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

[HauntedPirate]

That’s for families on the edge and I sincerely feel bad for these families, I feel most badly for the daily car commuter who needs to go back and forth to work everyday, knowing the gas costs are skyrocketing, talk about a pay cut!

The parks are not for these folks.

Disney can’t worry about these folks. The parks are an expensive activity for folks and only folks with enough disposable income room on their credit cards to afford it and there will be plenty of those folks aren't nearly enough of those people who are willing for fork over $10k for a WDW vacation during a recession to get them through 2024 when things can be turned around possibly.

FTFY. A bit of a generalization, I realize, but... it's not far off. Recessions hammer the travel industry. You only have to go back to 2008-2010 to see an example. Bob & Josh are going to **** their pants (or skinny jeans, in the case of Josh) when the next one hits, because Bob's favorite cash cow could be pretty dry. The picture you're painting makes it sound like WDW is a playground for the rich already.

 

[flynnibus]

Leaving all politics aside, considering how little the RCID the past forty years has lived up to the goals for which it was instated, I can't be too upset.

what goals are those?

Because it seems to have done a fine job of creating the environment for WDW, insulating the counties and state, all while boosting the prosperity of Florida. In fact, several studies have all come to the same conclusion. So what gem do you bring that differs?

 

[mikejs78]

what goals are those?

Because it seems to have done a fine job of creating the environment for WDW, insulating the counties and state, all while boosting the prosperity of Florida. In fact, several studies have all come to the same conclusion. So what gem do you bring that differs?

Which is the exact goals that were laid out in the Reedy Creek charter.

 

[Disstevefan1]

FTFY. A bit of a generalization, I realize, but... it's not far off. Recessions hammer the travel industry. You only have to go back to 2008-2010 to see an example. Bob & Josh are going to **** their pants (or skinny jeans, in the case of Josh) when the next one hits, because Bob's favorite cash cow could be pretty dry. The picture you're painting makes it sound like WDW is a playground for the rich already.

I remember 2008. Disney stock was $14 dollars. This is NOT that. The disney parks will be just fine.

 

[peter11435]

Leaving all politics aside, considering how little the RCID the past forty years has lived up to the goals for which it was instated, I can't be too upset.

The district has lived up to the exact goals outline in the reedy creek charter

 

[The Empress Lilly]

EPCOT isn’t even really alluded to in the Charter. The authoritarian motivation should be incredibly upsetting, even if the District wasn’t doing much.

EPCOT the city might very well be ignored in the charter itself. But it was used extensively in the lobby to get the district established. A disingenuous act. Or, giving Disney the benefit of the doubt and presuming there was still intent to build a city, an act that should be reversed.

For the actual motivation behind the attempted repeal I have no sympathy.

 

[peter11435]

EPCOT the city might very well be ignored in the charter itself. But it was used extensively in the lobby to get the district established. A disingenuous act. Or, giving Disney the benefit of the doubt and presuming there was still intent to build a city, an act that should be reversed.

For the actual motivation behind the attempted repeal I have no sympathy.

If given the choice between WDW of today or EPCOT the city, the Florida legislature of 1967 would have chosen the WDW of today

 

[The Empress Lilly]

If given the choice between WDW of today or EPCOT the city, the Florida legislature of 1967 would have chosen the WDW of today

That's actually a very nice thought experiment.

Which I shall do tomorrow during my morning shower. For now, on quick intuition, I think you might be right. But I'm not sure. Fifty-five years is a long time, the world was different back then.

 

[flynnibus]

EPCOT the city might very well be ignored in the charter itself. But it was used extensively in the lobby to get the district established.

They approved it for the tourism and jobs - not because they wanted a new city. They knew they were getting a disneyland east and a promise to redevelop the property in ways that would benefit the entire area - not just disney. And for that rcid has served it’s charter well. Which is why it has received praise each time it was studied.

 

[JoeCamel]

EPCOT the city might very well be ignored in the charter itself. But it was used extensively in the lobby to get the district established. A disingenuous act. Or, giving Disney the benefit of the doubt and presuming there was still intent to build a city, an act that should be reversed.

For the actual motivation behind the attempted repeal I have no sympathy.

They may have not built what the concept art showed but I would argue they did build a city just not in the prototype style. WDW has all the elements of a similar sized community out in Bettendorf

 

[Karakasa]

Yes we can.

I understand the politics behind this all, but that's for another day. I have long since felt that no private commercial enterprise needs this level of autonomy. Call me an old-fashioned socialist hardliner.

It's hard because it's true Disney, or any corporation, shouldn't have this much power. I absolutely agree and think so. But the right thing can be being done for the wrong reason and, in the process, do more harm than good - both immediate, and as precedent. Disney should not be losing this because they used their First Amendment rights. You can't simply examine it materially outside of the political reasoning, as the reasons for it will have material effects going forward as well. It'll say: if a politician doesn't like something someone (like it or not- I sure don't- corporations are considered persons by the law) says, they can indirectly punish them for that in some other way with no backlash or checks. That sort of precedent-setting is as important in the executive branch as it is in courts or legislature - especially if the person behind it is eying the presidency.

And you certainly understand the motivation isn't proper as you said yourself. So, that's, well that. Some things can't be divorced from the politics behind them, especially when, you know, the government's involved.

There's the way it's being done, as well, and immediately saddling Floridians with 2b in extra taxes for the express upkeep of WDW's out-of-park infrastructure is... not great. I'm sure there's a way to dissolve it and make Disney foot the bill still. But it's clear DeSantis is doing this entirely as "punishment for supporting LGBT rights" reasons to show-off to his constituents and potential presidential candidacy voters, and not the "corporation oligarchy bad" reasons you or I think it should be done. So as a result, he's just going ahead and, well, doing it. It certainly mirrors a lot of the other bills he's backed, knowing they likely will get struck down in court, but looking tough on "wokeness" or what have you is more important for his ambitions.

I hope I haven't gotten too political here, incidentally, but like I said, I think this is one issue you just can't talk about without examining the politics behind it. Plenty of others around WDW that you can connect to politics but needn't bring them up, but this isn't one of them. I also hope I haven't come across as incindiary, I really am just trying to explain things as best I can, and I apologize if I seem too mean or preachy.

 

[peter11435]

Which is why it has received praise each time it was studied.

and would have again if the legislature had bothered to actually commission a study this time around.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's hard because it's true Disney, or any corporation, shouldn't have this much power. I absolutely agree and think so.

What power is so untoward, particularly in the context of Florida?

 

[Karakasa]

What power is so untoward, particularly in the context of Florida?

There's just something... I don't know, unsettling about a corporation being able to essentially have a huge level of control for an area the size of a city, and sort of subtly manipulate the voters by only letting people who agree to vote the way they want them to live there. But I'm just suspicious of corporations in general, even those whose products or art I like. In the context of Florida, I guess I wasn't really aware there were a lot of other districts like this throughout the state until this topic. I will admit that perhaps my knowledge on it isn't as much as it should be, and if I've spoken out of turn, my bad.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Which is the exact goals that were laid out in the Reedy Creek charter.

The district has lived up to the exact goals outline in the reedy creek charter

The district may very well have lived up to the goals of its charter, but the charter did not live up to the goals for which it was passed.

 

[JoeCamel]

There's just something... I don't know, unsettling about a corporation being able to essentially have a huge level of control for an area the size of a city, and sort of subtly manipulate the voters by only letting people who agree to vote the way they want them to live there. But I'm just suspicious of corporations in general, even those whose products or art I like. In the context of Florida, I guess I wasn't really aware there were a lot of other districts like this throughout the state until this topic. I will admit that perhaps my knowledge on it isn't as much as it should be, and if I've spoken out of turn, my bad.

Disney jumps through hoops to develop and operate their property the same as other places. Different hoops for different places but that was the point of RCID to streamline development and speed the flow of dollars into Florida. It is not a kingdom no matter what the advertising says so they don't have carte blanche....

 

[Karakasa]

Disney jumps through hoops to develop and operate their property the same as other places. Different hoops for different places but that was the point of RCID to streamline development and speed the flow of dollars into Florida. It is not a kingdom no matter what the advertising says so they don't have carte blanche....

I see. It always came across to me that the tradeoff was they could build or do whatever they wanted (within Florida law) in RCID in exchange for having to pay for the water treatment and other such upkeep of infrastructure. And obviously yeah they still have to file permits but the thing is, the group filing the permits is essentially also under control of the same group approving them. But, is that not actually the case?

 

[peter11435]

The district may very well have lived up to the goals of its charter, but the charter did not live up to the goals for which it was passed.

I think you’re misunderstanding why the charter was passed

 

[The Empress Lilly]

They approved it for the tourism and jobs - not because they wanted a new city. They knew they were getting a disneyland east and a promise to redevelop the property in ways that would benefit the entire area - not just disney. And for that rcid has served it’s charter well. Which is why it has received praise each time it was studied.

It is my understanding that the charter was presented by Disney as necessary to develop an experimental city with permanent residents. For tourism development - of which Florida back then posseded plenty - no autonomy of this scale is needed.

It is quite possible and perhaps plausible that even without any intention to develop a city Disney could have extracted the same concessions, for indeed the promise of extensive economic boost. But the district wasn't presented as such.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

It's hard because it's true Disney, or any corporation, shouldn't have this much power. I absolutely agree and think so. But the right thing can be being done for the wrong reason and, in the process, do more harm than good - both immediate, and as precedent. Disney should not be losing this because they used their First Amendment rights. You can't simply examine it materially outside of the political reasoning, as the reasons for it will have material effects going forward as well. It'll say: if a politician doesn't like something someone (like it or not- I sure don't- corporations are considered persons by the law) says, they can indirectly punish them for that in some other way with no backlash or checks. That sort of precedent-setting is as important in the executive branch as it is in courts or legislature - especially if the person behind it is eying the presidency.

And you certainly understand the motivation isn't proper as you said yourself. So, that's, well that. Some things can't be divorced from the politics behind them, especially when, you know, the government's involved.

There's the way it's being done, as well, and immediately saddling Floridians with 2b in extra taxes for the express upkeep of WDW's out-of-park infrastructure is... not great. I'm sure there's a way to dissolve it and make Disney foot the bill still. But it's clear DeSantis is doing this entirely as "punishment for supporting LGBT rights" reasons to show-off to his constituents and potential presidential candidacy voters, and not the "corporation oligarchy bad" reasons you or I think it should be done. So as a result, he's just going ahead and, well, doing it. It certainly mirrors a lot of the other bills he's backed, knowing they likely will get struck down in court, but looking tough on "wokeness" or what have you is more important for his ambitions.

I hope I haven't gotten too political here, incidentally, but like I said, I think this is one issue you just can't talk about without examining the politics behind it. Plenty of others around WDW that you can connect to politics but needn't bring them up, but this isn't one of them. I also hope I haven't come across as incindiary, I really am just trying to explain things as best I can, and I apologize if I seem too mean or preachy.

There's very little I disagree with. Thanks for the good read.