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

[GoofGoof]

In a year $18 an hour is going to an unlivable wage for most in the Bay Lake area, and the restrictive covenants preclude the passage of laws or policies requiring large employers within the former RCID to build and provide sufficient affordable housing.

Is this serious? So you think that this new board should be allowed to pass laws requiring a private company to use some of the land it legally owns to build affordable housing?

 

[Tha Realest]

Is this serious? So you think that this new board should be allowed to pass laws requiring a private company to use some of the land it legally owns to build affordable housing?

There are many, many laws on the books elsewhere which require various developments to have set asides for affordable housing.

Mayor Wu introduces strategy to support housing affordability for families of all incomes - Boston Agent Magazine

The proposal would make significant changes to the city’s Inclusionary Development Policy and commercial Linkage Policy.

bostonagentmagazine.com

If the new RCID takes the same view given the urgent and pressing housing costs, why shouldn’t they be able to adapt to changing times?

 

[JoeCamel]

There are many, many laws on the books elsewhere which require various developments to have set asides for affordable housing.

Mayor Wu introduces strategy to support housing affordability for families of all incomes - Boston Agent Magazine

The proposal would make significant changes to the city’s Inclusionary Development Policy and commercial Linkage Policy.

bostonagentmagazine.com

If the new RCID takes the same view given the urgent and pressing housing costs, why shouldn’t they be able to adapt to changing times?

Uhhh landholders rights? You are going to force me to put in a casita behind my house on my property to house low income after my being on this land for 50 years? I can hear the laughing all the way to court. No difference if a company owns the land.
You may use eminent domain to pay me fair market value for the land and build it yourself if it has an overwhelming value for the public good but you cannot force me to do it.

 

[Brian]

Could be... but such an idea forgets that Disney didn't give the power to themselves... they negotiated it with the state. And how many administrations since then were ok with it? And why was DeSantis ok with it until a completely different subject brought Disney isn't his cross hairs?

I'm not denying that the timing was less than coincidental. I'm merely pointing out that by expanding its authority over the special district, Disney is bolstering DeSantis' purported reasoning for taking on Disney in the first place, that being they have too much power.

ETA: I can easily see DeSantis pointing fingers at Disney and saying "Look over there! They made a shady deal to give themselves more power right as I was about to take it away from them!" and use that as a predicate for further legislative action. I'm not saying I would necessarily agree with that course of action... I'm just hypothesizing as a DeSantis observer.

 

[mmascari]

Now that sounds like a sweetheart deal that no corporation should have, regardless of the antecedent.

I assume you live in a town or county that collects taxes and spends them? I’ll also assume that that government spends that money then. Presumably if you don’t like the way they spend it, you vote for better governance.

Now, what if we reduce the number of people within that jurisdiction to a number so small they all fit in a small conference room. With the reduced group size, they can all have direct input to spending. No need to rely on the indirect election.

Now change it again, remove the ability for those people to vote on the governance. Without that, and with the small group size, the direct input becomes a much better solution.

I suppose you could be against any input by those governed into how their money is spent, but that’s quite a position. It does seem to be what you are suggesting though.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There are many, many laws on the books elsewhere which require various developments to have set asides for affordable housing.

Mayor Wu introduces strategy to support housing affordability for families of all incomes - Boston Agent Magazine

The proposal would make significant changes to the city’s Inclusionary Development Policy and commercial Linkage Policy.

bostonagentmagazine.com

If the new RCID takes the same view given the urgent and pressing housing costs, why shouldn’t they be able to adapt to changing times?

Can you provide an example where any and all develop is tied to developing housing? Most of these schemes are specific to multi-family residential development and can often be technically voluntary by tying different incentives to participation. Lodging and commercial development don’t tend to be involved.

Even then, the board members, like so many before them, couldn’t keep their mouth shut. On the record, any need for change will be shown to be after the fact, not an identified need that then ran into a problem.

 

[Brian]

I assume you live in a town or county that collects taxes and spends them? I’ll also assume that that government spends that money then. Presumably if you don’t like the way they spend it, you vote for better governance.

Now, what if we reduce the number of people within that jurisdiction to a number so small they all fit in a small conference room. With the reduced group size, they can all have direct input to spending. No need to rely on the indirect election.

Now change it again, remove the ability for those people to vote on the governance. Without that, and with the small group size, the direct input becomes a much better solution.

I suppose you could be against any input by those governed into how their money is spent, but that’s quite a position. It does seem to be what you are suggesting though.

As I understand it, the district made a deal with Disney where the district, which is an independent body that as many have pointed out in this thread is not Disney, is contractually obligated to spend its money on projects that Disney mandates, without any avenues for dissent from the board. Even if I were to reduce the size of my city to be able to fit in a conference room (assuming I am not on the city council) the city would have no legal obligation to act upon my and my neighbors' wishes.

Continuing that same example, I could, in theory, vote the council members who did not vote the way I wish to out of office. Granted, Disney cannot do that because of the legislature's actions. Earlier in the thread, as the new legislation was being considered in the legislature, I advocated for a compromise where a six person board consisted of three state-appointed supervisors and three landowner-elected supervisors, but many claimed that Disney "shouldn't have to compromise."

That obviously did not happen, and the board is entirely appointed by the state. I'll certainly grant that it is not an enviable position for Disney, and I maintain that the compromise solution I proposed would have probably gone over better for both parties (Disney and the state), but the solution is not to force the public officials days away from being tasked with overseeing the district into being legally obliged to do the bidding of the landowner without any avenues for dissent. It reinforces the notion that DeSantis had been pushing all along that Disney has their own "fiefdom."

Again, I accept your point that Disney has to have a way to have some influence as the landowner of virtually all of the district, however,
I don't think that the means by which they achieved it is the best way to go about it.

 

[mikejs78]

I'm not denying that the timing was less than coincidental. I'm merely pointing out that by expanding its authority over the special district, Disney is bolstering DeSantis' purported reasoning for taking on Disney in the first place, that being they have too much power.

ETA: I can easily see DeSantis pointing fingers at Disney and saying "Look over there! They made a shady deal to give themselves more power right as I was about to take it away from them!" and use that as a predicate for further legislative action. I'm not saying I would necessarily agree with that course of action... I'm just hypothesizing as a DeSantis observer.

I don't think there is much they can do legislatively.

Let me ask you this - suppose you lived in a small town, of say, 200 people. Over time, people left, died, land was bought, and now you're one of 12 individuals who live in the town/own land. The governor and legislature decide that having a town with a governing body only elected by 12 wealthy landowners is "too much power" for such a small group, but because of existing bonds, they can't deincorporate the town. So instead they replace the elected board with appointees by the governor with the power of zoning, property tax levied, etc., removing your right to elect your own local representatives.

Would you stand for that? Because speech issues aside, that's essentially what's happening here. If not for this agreement, Disney would have *less* control now than Universal and other parks over their destiny.

 

[mmascari]

Again, I accept your point that Disney has to have a way to have some influence as the landowner of virtually all of the district, however,
I don't think that the means by which they achieved it is the best way to go about it.

Apparently it was the only way.

There’s no valid reason anyone in the US should be governed by a group they have no input on.

Presenting it as Disney has to much control always implies that Disney has control over someone who is not Disney. It’s a missing nuance designed to convey a misleading perspective and conclusion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm not denying that the timing was less than coincidental. I'm merely pointing out that by expanding its authority over the special district, Disney is bolstering DeSantis' purported reasoning for taking on Disney in the first place, that being they have too much power.

ETA: I can easily see DeSantis pointing fingers at Disney and saying "Look over there! They made a shady deal to give themselves more power right as I was about to take it away from them!" and use that as a predicate for further legislative action. I'm not saying I would necessarily agree with that course of action... I'm just hypothesizing as a DeSantis observer.

Except the only power they’ve really talked about is the power to control their own creative content.

A few years ago there was an uproar when Universal Orlando Resort asked the City of Orlando to build a pedestrian bridge and they agreed to do so right away. The reason the City agreed so quickly is because they didn’t have a choice. Universal Orlando Resort is within a community redevelopment area where an additional tax is levied to support traffic improvements. Universal pays extra and they get things they want using those funds like new interchanges, special road signs and pedestrian bridges.

 

[Brian]

I don't think there is much they can do legislatively.

Let me ask you this - suppose you lived in a small town, of say, 200 people. Over time, people left, died, land was bought, and now you're one of 12 individuals who live in the town/own land. The governor and legislature decide that having a town with a governing body only elected by 12 wealthy landowners is "too much power" for such a small group, but because of existing bonds, they can't deincorporate the town. So instead they replace the elected board with appointees by the governor with the power of zoning, property tax levied, etc., removing your right to elect your own local representatives.

Would you stand for that? Because speech issues aside, that's essentially what's happening here. If not for this agreement, Disney would have *less* control now than Universal and other parks over their destiny.

As I believe I've touched on earlier in the thread, I do think there is a stark contrast between the example you put forth and what is happening with Disney in that Disney is ostensibly the most powerful, wealthy and influential entertainment company in the world. 12 wealthy landowners couldn't hold a candle to Disney.

In other words, I do not accept the premise of a corporation being entitled to the same rights and privileges as an individual. A corporation is made up of individuals, but I do not believe that they have the same rights as individuals themselves acting in their personal capacity.

Apparently it was the only way. There’s no valid reason anyone in the US should be governed by a group they have no input on. Presenting it as Disney has to much control always implies that Disney has control over someone who is not Disney. It’s a missing nuance designed to convey a misleading perspective and conclusion.

That's what politicians do best, whether on the right or on the left. This current arrangement (with the "Hail Mary" contract) does reek to me though, so I'm hopeful something more balanced can be negotiated.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That obviously did not happen, and the board is entirely appointed by the state. I'll certainly grant that it is not an enviable position for Disney, and I maintain that the compromise solution I proposed would have probably gone over better for both parties (Disney and the state), but the solution is not to force the public officials days away from being tasked with overseeing the district into being legally obliged to do the bidding of the landowner without any avenues for dissent. It reinforces the notion that DeSantis had been pushing all along that Disney has their own "fiefdom."

Just a few pages ago there was a notice from January. It was approved by the District in early February. The law didn’t become a law until the end of that month. This wasn’t done in days. It wasn’t last minute. It was done months before the law which existed at the time it was done was to take effect.

 

[mmascari]

As I believe I've touched on earlier in the thread, I do think there is a stark contrast between the example you put forth and what is happening with Disney in that Disney is ostensibly the most powerful, wealthy and influential entertainment company in the world. 12 wealthy landowners couldn't hold a candle to Disney.

Not with respect to the area under RCID governance. It’s exactly the same. There is no power over anyone else within the district.

That's what politicians do best, whether on the right or on the left.

Are you a politician then? Because it’s what you are doing in these posts, not someone else. Or are you just repeating talking points from politicians?

 

[flynnibus]

I'm not denying that the timing was less than coincidental. I'm merely pointing out that by expanding its authority over the special district, Disney is bolstering DeSantis' purported reasoning for taking on Disney in the first place, that being they have too much power.

I don't understand how any of that connects to the post I replied to where you said "Disney could be in the wrong for having such extraordinary quasi-governmental powers"

And to what you say here now... frankly I think it means nothing. The war was already started. What was done as a RESPONSE to a conflict does not necessarily transfer before it.

ETA: I can easily see DeSantis pointing fingers at Disney and saying "Look over there! They made a shady deal to give themselves more power right as I was about to take it away from them!" and use that as a predicate for further legislative action. I'm not saying I would necessarily agree with that course of action... I'm just hypothesizing as a DeSantis observer.

Yeah, but he's going to say something, almost anything, as long as he's picking this fight. If it's not X, it's going to be Y. So no point in trying to not be your best positioned.. he's coming at you anyway.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not with respect to the area under RCID governance. It’s exactly the same. There is no power over anyone else within the district.

There are the other landowners, but they already had agreements with Disney that limited their activity.

 

[mikejs78]

I don't think that the means by which they achieved it is the best way to go about it.

And what way would you suggest they have tried? I don't see another option given the circumstances.

 

[Brian]

And what way would you suggest they have tried? I don't see another option given the circumstances.

Send their armies of lobbyists to Tallahassee to secure some seats on the board. The argument on its own is sound: taxation without representation flies in the face of American values. The money would only further sweeten the deal.

 

[flynnibus]

Send their armies of lobbyists to Tallahassee to secure some seats on the board. The argument on its own is sound: taxation without representation flies in the face of American values. The money would only further sweeten the deal.

they are going to lobby the sole person with power to appoint... to give his --opponent-- a board seat... when the entire action was to strip them of control?

What is it with people proposing things with absolutely zero probability of late? Please at least bring something with a snowball's chance in hell....

I mean.. look at who DeSantis picked... you think 'taxation without representation' arguments would have swayed him? Get real.

 

[mikejs78]

Disney is ostensibly the most powerful, wealthy and influential entertainment company in the world. 12 wealthy landowners couldn't hold a candle to Disney.

In other words, I do not accept the premise of a corporation being entitled to the same rights and privileges as an individual. A corporation is made up of individuals, but I do not believe that they have the same rights as individuals themselves acting in their personal capacity.

So you're saying that a large corporation shouldn't have any say over their local government.

Why shouldn't a company have rights or some way to participate in the democratic process?

And regardless, there are individual landowners within the district. Sure, most are Disney employees, but they live and own land in the district. Is it right to deny their vote over local affairs?

 

[mikejs78]

Send their armies of lobbyists to Tallahassee to secure some seats on the board. The argument on its own is sound: taxation without representation flies in the face of American values. The money would only further sweeten the deal.

Supposedly this was what was going to happen, but then the press called it as DeSantis backing down and he had a fit.