Oh I know. And to be honest I only remember it because of Eisner's comments on Orlando.
But it sets up the context I am using here: Disney has in Orlando, much in the same way they had in Anaheim, used their political power to achieve an advantage. RCID was the embodiment of that special power. It has put them in direct competition with Orange County through their existence. They purposefully used their position as a "public" government to fully support and subsidize a private corporation.
Even if you can accept their tax position, and endorse the idea of a private company running a public government, how do you reconcile the competition for resources? Is it ok for instance that Disney can monopolize construction capacity for new hotels (or I guess new sewage systems) making it harder to construct housing or other public works projects?
But your example doesn’t show that Disney was exempt from any taxes. It shows that RCID was able to issue tax free bonds which is obviously well known. In the example you cite the issue wasn’t the districts ability to issue bonds, the issue was the incompetence of other municipalities in the region. The fact that RCID was more efficient and well run is not a mark against the district
So further reading suggests that RCID is exempt from paying the special law enforcement taxes and the impact fees that normal developers would pay. I can see the argument that if Disney was providing its own roads and law enforcement, they shouldn't have to pay the county, but that's where things get murky since Disney contracts with the Orange County sheriff and all their roads eventually connect to other public roads.
And you're right, on some level it's not Disney's fault for asking for the district, or leveraging it to the best of their ability. But at the point where you are prioritizing projects to build amusement parks in a swamp rather than affordable housing, something has gone wrong.
That a lot of people in Orange Country felt like they were powerless against RCID, and started to harbor unfavorable opinions of Disney and their political lobbying (and yes to be clear, I am referring to 30+ years of this, and not just what they said in the last two), is the reason why fighting to save RCID was untenable. It wasn't worth saving.
It's also a trip to go back and read some of these (again from 1990):
Now more than ever, some county commissioners want to see Disney’s political wings clipped, but they are bound by last summer’s road agreement to stay mum for the next seven years.
Some local leaders hope the Florida Legislature will move to undo what it did for Disney more than 20 years ago, but that seems unlikely. Disney remains enormously popular in the state, where a University of Central Florida survey concluded 18 months ago that locals endorse the tourist industry 3 to 1. And in Florida, tourism is synonymous with Disney.
“I think you could classify Disney as the strongest lobby in Tallahassee (the state capital),” Marston said. “A couple of weeks ago Disney invited every legislator in the state and their families to come to Disney World for the weekend--all expenses paid. I don’t know who took them up. I certainly wouldn’t.”
www.latimes.com
