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

[Chi84]

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.​

​

​

Fogelsong is also widely cited in the Florida law review article that shows the legislature knew much more than "Epcot" at the time they enacted the legislation. Did you read the article? Because it really goes into what everyone knew at the time using original sources.

 

[Chi84]

And the courts were evaluating and determining what?

The intent of the legislature.

 

[el_super]

And the courts were evaluating and determining what?

The constitutionality of enacting the legislation. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it wasn't constitutional, or even really that the courts got the decision wrong: even if RCID was primarily focused on tourism it still provided a benefit to Florida.

But even that 1968 ruling referenced the idea that multiple residents would live there and the idea was very much still alive in 1968 that EPCOT would be built with residents as a model community. It isn't at all outrageous or incorrect to think that the people who passed the legislation and the courts that ruled on its validity later, did so with the context that EPCOT was going to be built.

Would they have changed their mind if they knew how the residents were going to be treated, or that if Disney has no real plan to have real residents there? Who knows. It's all just speculation, as Emerson above alluded to.

Which is why it's impossible to accept AS FACT some of the things being posted here about it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The constitutionality of enacting the legislation. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it wasn't constitutional, or even really that the courts got the decision wrong: even if RCID was primarily focused on tourism it still provided a benefit to Florida.

But even that 1968 ruling referenced the idea that multiple residents would live there and the idea was very much still alive in 1968 that EPCOT would be built with residents as a model community. It isn't at all outrageous or incorrect to think that the people who passed the legislation and the courts that ruled on its validity later, did so with the context that EPCOT was going to be built.

Would they have changed their mind if they knew how the residents were going to be treated, or that if Disney has no real plan to have real residents there? Who knows. It's all just speculation, as Emerson above alluded to.

Which is why it's impossible to accept AS FACT some of the things being posted here about it.

No it is not. It is a fact, that the court determined the primary purpose as related to legislative intent. That it allowed for residential development (that always would have been a minority of the land use) doesn’t change the primary purpose. Primary does not mean sole or singular. They did not identify residential development as the primary purpose at the time, so claiming it just cannot be known is not true.

 

[el_super]

No it is not. It is a fact, that the court determined the primary purpose as related to legislative intent. That it allowed for residential development (that always would have been a minority of the land use) doesn’t change the primary purpose. Primary does not mean sole or singular. They did not identify residential development as the primary purpose at the time, so claiming it just cannot be known is not true.

Primary does not mean sole or singular. Which means it's perfectly valid to say that they were still considering EPCOT when they passed the legislation even if they thought (but never wrote down apparently) that the primary purpose of it was tourism. EPCOT, even if completely carried out as a model community, still would have served the purpose of tourism (assuming people wanted to come and see it).

 

[lazyboy97o]

Primary does not mean sole or singular. Which means it's perfectly valid to say that they were still considering EPCOT when they passed the legislation even if they thought (but never wrote down apparently) that the primary purpose of it was tourism. EPCOT, even if completely carried out as a model community, still would have served the purpose of tourism (assuming people wanted to come and see it).

There we go. All you’re kvetching about EPCOT was a pointless waste of time. Residential development was not the primary purpose of the district and even if pursued would not have changed the majority land ownership.

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

Please answer my question. I’m reposting it for you:

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)?

 

[Chi84]

Please answer my question. I’m reposting it for you:

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)?

But if the purpose of the legislation was primarily residential Disney wouldn’t have been interested, right? They wanted to build Disneyland East.

 

[el_super]

There we go. All you’re kvetching about EPCOT was a pointless waste of time. Residential development was not the primary purpose of the district and even if pursued would not have changed the majority land ownership.

You can't just admit that something you posted was misinformation: that it was just speculation instead of actual fact. The legislature and the courts ruling on RCID all went into this thinking that EPCOT was going to be built as a community of residents. Indisputable fact. Would they have done so knowing that Disney planned to deprive them of their ability to vote or that ultimately Disney wasn't going to built the thing at all: all speculation.

The broader point about this, the history of RCID and a lot of what Fogelsong wrote critical of the district, was the underlying unease brought up by a company "owning" a city and the later pivot from being an experimental city to just another theme park. People were uneasy about it in 1967 and they are even more skeptical today. That level of discomfort over the idea is exactly why defending it was untennable and why Disney has to surrender control today.

 

[Chi84]

You can't just admit that something you posted was misinformation: that it was just speculation instead of actual fact. The legislature and the courts ruling on RCID all went into this thinking that EPCOT was going to be built as a community of residents. Indisputable fact. Would they have done so knowing that Disney planned to deprive them of their ability to vote or that ultimately Disney wasn't going to built the thing at all: all speculation.

The broader point about this, the history of RCID and a lot of what Fogelsong wrote critical of the district, was the underlying unease brought up by a company "owning" a city and the later pivot from being an experimental city to just another theme park. People were uneasy about it in 1967 and they are even more skeptical today. That level of discomfort over the idea is exactly why defending it was untennable and why Disney has to surrender control today.

Wouldn’t the only answer be to dissolve the special district then? For some reason, you avoid answering some of my questions in favor of arguing with others.

 

[el_super]

Wouldn’t the only answer be to dissolve the special district then? For some reason, you avoid answering some of my questions in favor of arguing with others.

Oh yeah absolutely. I think the district probably should be dissolved. Obviously it's going to take longer than the governor's timeline would allow, but it should be a long term goal toward working to. Maybe the new board can make it a priority to stop taking on too much debt so that eventually when it is dissolved, and power is transferred back to the counties, the debt will not be.

 

[Chi84]

Oh yeah absolutely. I think the district probably should be dissolved. Obviously it's going to take longer than the governor's timeline would allow, but it should be a long term goal toward working to. Maybe the new board can make it a priority to stop taking on too much debt so that eventually when it is dissolved, and power is transferred back to the counties, the debt will not be.

Got it.

 

[Chi84]

Thanks @flynnibus @GoofGoof and @EPCOT-O.G. I think I understand it now.

First thought: Posters are trying to show that the state of Florida accidentally benefitted from its governor's decision to violate Disney's constitutional rights for political points.

Second thought: This one likely violates the TOS, so you guys will need to telepathically intercept my suggestion to stop doing one particular thing that may actually bring some sense into the discussion. Transmitting now . . .

 

[mightynine]

This one likely violates the TOS, so you guys will need to telepathically intercept my suggestion to stop doing one particular thing that may actually bring some sense into the discussion. Transmitting now . . .

Stop responding to people who will "re-interpret" anything to fit their opinion?

 

[Stripes]

Oh yeah absolutely. I think the district probably should be dissolved. Obviously it's going to take longer than the governor's timeline would allow, but it should be a long term goal toward working to. Maybe the new board can make it a priority to stop taking on too much debt so that eventually when it is dissolved, and power is transferred back to the counties, the debt will not be.

Wouldn’t it make sense to include that objective in the new legislation then?

Regardless, I’d be totally fine with the district being dissolved. I’m not okay with the governor being able to appoint an unelected, unaccountable board of political donors and cronies to exclusively oversee the operations of the largest taxpayer in the state and one that owns a national press organization.

 

[Tha Realest]

But if the purpose of the legislation was primarily residential Disney wouldn’t have been interested, right? They wanted to build Disneyland East.

I went back and watched the press conference where Walt and Roy sat next to the then Governor. The Gov was practically drooling at the prospect of a Disneyland. Walt’s EPCOT film reflected a multipurpose use, with a theme park, a massive community/utopia, surrounding something like a permanent worlds fair, and a resort aspect. Many biographers speak as to how Walt, post-Worlds Fair, became somewhat obsessed with becoming a city/community planner.

I’ve never said and do not believe that the primary purpose of the legislation was to permit residential use. I *do* believe Disney used the weenie of a “Disneyland East” to secure the sort of streamlined governmental authority that eventually became RCIA/RCID. I don’t believe they did so under false pretenses - to the contrary. I believe TWDC, as it existed at the time, had every intent to make that come about. Once Walt died and Roy and Marty Sklar had to pick up the baton cooler heads prevailed and they delivered in the most reasonable component first. I don’t think they induced the legislature fraudulently in 66/67. Corporate prerogatives change.

 

[GrumpyFan]

That's a really great book.

Indeed it is!
I would love to see it made into a story and turned into a movie. The aspect of the secrecy they went to keep it undercover is fascinating to me and I think it would play well visually.

 

[Tha Realest]

Thanks @flynnibus @GoofGoof and @EPCOT-O.G. I think I understand it now.

First thought: Posters are trying to show that the state of Florida accidentally benefitted from its governor's decision to violate Disney's constitutional rights for political points.

Second thought: This one likely violates the TOS, so you guys will need to telepathically intercept my suggestion to stop doing one particular thing that may actually bring some sense into the discussion. Transmitting now . . .

Message received.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Wouldn’t it make sense to include that objective in the new legislation then?

Regardless, I’d be totally fine with the district being dissolved. I’m not okay with the governor being able to appoint an unelected, unaccountable board of political donors and cronies to exclusively oversee the operations of the largest taxpayer in the state and one that owns a national press organization.

Yes, I think it very much would have been a factor. The inciting issue of bonds might well have been answered differently as the work in the late 1960s was focused on what are today the Magic Kingdom Resort Area and Hotel Plaza Blvd. It also seems likely that the question of whether or not the District was appropriate versus municipalities would be considered differently. Large scale residential developments were not new to Florida, Disney had even been briefly involved in another project near Palm Beach.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You can't just admit that something you posted was misinformation: that it was just speculation instead of actual fact. The legislature and the courts ruling on RCID all went into this thinking that EPCOT was going to be built as a community of residents. Indisputable fact. Would they have done so knowing that Disney planned to deprive them of their ability to vote or that ultimately Disney wasn't going to built the thing at all: all speculation.

The broader point about this, the history of RCID and a lot of what Fogelsong wrote critical of the district, was the underlying unease brought up by a company "owning" a city and the later pivot from being an experimental city to just another theme park. People were uneasy about it in 1967 and they are even more skeptical today. That level of discomfort over the idea is exactly why defending it was untennable and why Disney has to surrender control today.

And I even got the state legislature to go along with the misinformation!

https://oppaga.fl.gov/Documents/Reports/04-81.pdf