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

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Maybe I’m mistaken, but wasn’t the development agreement signed an extension of the one already in place. Many pages back @lentesta posted when they were approving it. I’m pretty sure there was some form of development agreement in place already.

Either way, what harm is there if Disney or Universal or some other business signs a development agreement with the local government (which happens all the time) that allows them to develop their property in a manner consistent with the business they run without approvals for each new project? Who is harmed if Disney decides to build another resort or a 5th gate?
The development agreement locks down the zoning and land use regulations that had already largely been in place for years. There wasn’t a need for an agreement in the past because the chances of the district changing the zoning in a contrary manner was nearly nonexistent.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
Yeah I didn’t even notice that but it is a bit ironic :)

DeSantis is lucky I’m not in charge of Disney because my vindictive bum would be renaming something in the park Rainbow Ridge tomorrow just out of spite, complete with a huge rainbow wall instagram spot that says “Welcome to Rainbow Ridge, where everyone’s welcome.”

(And I’m a straight white Christian right leaning guy, if his actions are annoying to me I can’t imagine how frustrating they must be to the people they actually involve.)
 

Stripes

Premium Member
Why should Disney, Universal, or whatever other large organization be able to circumvent government processes that individual/personal landowners have to deal with?
None of these entities circumvented government processes though. Chapter 163 Florida Statutes requires a government process in order for local governments to enter into development agreements. Local governments and individual landowners enter into development agreements as well.

The local government agreed to a development agreement with a developer that limits the densities and intensities the developer can build to what the board planned for in their comprehensive plan that was approved by the state of Florida. They held 2 public hearings on the matter where nobody objected or had any comment whatsoever. They entered into this agreement for 3 purposes.

“1) It will provide a binding written agreement between the Parties for the long- term development of the Property and Project in order to vest the Maximum Development Program and to provide certainty to Master Developer; and
2) It will stipulate the provision of necessary public facilities by RCID that will be in place concurrent with the demand of the Maximum Development Program as it is constructed; and
3) It will provide clarification for how the Comprehensive Plan and RCID LDRs will apply to the Project, both now and in the future.”
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I'd be interested to hear the answer to that from someone who has read the contract in full and understands it. I personally haven't had the opportunity to do so; I'm only going based on other members' interpretations.


Because, put simply, if I want to so much as add a fence to my backyard, I have to get approvals from my city, the HOA and the CDD. That's my property, and I should be able to do it if I wish. If I were Disney, though, at least according to the interpretations and posts of other members recently, I would be able to put up that fence without asking anyone, or if I did have to ask, they'd be contractually obligated to say yes.

Why should Disney, Universal, or whatever other large organization be able to circumvent government processes that individual/personal landowners have to deal with?

ETA: A 5th gate would have major impacts on the infrastructure beyond the district's boundaries, so they should absolutely have to go through extensive review with the counties and the state.
Isn’t the permit for the fence in your backyard just ensuring that you are following the zoning requirements. As long as the fence complies with requirements you are approved. That’s different than your city saying we don’t approve your fence because we don’t like the content you put out on Facebook. As far as I know Disney still has to follow zoning requirements and building codes too.

As far as the 5th gate comment, the existence of RCID never excluded Disney from following any state or county laws.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
The development agreement locks down the zoning and land use regulations that had already largely been in place for years. There wasn’t a need for an agreement in the past because the chances of the district changing the zoning in a contrary manner was nearly nonexistent.
I think I was thinking of the comprehensive plan that details out how many hotels or other structures the company plans to develop.
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
None of these entities circumvented government processes though. Chapter 163 Florida Statutes requires a government process in order for local governments to enter into development agreements.

The local government agreed to a development agreement with a developer that limits the densities and intensities the developer can build to what the board planned for in their comprehensive plan that was approved by the state of Florida. They held 2 public hearings on the matter where nobody objected or had any comment whatsoever. They entered into this agreement for 3 purposes.

“1) It will provide a binding written agreement between the Parties for the long- term development of the Property and Project in order to vest the Maximum Development Program and to provide certainty to Master Developer; and
2) It will stipulate the provision of necessary public facilities by RCID that will be in place concurrent with the demand of the Maximum Development Program as it is constructed; and
3) It will provide clarification for how the Comprehensive Plan and RCID LDRs will apply to the Project, both now and in the future.”
I suppose what this comes down to is that I don't necessarily like the idea that broad development agreements are legally permissible, largely because individual/personal landowners would almost certainly not have the ability to take advantage of those same benefits.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, as it seems you are very well-read on this subject, but I don't think that even if it were legally possible, it would be practical, given the legal and monetary resources necessary to secure all these agreements with the various governmental agencies.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
. 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.

That's not exactly what the agreement says. It just says that they can't build stuff without Disney approval. Given that the law likely violates the FL state Constitution in regards to authority to tax without consent of the voters, I have no issues with Disney taking the perfectly legal step under FL law of putting a development agreement into place to protect the interests of their land from a board that wants to use their power to influence Disney's creative decisions.

or you can be evicted, and if you work for the company, likely terminated

Do you have evidence that this is the case? I don't think it is.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
There are small portions of RCID land owned by entities other than Disney. Of course, Disney owns the overwhelming majority of the land, but what I'm getting at is that there should be guardrails in place that prevent Disney from having an arrangement in place where the board is legally obligated to sign off on projects Disney wishes to do. Interests are different than obligations.
And they all purchased their property from Disney with the intent of working with Disney for the development of Walt Disney World and all have preexisting agreements with Disney regarding their use.
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
Do you have evidence that this is the case? I don't think it is.
AFAIK, there have yet to be any cases in which Disney has evicted or terminated someone due to voting "the wrong way," but they wouldn't necessarily be made public.

This article is a good read: https://web.archive.org/web/2023021.../tourism/os-disney-cities-20150522-story.html

Mayor Todd Watzel has had one of the most uneventful political careers in history.

He rarely makes public appearances. Reporters don't grill him on controversial issues. Campaigning? With only 21 constituents, about a third of them too young to vote, he doesn't need to bother.

Watzel leads the City Council of Bay Lake, one of Walt Disney World's two "company towns" incorporated by the state Legislature in the late 1960s.

Forty-four residents handpicked by Disney live in two tiny gated mobile-home parks tucked away on the sprawling resort. There, they become cogs in the governmental machinery that allows Disney to control its own services such as planning, building codes and firefighting.

"It's an interesting story to tell all your friends and family," said Watzel, a 38-year-old Disney World construction-project manager.

After Walt Disney chose Orlando for his massive development — where he envisioned a futuristic city that never came to be — his company negotiated a most unusual deal with the state to create three Disney governments.

Reedy Creek Improvement District, which includes mostly Disney-owned land, is like a county government and handles most services, such as building codes and fire rescue. The taxing district, with a board that Disney selects, could not, however, take on certain work such as policing, district officials said.

So the state formed two Orange County cities as well. Bay Lake encompasses the four theme parks. Lake Buena Vista includes Downtown Disney and surrounding hotels. Disney stocks the cities with residents: Disney or Reedy Creek workers and retirees, along with their families. The residents provide the votes needed on issues such as approval of bonds for Downtown Disney area improvements.

"The reality is, they're just private cities," said Chad Emerson, author of a book called "Project Future" about Disney World's creation.

Disney declined to be interviewed about the cities and referred questions to Reedy Creek.

Bill Warren, a former Disney government-affairs executive who serves as Reedy Creek's district administrator, called the tenants an "apolitical little group."

"The bulk of what they do is live in the property," said Warren, who is also Bay Lake's unpaid city manager.

Residents purchase their own mobile homes and pay $75 monthly lot rent to Disney.

The perks include short commutes for Disney workers and permission to use a gated lakefront area providing great views of Magic Kingdom fireworks.

"It's really just a nice situation all around," said Morgan Palfreyman, a Disney facility-asset-management employee who lives in Bay Lake with his wife and their seven children. "I have no intent of moving at any time."

The Palfreymans make up 40 percent of Bay Lake's population. Their neighborhood surrounded by pine woods is like their own Tom Sawyer Island: a natural oasis within Walt Disney World. The children like living close to the theme parks but talk just as enthusiastically about the river otters and deer they see. Palfreyman is one of the cities' combined 10 council members.

At their meetings every month, the councils approve matters such as pollution-control board appointments, hours for alcohol sales during special events at the theme parks and law-enforcement contracts to pay Orange County Sheriff's Office to patrol the Disney area.

Democracy might be messy, but Disney's version is as smooth as Cinderella's glass slipper.

"If they didn't vote Disney's way regularly, you can be sure they wouldn't be Disney employees or living on Disney property much longer," said David Koenig, author of several books about Disney.

Disney pointed to the unique nature of its plans for the area when it pushed for its own government in the 1960s. It is not completely immune to outside government — for example, it pays Orange County taxes, like property owners in other cities, and Reedy Creek submits development plans for approval to a state water-management district.

Still, the arrangement has critics, who say it also allows Disney to escape typical regulations such as regional review of its development impacts.

"It was probably not the best idea because it kind of set them apart from everything else," said Cliff Guillet, former executive director of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.


The people casting votes in all three governments say they do not simply rubber-stamp what their employer and landlord wants.

"Some months, we're spending quite a few hours going through a bunch of different paperwork that comes across, making sure we understand what we're voting on," Palfreyman said.
Interjecting here to say: isn't that exactly what you would say if your job and home dependent upon it?
Not everything is unanimous. A 2013 election on Downtown Disney transportation bonds, open to all eligible voters in the cities, passed 17-2. A few years ago, a Bay Lake City Council vote to select its new mayor ended in a tie. The matter was settled by drawing straws.

The last council election was a decade ago. People interested in City Council positions are usually unopposed.

Exactly how Disney picks its inhabitants is something of a mystery. Reedy Creek said Disney seeks good workers who could benefit from living nearby. Palfreyman said he heard about an opening through work, told the company he was interested and became a Disney denizen soon afterward.

Charlie Reed, 67, was asked by Disney about 30 years ago whether he'd like to live in Lake Buena Vista. It was especially helpful for him because working in utilities, he was on call around the clock.

"I had a pretty good reputation," said Reed, who retired last year but remains a Lake Buena Vista resident and council member. "I guess they thought they were picking somebody worthwhile."

Reed, who moved to a different school district in the 1990s and returned a few years ago, said living at Disney World has become much more convenient. More grocery stores and restaurants have opened nearby.

More housing also has been built surrounding Disney, providing employees with many other options for living close to work.

Many people would likely find it "cool" to live in one of the Disney cities, said Sam Gennawey, author of "Walt and the Promise of Progress City." "It's a very unique snapshot of American history."
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
ETA: A 5th gate would have major impacts on the infrastructure beyond the district's boundaries, so they should absolutely have to go through extensive review with the counties and the state.
Notice what you did here though? You said they should absolutely have review from the counties and state because of its impact outside of the district. This is true. And it’s also why there has always been some levels of outside over site. Notice all those SFWMD permits and applications for example. The districts concern though should be the district, it’s residents, and it’s landowners.
 

Incomudro

Well-Known Member
Isn’t the permit for the fence in your backyard just ensuring that you are following the zoning requirements. As long as the fence complies with requirements you are approved. That’s different than your city saying we don’t approve your fence because we don’t like the content you put out on Facebook. As far as I know Disney still has to follow zoning requirements and building codes too.

As far as the 5th gate comment, the existence of RCID never excluded Disney from following any state or county laws.
You can erect a fence anywhere you'd like in your backyard without a permit - so long as it's not on the border of the adjacent property. :)
 

Stripes

Premium Member
I suppose what this comes down to is that I don't necessarily like the idea that broad development agreements are legally permissible, largely because individual/personal landowners would almost certainly not have the ability to take advantage of those same benefits.
I understand where you’re coming from. I personally believe that land use regulations are being abused in this country to strike down perfectly reasonable developments that local residents nonetheless find undesirable. I think new laws should be enacted to prevent such abuse so that more landowners can take full advantage of their land. Not to say that land use regulations should not exist, but lawmakers should limit their ability to be abused for malicious or unreasonable purposes.

With that said, I don’t want to steer the thread off course…
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
Notice what you did here though? You said they should absolutely have review from the counties and state because of its impact outside of the district. This is true. And it’s also why there has always been some levels of outside over site. Notice all those SFWMD permits and applications for example. The districts concern though should be the district, it’s residents, and it’s landowners.
I agree with you. I was speaking to the matter of the mystical 5th gate specifically because that's what was posed in the question.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
shady deal

This is a loaded comment. Shady implies underhanded and illegal. Nothing of the sort was done here. Development agreements are common, RCID followed all proper notices, the development plan had been previously approved by the state of FL. What exactly makes it shady? Just because you don't like the idea of a land use deal, that doesn't make it shady.

I suppose what this comes down to is that I don't necessarily like the idea that broad development agreements are legally permissible, largely because individual/personal landowners would almost certainly not have the ability to take advantage of those same benefits.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, as it seems you are very well-read on this subject, but I don't think that even if it were legally possible, it would be practical, given the legal and monetary resources necessary to secure all these agreements with the various governmental agencies.

These types of deals are extremely common and exist in all 50 states. Pretty much when any large corporate project is done (think football stadium, major commercial zone, etc.) these types of long term deals enter into play. What would your alternative be?
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
I suppose what this comes down to is that I don't necessarily like the idea that broad development agreements are legally permissible, largely because individual/personal landowners would almost certainly not have the ability to take advantage of those same benefits.
if you purchased every house in your HOA you too would have nearly full control. If you purchased every parcel in your city you too would have full development control and would largely have governmental power provided you were acting within established laws and following codes and regulations. You’d be able to single handedly elect your board/commission/representatives too.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I'd be interested to hear the answer to that from someone who has read the contract in full and understands it. I personally haven't had the opportunity to do so; I'm only going based on other members' interpretations.


Because, put simply, if I want to so much as add a fence to my backyard, I have to get approvals from my city, the HOA and the CDD. That's my property, and I should be able to do it if I wish. If I were Disney, though, at least according to the interpretations and posts of other members recently, I would be able to put up that fence without asking anyone, or if I did have to ask, they'd be contractually obligated to say yes.

Why should Disney, Universal, or whatever other large organization be able to circumvent government processes that individual/personal landowners have to deal with?

ETA: A 5th gate would have major impacts on the infrastructure beyond the district's boundaries, so they should absolutely have to go through extensive review with the counties and the state.
You are assuming that your experience is universal when it is not. The particulars of building and development vary by local jurisdiction. Even within a single jurisdiction the process can vary even amongst neighboring parcels of property.

Not having to go through development review is not something just afforded to large companies and developers. It is also offered to individuals. The particulars of either depend on the specific location.

Islands of Adventure had impacts beyond the City of Orlando, but the decision to allow a second gate at Universal Studios Florida was entirely up to the City. Orange County had no say despite being impacted. Osceola County has been impacted by Walt Disney World, but if the District and municipalities had never been created, the county would have had no say on any of the parks because they are within Orange County. If Herschend made huge investments into Wild Adventures it might Ave impacts in Florida who would get no say. That’s just the nature of political boundaries. Unless you’re talking about significantly curtailing development and changing the nature of political subdivisions you’re always going to have situations where impacts can extend beyond their originating jurisdiction.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I suppose what this comes down to is that I don't necessarily like the idea that broad development agreements are legally permissible, largely because individual/personal landowners would almost certainly not have the ability to take advantage of those same benefits.

You can correct me if I'm wrong, as it seems you are very well-read on this subject, but I don't think that even if it were legally possible, it would be practical, given the legal and monetary resources necessary to secure all these agreements with the various governmental agencies.
So to sum this up you support more government oversight and less control for corporations. That’s a valid viewpoint, but historically speaking not the way most statutes in FL were setup. The state up until very recently had a strong desire to be business friendly and to attract new business to the state. One of the main ways to do that is to simplify and/or reduce regulations. Working for a company that develops projects all over the country I can tell you that in a place like CA with too much government oversight it’s really hard to get anything done. I don’t think it’s a good idea to let corporations do whatever they want. Obviously if the company wants to do something that would be dangerous or harmful to the local community it should be stopped but I can’t see how Disney building a new hotel or a 5th gate could possibly be viewed as harmful to citizens.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
And they are still bound by zoning, building codes, environmental impact studies, and hundreds of other land use and safe building restrictions, it’s not like Disney can just do whatever they want now because RCiD signed away its direct oversight, they are still bound by all the same codes as other builders.
The land development agreement locked in place the zoning and land use regulations. Things like the building code are still overseen by the District. Zoning was important because the standards and precedent are less defined and consistent. It would have been the easiest, most normal way for the Board to interfere with Walt Disney World.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom