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

[Stripes]

Probably means nothing but there is a “Special Meeting” of the city councils of BL and LBV on Thursday.

The agendas have been published. Doesn’t appear to be anything exciting unless there‘s something hidden in the “Other Business“ section.

None of the other scheduled meetings mention anything about being “special“ though. However, the March 8 meeting was cancelled so that could be why.

 

[ohioguy]

No one messes with the Mouse. Ever.

 

[lewisc]

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

Residential communities were built; celebrations and golden oaks. Land for both was deannexed prior to construction. I don’t think it matters.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Except it’s being distorted here.

Epcot was never to give residents voting power and representation. Avoiding that was part of the plan from the start and part of the design everyone bought into. So to bring missing epcot up as why disney being in control now wasn’t the intention at creation is factual wrong and disingenuous. It’s ignorant of the process at the time no less.

And while epcot city is part of why rcid was created - it is not the only reason, nor the defining reason rcid was created. So again using the omission of epcot as an argument of why rcid isn’t being used today as intended is again incorrect and disingenuous.

Additionally, disney demonstrated how the model was beneficial even without the experimental community ever being developed. So there is even more credit to the remainder of the justifications the arrangement was setup for, even without all plans being realized.

epcot was part of the vision and justification- but disney didn’t do a bait and switch. The creation of RCID was central to disney’s development approach to the entire property- not epcot alone.

Florida didn’t feel duped and rcid’s purpose predates and surpasses epcot city.

Rcid was an enabler of the epcot concept, not solely for Epcot. That is the falsehood being debunked

 

[GoofGoof]

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?

My guess why this is brought up is this:

1. Any rational thinking person knows at this point that RCID was attacked as a direct punishment to Disney for speaking out against a particular bill.
2. Most people also agree it was government overreach and generally inappropriate, even supporters of the Governor.
3. However, a subset of people who support the Governor politically don’t want to admit any of his actions are wrong even though they probably do believe that. Anyone who believes the action itself is appropriate “as is“ would have no reason to “dream up” a rationalization around building houses.
4. So as a result they are looking for a way to “justify” the action. So if the district was setup for Disney to build houses and Disney never built houses then they can make the argument that it’s justified to remove the district.

What is ironic about this situation is the guy pulling the strings never talked about RCID not building houses. He never talked about RCID as an issue in his various political roles over the years. He openly tells anyone who listens his reason for doing this was to punish Disney. He said it when the original action was taken, he said it again when they reversed the original highly flawed plan and seized control of the district personally, he says it repeatedly in speeches now, he wrote it in a book. Somehow despite all of this his supporters want to try to justify the action by claiming RCID was somehow always an issue and he is just fixing it.

 

[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

This whole paper is a good read, but specifically on the topic of whether RCID required a residential component to be valid this is a cut from page 26:

The duality of this benefit persuaded the court that the bond issuance would attain the level of advancing a general public purpose within the state.198 Of course, one might note that the court’s holding appeared to be based in part on “inhabitants” ultimately residing in the District.199 And, while even today, that does occur as discussed herein, Disney’s plans for an extensive residential component never materialized.

Would that have altered the court’s opinion had it known this? Obviously, any proposed answer is simply founded on speculation. However, in this instance, the court’s emphasis on the project’s extensive tourism benefits would seem to indicate that—even without residents—the District’s activities would have risen to the level of a “public purpose.” Indeed, the court itself noted that “the integrated plan or workings of the District . . . are essentially and primarily directed toward encouraging and developing tourism” for both residents and nonresidents of the state.200

This is significant as Florida law has consistently held that a “public purpose”201 may still result even if a private entity has realized a distinct benefit.202 Generally, courts have held that the private benefit should be only “incidental” in scope.203 Exactly when the “incidental” threshold is cleared does not lend itself to a bright-line rule. For instance, the Florida Supreme Court held that issuing industrial bonds worth $9 million for purchasing land and constructing a private television station violated this threshold.204 The court held this to be the case if “the benefits to a private party are themselves the paramount purpose of a project, then the bonds will not be validated even if the public gains something therefrom.”205 Florida law seems to be especially lenient when considering “public purpose” issues related to tourism and entertainment matters,206 which is not surprising considering the significant role that these industries play in the state’s overall economy. As a result, the court’s expansive definition in Reedy Creek hardly fell outside the norm of both past and future jurisprudence on the issue.

So the FL Supreme Court looked at the legality of the RCID structure and in part concluded that “the integrated plan or workings of the District . . . are essentially and primarily directed toward encouraging and developing tourism“ So I think we can put to bed any debate on whether the district was created for tourism or residential.

 

[Tha Realest]

So the FL Supreme Court looked at the legality of the RCID structure and in part concluded that “the integrated plan or workings of the District . . . are essentially and primarily directed toward encouraging and developing tourism“ So I think we can put to bed any debate on whether the district was created for tourism or residential.

It’s not a binary choice. It could have been created to permit both, and there’s every indication that was the case. It’s really immaterial at the end of the day, but the insistence that residential was never contemplated or part of the legislative history is simply false.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

It’s not a binary choice. It could have been created to permit both, and there’s every indication that was the case. It’s really immaterial at the end of the day, but the insistence that residential was never contemplated or part of the legislative history is simply false.

Nobody is saying that residential building wasn't or isn't permitted. They're saying the focus on EPCOT as a city is a dishonest distraction because it was never  required nor was it the primary purpose of RCID. When certain posters frame it as some sort of bait and switch in order to justify the unjustifiable and reframe the argument, people are naturally going to call them out for it.

 

[castlecake2.0]

It’s not a binary choice. It could have been created to permit both, and there’s every indication that was the case. It’s really immaterial at the end of the day, but the insistence that residential was never contemplated or part of the legislative history is simply false.

It was contemplated, but I think the point is that it wasn’t necessary for the District to remain valid

 

[lazyboy97o]

The building code classifies hotels as Group R - Residential occupancy.

 

[Tha Realest]

Nobody is saying that residential building wasn't or isn't permitted. They're saying the focus on EPCOT as a city is a dishonest distraction because it was never  required nor was it the primary purpose of RCID. When certain posters frame it as some sort of bait and switch in order to justify the unjustifiable and reframe the argument, people are naturally going to call them out for it.

I jumped into this discussion after an earlier poster explicitly wrote that housing wasn’t contemplated in the Whereas portions of the legislation. That was what I was responding to. It’s also clear the lobbying efforts to the legislature contemplated a vast residential community. Setting aside the legalities of denying renters the right to vote in elections in communities where they reside, Disney ultimately opted not to permit that to occur.

I personally don’t think it was a bait and switch because I do think the company in 66 intended to do just that, and the legislative framework at the time reflected that. Post Walt the company was in upheaval, and my personal view is that the enormity of the WDW undertaking coupled with the realization that bringing in tens of thousands of voters into your tightly controlled community wouldn’t be the best idea is what caused the decision to abandon the planned community concept in favor of a permanent world’s fair paradigm. “Bait and switch” implies nefarious intentions and false inducement, and I don't think there’s any evidence of that on Disney’s part.

 

[GoofGoof]

It’s not a binary choice. It could have been created to permit both, and there’s every indication that was the case. It’s really immaterial at the end of the day, but the insistence that residential was never contemplated or part of the legislative history is simply false.

I never said at any time that residential was never contemplated. The original court ruling was that the district was essentially and primarily directed toward encouraging and developing tourism. That is the basis for a “public purpose” and for the district legally existing and the district is still to this day achieving that purpose.

 

[Tha Realest]

I never said at any time that residential was never contemplated. The original court ruling was that the district was essentially and primarily directed toward encouraging and developing tourism. That is the basis for a “public purpose” and for the district legally existing and the district is still to this day achieving that purpose.

I think we’re talking past one another and ascribing arguments others have made to one another. My apologies if you’ve interpreted that I’ve suggested you’ve said as much.

As I don’t think the use (or non-use) of the residential authorization/components of the legislation mean much, I’m not concerned with whether a purpose was “primary” or not. My general view is that the legislature and the legislature alone is the best source for its intent in crafting their laws. I don’t think the case oft cited is incorrect or has unsound reasoning, but I’m also persuaded in that it dealt with the ability under the state constitution for the issuance of drainage revenue bonds. Whether the purpose of the act was tourism, recreation, residential, commercial, or whatnot (and none of those are oppositional to one another) is immaterial. The decision’s view on this, in my view, is dicta, as it’s unnecessary to resolve the issues before it- if the decision substituted “residential communities” for “tourism and recreation,” or added that clause as a purpose for the law, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome here - which is that the law was constitutionally sufficient.

 

[el_super]

My guess why this is brought up is this:

You don't have to guess. This pretty much started with my objection to this statement in response to @thomas998 claiming that the house that passed the bill had been considering EPCOT when they did so:

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

This wasn't really verifiable information, but it was passed off as the truth of the matter with ensuing claims of lies and misinformation being levied toward those that disagreed with it.

My primary objection here isn't anything the governor said or did, but the downright bullying that has occurred in this thread trying to shut down any opposing opinions on RCID's intent, the history or Disney's motives... you know the kind of topics that a Disney board should be focused on rather than using this as a proxy to have a political discussion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You don't have to guess. This pretty much started with my objection to this statement in response to @thomas998 claiming that the house that passed the bill had been considering EPCOT when they did so:



This wasn't really verifiable information, but it was passed off as the truth of the matter with ensuing claims of lies and misinformation being levied toward those that disagreed with it.

My primary objection here isn't anything the governor said or did, but the downright bullying that has occurred in this thread trying to shut down any opposing opinions on RCID's intent, the history or Disney's motives... you know the kind of topics that a Disney board should be focused on rather than using this as a proxy to have a political discussion.

“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”

 

[el_super]

So the FL Supreme Court looked at the legality of the RCID structure and in part concluded that “the integrated plan or workings of the District . . . are essentially and primarily directed toward encouraging and developing tourism“ So I think we can put to bed any debate on whether the district was created for tourism or residential.

Here's some more quotes from Foglesong for consideration:

Harlan Hanson, director of the area's tri-county planning agency, said of the presentation: "It was as though they'd put a gun to our head. They were offering to invest $600 million, and there was the glamour of Disney. You could hardly be against that. We were all just spellbound." Recalled a senator's aide who was there: "We all thought they were going to build Epcot, a model community. That's what they talked about." One state senator, L. K. Edwards from Ocala, part of the rural "pork-chop gang" that controlled the state legislature, was quick to grasp what Disney proposed. He had heard about company towns from his friends up north, he said during the question period. If the Disney people wanted to build a company town down here, he guessed that was okay.​

Elrod arranged for Helliwell and other Disney representatives to appear before a House-Senate joint meeting to explain the legislation. There, Helliwell spoke of "residents" in the two Disney towns, and he and the other Disney representatives talked about including public school sites and other public needs in their two cities-as as if a working community would be built.​

​

​

 

[el_super]

“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”

I think you are confused. We are referring to what the lawmakers considered when they enacted the legislation, not what the courts decided after the fact. That phrase does not appear in the enabling legislation. Perhaps you should read it?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think you are confused. We are referring to what the lawmakers considered when they enacted the legislation, not what the courts decided after the fact. That phrase does not appear in the enabling legislation. Perhaps you should read it?

And the courts were evaluating and determining what?

 

[Tha Realest]

And the courts were evaluating and determining what?

The constitutionality of issuing drainage revenue bonds.

Do you honestly believe the outcome would have been different if the purpose of the legislation was viewed as primarily residential vs tourism/recreational (to the extent those purposes are oppositional)?

 

[lazyboy97o]

The constitutionality of issuing drainage revenue bonds.

Do you honestly believe the outcome would have been different if the purpose of the legislation was viewed as primarily residential vs tourism/recreational (to the extent those purposes are oppositional)?

The court outright states what they have determined to be the primary purpose of the legislation. It is completely unambiguous. The whole purpose of the case was to stress test the entire district, not just bonds for a specific purpose. The statement is in relation to the entire district.