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

[GoofGoof]

So RCID existed for 50+ years under the administrations of 11 different Governors (split almost evenly by party) and had not been an issue for any of them over 50 years. Now suddenly it’s a problem because Walt said he wanted EPCOT to be a city but they built a theme park instead? So for over 40 of the 50+ years the district existed everyone knew EPCOT was never going to be a city. Even if the original charter was drafted with the idea of a city in mind (suspend your knowledge that it wasn’t) why would it matter? Clearly the state didn’t see a problem….until they wanted a punishment. Let’s not waste time arguing that somehow this was done for any other reason. It’s just silly. Even the guy orchestrating the move is telling you he’s doing it as a punishment. No reason to dream up a different valid reason to do it.

 

[Dranth]

Which one? The 1968 one? I pulled up a summary from here: https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/1968/37569-0.html

In the present case we are convinced that the measures and improvements contemplated by the District are designed to encourage and develop those purposes spelled out in the enabling act. Successful completion and operation of the District no doubt will greatly aid the Disney interest and its contemplated Disneyworld project. However, it is obvious that to a lesser degree the contemplated benefits of the District will inure to numerous inhabitants of the District in addition to persons in the Disney complex.​

Numerous inhabitants would seem to suggest, again, that they still envisioned the district as having residents other than just Disney no?

In fact, thinking timeline wise here, does it make sense that anyone in 1968 would have realized that EPCOT as a city was cancelled?

Either way it seems that they were deciding whether enabling the district was a violation of state law, which it wasn't. That isn't to imply that it wasn't founded under false pretenses.



What does the timeline have to do with the thoughts/motivations of the individual Florida legislators? I'm sure somewhere down the line some of them wrote on the matter or published their own opinion, but really at this point those are details that are not worth the effort to recover.

Without being able to go back in time, there's absolutely no factual way to state that Florida did not consider EPCOT in their reasoning for approving Reedy Creek.

The charter allowed for the original version of EPCOT but did not mandate it.

However, for a second let's just assume Disney did sneak one past the state back then and that RCID was always intended to only exists because there was going to be additional residents. Why did the state let this go on for over five decades?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

How do you know?

I proved it in my response to your post. You must’ve chosen to ignore it

 

[Chi84]

I’m not even sure what the argument is anymore. Generally, in construing legislation, you look to its actual wording. If that isn’t clear, there is usually the legislative history of the bill or whatever that can be researched.

 

[GoofGoof]

The charter allowed for the original version of EPCOT but did not mandate it.

However, for a second let's just assume Disney did sneak one past the state back then and that RCID was always intended to only exists because there was going to be additional residents. Why did the state let this go on for over five decades?

Simple answer……


Disney and the state greatly benefit each other. It would have probably gone on for 50 more years if one guy’s ego didn’t get in the way.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m not even sure what the argument is anymore. Generally, in construing legislation, you look to its actual wording. If that isn’t clear, there is usually the legislative history of the bill or whatever that can be researched.

Yes, but that takes too long when you’re doing research on the fly to come to a predetermined conclusion.

 

[Heppenheimer]

So RCID existed for 50+ years under the administrations of 11 different Governors (split almost evenly by party) and had not been an issue for any of them over 50 years. Now suddenly it’s a problem because Walt said he wanted EPCOT to be a city but they built a theme park instead? So for over 40 of the 50+ years the district existed everyone knew EPCOT was never going to be a city. Even if the original charter was drafted with the idea of a city in mind (suspend your knowledge that it wasn’t) why would it matter? Clearly the state didn’t see a problem….until they wanted a punishment. Let’s not waste time arguing that somehow this was done for any other reason. It’s just silly. Even the guy orchestrating the move is telling you he’s doing it as a punishment. No reason to dream up a different valid reason to do it.

Did Walt say "I want to build a model city."?

Well, they sort of did...

 

[lazyboy97o]

Did Walt say "I want to build a model city."

Well, they sort of did...

They destroyed a model city. The Progress City model was much larger and animated when it was at Disneyland.

 

[flynnibus]

They destroyed a model city. The Progress City model was much larger and animated when it was at Disneyland.

But how do you know that????

/s

 

[el_super]

The charter allowed for the original version of EPCOT but did not mandate it.

Yep. That is factually distinct though, from claiming that the original charter did not consider additional landowners other than Disney.

However, for a second let's just assume Disney did sneak one past the state back then and that RCID was always intended to only exists because there was going to be additional residents. Why did the state let this go on for over five decades?

Oh that's easy: Apathy. It just wasn't politically advantageous to go down this path. It's also part of the reason Disney never made any moves to get out of the district on their own. It never made business sense to dissolve the district, even though the state could always hold it over them.

I proved it in my response to your post. You must’ve chosen to ignore it

Oh I'm sorry. I thought we both agreed that it was debatable? I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest that the lawmakers, the courts, and residents of Florida all believed that Disney was going to build a community with actual voting residents at the time that they approved the improvement district and that Disney wouldn't forever be the sole landowner.

I’m not even sure what the argument is anymore.

I think the bigger point here, is this desire to shoot down any criticism of the district stifling any actual discussion. This thread went off the rails long ago, with too many people now venerating the district, solely for political reasons. That's led to a lot of questions and interpretations being shut down, being labeled as lies and misinformation, simply because any criticism of the district in this political climate is being extended to picking a side in this fight.

It's entirely possible to think that what the Governor (really the State of Florida) did was wrong, but also still recognize that Reedy Creek itself was flawed from the start.

 

[flynnibus]

Yep. That is factually distinct though, from claiming that the original charter did not consider additional landowners other than Disney.

How many citizens did you and your forefathers expect to own at least one acre of property in a city? Because that's the convention they set to exclude people. A convention set at the time of creation, with the state's knowledge and consent.

You continue to conveniently obfuscate 'other people present' with 'expecting other people to have a say'. It was never setup to be anything except controlled by Disney - blatantly so.

Oh I'm sorry. I thought we both agreed that it was debatable? I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest that the lawmakers, the courts, and residents of Florida all believed that Disney was going to build a community with actual voting residents at the time that they approved the improvement district and that Disney wouldn't forever be the sole landowner.

You can't take factual claims, insert your own elements, and then claim them to still have the same authority. Expecting EPCOT does not equate to expecting 'actual voting residents'.. .nor was there any expectation set of Disney selling off land.

Once again, you insert your own tales trying to spin your story.

 

[Riviera Rita]

The simple fact is Ronnie D didn't give a flying fig about RCID until Disney had the temerity to criticise his rotten law.

 

[el_super]

You continue to conveniently obfuscate 'other people present' with 'expecting other people to have a say'. It was never setup to be anything except controlled by Disney - blatantly so.

So again why did they have to setup the quasi-government in the first place? Why have a democratically elected board? Why setup the complicated land ownership and houses with Disney employees in it? Why not just sign the whole thing over to Disney at the get-go?

Once again, you insert your own tales trying to spin your story.

Yeah again, I think I'm going to take the word of actual authors on this subject that have done actual research, instead of the anonymous voices on the internet.

 

[flynnibus]

So again why did they have to setup the quasi-government in the first place? Why have a democratically elected board? Why setup the complicated land ownership and houses with Disney employees in it? Why not just sign the whole thing over to Disney at the get-go?

Because it fit into existing law and constructs and would be defendable.. which they stirred up a court case to prove it too.

Yeah again, I think I'm going to take the word of actual authors on this subject that have done actual research, instead of the anonymous voices on the internet.

Funny - I missed all those cites in your claims? maybe you should revisit those authors and sources and check your work.

 

[lazyboy97o]

How many citizens did you and your forefathers expect to own at least one acre of property in a city? Because that's the convention they set to exclude people. A convention set at the time of creation, with the state's knowledge and consent.

EPCOT as envisioned was also going to consist of renters. You had to work at Disney World (either for Disney or one of the participating companies) in order to live there.

But while the residents would not have had a vote in the Reedy Creek Improvement District they would have had a vote as residents of Bay Lake. The cities were involved in updating their land use regulations as part of the land development agreement.

 

[flynnibus]

EPCOT as envisioned was also going to consist of renters. You had to work at Disney World (either for Disney or one of the participating companies) in order to live there.

But while the residents would not have had a vote in the Reedy Creek Improvement District they would have had a vote as residents of Bay Lake. The cities were involved in updating their land use regulations as part of the land development agreement.

We know this... but those who can't trust us on the internet apparently don't DON'T SCREW UP THE NARRATIVE! PIVOT!!!

 

[el_super]

Funny - I missed all those cites in your claims? maybe you should revisit those authors and sources and check your work.

Maybe you should?

The more and more this goes around, the more I'm glad that Reedy Creek is no more.

 

[Chi84]

Maybe you should?

The more and more this goes around, the more I'm glad that Reedy Creek is no more.

Sorry I'm so late to the party, but who at the present time is benefitting from changing the district from Reedy Creek to Central Florida Tourism? And what exactly is the benefit?

 

[el_super]

Sorry I'm so late to the party, but who at the present time is benefitting from changing the district from Reedy Creek to Central Florida Tourism? And what exactly is the benefit?

The biggest benefit is Disney getting out of running a quasi-government that they shouldn't have ever been granted in the first place.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think the bigger point here, is this desire to shoot down any criticism of the district stifling any actual discussion. This thread went off the rails long ago, with too many people now venerating the district, solely for political reasons. That's led to a lot of questions and interpretations being shut down, being labeled as lies and misinformation, simply because any criticism of the district in this political climate is being extended to picking a side in this fight.

It's entirely possible to think that what the Governor (really the State of Florida) did was wrong, but also still recognize that Reedy Creek itself was flawed from the start.

Honest question: did you actually feel RCID was flawed enough to be a problem for the state that needed to be addressee before this dispute with the Governor? You don’t really have to answer but my point is you are claiming people here are venerating the district solely for political reason which seems unlikely to be true. This is a Disney fan site with a lot of members who are huge WDW fans. RCID has been a part of the WDW equation for decades and most dedicated fans knew about it well before this event. Books were written, stories were told, it’s part of Disney parks trivia and fun facts, it has long been celebrated as a wildly successful corporate/Government partnership in Disney circles. I would argue if there is anyone acting purely for political reasons it’s the people who never had an issue but are suddenly condemning the district because “their guy” decided he wanted to fight with Disney.