Cities are created when the residents in the area petition the Legislature to do so.
-
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
Cities are created when the residents in the area petition the Legislature to do so.
The individuals who each own 5 acres. I believe they are the voting members.
bpiper
Well-Known Member
But what properties are these? Where are they located? Doesn't Disney own all the property within the RCID borders?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
There was a list posted here a while back. It’s a few additional businesses around the property not owned by Disney. DVC owners also pay a portion of the taxes to RCID so it depends on whether you define them as land owners.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
LSLS
Well-Known Member
True, but I also don't think them speaking out did damage. There were what, 200+ companies that spoke out against it and signed onto letters condemning it? I don't think the public image of Coke took a huge hit from it.
Outside of bottling plants, does Coke have the same presence in Florida that Disney does? And aren't most of the bottling plants local, not corporate owned, similar to fast food franchises?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
For a company the size of TWDC it’s not a material movement either way. Disney is in a unique position of being a company that historically has benefited from a great reputation so it’s maybe more important to them than some others, but overall very few people care enough about these issues to change behavior. If you asked the average person on the street about this situation maybe half would have an opinion one way of the other but of those people with an opinion a very, very small percent are passionate enough to permanently change their actions.
bpiper
Well-Known Member
That list lists the tax payers, not the actual owners of the properties. A lot of retail leases require the lessor to pay the property taxes on their leased property. Also, some of the leases might be structured so that Disney is the landowner of the property but the tenant owns the building they put on it until the lease ends. So at lease end, Disney would have to purchase the building or renew the lease. I believe the Swan/Dolphin are structured that way.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Again, you all are assuming the Senator's language meant a BAN/RESTRICTION instead of just scrubbing an explicit reference from the Act.
Which reads:
(17) Public Utilities.-To own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, equip, operate, maintain, extend and improve electric power plants, transmission lines and related facilities, gas mains and facilities of any nature for the production or distribution of natural gas, telephone lines, plants and systems and other communications systems of any nature, transmission lines and related facilities and plants and facilities for the generation and transmission of power through nuclear fission and other new and experimental sources of power and energy"
They are likely just talking about striking "and plants and facilities for the generation and transmission of power through nuclear fission and other new and experimental sources of power and energy".
Then... RCID would be on the same footing as everyone else.
No one in the US can run a nuclear plant autonomously anyway... both the state and fed are gates for anyone, including RCID to operate a plant. And RCID has no interest, nor means to support the 10+billion dollar investment.
Disney and RCID just want to function - they aren't going to hinge their entire existence over fighting over the need for a half of a sentence granting RCID itself powers to a concept they have no interest in just to be on equal footing with others municipalities.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
For the sake of argument, let's say that RCID agrees to legislation that revokes its ability to build a nuclear power plant but allows them to retains all other powers they currently hold because they have no intention of ever building and operating their own plant anyway. What do they have to give up the next time a powerful FL politician gets his feelings hurt and wants to try to score some points/campaign donations at Disney's expense? They're already giving up the 1 thing you think they'll never need, so the next concession would have to be something that actually matters - and that cloud is always hanging over their heads because the precedent will have been set.
Not just Disney.
CFO Patronis just announced the state would be divesting $2B from one of the world's largest asset managers....because of "woke". Think the ripple effect in the markets THAT move will have.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You can see some on the InfoMap Interactive Mapping. In the layers, under Government | Jurisdiction there is an option to turn on Reedy Creek Improvement District. If you click around in Flamingo Crossings area you can find some like Walgreens, Hess Retail and the hotels. They are not paying property taxes, but Shades of Green is owned by the Army. Even the Four Seasons is within the District while Golden Oak next door is not. There might be more you can find down in the Celebration area.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
From the front page of the RCID website:
The District encompasses approximately 25,000 acres in both Orange and Osceola counties, servicing 19 landowners, including Walt Disney Co. and its wholly-owned affiliates.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
Option 1 is a guaranteed very expensive and very political legal battle now over something they don’t want, option 2 is a very expensive legal battle over something they do want that may never happen.
Given the options I’d go with 2, why spend millions, risk alienating a lot of your guests, and get into an ugly legal battle purely because it “may” prevent you from having to do it later?
danlb_2000
Premium Member
It got a lot of attention when it first happened, but the news cycle moved on and I think most people forgot about it. I doubt it had a significant long term impact on Disney.
The problem is, given the current climate and government in Florida, they won't stop with that. See what I just posted about Patronis divesting $2B from BlackRock. Who's next? Vanguard? State Street? BoA? (which holds the state treasury funds - i.e., it's the state's bank). There's a demonstrated agenda on the part of the current runners of the state to punish any corporation they perceive engaging in "wokeness". And the BlackRock decision will impact more than just the decision to dissolve RCID will. Like those participating in the FRS.
flynnibus
Premium Member
If you think Disney is going to go the distance to hold the line over this... just so they can believe no one will challenge them again in the future.. You're delusional.
Defending this line item and winning DOES NOT PREVENT THE NEXT ATTACK.
but
Holding the line and stalling potential settlement DOES ensure more cost, more PR nightmares, and emboldening the opposition
Businesses do not operate in absolutes - they have to navigate their paths.
As they say ... 'Pick your battles'
Trying to hold the line over this instead of an agreeable settlement is a comparison no rational executive would take.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
Any alienating of guests has already occurred. Rolling over and accepting "punishment" (no matter how weak it may seem to those who understand what RCID is) won't suddenly get the hardcore "they're groomers!" crowed to love them again. What it will accomplish, however, is empowering politicians like the governor to think that he can do this whenever he wants if Disney or some other entity dares to speak out against his next piece of legislation. And since the precedent has been set that the governor and legislature will take such actions when situations like this come up, their constituents won't just cheer them when they do it but will expect them to do it each time lest they seem weak and replaceable. Every bit of rhetoric from those who wrote/voted for/signed this legislation has had the message of, "Shut your mouth or we'll shut it for you."