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

[Chi84]

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.

I haven’t read that section, but the first rule in construing a law is to look to its actual language. If it’s unclear after that, there are a number of rules of construction depending on the uncertainty involved, including looking to legislative history. That can be more difficult to find.

 

[UNCgolf]

I haven’t read that section, but the first rule in construing a law is to look to its actual language. If it’s unclear after that, there are a number of rules of construction depending on the uncertainty involved, including looking to legislative history. That can be more difficult to find.

Statutory interpretation is typically an entire class in law school.

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

This is provably untrue. The development of “residential communities” are mentioned numerous times in the Whereas sections.

 

[Chi84]

This is provably untrue. The development of “residential communities” are mentioned numerous times in the Whereas sections.

I’m still not clear on why this matters.

 

[Tha Realest]

I’m still not clear on why this matters.

I don’t ultimately think it does matter at the end of the day. But the revisionism erasing some of the core residential purposes for the EPCOT Project -> RCID is tedious and intellectually dishonest.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is provably untrue. The development of “residential communities” are mentioned numerous times in the Whereas sections.

Three times. Along with other purposes. Nobody here has said residential was prohibited or not provided for, but it was not the primary purpose given or recognized by the court.

I don’t ultimately think it does matter at the end of the day. But the revisionism erasing some of the core residential purposes for the EPCOT Project -> RCID is tedious and intellectually dishonest.

You have repeatedly mischaracterized a variety of aspects of the District and its creation.



From the decision in Stave v Reedy Creek Improvement District:

“In enacting Ch. 67-764, the Legislature found that the general welfare and continued prosperity of Florida depends in a large measure upon tourism, recreation and the conservation of natural resources.”

“we conclude that the integrated plan or workings of the District and its related improvements are essentially and primarily directed toward encouraging and developing tourism and recreation for the benefit of citizens of the state and visitors to the state generally”

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I don’t ultimately think it does matter at the end of the day. But the revisionism erasing some of the core residential purposes for the EPCOT Project -> RCID is tedious and intellectually dishonest.

Oh my god. Give it a rest. The main purpose of RCID was to provide municipal services and encourage tourism and recreation.

Please just get off your soapbox. No one is erasing the Epcot Project as it was not the sole or even a large contributing factor to why RCID established. I can’t be bothered to type it up again, but I have quoted, hyperlinked and paraphrased a ton of information refuting your baseless claims. A few pages back

 

[Tha Realest]

Oh my god. Give it a rest. The main purpose of RCID was to provide municipal services and encourage tourism and recreation.

Please just get off your soapbox. No one is erasing the Epcot Project as it was not the sole or even a large contributing factor to why RCID established. I can’t be bothered to type it up again, but I have quoted, hyperlinked and paraphrased a ton of information refuting your baseless claims. A few pages back

Dude, the person I was responding to said the Whereas portions said nothing about housing. That’s simply untrue. That was what I said. As I wrote, at the end of the day the changed direction of what Disney originally intended to do with the property to what eventually happened is not going to retroactively unravel the RCID. But let’s all be honest about the lobbying efforts and what’s actually in the enabling legislation. You’re gaslighting.

 

[Chi84]

I don’t ultimately think it does matter at the end of the day. But the revisionism erasing some of the core residential purposes for the EPCOT Project -> RCID is tedious and intellectually dishonest.

I can’t say I’ve read a lot, but from what I’ve seen the promotion of tourism and recreation seemed primary. But even if there were residential communities envisioned, why does it matter?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

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.

No. You’re one of the many presenting opinions as facts. I have proved every single assertion with proof.

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

What I said was debatable is your claim that the members of the FL house “unequivocally” knew that Disney would always be the sole land owner. Most likely, and even if they didn’t, it’s not relevant. The legislation was written for Disney to create and pay for their own municipal services.

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?

It gave the power to build a residential community, it also gave the power for the construction of a nuclear power plant. Neither of those things happened. What you did, was cherry pick something that wasn’t the primary purpose of the district. I proved that it wasn’t with FACTS, not opinions.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Dude, the person I was responding to said the Whereas portions said nothing about housing. That’s simply untrue. That was what I said. As I wrote, at the end of the day the changed direction of what Disney originally intended to do with the property to what eventually happened is not going to retroactively unravel the RCID. But let’s all be honest about the lobbying efforts and what’s actually in the enabling legislation. You’re gaslighting.

Why didn’t the state Supreme Court know this in 1968?

 

[Tha Realest]

I can’t say I’ve read a lot, but from what I’ve seen the promotion of tourism and recreation seemed primary. But even if there were residential communities envisioned, why does it matter?

some on here have argued residential communities were not contemplated in the legislation. That’s not true. It was not intended solely for tourism and recreation as many are suggesting based on a clear eyed reading of the legislation as well as the various efforts leading up to this legislation‘s passing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

some on here have argued residential communities were not contemplated in the legislation. That’s not true. It was not intended solely for tourism and recreation as many are suggesting based on a clear eyed reading of the legislation as well as the various efforts leading up to this legislation‘s passing.

Primary does not mean sole.

 

[Chi84]

some on here have argued residential communities were not contemplated in the legislation. That’s not true. It was not intended solely for tourism and recreation as many are suggesting based on a clear eyed reading of the legislation as well as the various efforts leading up to this legislation‘s passing.

But again, why was anyone arguing that point? One of the “whereas” clauses quoted above was simply establishing the public purposes necessary for the issuance of bonds so that public funds were not being improperly used for private purposes. Both tourism and residential communities would satisfy the requirement, right? I’m legitimately asking because I’m just learning about this.

If residential communities were contemplated but never materialized, what difference would it make?

 

[Tha Realest]

But again, why was anyone arguing that point? One of the “whereas” clauses quoted above was simply establishing the public purposes necessary for the issuance of bonds so that public funds were not being improperly used for private purposes. Both tourism and residential communities would satisfy the requirement, right?

If residential communities were contemplated but never materialized, what difference would it make?

I don‘t know their motivations or why they would argue that housing or residential communities were not mentioned in the “Whereas” clauses when it’s right there. And again, those provisions are informative as to the legislatures intent at the time of passage. To suggest that residential communities were not contemplated in the legislation - while ultimately, in my view, irrelevant - is dishonest and gaslighting. Let’s just be honest (not you, others) about the history of this legislation no matter how you ultimately view it.

To your other question, there’s been no indication their issuance of bonds was improper, or that they were used in a way that conflicted with the legislation.

Clearly Disney, at one point, intended and had considered having a controlled, planned community. For various reasons those plans were eventually abandoned. Whether the massive undertaking it would entail (MK construction alone basically killed Roy) or more prudential concerns over those citizens voting rights won out over the Epcot ideal is anyone’s guess. The fact they never materialized as contemplated doesn’t somehow unravel the legislation. They had the ability to do so and chose not to.

 

[Chi84]

I don‘t know their motivations. And again, those provisions are informative as to the legislatures intent at the time of passage. To suggest that residential communities were not contemplated in the legislation - while ultimately, in my view, irrelevant - is dishonest and gaslighting. Let’s just be honest (not you, others) about the history of this legislation no matter how you ultimately view it.

To your other question, there’s been no indication their issuance of bonds was improper, or that they were used in a way that conflicted with the legislation.

Clearly Disney, at one point, intended and had considered having a controlled, planned community. For various reasons those plans were eventually abandoned. Whether the massive undertaking it would entail (MK construction alone basically killed Roy) or more prudential concerns over those citizens voting rights won out over the Epcot ideal is anyone’s guess. The fact they never materialized as contemplated doesn’t somehow unravel the legislation. They had the ability to do so and chose not to.

So people are arguing about something that doesn’t matter? Both tourism and residential communities are mentioned but the latter never happened. And that fact has no consequence to what’s happening now. So I’m still confused

 

[Stripes]

It gave the power to build a residential community, it also gave the power for the construction of a nuclear power plant. Neither of those things happened.

There is in fact a residential community in Reedy Creek.

 

[hopemax]

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!

View attachment 708631

I have WAAAYYYY fewer posts in this one than that one.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

There is in fact a residential community in Reedy Creek.

View attachment 708676

That was my mistake, but I doubt anyone lives in these houses.

 

[Stripes]

That was my mistake, but I doubt anyone lives in these houses.

People actually live here. Disney rents the land to them for $75/month so that they can fill the seats for the city councils of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista.

Walt Disney World’s city residents help keep resort running

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 onl…

www.orlandosentinel.com