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

flynnibus

Premium Member
Vahle's statement is cautious but precise. It's sufficiently open-ended to allow anyone to read into it whatever they want.

It's the kind of statement that could have been drafted weeks ago. It's exactly what it needs to be.

Meh - for Disney finally acknowledging the issue.. it basically says absolutely nothing. More like "we are aware of the bill, thank you, no comment" :)
 

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member

The staff bill analysis is out. It seems like the legislature has been planning this for a while - the reform of the district's powers make sense as a whole.

The problem is the governor and his appointed board. It feels like the two issues - reform and "punish Disney" have been smashed together - that's the "compromise".

Maybe the bill will change in committee/be amended.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
What specific changes make sense?

None of these things on the face of it seem offensive:

  1. Removing the district’s ability to own and operate airport facilities, certain types of recreational facilities (such as stadiums, civic centers, and convention halls), and “novel and experimental” facilities (such as a nuclear fission power plant);
  2. Removing the district’s ability to spend public funds to advertise businesses, facilities, and attractions within the district, and to levy tolls;
  3. Retaining the district’s power to adopt its own planning, zoning, building, and safety codes, while clarifying the application of general law to those codes and requiring any building and safety codes to be substantially similar or provide more stringent standards than the Florida Building Code and Florida Fire Prevention Code;
  4. Removing sections of the charter that duplicate provisions of general law applicable to the district; and
  5. Updating or removing, as applicable, cross-references and archaic terminology.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
None of these things on the face of it seem offensive:

  1. Removing the district’s ability to own and operate airport facilities, certain types of recreational facilities (such as stadiums, civic centers, and convention halls), and “novel and experimental” facilities (such as a nuclear fission power plant);
  2. Removing the district’s ability to spend public funds to advertise businesses, facilities, and attractions within the district, and to levy tolls;
  3. Retaining the district’s power to adopt its own planning, zoning, building, and safety codes, while clarifying the application of general law to those codes and requiring any building and safety codes to be substantially similar or provide more stringent standards than the Florida Building Code and Florida Fire Prevention Code;
  4. Removing sections of the charter that duplicate provisions of general law applicable to the district; and
  5. Updating or removing, as applicable, cross-references and archaic terminology.
Would you describe them as inoffensive if we were discussing any other municipality, county or district that provided the same services?

The EPCOT Building Code already meets the minimum requirements of the Florida Building Code. The District enforces the Florida Fire Prevention a code, which just demonstrates how clueless those involved actually are when it comes the District. So by calling this reasonable you just validate the lie that the District has been enforcing substandard or no regulations, because there’d be no need to review the use of state regulations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
Would you describe them as inoffensive if we were discussing any other municipality, county or district that provided the same services?

Number 3 is full on gaslighting that you are validating. The EPCOT Building Code already meets the minimum requirements of the Florida Building Code. The District enforces the Florida Fire Prevention a code, which just demonstrates how clueless those involved actually are when it comes the District. So by calling this reasonable you just validate the lie that the District has been enforcing substandard or no regulations, because there’d be no need to review the use of state regulations.
Can you point to a situation where somebody - including myself - has publicly claimed that Reedy Creek has been enforcing substandard or no regulations?

Aligning the written regulation with current best practice doesn't mean that anything was wrong before.

As I said in my first post, I believe two separate issues - the fact that RCID's charter needed to be updated to reflect the current reality of their operations and the Governor's stupid tantrum - have been combined by a complicit legislature.

Oh, and to answer your first question - Yes.
 
Last edited:

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Can you point to a situation where somebody - including myself - has publicly claimed that reedy creek has been enforcing substandard or no regulations?

Aligning the written regulation with current best practice doesn't mean that anything was wrong before.

Oh, and to answer your first question - Yes.
That Disney is free of state oversight and doesn’t have to follow codes has been one of the lies told to justify action against the District. By saying the plans to fix that “problem” are reasonable you are giving validity to the lie. The regulations are already aligned, exceeded or the same.

So some entities should be given special treatment? What are the guidelines for this special treatment?
 

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

Back
Top Bottom