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

peter11435

Well-Known Member
As I've said elsewhere, my primary objection is not to the existence of the district per se, it's to Disney's perpetual control of the district.

I understand that the district was a government body and that it was created through proper legislative means. I'm not questioning the legality. I'm questioning the morality of such a body being wholly controlled by a for-profit enterprise.
Can you site an example where the power was abused? Has there been a specific incident in the last 56 years that supports yours question of morality?

What if I started buying all of the land in my city and became the sole resident and landowner… should I be stopped? My city dissolved?

If DeSantis was doing all of this rationally because he questioned the morality of the district this would be a very different discussion.
 

ctrlaltdel

Well-Known Member
As I've said elsewhere, my primary objection is not to the existence of the district per se, it's to Disney's perpetual control of the district.

I understand that the district was a government body and that it was created through proper legislative means. I'm not questioning the legality. I'm questioning the morality of such a body being wholly controlled by a for-profit enterprise.
I do understand this. In an ideal world, I would agree. However, I work in municipal government and rarely there is an ideal world. You balance priorities and make practical decisions, making the best judgement you can when unique situations arise without an easy, or previously dealt with, answer.

Practically, I would say RCID has worked out quite well and been a large success in local government management, taking a unique task to provide services to the largest entertainment complex in the world and doing it mostly drama-free for 50+ years. It makes sense in this instance and I think we can argue from its history that while it has been very favorable to Disney, it has been well-managed.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
So it’s wrong that Universal wants to pay for SunRail service instead of making the people of Volusia County pay for it?
I'm sure Volusia County would welcome a voluntary contribution to their general fund from Comcast. But no I don't think it would be appropriate for Volusia County to cede municipal authority to a board appointed by Comcast in perpetuity that would control the rail line.

But ideally SunRail wouldn't be publicly funded in the first place so there's be no risk to Volusia or any other county teachers.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
As I've said elsewhere, my primary objection is not to the existence of the district per se, it's to Disney's perpetual control of the district.

I understand that the district was a government body and that it was created through proper legislative means. I'm not questioning the legality. I'm questioning the morality of such a body being wholly controlled by a for-profit enterprise.
What aspect of morality is involved in creating a special district in this case.

Also, it seems maybe you (understandably 😉) skipped a lot of the earlier discussion on RCID, why it was created and what it does as well as the specific functions of the board. Obviously, anyone can post anything as long as it doesn’t violate the TOS, but things you’re bringing up were countered with facts from original sources and articles that pre-dated this controversy.
 

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
Based on case law, the way to read this from the Florida constitution:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.​

Is:

No bill of attainder shall be passed.​
No ex post facto law shall be passed.​
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.​

In Calder v. Bull, the U.S. Supreme Court held that ex post facto laws only apply to criminal matters.

However, there have been subsequent rulings that appear to reverse Calder and uphold citizen's contract rights.

It will be interesting to see if the courts think Calder prevails or the ruling in Fletcher.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
As the sole land owner and resident it would be my taxes and my taxes alone that would fund road maintenance.

Who do you think was maintaining roads in the RCID?
I'm not talking about funding, I'm talking about authority.

I completely agree that the "Disney needs to pay their fair share" and "RCID was a tax break for Disney" arguments are bunk.

My problem is with authority, control, and power. Not financing.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
I'm not talking about funding, I'm talking about authority.

I completely agree that the "Disney needs to pay their fair share" and "RCID was a tax break for Disney" arguments are bunk.

My problem is with authority, control, and power. Not financing.
But what authority, control and power are you referencing?

What is Disney doing wring with respect to these areas and how is putting a new board in control going to fix them?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
But the comprehensive plan and development agreement are separate documents.
The development agreement locks in the comprehensive plan. The issue is that Disney is committed to doing something the state reviewed without objection. Now suddenly they need to change the comprehensive plan for unspecified reasons to serve some other unspecified uses.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
What state power are they wielding?
Forbidding development by third parties on public land, for one. They use municipal power to preserve their bubble. It's not what they're doing, it's what they're NOT doing.

And I LOVE the bubble. But they (the for-profit Walt Disney Company) should have to own the bubble if they want to control the bubble. They shouldn't get to hide acreage in a public shell.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about funding, I'm talking about authority.

I completely agree that the "Disney needs to pay their fair share" and "RCID was a tax break for Disney" arguments are bunk.

My problem is with authority, control, and power. Not financing.
If I became the sole landowner and resident in my city who else do you think would have that authority.

I already have authority, control, and power in my city. I have those things as a voter. Of course I’m currently limited to about 0.002% of the authority, control, and power since I am just one of thousands that have such power over my city. If I buy up all the property and become the only landowner and resident then I would have 100%.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
If I became the sole landowner and resident in my city who else do you think would have that authority.

I already have authority, control, and power in my city. I have those things as a voter. Of course I’m currently limited to about 0.002% of the authority, control, and power since I am just one of thousands that have such power over my city. If I buy up all the property and become the only landowner and resident then I would have 100%.
But Disney didn't buy up all of the land. Their quasi government owns some of the land and won't let anybody else buy it.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom