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

[Chi84]

That's a pragmatic argument, not a principled one. It's an "ends justify the means" argument that is used to justify all sorts of corporate welfare. "We're going to bribe this company to move here because they're going to create jobs in our community."

So you don't believe the Florida government should have entered into this particular business deal with Disney even though it foresaw major benefits to the state and its citizens? I mean, it's a major tourist destination that contributes to the economy. If you believe that states are wrong in offering any enticements to businesses to operate there, that's your right, but it's just not how things are done and it certainly doesn't justify you labeling it bribery, which has a specific legal definition.

I think the issue is that I'm not seeing any unlawful or unprincipled means, nor do I understand what you're calling corporate welfare. I don't think the ends or means were wrong.

How did Florida benefit from the change in the board?

 

[GoofGoof]

It looks like Article 1 of Florida's Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws around contracts:

Article I, Florida Constitution

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Oops. But it also protects freedom of speech and we see how that went

 

[LAKid53]

It looks like Article 1 of Florida's Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws around contracts:

Article I, Florida Constitution

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Yes, it also does.

In Fletcher v Peck, SCOTUS ruled that the contract was bringing between the two parties, even if it was illegally secured.

The Development Agreement at face is a contract.

 

[LAKid53]

Where talking about the pre-development time period when it was all swamps.

And yes, they absolutely could have taxed commercial, residential, agro, etc. at different rates.

Except the county cannot tax one commercial, agriculture, residential, etc., property owner at a different rate than the same type of property owner within the county...without a special district.

 

[Mr. Stay Puft]

It looks like Article 1 of Florida's Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws around contracts:

Article I, Florida Constitution

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

The state constitution says a lot of things that the Governor and the state legislature cannot do, but the state courts typically let them do it anyway. See our Governor drafted gerrymandered Congressional maps that were blatantly illegal but allowed anyway.

I'm worried, on the state level at least, DeSantis has his handpicked judges interpreting our laws and state constitution for however he says they need to. We're waiting to see if the state Supreme Court reinterprets our state constitution's "right to privacy" provision covers reproductive rights for women, after the state passed two consecutive abortion bans.

Personal feelings about that issue aside, that will be the litmus test to see if DeSantis really does have the state Supreme Court in his pocket, because the authors who got that provision written into the state constitution in the 1970s said explicitly that's what it was for, and the state courts have upheld that precedent ever since. DeSantis wants them to reinterpret that right to privacy does not include reproductive rights. So we'll see.

 

[peter11435]

Right. Corporate welfare. Bribes.

I sure wouldn’t want some one to bribe me by making me pay higher taxes and make me financially responsible for utilities and municipal infrastructure.

 

[Stripes]

Not that I disagree with you in this particular case but...

Not necessarily.

A court case could drag out for years. If the legislature wanted to act quickly, they can pass a law to take immediate effect.

True, but Disney can sue the state and the court would most likely issue an injunction until the matter was decided.

Same boat.

That said, I don’t necessary agree that the legislative push means that the district has no argument.

 

[flynnibus]

If developing the resort infrastructure cost $X and RCID paid for it by taxing Disney $X, then Orange County could have built the exact same infrastructure, also by taxing Disney $X.

AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTY....

Instead... Disney paid for it.

Quite the advantage!

 

[LAKid53]

You consider RCID a bribe? That’s honestly a ridiculous comparison.

Governments encourage economic development in their jurisdictions all the time. And yes, it often is a good thing.

Yes, they do. You don't think Amazon doesn't get incentives to build distribution centers? Leon County - where the state capital resides - gave Amazon lots of "incentives" to build a huge center next to I-10.

 

[JohnD]

Not that I disagree with you in this particular case but...

Not necessarily.

A court case could drag out for years. If the legislature wanted to act quickly, they can pass a law to take immediate effect.

They're in regular session now through May 5. So it seems they're going to come up with something before sine die.

 

[flynnibus]

we're talking about 1965 when there was no "everyone else."

uhh... no. The county was not the moon.

Nor does it make sense to change the law of the entire taxing authority of the state and constitution... instead of using the EXISTING construct of special districts.

I feel like you need to go back to the start of the thread. You're showing your ignorance of the whole thing while dropping in at the 11th hour and throwing out all these ill informed views.

 

[LAKid53]

“Breaking news. We have just learned that the local professional sports teams was bribed by local officials to build a new stadium. In exchange for owning and operating the stadium the team agreed to pay for all land acquisition, infrastructure and construction costs.”

Wait, the owners of professional sports teams "bribe" local governments to build new stadiums? Go figure.....

 

[LAKid53]

They're in regular session now through May 5. So it seems they're going to come up with something before sine die.

And we still don't have a budget....

 

[CaptainAmerica]

AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTY....

Instead... Disney paid for it.

Quite the advantage!

THERE WAS (practically) NOBODY ELSE IN THE COUNTY.

And those that were there would have participated in the huge boon that Disney brought to the region, so of course they should have participated in the infrastructure investment costs.

 

[threvester]

“Breaking news. We have just learned that the local professional sports teams was bribed by local officials to build a new stadium. In exchange for owning and operating the stadium the team agreed to pay for all land acquisition, infrastructure and construction costs.”

See foxboro stadium

 

[Disone]

The state shouldn't stop because right now you have one company that operates under a special setup which gives it an advantage over the other companies. If I were Universal or Seaworld I would hate to see Florida back off and allow Disney to maintain their advantage. Would you like it if the state you lived in gave your neighbor a lower tax rate for life?

Do you know about the massive elevated traffic circle for Universal's epic universe theme park? Universal is paying $160 million of the cost but Orange county is paying $125 million and the state of Florida is throwing in an extra 16 million.

How much did Orange and Osceola counties pay for the roads, bypasses and overpasses within the boundaries of Reedy Creek improvement district?

 

[flynnibus]

Both. In 1965 they could have said "the mill rate for themed entertainment enterprises is $X. Every themed entertainment enterprise will pay the same mill rate."

They're not charging Disney anything extra. They're charging "everyone" equally. it just so happens that Disney is the only "everyone" around.

again.. catch up.

1) Mil rates are capped
2) They wouldn't have been able to raise money on property that wasn't actually developed for that... and watch out.. it took DECADES for Disney to develop much of the land. All while infrastructure was built out decades prior.
3) The property spans multiple counties.... further complicating who supplies what

This whole idea wasn't haphazard. At least at the bare minimum you need to read the FL Law Review article from a great author to at least grasp the skeleton of what you believe happened.. https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=lr

 

[Disney Analyst]

This is where you might be wrong, and where DeSantis is really putting himself in a potentially dangerous position re: a Presidential campaign.

Playing heavily to the base will win you a primary, as you mentioned, but it could easily kill his chances in a general election. There are already moderate Republicans (and more importantly, independents) who have soured on him over the things he's done in Florida. Not solely this Disney issue, but it is part of it. He doesn't want to end up in a Trump situation where people that would normally vote Republican just don't vote.

DeSantis will not have the numbers he needs on a national level to win. Moderates, and independents are not going to vote for him, he is alienating many with his culture war, brutish style of politics, as opposed to focusing on real issues that actually impact Americans.

 

[ctrlaltdel]

THERE WAS NOBODY ELSE IN THE COUNTY.

A special district is a nice advantage because it carves out a specific area to tax to raise the necessary funds to operate, build capital projects, etc.

Disney essentially got to set up it's own local governing body because it is a much easier financing mechanism than paying for it themselves (now they have access to cheap municipal bonds and a planning structure to approve and build necessary projects) or burdening other county taxpayers with the load of financing the massive infrastructure necessary to build out and expand the property. This also had the effect of shielding said projects from political pressure since they were funding it themselves (through the special district).

 

[LAKid53]

THERE WAS (practically) NOBODY ELSE IN THE COUNTY.

And those that were there would have participated in the huge boon that Disney brought to the region, so of course they should have participated in the infrastructure investment costs.

Incorrect. Neither Orange County or Orlando were vacant in 1966.