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

[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.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

The board is appointed by the Governor not the legislature. The Governor has millions and millions in a war chest so I doubt any amount Disney kicked in will matter and one of his primary talking point as he campaigns around the country is bragging about taking down woke Disney. No amount of “lobbying” would have changed his mind.

 

[GoofGoof]

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

The “sweetheart deal” as you call it still gives Disney less power and less control than what they had under RCID for 50+ years so I can’t see how this new contract is a sweetheart deal but the original setup wasn’t.

I do see how supporters of the Governor don’t like the new deal because it makes him look foolish at a time he seems to be fading in popularity. Terrible PR politically, but the contract itself is not really any better for Disney.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

Can we level set on what this contract actually does? You claim it allows Disney to act as feudal lords over their land but does it really? It’s my understanding that the development plan lays out very narrowly defined uses for the land directly related to Disney’s actual business. They have control to build hotels and theme parks and entertainment related venues. That’s it. They cannot build a nuclear power plant or use the land as a trash dump or some other negative use. So I understand the political rhetoric is they were governing their own land but in reality they still have to follow state and county laws. The district very narrowly covers certain municipal services and the development agreement specifically is preventing the new board from restricting “relevant development” as a way to influence the company’s content or actions.

 

[GoofGoof]

To keep things a little bit light….it turns out we found out who the new sheriff in town is:

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

To keep things a little bit light….it turns out we found out who the new sheriff in town is:

View attachment 708173View attachment 708174

The town being named Rainbow Ridge is perfect considering the bill that started this whole fiasco in the first place.

 

[lazyboy97o]

To keep things a little bit light….it turns out we found out who the new sheriff in town is:

View attachment 708173View attachment 708174

That’s why the governor is putting together a team to fight him.

 

[Brian]

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.

I'm not denying the utility of special districts. I live in one and see the benefit of it. What is troubling are agreements made which make the board legally obligated to act in a certain way, especially when one party to the agreement is a company as powerful and influential as Disney. I'd say the same thing about Universal if that were the case.

There's a trust than owns a handful of the homes in my CDD of about 1,500 homes. If the district were to make an arrangement with them that obligated the board to spend money exactly as the trust sees fit, I would absolutely be taking them to court.

There is a stark contrast between the arrangement Disney has with the arrangements for residents of LBV/Bay Lake, and what you're describing. If you are one of the handful of residents, you are expected to vote as Disney wishes you to vote, or you can be evicted, and if you work for the company, likely terminated. While a pastor or union staffer may try to convince folks to vote a certain way, they are not obligated to do so, and, in most cases I can think of, their vote would be a secret ballot anyway, so they wouldn't even have a way to try to retaliate.

 

[MrPromey]

....

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.

Agreed, which is why I don't think Disney saw any need to rock the boat over how things ran for the previous 50 years.

Their legal maneuvering was sort of a last-ditch effort to combat what the governor of our state, with clear and un-hidden malice, was trying to do to them.

I'm sure Disney executives would agree with you but they used the avenue left open to them.

They're not the ones that forced this situation - DeSantis is.

They just did what they needed to, to protect their interests given our state government's sudden interest in using coercion to influence their national/international business practices.

If I were in Disney's position, I wouldn't be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to this new board and just "see what happens" either. Given the boards reaction to finding out the situation, it seems pretty clear Disney made the right decision, too.

I went into this optimistic that once DeSantis got the political win, he'd move on and leave things alone but it's clear that with who was appointed and what they have said, they were ready to start making more trouble for the company, almost immediately.

 

[peter11435]

I'm not denying the utility of special districts. I live in one and see the benefit of it. What is troubling are agreements made which make the board legally obligated to act in a certain way, especially when one party to the agreement is a company as powerful and influential as Disney. I'd say the same thing about Universal if that were the case.

Besides Disney who do you think is the other party to the agreement? Who else do you think the district serves besides Disney? Whose interests beyond Disneys do you think the district should be concerned with?

 

[Stripes]

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.

Well the legislature isn’t expecting further legislation any time soon on this matter according to the Florida Senate President. But more importantly, what possible law could they enact without violating the contracts clause of the Florida Constitution and the United States Constitution?

 

[lazyboy97o]

There's a trust than owns a handful of the homes in my CDD of about 1,500 homes. If the district were to make an arrangement with them that obligated the board to spend money exactly as the trust sees fit, I would absolutely be taking them to court.

But we’re not talking about a deal with a minority land owner. We’re talking about a deal with the overwhelming majority landowner that the district is supposed to serve. If you were told that your district was just going to go poof you wouldn’t want to do something that ensures a continuity of services when it was unknown if that would happen? This desire wouldn’t increase if, at the very last minute, instead of being done away with, you were told there would be a new board that intend to break its legal obligations to serve the landowners?

 

[Brian]

The district very narrowly covers certain municipal services and the development agreement specifically is preventing the new board from restricting “relevant development” as a way to influence the company’s content or actions.

What I take from this is that Disney gets to just approve its own development (or at least tell the board "we're doing this, and per the terms of the contract, you have to approve it"), which was not the case with the original RCID scheme. I don't think that's appropriate; there needs to be some form of review for new development, even that which is considered "relevant."

Of course, there also needs to be measures in place to prevent openly hostile board members from trying to dunk on the company at any given opportunity.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What I take from this is that Disney gets to just approve its own development (or at least tell the board "we're doing this, and per the terms of the contract, you have to approve it"), which was not the case with the original RCID scheme. I don't think that's appropriate; there needs to be some form of review for new development, even that which is considered "relevant."

Of course, there also needs to be measures in place to prevent openly hostile board members from trying to dunk on the company at any given opportunity.

Universal doesn’t do development review for new projects in Orlando (current resort) or Orange County (expansion being built). The Villages don’t do development review for new projects. Even the Disneyland Resort doesn’t do development review for certain new projects. In many places across the country there is no review for small projects if you’re not asking for a zoning variance or additional allowance.

This isn’t something new or different.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I'm not denying the utility of special districts. I live in one and see the benefit of it. What is troubling are agreements made which make the board legally obligated to act in a certain way, especially when one party to the agreement is a company as powerful and influential as Disney. I'd say the same thing about Universal if that were the case.

There's a trust than owns a handful of the homes in my CDD of about 1,500 homes. If the district were to make an arrangement with them that obligated the board to spend money exactly as the trust sees fit, I would absolutely be taking them to court.

There is a stark contrast between the arrangement Disney has with the arrangements for residents of LBV/Bay Lake, and what you're describing. If you are one of the handful of residents, you are expected to vote as Disney wishes you to vote, or you can be evicted, and if you work for the company, likely terminated. While a pastor or union staffer may try to convince folks to vote a certain way, they are not obligated to do so, and, in most cases I can think of, their vote would be a secret ballot anyway, so they wouldn't even have a way to try to retaliate.

Oh, no!! All those pour souls living in The District forced to abide by Disney's authoritarian rule!!!!!

This is all giant Whataboutism.

Whether it's the original RCID district, or the new one, or all the other Districts in Florida.... none of that matters.

The governor and legislature forced an unconstitutional rewriting of RCID rule in order to punish and silence Disney.

Nothing else matters.

Yeah, we can rejoice or wring our hands at Disney's power play to stop them. But, they wouldn't have had to do anything if it weren't for unconstitutional overreach of DeSantis and company.

Where was all this concern for how the RCID was operating before the Bill of Contention? How much time did you spend thinking about the sweetheart deal Disney had with the RCID?

But now you care?

If you didn't care before, then it seems your current concern is kinda empty. Sounds more like you're trying to paint Disney to be a villain of the story for having this so-called sweetheart deal. Disney didn't do anything illegal or unconstitutional. But DeSantis and company did.

You're sidebar about the minutia of District policy is all hand-wavy and distracting and whataboutism.

It's not the issue, as much as you try to make it the issue.