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

[flynnibus]

I think you are forgetting about EPCOT and what it was originally intended to be and what Disney claimed it was going to be. The original plan was for it to be a community filled with people that lived their. Those people would have then elected the people on the board and it would have functioned as a small town where Disney wouldn't be picking all the board members.

See, that's where you fall off fact and insert your own. There was no presumption of residents and them electing people. It's been covered extensively in the books on the topic.. and that's why the plan wasn't for individual landowners.

 

[Heppenheimer]

I thought FL was where the first amendment went to die….now the 2nd amendment…..that’s still alive and kicking

Maybe they only go after the odd numbered amendments.

Next up, involuntary quartering of Desantis's expanded Florida State Guard.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I'll admit, I'm torn politically on this, I like Disney/Iger and I like Desantis, except for his attack on Disney in this manner.
But, I really like Iger's tactic on this, and getting out in front of it offensively. I hope they prevail!

I’m in a similar position, a year ago I would have happily voted for him but he’s seriously hurt his standing with the Disney feud, and I don’t say that because I’m a Disney fan but because it’s opposite everything we (conservatives) supposedly stand for.

We’ve seriously lost our way the last decade, DeSantis looked like he may bring back some sanity, but he’s gone off the rails too.

 

[el_super]

See, that's where you fall off fact and insert your own. There was no presumption of residents and them electing people. It's been covered extensively in the books on the topic.. and that's why the plan wasn't for individual landowners.

Literally in the book written on the topic:

Officially, these powers were granted to permit the construction of a model residential community where "20,000 people would live and work and play," as Disney representatives told Florida lawmakers. The company wanted "flexibility to plan for the future" so their model community would "always be in a state of becoming."​

Their immunities have impeded local government's ability to manage growth, even as Disney competes with surrounding governments for convention business, tourist spending, retail and professional office space, and entertainment venues. More, the Disney Co. never built and, as detailed here, never planned to build the Epcot residential community that, in their presentation to Florida lawmakers, was the reason for their governmental powers in the first place. They wanted the powers of government but not real residents who could challenge their managerial prerogatives. Told here for the first time, it is nevertheless an old Florida story-of a big company that makes big promises to get concessions from government, then fails to keep its word.​

​

Foglesong was referencing a Disney press release from 1967, "Disney Executive Outlines Legislative Proposals" which is available at the Orlando Public Library if you're curious what Disney actually told the Florida government in 1967.

Even if you dont want to believe this, can you at least try to explain why Disney kept up the facade of having "residents" in the district for 50+ years if it was never the intent of the district to allow that?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

No, the difference is the new board is appointed by the governor where it is expected that a governor will have significant influence on the people they appoint to various roles.

"Where it is expected" is a factual inaccuracy. "Legislators approved a bill that creates a new special tax district entirely composed of DeSantis appointees to oversee the land on which Disney’s amusement parks operate in Florida" The bill expressly gives a governor sole authority to appoint a board. In this case, DeSantis appointed die-hard cronies of his own.

Reedy Creek pre-Desantis was technically an independent board that was not supposed to be run by Disney though everyone from the beginning knew that it was.

Further inaccuracies, pulled from the 1967 Law, "The Board of Supervisors of the Reedy Creek Improvement District shall be the governing body of the District..." and "All of the members of the Board shall be owners of land within the District." The FL legislature passed this bill with the full knowledge and intent that Disney was the sole landowner.

The fact that the state ignored what should have been smacked down doesn't really matter,

In 1968, The FL Supreme Court tried a case from the State VS the District with this in mind "The basis for the State's contention in this regard is that the Disney interest (Walt Disney World Company) is the largest landowner in the District and that therefore the contemplated reclamation and water control improvements are oriented to serve primarily the benefit of that particular private enterprise. We find this contention untenable." And found no qualms, as they ruled in favor of RCID.

just like the federal government has been ignoring pot usage for years... until the DEA decided that they wanted some easy money and went in cahoots with a state to use civil asset forfeiture on an armored car.

Irrelevant in the regards to RCID.

You can't ignore laws simply because they aren't being enforced because you always run the risk of someone deciding to enforce them.

What laws are you implying were not being enforced? As I proved above from the Law passed by the FL legislature, RCID and by extension Disney, were following the charter passed. Later, the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of RCID.

Im not sitting at home on my computer but when I do get home I will respond with proof that it was wrong, legally, historically and factually. Everyone coming on here to spew more lies and inaccuracies is fueling the partisan fire that DeSantis has created

I didn't realize that I had already responded to your legally, historically and factually incorrect post. Just for posterity, I did it again, above. Everything is hyperlinked with evidence you have chosen not to provide.

How is this true? RCID board was designed to be held by landowners, at the time of it's creation the only landowners were Disney. Disney was still really the only landowner, they just sold/gave those small plots of land to people they chose to serve on the board.

The fact is that the state couldn't have cared less about a mutually beneficial agreement. The current Dictator of Florida is using this as a political agenda.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I think I answered all of these questions in what I just posted. But I'll play.

Literally in the book written on the topic:

Officially, these powers were granted to permit the construction of a model residential community where "20,000 people would live and work and play," as Disney representatives told Florida lawmakers. The company wanted "flexibility to plan for the future" so their model community would "always be in a state of becoming."​

From the RCID History Archive, here's some tidbits that you've chosen to ignore. "...if for no other reason than basic necessities – power and water – were nowhere to be found. The nearest high-voltage power line was more than 15 miles away. There wasn’t even a discussion about a water line since neither Orange nor Osceola counties had the capacity to supply the water needed."

Their immunities have impeded local government's ability to manage growth, even as Disney competes with surrounding governments for convention business, tourist spending, retail and professional office space, and entertainment venues. More, the Disney Co. never built and, as detailed here, never planned to build the Epcot residential community that, in their presentation to Florida lawmakers, was the reason for their governmental powers in the first place.​

There is some truth to this post, however, the reason they asked for their "governmental powers" are as follows, "The idea of a special district taking responsibility for all the services normally associated with county government – water, power, emergency services, waste disposal, roads, bridges, etc. – was unheard of. So was the idea that the landowners within the district, in this case, primarily the Walt Disney World Company, would agree to pay all costs for those services."

They wanted the powers of government but not real residents who could challenge their managerial prerogatives. Told here for the first time, it is nevertheless an old Florida story-of a big company that makes big promises to get concessions from government, then fails to keep its word.​

"And only the landowners within the District, primarily the Walt Disney World Company, would pay to build and maintain those services. Local taxpayers, meaning residents of Orange County and Osceola County, would not have to contribute."
What word did it fail to keep? Disney has and always chose to maintain their ability to pay for their own services, as outlined and planned by the original charter and plans for RCID.

Even if you dont want to believe this, can you at least try to explain why Disney kept up the facade of having "residents" in the district for 50+ years if it was never the intent of the district to allow that?

What "facade" did they keep up? Did you want Disney to take out a billboard on Hotel Plaza Dr. that said "HI WE CONTROL THE REEDY CREEK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT"? The general public never knew what RCID was, until DeSantis waged war.

 

[el_super]

The FL legislature passed this bill with the full knowledge and intent that Disney was the sole landowner.

Can you really state unequivocally that every member of the Florida house that voted to pass the Reedy Creek act in 1967, believed that Disney would ALWAYS be the sole landowner?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Even if you dont want to believe this, can you at least try to explain why Disney kept up the facade of having "residents" in the district for 50+ years if it was never the intent of the district to allow that?

Go give the enabling legislation a read.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I think you are forgetting about EPCOT and what it was originally intended to be and what Disney claimed it was going to be. The original plan was for it to be a community filled with people that lived their. Those people would have then elected the people on the board and it would have functioned as a small town where Disney wouldn't be picking all the board members. No different than how a neighborhood with a HOA will be completely controlled by the developer until the houses are sold to individuals. This was basically Disney selling the state on a neighborhood but then deciding to keep all the houses.

Except the EPCOT you describe was never included in the original RCID charter, so that blasts your theory to pieces.

 

[el_super]

Go give the enabling legislation a read.

For what exactly? The fact that it keeps referencing the rights of landowners and sets up an election process for the board, seems to suggest that they did not expect that there would only ever be a singular landowner in the district.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Can you really state unequivocally that every member of the Florida house that voted to pass the Reedy Creek act in 1967, believed that Disney would ALWAYS be the sole landowner?

That is debatable. Either way, your response purposely pivots from the fact that RCID was not created for "Epcot and it's possibility of residents". It was created to build up the area Disney owned, and not cripple Orange & Osceola county as they didn't have the ability to provide municipal services to Disney. As I mentioned above, the closest powerline was 15 miles away from the district. Disney pays 86% of RCID taxes.

I'll continue with actual proof of anything I'm asserting.

In 2004, the FL Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability drafted a report, "The primary purpose of the special act was to grant the district a wide range of governmental powers to be used to promote recreation-oriented projects, economic development, and tourism within district boundaries. The Legislature determined that realization of these objectives meets a valid public purpose that would benefit “all properties, persons, and enterprises within the district.”

Oh, does that expressly state that they intent was not Epcot? Yes it does.

Board/Landowner Qualms:
"Historically, each board member has been deeded approximately five acres of land by an affiliate of the Walt Disney World Co." and "each landowner is entitled to one vote for each acre of land owned; as the largest landowner, the Walt Disney World Co. is entitled to the most votes."

Oh wait, this states that in the act the FL House you just mentioned passed in 1967, that the board would be made up of the largest landowners. Can you prove that didn't know Disney would always be the largest landowner?

From the same report (2004), RCID had generated nearly a BILLION dollars worth of public infrastructure. FOR FREE (paid for by Disney)

"RCID is proud of its role in advancing the state’s economic growth by facilitating the development of a world-class tourist destination. Since its creation by the Florida Legislature in 1967, RCID has facilitated $785 million worth of public infrastructure – including roads, utilities and wastewater treatment facilities – at no cost to the residents of Central Florida."

This is a little bias as it comes from RCID, but in the same report "In conclusion, the establishment of RCID may historically prove to be one of the most beneficial economic development initiatives ever negotiated by the Florida Legislature. RCID strongly discourages consideration of any option that could interfere with this success."

I can do this all day, but I have to hop on a Zoom meeting, so I'll be back in an hour or so.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

For what exactly? The fact that it keeps referencing the rights of landowners and sets up an election process for the board, seems to suggest that they did not expect that there would only ever be a singular landowner in the district.

Please see my most recent reply to your post.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Go give the enabling legislation a read.

I've posted a few pieces from the original charter in reply to his post as well as another.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

From the same report I referenced earlier says this "Specifically, the Legislature was concerned that while key stakeholders report that the Walt Disney World Co. has been a good corporate citizen, a new owner may not take adequate steps to ensure that the district continues to meet its public purpose of promoting recreation-oriented projects, economic development, and tourism within district boundaries" in response to Comcast's attempt to buy Disney in 2004.

The red text is the purpose of the district, always has been. Further highlights the points I and many others have been making.

Later in that same report reads "OPPAGA determined that RCID is subject to many federal and state regulations that would help ensure that it continues to meet its public purpose, regardless of primary landownership". This report came from a FL Government office, where they find that RCID has and would continue to meet it's public purpose.

Granted that it's true, why launch a hostile takeover? Oh, because you want to punish a company for exercising Free Speech.

 

[Mr. Stay Puft]

Yes.



Disney isn't really trying to get out in front of this. If not for the fact that questions were expected during the shareholder event, they probably wouldn't have prepared any statement on this at all. Unless something drastically threatens their control of WDW, or there is some terrible interview prepping, it's doubtful Iger will mention this again.

It is a mistake to think that Disney is going to fight the FL government here. They are going to do what they can to maintain the status quo: control of their property and general ability to do whatever they want, but they are not going to go after the governor, the house, or any part of the government out in the open.

Iger could have chose to say nothing or given a bland statement.

He didn't. Which tells me he's very confident Disney will prevail in this.

 

[Figgy1]

Can you really state unequivocally that every member of the Florida house that voted to pass the Reedy Creek act in 1967, believed that Disney would ALWAYS be the sole landowner?

Walt himself laid out why Disney bought so much land

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Iger could have chose to say nothing or given a bland statement.

He didn't. Which tells me he's very confident Disney will prevail in this.

It strikes me as a pretty smart message. It points out that going after one of, if not the, most important businesses in the state goes against the interest of Florida and goes against the politics of interfering with a private business.

There's no explicit threat but states what is happening isn't a good idea for several reasons. He could have been a lot more antagonistic but wasn't. It's a more subtle warning.

 

[el_super]

That is debatable.

Yes that is the whole point. A lot of the opinions here are being presented as actual fact and NOT just as subjective opinion. That's the problem.

Either way, your response purposely pivots from the fact that RCID was not created for "Epcot and it's possibility of residents".

You literally just said this was debatable, and then turned around again to present it as fact.

Oh, does that expressly state that they intent was not Epcot? Yes it does.

It states (emphasis mine):

WHEREAS, the conservation of natural resources and attrac-​

tions, the creation of favorable conditions for the development​

of high-quality vacation, sports and recreation facilities and​

residential communities and the utilization of new concepts,​

ideas, designs and technological advances in the establishment​

of such facilities and communities are valid public purposes and​

the legitimate concern of special taxing districts created for​

that purpose​

​

​

What do you think the legislature of 1967 meant by residential communities? DVC?

 

[flynnibus]

RCID wasn't implemented to just enable EPCOT. Stop the freaking revisionist lectures.

RCID was implemented because Disney intended to develop 47 square miles in the freaking BOONIES and wanted to develop multiple forward looking concepts.

There was never any dependency on EPCOT being a thing -- which is why Florida didn't cry foul when Disney made a second theme park instead of a city... over 40 years ago.

But wait... some people are now just figuring out there has been a cloak over everyone's eyes for the last 45 years!! ffs...

 

[GoofGoof]

Maybe they only go after the odd numbered amendments.

Next up, involuntary quartering of Desantis's expanded Florida State Guard.

Let’s hope not since the 21st amendment repealed prohibition . Then again with these threats to revoke liquor licenses….you may be on to something