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

[MagicHappens1971]

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.

This information is incorrect, and I have proved it factually with sources throughout the past few pages.

 

[Chi84]

This information is incorrect, and I have proved it factually with sources throughout the past few pages.

The law review article I cited above discusses this in detail.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Because if there was no special district with a form of government then everything that RCID handled and paid for would have been the burden of the counties in which WDW is located. RCID was the solution to a problem, not a problem itself.

No! It is wrong that the taxpayers were not required to pay for Disney’s sewers. It was wrong for Disney to follow a building code before the state required one be adopted by local governments. It is wrong that Universal is trying to deprive the people of Volusia County from paying for transit services in Orange County.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don’t know if anyone cited it, but this article has a very thorough explanation of Reedy Creek and how it came about. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=lr

He also wrote a book, Project Future: The Inside Story Behind the Creation of Disney World.

 

[Chi84]

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?

The Florida law review article I cited actually addresses each one of your questions!

 

[peter11435]

Disagreeing with something you don't like doesn't make it wrong.

No what makes it wrong is that nearly everything you said is legally, factually, and historically incorrect.

 

[peter11435]

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.

You’ve once again managed to fill an entire post with factual and historical inaccuracies.

The original plan was never that those living in the district would have district voting rights.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

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

Because so many people were clamoring to buy and develop that dead swampland?

Now that Disney has turned it into something, it’s a problem?

 

[flynnibus]

The law review article I cited above discusses this in detail.

An article whose author is also the author of the most popular book on the subject... but I doubt he individually checked with every legislator.. so we can't trust what you might find on the internet or in books!

 

[GoofGoof]

An article whose author is also the author of the most popular book on the subject... but I doubt he individually checked with every legislator.. so we can't trust what you might find on the internet or in books!

Maybe the book was banned

 

[Chi84]

An article whose author is also the author of the most popular book on the subject... but I doubt he individually checked with every legislator.. so we can't trust what you might find on the internet or in books!

I’m still trying to figure out the need to discover what’s in the mind of each legislator. That’s not the way you ascertain the legislative intent behind an Act.

 

[flynnibus]

I’m still trying to figure out the need to discover what’s in the mind of each legislator. That’s not the way you ascertain the legislative intent behind an Act.

Well.. you know the answer to these questions Why does anyone put up an impossible to answer retort? To avoid facing the alternative of course.

 

[Chi84]

Well.. you know the answer to these questions Why does anyone put up an impossible to answer retort? To avoid facing the alternative of course.

There are two very different conversations going on here.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I love this thread.

We must keep it going.

The "Coronavirus and Walt Disney World General Discussion" thread is 5124 pages!

We have a long way to go!

 

[flynnibus]

There are two very different conversations going on here.

You're trying to get a direct answer out of him - you won't. The whole point of the legislators question is just another FUD tactic to allow the 'this was never the intended usage' narrative to be pushed. There is nothing genuine in any of it; the challenge was simply a tactic to try to muddy the water more and deflect away from the references that discredits the whole thing to start with.

It is a tactic to try to undermine something through crafting and inserting checkpoints or criteria as if they were relevant or necessary -- when in fact they aren't. But by inserting a 'question' or criteria that can't be 100% answered or closed... ha! There is doubt now! Let's keep circling around that now! See.. you can't reach that conclusion of discrediting me if you can't pin my answer down! The whole thing is a misinformation tactic.

The whole narrative that RCID is something that was never intended what it was used for is a sham - pushed to justify the story that dismantling of it now is just something that should have been done long ago. To make that point they have made up the story that WDW without EPCOT is not what RCID was created for -- or how it's representation is met -- which flies directly in the face of all material on the matter, including the material of the time. But to distract from that truth, lets assert that you don't really know what the legislators really wanted... insert uncertainty.. doubt!

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Trying to corner him into answering a black and white question will just result in a hop to a different challenge.

 

[mikejs78]

He also wrote a book, Project Future: The Inside Story Behind the Creation of Disney World.

That's a really great book.

 

[GoofGoof]

I don’t know if anyone cited it, but this article has a very thorough explanation of Reedy Creek and how it came about. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=lr

Very good read.

 

[GoofGoof]

He also wrote a book, Project Future: The Inside Story Behind the Creation of Disney World.

Now I’m going to have to read the book too

 

[Chi84]

Very good read.

It addresses and explains many of the issues raised here and contains an abundance of original source material.

 

[scottieRoss]

The easiest way to determine why they created the District and what they expected of it is to read the enabling legislation. Before the actual code, on pages 4 and 5, the legislature puts out exactly what it was created for. All the Whereas clauses before the Therefore clause. And it does not mention anything about housing. But it does specifically say for tourism and recreation.