm responding to, while at the same time not taking the statement out of context to make it look like you're saying something you're not. That's hardly bad form.

Showing the entire quote now, it's STILL implying (just as it was before) that RCID is a bad thing and that it serves no purpose anymore.

To which, I still suggest that RCID provides the exact same purpose as other local government entities for the exact same reason that we don't do everything only at the federal level.

That you want to suggest those are different is a deflection to try and suggest their are different reasons without actually providing any of those reasons.

If you don't mean to imply that RCID is no longer needed, you'll need to rewrite that entire quote, not just the bolded part. Since, that's clearly what it's communicating to everyone else.

It would also be nice if you provided an example of something RCID does that's no longer needed (or was never needed, either way).

 

[Willmark]

Showing the entire quote now, it's STILL implying (just as it was before) that RCID is a bad thing and that it serves no purpose anymore.

I interesting tactic, so I should suppose return the favor?

1. I said RCID was a bad thing? Can you show me where I said that? I implied it where? In fact I said “I usually side with businesses.” The part you left out twice then decided to segue to hyperbole. Then when confronted with it and realizing your mistake you revert to some wall of text that really doesn’t have much to do with anything or at least anything I actually said. So far 0-1
2. I said it serves no purpose anymore? Where did I say that. Oh right you said I implied it. 0-2

Here’s a thought slow down and ask yourself are you answering to what I said or what you think I said?

Seems to me you want to argue something, what I’m not sure of. Kindly stop as none of the statements you are railing against seem all that controversial. I said “gives pause” which means to consider. You’re objecting to that? I said “what’s its purpose” you get “it’s no longer needed?” I said that?

It appears that you want to shut down any commentary even innocuous ones. And bizarrely ones that are siding with Disney (like mine) but equally strangely I’m not doing it in the manner you want or not stridently enough?

Strange to say the least.

 

[flynnibus]

I said it serves no purpose anymore? Where did I say that. Oh right you said I implied it. 0-2

Explain what this was suggesting?

I’m usually going to side with businesses in almost any matter as well but where I have the most pause is RCID itself. It’s a curious case. I get the hows and why’s of it coming about. But at the heart of it, what is it’s purpose in this day and age?

Seems more than a tad murky IMO.

 

[lazyboy97o]

To use a baseball analogy, this attorney has been playing Class AA baseball.

But with Disney/RCID involved, this is the big leagues now.

He might be a great player for who he plays against, but it appears he needs a bit of (Disney/RCID) coaching before he’s ready to step up to the plate in the Major League.

But you have to wonder about someone’s claims about being a baseball player when they show up to play with a tennis racket.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I interesting tactic, so I should suppose return the favor?

1. I said RCID was a bad thing? Can you show me where I said that? I implied it where? In fact I said “I usually side with businesses.” The part you left out twice then decided to segue to hyperbole. Then when confronted with it and realizing your mistake you revert to some wall of text that really doesn’t have much to do with anything or at least anything I actually said. So far 0-1
2. I said it serves no purpose anymore? Where did I say that. Oh right you said I implied it. 0-2

Here’s a thought slow down and ask yourself are you answering to what I said or what you think I said?

Seems to me you want to argue something, what I’m not sure of. Kindly stop as none of the statements you are railing against seem all that controversial. I said “gives pause” which means to consider. You’re objecting to that? I said “what’s its purpose” you get “it’s no longer needed?” I said that?

It appears that you want to shut down any commentary even innocuous ones. And bizarrely ones that are siding with Disney (like mine) but equally strangely I’m not doing it in the manner you want or not stridently enough?

Strange to say the least.

 

[Willmark]

Explain what this was suggesting?

Seems pretty self explanatory. What purpose does it serve? People answered with some pretty good answers in the thread. They are there to see.

Clearly certain posters want to make it something it’s not.

 

[flynnibus]

Seems pretty self explanatory. What purpose does it serve? People answered with some pretty good answers in the thread. They are there to see.

Clearly certain posters want to make it something it’s not.

So you are saying you don't believe what you said... you're just saying it to spark other conversation?

 

[Willmark]

So you are saying you don't believe what you said... you're just saying it to spark other conversation?

Huh? Not following you. What did I say that I don’t believe?

As I originally stated several pages back I have no dog in this hunt, and more recently that I almost always side with businesses. Even more recently I’m pretty much on the side of Disney.

Seems the objection is to the phraseology of the second part as near as I can tell? And that it is somehow has some hidden meaning? I sad it gives me pause and that somehow equates to some stance being attributed to me.

As I said bizarre.

 

[mmascari]

Now who's trimming out all the wall of text, where I explicitly said those answers.

I interesting tactic, so I should suppose return the favor?

1. I said RCID was a bad thing? Can you show me where I said that? I implied it where? In fact I said “I usually side with businesses.” The part you left out twice then decided to segue to hyperbole. Then when confronted with it and realizing your mistake you revert to some wall of text that really doesn’t have much to do with anything or at least anything I actually said. So far 0-1

Sure.

Building off your last part.

I’m usually going to side with businesses in almost any matter as well but where I have the most pause is RCID itself. It’s a curious case. I get the hows and why’s of it coming about. But at the heart of it, what is it’s purpose in this day and age?

Seems more than a tad murky IMO.

"usually going to side with businesses in almost any matter as well but" - So, if you usually side with business "but", then you in this instance you are NOT siding with business. If you didn't mean to say you're not siding with business. Please update and let us know that you usually side with business and do in this case too. Which is the exact opposite of the word "but". If you're going to say that I've corrupted your context by not including it. Including the trimmed text should actually show the opposite. Instead it reinforces it. So, either you lied then or it's a lie now that you're for Disney/RCID in this.

Also, incapable of reading the wall of text.

1. I said it serves no purpose anymore? Where did I say that. Oh right you said I implied it. 0-2

What does this mean then?

But at the heart of it, what is it’s purpose in this day and age?

Seems more than a tad murky IMO.

Either it has a purpose or it does not. That looks like you said it's purpose is murky today. Even without the second line, the "what's the purpose" in the context of the "gives you pause" is clearly "just asking the question" that you have a pause (meaning it's not good) and that you're "just asking the question" if it serves a purpose. A discussion technique that clearly shows the intent that it serves no purpose.

Here’s a thought slow down and ask yourself are you answering to what I said or what you think I said?

I think you need to slow down and read the response, and the last hundred pages to see what's actually being discussed instead of throwing out random "gee seems bad, but I don't really mean it's bad" type of bad faith statements.

Seems to me you want to argue something, what I’m not sure of. Kindly stop as none of the statements you are railing against seem all that controversial. I said “gives pause” which means to consider. You’re objecting to that? I said “what’s its purpose” you get “it’s no longer needed?” I said that?

It appears that you want to shut down any commentary even innocuous ones. And bizarrely ones that are siding with Disney (like mine) but equally strangely I’m not doing it in the manner you want or not stridently enough?

Strange to say the least.

If you have an actual item to add to the discussion, please do. Something that having or removing RCID would help or harm. Otherwise, you're just throwing out half statements to skirt political discussion. I was clear in my statements about what RCID brings to the situation here. There's already 100 pages worth of incorrect bad faith statements on what things RCID is imagined to do that are harmful and give Disney some unfair advantage over everyone else.

 

[WDW Pro]

Please provide the statute that prohibits counties from operating an electric utility that utilizes electric power generation. It’s only weird because in Florida private companies providing electricity is more the norm than a county owned and operated utility.

I gave up after the first third. Osceola County does enjoy collecting taxes on the portions of Walt Disney World within their boundaries. They collect property taxes and don’t have to provide the services typically associated with those taxes. They also collect any sales and hotel taxes they assess. What they don’t collect are impact fees, which are assessed once on new developments based on their use and size. Disney would have to build millions of square feet of new development in order to pay impact fees anywhere close to what they pay in additional taxes to the District.

Celebration was created in part to generate a tax base for Osceola County. Those properties and business all also pay taxes.

I"m not an attorney, but I can ask That Park Place's legal analyst (a Florida attorney) if there is a statute regarding nuclear power plant ownership. Clearly that's different than other electric utilities, which I'm assuming you did not mean to conflate.

Much of Osceola WDW property isn't covered by RCID, such as Celebration. Is that what you're referring to? RCID and WDW aren't synonymous... the attorney was likely referring to RCID not WDW in regards to taxation in Osceola.

That's not a very good source of information at all; that guy is either a bad attorney or acting like one for Youtube based on perusing some of his content. His main issue is that he seems to be coming from an extremely partisan POV on every topic, and that's a really poor way to practice law, at least if you want to do it successfully. You can't make accurate analysis that way.

There's no way to know if he actually specializes in special districts, either -- I could say I specialize in them too. And I am an attorney, but I do not specialize in special districts.

I try not to be too critical of people who assist me and others. He was very kind to answer some of our particular questions we had about bonds related to RCID.

A few things I found just watching the video a bit (anyone more versed in FL law please correct me if I made any mistakes below):

• He claims that Reedy Creek was unique among all the special districts in FL in that it was created by a special act of the legislature. Yet in 5 minutes of Googling, I found that the Daytona International Speedway Special District was also created by special act.
• As @lazyboy97o pointed out, he states that Reedy Creek has no safety standards. This is 100% false.
• His whole statement on the separation of Reedy Creek and Disney in regards to standing doesn't necessarily hold up - yes, they are separate distinct entities, but as the largest landholder in Reedy Creek, Disney has rights under FL law in regards to the district, and that's not mentioned. It's indisputable that the removal of Reedy Creek negatively impacts Disney, and Disney could make the case that the dissolution of Reedy Creek was done soley to harm Disney in retaliation for speech.
• His whole comment on how the bond debt can only be serviced by the lands of Reedy Creek if Reedy Creek goes away makes no sense and doesn't seem consistent with FL law that moves bonds to the controlling government entity if the old government entity is dissolved.
• He claims that Disney owns all the property and would be responsible for the debt if Reedy Creek is dissolved - that landowners would be responsible for municipal bonds. Again, that's not consistent with how municipal bonds work anywhere.

1. I think he's talking about it being special because the legislature had a special session for it and granted unique authorities.
2. Reedy Creek has safety standards set by Reedy Creek (is my understanding). Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I know of no other special district which gets to set its own safety regulations/standards.
3. Disney isn't the largest "landholder" in RCID... its subsidiaries are the ONLY "landholder" in RCID (one exception might be Swan and Dolphin... I'd need to double check the contract). However, Disney doesn't have standing because RCID is governed and controled by two municipalities that are supposed to be wholly separate from Disney - Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista. While Disney could claim a Citizens United 1A greviance, that's a harder path than RCID going to through the state courts. There's more detail here.
4. I've talked with another Florida attorney who verifies that the bond debt would go to Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista as they are the controlling government entity.
5. Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake residents would take on the bond liabilities according to every Florida attorney I've spoken to, regardless of what the mainstream news is trying to say.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I"m not an attorney, but I can ask That Park Place's legal analyst (a Florida attorney) if there is a statute regarding nuclear power plant ownership. Clearly that's different than other electric utilities, which I'm assuming you did not mean to conflate.

Much of Osceola WDW property isn't covered by RCID, such as Celebration. Is that what you're referring to? RCID and WDW aren't synonymous... the attorney was likely referring to RCID not WDW in regards to taxation in Osceola.



I try not to be too critical of people who assist me and others. He was very kind to answer some of our particular questions we had about bonds related to RCID.




1. I think he's talking about it being special because the legislature had a special session for it and granted unique authorities.
2. Reedy Creek has safety standards set by Reedy Creek (is my understanding). Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I know of no other special district which gets to set its own safety regulations/standards.
3. Disney isn't the largest "landholder" in RCID... its subsidiaries are the ONLY "landholder" in RCID (one exception might be Swan and Dolphin... I'd need to double check the contract). However, Disney doesn't have standing because RCID is governed and controled by two municipalities that are supposed to be wholly separate from Disney - Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista. While Disney could claim a Citizens United 1A greviance, that's a harder path than RCID going to through the state courts. There's more detail here.
4. I've talked with another Florida attorney who verifies that the bond debt would go to Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista as they are the controlling government entity.
5. Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake residents would take on the bond liabilities according to every Florida attorney I've spoken to, regardless of what the mainstream news is trying to say.

Celebration isn't WDW property, just so you know.

 

[WDW Pro]

The TLDR - he makes enough simple mistakes that it erodes all his credibility.

Except that I just answered those "mistakes" and they seem to be accurate. Still, if you're so quick to ignore an attorney who literally has represented both Universal Studios and Celebration just because of "mistakes" that turn out to be true... the news in the future might surprise you a bit. That's the danger in not listening to all sides of an argument - the future is harder to predict.

 

[WDW Pro]

Celebration isn't WDW property, just so you know.

Parts of it are, parts of it aren't.

 

[castlecake2.0]

Celebration isn't WDW property, just so you know.

“The Company” still owns lots of pockets of land in the town and everything that surrounds it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I"m not an attorney, but I can ask That Park Place's legal analyst (a Florida attorney) if there is a statute regarding nuclear power plant ownership. Clearly that's different than other electric utilities, which I'm assuming you did not mean to conflate.

Think about what you are claiming. This would mean that Florida only allows private companies to operate nuclear power plants. That OUC can own part of St. Lucie but can’t operate it, only FPL or Duke or Reedy Creek Energy Services can operate it.

Much of Osceola WDW property isn't covered by RCID, such as Celebration. Is that what you're referring to? RCID and WDW aren't synonymous... the attorney was likely referring to RCID not WDW in regards to taxation in Osceola.

The only land inside the borders of the District that do not pay property taxes are those owned by the Department of Defense. Every other landowner pays property taxes to the county at the same rate as everyone else in the county.

2. Reedy Creek has safety standards set by Reedy Creek (is my understanding). Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I know of no other special district which gets to set its own safety regulations/standards.

Every single entity that has such power is allowed to institute their own standards so long as they are not less restrictive than state standards. The Villages Public Safety Department is allowed to add requirements onto the Florida Fire Prevention Code.

3. Disney isn't the largest "landholder" in RCID... its subsidiaries are the ONLY "landholder" in RCID (one exception might be Swan and Dolphin... I'd need to double check the contract). However, Disney doesn't have standing because RCID is governed and controled by two municipalities that are supposed to be wholly separate from Disney - Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista. While Disney could claim a Citizens United 1A greviance, that's a harder path than RCID going to through the state courts. There's more detail here.

You can spend 5 minutes on county GIS to see there are other landowners. The list of who pays what property taxes to the District was already posted in the thread. It is available on the District website.

You don’t have to be the same entity to have standing. As stated by those who brought this, the purpose to harm Disney and Disney is being harmed.

4. I've talked with another Florida attorney who verifies that the bond debt would go to Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista as they are the controlling government entity.
5. Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake residents would take on the bond liabilities according to every Florida attorney I've spoken to, regardless of what the mainstream news is trying to say.

Then there’s no need for the governor’s great mystery plan.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Except that I just answered those "mistakes" and they seem to be accurate. Still, if you're so quick to ignore an attorney who literally has represented both Universal Studios and Celebration just because of "mistakes" that turn out to be true... the news in the future might surprise you a bit. That's the danger in not listening to all sides of an argument - the future is harder to predict.

They weren’t true and even a modicum of research would show they are not true.

 

[WDW Pro]

Think about what you are claiming. This would mean that Florida only allows private companies to operate nuclear power plants. That OUC can own part of St. Lucie but can’t operate it, only FPL or Duke or Reedy Creek Energy Services can operate it.

The only land inside the borders of the District that do not pay property taxes are those owned by the Department of Defense. Every other landowner pays property taxes to the county at the same rate as everyone else in the county.

Every single entity that has such power is allowed to institute their own standards so long as they are not less restrictive than state standards. The Villages Public Safety Department is allowed to add requirements onto the Florida Fire Prevention Code.

You can spend 5 minutes on county GIS to see there are other landowners. The list of who pays what property taxes to the District was already posted in the thread. It is available on the District website.

You don’t have to be the same entity to have standing. As stated by those who brought this, the purpose to harm Disney and Disney is being harmed.

Then there’s no need for the governor’s great mystery plan.

Okay, so just a note, I do have to take a break after this post... and I may not be able to respond to each and every reply between now and when I'm available again. I've posted more today than in the past two months.

I don't know who can operate a FL nuclear power plant, I just know that the authority to build one is a unique power for a RCID among all other special districts and I can't think of any county that would be able to make that call given the hurdles a nuclear power plant requires.

Instituting your own standards isn't the same as being able to rewrite existing county and state standards or nullifying them within your special district.

I haven't checked GIS in the last month or so, but I know that all residents of RCID live on Disney subsidiary-owned land.

I've agreed with you on standing but its clearly easier for RCID to establish standing than Disney itself. That's straight from a Florida attorney we consult with, separate from Legal Mindset. We go with that.

"The governor's great mystery plan" appears to be a partisan dig... I don't do politics or partisanship in how I try to assess facts.

They weren’t true and even a modicum of research would show they are not true.

I articulated how they seem to be true and I did so with specificity. You'll need to show how I'm wrong, not simply make a declaration. You may need a few modicums to do it though.