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

[Brian]

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

Indeed. As of this evening, there are no lobbyists appearing related to the bill.

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?

A company should absolutely have rights and participation in a democratic process. Just not the same rights and protections as an individual. Companies like Disney have ways of participating in the democratic process beyond what virtually all American individuals can muster in their personal capacity, such as donating copious amounts of money in exchange for political favors.

At least last I heard, there are no true individual/personal landowners in the district. There are a small number of residents in LBV/Bay Lake, but the only way you become one is if you are a senior Disney employee and Disney leased you their land to put your trailer/mobile home on and live in. In other words, "vote as we say or you're evicted, and probably fired." It's not exactly the same arrangement as owning a home and the land it sits on, both of which you bought with your own money, that falls within a typical Florida CDD.

 

[mmascari]

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

I fall into the trap of glossing that over too. Fitting in a small room is the better example.

It’s certainly not like the company town model where an entire population of people are involved.

I’m assuming those few knew the district representation model when they bought the land. Is there any land that is subject to the district that Disney did NOT own when the district was created?

Likewise, any general dwelling land sold off, such as Celebration, was removed from the district first.

 

[mikejs78]

Indeed. As of this evening, there are no lobbyists appearing related to the bill.

Supposedly the discussions were going on before the bill was put forth. They stopped at that point, so it wouldn't have been attached to the bill (which was on the floor for all of 3 days).

At least last I heard, there are no true individual/personal landowners in the district. There are a small number of residents in LBV/Bay Lake, but the only way you become one is if you are a senior Disney employee and Disney leased you their land to put your trailer/mobile home on and live in. In other words, "vote as we say or you're evicted, and probably fired." It's not exactly the same arrangement as owning a home and the land it sits on, both of which you bought with your own money, that falls within a typical Florida CDD.

Again, so what? Are those people supposed to be denied representation because they were given their land by Disney? There are many examples of companies providing housing for their employees. Should those individual employees not get proper representation because their homes were procured by their company? Again you have to look at the general case, not the specifics of this one. Just because someone is attached to a corporation (aren't most of us?) does that mean they should be denied representation and the right to select those who can tax them or pass ordinances that affect them?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Now that sounds like a sweetheart deal that no corporation should have, regardless of the antecedent. Even worse than the original RCID scheme. In other words, they're only proving DeSantis' point.

Their "sweetheart deal" as you call it, echoing the lies of Disney's opponents, is this:

1. Pay full taxes to the counties they reside in.
2. Get no services from the counties, even though they paid tax to the counties.
3. Pay extra tax to provide their own services and infrastructure.

It's "sweetheart" in that Disney gets what they want in service and infrastructure with minimal red tape. BUT THEY PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES.

Not so *sweetheart* is it when you intimate very very falsely that Disney is getting a financial break, when actually, they're paying twice as much, huh?

The counties tell WDW, "Hey, you want a new road on the land you own? Then build it yourself!" WDW then says, "OK, we will, thanks! After all, it is indeed our private property!"

And WDW pays billions of dollars extra for the roads, water treatment, sewage treatment, electricity, conservation, etc... that the county and the *other* county taxpayers would normally have provided if it weren't for the RCID.

As mentioned above, this "sweetheart" deal is available to Universal in that they pay *extra taxes* to the county for the roads they want. What a sweetheart deal Universal is getting. The FL legislature and governor need to pass a law to stop that!!!

Oh yeah, they don't care about the sweetheart deal. They just want to punish and/or control WDW content and corporate free speech.

 

[MandaM]

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.

Punishing a company for criticizing the government violates the 1st amendment and flies in the face of American values, but DeSantis and the voters who support it cheer him on. Partly for the “own the libs” type partisanship, and partly because DeSantis pretends that it’s about “making Disney pay their fair share,” when he knows good and well that’s a lie. He/his voters wouldn’t have been bothered by another constitutional violation at all. They’d welcome it.

 

[Brian]

Again, so what? Are those people supposed to be denied representation because they were given their land by Disney? There are many examples of companies providing housing for their employees. Should those individual employees not get proper representation because their homes were procured by their company? Again you have to look at the general case, not the specifics of this one. Just because someone is attached to a corporation (aren't most of us?) does that mean they should be denied representation and the right to select those who can tax them or pass ordinances that affect them?

If you are given the land to place your home on for the express purpose of voting as the company wishes for you vote, not necessarily how you would wish to vote yourself, then yes, I do believe they should be denied representation, since in that case, they might as well not have it at all. Disney isn't entitled to a vote due to being a corporation, so they make their employees vote on their behalf, and as they wish for them to vote, in their personal capacity. That is the arrangement within the city limits of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, again, at least last I heard. Has that changed with the advent of the CFTOD? I'm not sure; I don't think anyone is, really.

If you are given permission to use company land to place your home on, or permission to reside in company owned housing simply because the company provides that as a benefit, that is an entirely different scenario. Your vote would truly be your's; not simply the vote of the company with you as their proxy.

 

[Brian]

Their "sweetheart deal" as you call it, echoing the lies of Disney's opponents, is this:

1. Pay full taxes to the counties they reside in.
2. Get no services from the counties, even though they paid tax to the counties.
3. Pay extra tax to provide their own services and infrastructure.

It's "sweetheart" in that Disney gets what they want in service and infrastructure with minimal red tape. BUT THEY PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES.

Not so *sweetheart* is it when you intimate very very falsely that Disney is getting a financial break, when actually, they're paying twice as much, huh?

The counties tell WDW, "Hey, you want a new road on the land you own? Then build it yourself!" WDW then says, "OK, we will, thanks! After all, it is indeed our private property!"

And WDW pays billions of dollars extra for the roads, water treatment, sewage treatment, electricity, conservation, etc... that the county and the *other* county taxpayers would normally have provided if it weren't for the RCID.

As mentioned above, this "sweetheart" deal is available to Universal in that they pay *extra taxes* to the county for the roads they want. What a sweetheart deal Universal is getting. The FL legislature and governor need to pass a law to stop that!!!

Oh yeah, they don't care about the sweetheart deal. They just want to punish and/or control WDW content and corporate free speech.

I'm not calling the original RCID a "sweetheart deal," I'm calling the contract signed by the outgoing RCID board in the weeks/months leading up to their ouster that. After all, as you yourself said:

Now... this is... interesting.

If the budget does indeed have to be balanced, then the New District only has access to cash-on-hand to pay for lawyers.

So, can they divert money earmarked for an infrastructure project to pay for lawyers?

No, as per the surprise contract, the District has to do what Disney says. And if Disney wants that project, then the District must provide.

Can they raise money to afford lawyers?

No, as per the surprise contract, Disney has final say on floating bonds.

Unless there's some loophole in the surprise contract, it seems Disney can tie up all of the District's cash in the projects they name.

Doesn't that strike you as a really great deal for Disney? The tone of your post seems to imply you think so, but I don't want to presume.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If you are given the land to place your home on for the express purpose of voting as the company wishes for you vote, not necessarily how you would wish to vote yourself, then yes, I do believe they should be denied representation, since in that case, they might as well not have it at all. Disney isn't entitled to a vote due to being a corporation, so they make their employees vote on their behalf, and as they wish for them to vote, in their personal capacity. That is the arrangement within the city limits of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, again, at least last I heard. Has that changed with the advent of the CFTOD? I'm not sure; I don't think anyone is, really.

If you are given permission to use company land to place your home on, or permission to reside in company owned housing simply because the company provides that as a benefit, that is an entirely different scenario. Your vote would truly be your's; not simply the vote of the company with you as their proxy.

The persons involved are not exclusively Disney employees.

I'm not calling the original RCID a "sweetheart deal," I'm calling the contract signed by the outgoing RCID board in the days/weeks leading up to their ouster that. After all, as you yourself said:

Why do you keep misrepresenting the timeline?

 

[MisterPenguin]

I'm not calling the original RCID a "sweetheart deal," I'm calling the contract signed by the outgoing RCID board in the days/weeks leading up to their ouster that. After all, as you yourself said:



Doesn't that strike you as a really great deal for Disney? The tone of your post seems to imply you think so, but I don't want to presume.

It's a great deal, yes.

But as other have said, the previous RCID board members were friendly to Disney and mostly did what Disney wanted.

This contract wasn't to give Disney more power because they didn't want the RCID to ever contradict them, the contract was to lock out the bad actors that DeSantis appointed, one of whom complained she was now powerless to do anything about Disney's "sexualizing of minors."

If she did have the power... what was she going to do about that imagined scenario?

 

[Brian]

The persons involved are not exclusively Disney employees.

Would it be more fair to call those who are not Disney employees company loyalists, at least?

Why do you keep misrepresenting the timeline?

I have edited the post to say weeks/months.

 

[Brian]

It's a great deal, yes.

But as other have said, the previous RCID board members were friendly to Disney and mostly did what Disney wanted.

This contract wasn't to give Disney more power because they didn't want the RCID to ever contradict them, the contract was to lock out the bad actors that DeSantis appointed, one of whom complained she was now powerless to do anything about Disney's "sexualizing of minors."

If she did have the power... what was she going to do about that imagined scenario?

You won't catch an argument from me that the correct or effective way to change Disney's content, which some allege is "sexualizing minors" (an argument for a different website), is to use RCID. Even if this contract didn't come to pass, and the DeSantis-appointed board were able to exercise all the same powers as the prior landowner-elected board, it would be wholly ineffective. It's not like Iger was going to say "alright, no more lesbian kisses in Toy Story movies" because they can't get a new overpass at WDW.

Where I take issue with the contract is that the local government officials (appointed by the governor, but local officials nonetheless), are completely powerless to deviate from the whims of one of the most influential and powerful corporations in the world, effectively making DeSantis' original argument that Disney acts as "feudal lords" over their land somewhat true. With this arrangement, they might as well make Jeff Vahle the Chairman of the CFTOD board.

Sure, I see why they (Disney and the then RCID board) did it in the first place, but I think it plays right into DeSantis' hand.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Would it be more fair to call those who are not Disney employees company loyalists, at least?

Are people who’ve only been involved with the District company loyalists?

I have edited the post to say weeks/months.

It wasn’t even weeks/months. Their ouster was still nearly four months out when the deal was finalized. The state doing something different days out from the end of a months long process isn’t Disney sneaking in under the wire. If anything it was dumb luck. Had the special session been called just a few weeks earlier then the whole thing would have been seriously stymied.

Where I take issue with the contract is that the local government officials (appointed by the governor, but local officials nonetheless), are completely powerless to deviate from the whims of one of the most influential and powerful corporations in the world, effectively making DeSantis' original argument that Disney acts as "feudal lords" over their land somewhat true. With this arrangement, they might as well make Jeff Vahle the Chairman of the CFTOD board.

Deviate to accomplish what? To not provide services to the landowners in the district? You might have a point if they had a serious, legal goal necessary for the public good that then ran into this roadblock.

How is this any different from Buddy Dyer having to approve a pedestrian bridge because of an agreement made by Glenda Hood? Or that the Orange County Commission that exists a few years from now won’t be able to do development review on the first additions to Epic Universe?

 

[Brian]

Are people who’ve only been involved with the District company loyalists?

It was my understanding that the voters of Bay Lake/Lake Buena Vista, and the RCID Board of Supervisors were all company loyalists, at least until the advent of the CFTOD. But you have proven yourself quite knowledgeable about this whole situation, so please feel free to share if that understanding is incorrect or lacking nuance.

Deviate to accomplish what? To not provide services to the landowners in the district? You might have a point if they had a serious, legal goal necessary for the public good that then ran into this roadblock.

Perhaps if/when Disney wishes to build a fourth parking garage for Disney Springs, the board would wish to put that cost on Disney instead of the district.

How is this any different from Buddy Dyer having to approve a pedestrian bridge because of an agreement made by Glenda Hood? Or that the Orange County Commission that exists a few years from now won’t be able to do development review on the first additions to Epic Universe?

Admittedly, I am not familiar enough with the details of the arrangement between the City of Orlando and Universal to speak to that. What I can say, however, is that I believe that there is a conflict of interest inherent in local government officials, or government officials at any level really, being beholden to the dictates of a corporation, even if previous government officials agreed to such arrangement. Government is meant to serve the people; corporations are meant to serve the shareholders.

These corporations, of course, represent vast swaths of the local economy, however, that is no reason to enter into one-sided agreements such as the one that then-RCID did with Disney or, as it seems based on your description, the City of Orlando did with Universal. Instead, they should operate as equal partners, not one subservient to the other.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Sure, I see why they (Disney and the then RCID board) did it in the first place, but I think it plays right into DeSantis' hand.

No, it doesn't.

Because the new board members are already tipping their hand that they intended to rein in what they thought were intolerable actions, namely, disagreeing with a proposed bill.

See, up until the new board took over, DeSantis could claim that his 'threats' were just hyperbolic political speech.

But when a new board members sees the surprise contract as impeding her ability to rein in Disney's free speech, it shows that there is more than just bluster. They intended to do harm to Disney by using the government to rein in free speech.

Throughout this whole charade, they were showing their hand. And the new board is proving that to be the case. This is the kind of proof useful in a defense of First Amendment rights case.

 

[Stripes]

I find it hilarious that one of the board members Brian Aungst Jr. stated in the first meeting that he’d like to see Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista dissolved as well. The city council and mayors of those cities are democratically elected by the residents. At the time there was reporting that the cities might be able to take power from the board.

Little did he know…

 

[peter11435]

Admittedly, I am not familiar enough with the details of the arrangement between the City of Orlando and Universal to speak to that. What I can say, however, is that I believe that there is a conflict of interest inherent in local government officials, or government officials at any level really, being beholden to the dictates of a corporation, even if previous government officials agreed to such arrangement. Government is meant to serve the people; corporations are meant to serve the shareholders.

These corporations, of course, represent vast swaths of the local economy, however, that is no reason to enter into one-sided agreements such as the one that then-RCID did with Disney or, as it seems based on your description, the City of Orlando did with Universal. Instead, they should operate as equal partners, not one subservient to the other.

where exactly is the conflict of interest though? Shouldn’t the board of a special district be focused on doing what’s best for the residents/landowners within that district? Shouldn’t that board have the interests of their residents/landowners in mind? Shouldn’t those residents/landowners have substantial say in how the board that governs them and only them spends the money that the district collects from those same residents/landowners? Should Disney have no say in how the District spends Disney’s money?

I’m very perplexed by your last couple sentences because you seem to misunderstand how all government is supposed to function in this country.

The board should not have a side, they should be acting based on the interests of the people they serve which in this case should be the residents and landowners within the district. So yeah, since Disney is nearly the only one, things should be pretty one sided. The problem now is that the board is not accountable to Disney and is under the legally dubious belief that they serve the governor or the state of Florida.

 

[mikejs78]

Admittedly, I am not familiar enough with the details of the arrangement between the City of Orlando and Universal to speak to that. What I can say, however, is that I believe that there is a conflict of interest inherent in local government officials, or government officials at any level really, being beholden to the dictates of a corporation, even if previous government officials agreed to such arrangement. Government is meant to serve the people; corporations are meant to serve the shareholders.

I think you're missing the reason special districts exist. The alternative would be for Orange County (in Disney's case) or Orlando (in Universal's case) being on the hook for building the massive infrastructure needed to run a theme park, and providing municipal services to the theme parks. This would require both a massive investment from the taxpayers of Orange County/Orlando, and massive amounts of red tape from those local governments as well, who don't necessarily have the resources to manage such large projects. The result would be projects that solely benefit one corporation taking years longer, at likely higher cost, and at taxpayer expense.

What special districts do is give the businesses building such large infrastructure that solely benefit them some autonomy over those projects and the permitting/zoning processes around them through officials that they elect, but at their expense, putting the cost burden for such infrastructure on the company instead of the taxpayers. I'm not sure what a better / more appropriate arrangement would be? Counties can't simply bill Disney or Universal for infrastructure - tax law doesn't work like that, especially in Florida.

And I am sorry, no one should be denied the right to vote. Once you start going down that road, you can really go down a slippery slope. (E.g. teachers shouldn't get the right to vote because their unions tell them how to vote, religious people shouldn't get the right to vote because their pastors tell them how to vote etc.). That's a really, really dangerous idea.

 

[Vacationeer]

I'm not calling the original RCID a "sweetheart deal," I'm calling the contract signed by the outgoing RCID board in the weeks/months leading up to their ouster that...

What specifically did they transfer out of RCID at the end?

I have not read the entire contract but it seems they left the regular stuff that a local government usually controls.

 

[GoofGoof]

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?

Should they require Universal to also carve out a portion of their land set aside for the new gate for housing? Or a pharmaceutical company that buys land and wants to build an office campus and move jobs to the state? I’ve never heard of that type of thing and I don’t know what happens in FL but where I live those types of requirements typically apply to developers building houses not to businesses using the land for commercial purposes. The article you posted refers to home builders not commercial property.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

I agree. The best way to go about this would have been to keep RCID as it was for 50+ years. It worked for Disney, it greatly benefited local taxpayers and Disney’s wild success in the state (and impact on the state economy) worked out well for all the residents of FL.