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

[mmascari]

If DeSantis had not framed this as retaliating against Disney, but had simply come out and said that he didn't think the current structure of RCID was beneficial to the state of Florida and was ill-advised, and that he and the legislature were going to change it, and then they implemented the legislation that he just signed, would you support it? Everyone opposed seems to be focusing on the motivation behind the changes. But what do you think of the changes themselves absent that specific motivation?

That's the problem. No actual reason has been presented. Several false ones have been suggested as being addressed. Then, the actual law passed doesn't address any of the false ones either.

The only reason suggested that is not false, is to control Disney content and stop them from producing "woke" content. The only change the law actually made was to remove local elections for local government and replace them with state appointed control. State appointed control that has been said will be used not for any actual governance concerns but to stop Disney from producing "woke" content.

If you want to thought experiment about changes unrelated to content control, there has to be actual changes that do other stuff to consider.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier - it’s clear this has been on the legislatures radar for a while. Even if the changes to the board structure hadn’t been made, there’s definitely a broad coalition in Tallahassee that felt Disney had too much of a good thing for too long and the right opportunity presented itself.

Is there? About real issues, or about the false assumptions?

The average citizen has a poor understanding of the issues at play and DeSantis has 100% control of the narrative.

I would even suggest, the average government official in Tallahassee has a poor understanding of the issues at play.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If DeSantis had not framed this as retaliating against Disney, but had simply come out and said that he didn't think the current structure of RCID was beneficial to the state of Florida and was ill-advised, and that he and the legislature were going to change it, and then they implemented the legislation that he just signed, would you support it? Everyone opposed seems to be focusing on the motivation behind the changes. But what do you think of the changes themselves absent that specific motivation?

No, because it still removes local control. The District worked as it was intended. A change should be motivated by need, not change for the sake of change.

That was the point I was trying to make earlier - it’s clear this has been on the legislatures radar for a while. Even if the changes to the board structure hadn’t been made, there’s definitely a broad coalition in Tallahassee that felt Disney had too much of a good thing for too long and the right opportunity presented itself.

No, there was not. This wasn’t an issue. Nobody was working on it. The legislators and governor have outright said this.

An argument could be made that the Uniform Community Development District Act of 1980 was their way of addressing the issue.

And in an ideal world Reedy Creek would become a CDD, like Celebration or Bonnet Creek or the Villages, and the whole issue is moot.

That would not have resolved the supposed democracy issues.

 

[drnilescrane]

No, there was not. This wasn’t an issue. Nobody was working on it. The legislators and governor have outright said this.

They've been considering the issue since 2004.

 

[Disstevefan1]

That was the point I was trying to make earlier - it’s clear this has been on the legislatures radar for a while.

Dissolution of RCID was always on the radar and the state always had the right to dissolve it at any time, it’s just up until now it was left alone because state leadership and Disney were friends until now.

Only time will tell if what we got now will be better for the locals, state, WDW or it’s guests.

 

[flynnibus]

They've been considering the issue since 2004.

Uh... work done 20 years ago does not constitute continuing thought and evaluation. It means work done 20years ago and you can look at the conclusions of the study done then, and the work was completed.

 

[flynnibus]

Dissolution of RCID was always on the radar and the state always had the right to dissolve it at any time, it’s just up until now it was left alone because state leadership and Disney were friends until now.

No

You do not get to take one truth, add 3 other things and get to claim they are all equally true.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Let me just throw a question out there, and please excuse me if it's been discussed somewhere in the previous 466 pages...

If DeSantis had not framed this as retaliating against Disney, but had simply come out and said that he didn't think the current structure of RCID was beneficial to the state of Florida and was ill-advised, and that he and the legislature were going to change it, and then they implemented the legislation that he just signed, would you support it? Everyone opposed seems to be focusing on the motivation behind the changes. But what do you think of the changes themselves absent that specific motivation?

There's still the issue of taxes being levied and decisions on infrastructure being made by people with absolutely no accountability to the landowners impacted by their decisions. I have no problem with RCID because it was actually a bit of good corporate citizenship in that they shoulder the burden of the infrastructure needed to build and maintain the property within the district’s boundaries. People love to complain when a baseball or football team gets taxpayer funding for a new stadium (along with all of the associated real estate ventures that seem to go along with stadiums now), but somehow we're supposed the be upset that a corporation decided to pay extra taxes rather than burden their neighbors with the financial responsibility for building and maintaining their land???

 

[lazyboy97o]

They've been considering the issue since 2004.

No, they studied it in 2004 due to concerns over Comcast gaining control of the district and came to vastly different conclusions. The whole reason there have been two laws with very different approaches is because the legislature didn’t actually know what they were doing and had to try again. This was done through special sessions to avoid the typical process of debate and crafting of legislation.

 

[Disstevefan1]

No

You do not get to take one truth, add 3 other things and get to claim they are all equally true.

I don't understand what you are saying, but we can agree to disagree.

RCID is gone.

I cannot rationalize how WDW and its guests will be better off going forward.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't understand what you are saying, but we can agree to disagree.

Your post made three claims of fact. Only one of which was true. Merging the claims into one continuous thought does not make the other assertions true by association.

 

[mmascari]

They've been considering the issue since 2004.

That link does provide some helpful information.

The main purpose of the special act was to grant RCID a wide range of governmental powers to be used to promote recreation-oriented projects, economic development, and tourism within district boundaries.

Maybe that will stop all the posts about "they didn't build a city".

OPPAGA determined that in general, current accountability mechanisms are sufficient to ensure that if primary landownership changed, RCID would continue to meet the public purpose expressed in its special act and in other legislation. However, if the Legislature wished to provide additional safeguards to prevent a new primary landowner from making drastic changes to district services, operations, and development activities, it could

• consider establishing criteria for recalling members of the RCID board to prevent members from being replaced without cause at the discretion of a new primary landowner; and
• consider making development of land within RCID subject to the more stringent coordination and oversight mechanisms provided for in s. 380.06, Florida Statutes, related to developments of regional impact.

I don't see any "issues" from that summary. Certainly none that the current legislation solves. If anything, the current legislation removes accountability mechanisms and replaces board members without cause. Actively working against that item. It doesn't do anything to change the second item at all.

(I only read the summary, not the full report. It's short for anyone who wonders.)

 

[Disstevefan1]

Your post made three claims of fact. Only one of which was true. Merging the claims into one continuous thought does not make the other assertions true by association.

We can agree to disagree

 

[lazyboy97o]

That link does provide some helpful information.

Maybe that will stop all the posts about "they didn't build a city".


I don't see any "issues" from that summary. Certainly none that the current legislation solves. If anything, the current legislation removes accountability mechanisms and replaces board members without cause. Actively working against that item. It doesn't do anything to change the second item at all.

(I only read the summary, not the full report. It's short for anyone who wonders.)

The report also debunks the claims that the District was some sort of regulatory black hole. There are entire sections going over the stage and federal regulation to which the District was subject.

It ends with two recommendations for increasing oversight, neither of which was followed. If anything, the changes to the board contradict the report’s recommendations to require cause for dismissal.

 

[Dranth]

Your bet would be wrong. I live in the center of a county in Florida that does not regularly spray for mosquitos. I also have a good source that Universal pays for their own mosquito control, paying taxes on it. Universal also pays taxes on other things like parking garages, whereas Disney is tax exempt on their parking garages. How is that fair?

Why do people keep acting like Universal couldn't have its own special district if it wanted one? They could have done something similar since the day they opened but they didn't want one because they were too small for it to make sense.

Although, now that they are applying for one, I assume everyone is on board with the Governor appointing who runs it. Can't have the people that voluntarily asked to pay extra taxes so they could provide better services have any say in how that is spent.

 

[mmascari]

Dissolution of RCID was always on the radar and the state always had the right to dissolve it at any time

It wasn't dissolved, just renamed. Quite specifically too in the law that it was not being dissolved just renamed.

I think "always" is doing a lot of work here, with lots of liberty about what "always" actually means.

Only time will tell if what we got now will be better for the locals, state, WDW or it’s guests.

Which locals?

The locals governed by RCID will clearly be worse off. They've lost local representation and any ability for accountability of their local government.

Locals that live near but not in RCID? New management, they could be better or worse. However, they'll almost certainly be worse off since the new management doesn't care about a well run district, just it's use as a control mechanism.

Guests will be much like locals not within RCID. Almost certainly worse off.

For the State is an interesting question. If the "control what businesses do" tactic continues, it will like drive away new business moving to FL. In the specific case of Disney, it would certainly question why they would put any more business within the reach of FL control. Together, that is almost certainly worse for the state too.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why do people keep acting like Universal couldn't have its own special district if it wanted one? They could have done something similar since the day they opened but they didn't want one because they were too small for it to make sense.

Although, now that they are applying for one, I assume everyone is on board with the Governor appointing who runs it. Can't have the people that voluntarily asked to pay extra taxes so they could provide better services have any say in how that is spent.

Quickly using Google Earth, Universal Orlando Resort North Campus doesn’t appear to be big enough (1,000 acres) to qualify for a community development district, which is what they are seeking for the South Campus area. But I believe your point still stands. Florida as a rule offers greater autonomy to large landowners who decide to take on certain costs of providing the required infrastructure.

It will be interesting to see which powers the new Universal district seeks to utilize. While it’s mostly about providing support for the Sunshine Corridor and other transit services, it could also take on fire protection within its boundaries, giving Universal control of fire code review and enforcement. It could be used to build the South Campus garages when the time comes for the fourth theme park. It could be used to finance mosquito control. It could be used to finance new water service to a new Universal hotel. It could very much be a district that does a lot of the same work with a lot of the same supposed issues of people outside the district not getting a say and the district’s tax dollars being spent on itself.

 

[el_super]

That entire article is designed to be misleading.

Claiming all the negative stories, lawsuits, the decades of quotes from county officials are just misinformation isn't going to help you understand what is happening any better.

Even if you don't want to admit any of it is true (which of course is wrong), you have to at least admit that the district had a massive image problem.

That image problem matters more than you think.

 

[mmascari]

Claiming all the negative stories, lawsuits, the decades of quotes from county officials are just misinformation isn't going to help you understand what is happening any better.

Even if you don't want to admit any of it is true (which of course is wrong),

You still haven't pointed to anything that is actually wrong. So, I'm not claiming all the negative stories are misinformation, only the few you've shared that were actually misinformation. If there are so many, you should be able to site something true.

you have to at least admit that the district had a massive image problem.

That image problem matters more than you think.

Something we can agree on, there is a massive image problem. Disney has been horrible about communicating what the district actually does. People with unrelated Disney issues have been quick to misrepresent the district and either state or imply that it does negative things it does not actually do.

The entire structure is full of details and nuances that all have critical impact to how it works and what it does. It is a boring civics course that nobody wants to hear. So much easier to present it falsely.

It really is a Disney management failure that they're unable to accurately describe it.

 

[Disstevefan1]

It wasn't dissolved, just renamed. Quite specifically too in the law that it was not being dissolved just renamed.

I think "always" is doing a lot of work here, with lots of liberty about what "always" actually means.


Which locals?

The locals governed by RCID will clearly be worse off. They've lost local representation and any ability for accountability of their local government.

Locals that live near but not in RCID? New management, they could be better or worse. However, they'll almost certainly be worse off since the new management doesn't care about a well run district, just it's use as a control mechanism.

Guests will be much like locals not within RCID. Almost certainly worse off.

For the State is an interesting question. If the "control what businesses do" tactic continues, it will like drive away new business moving to FL. In the specific case of Disney, it would certainly question why they would put any more business within the reach of FL control. Together, that is almost certainly worse for the state too.

We can parse words, but it seems to me that WDW lost power here.

The reality was RCID was controlled by WDW.

What we have now is not the same. There is no one that can convince me otherwise.

Yes, I know folks disagree with my view. It's OK.

 

[mkt]

Disney is tax exempt on their parking garages. How is that fair?

Great news then, as government owned buildings, they'll still remain tax exempt under CFTOD.