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

[CaptainAmerica]

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?

Who would maintain your roads in this hypo?

 

[Chi84]

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]

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.

 

[peter11435]

Who would maintain your roads in this hypo?

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?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

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?

Yeah. Disney pays nearly 87% of RCID taxes

 

[lazyboy97o]

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?

Clearly there should be government mandates caps on the acquisition of private property.

 

[Tha Realest]

That screenshot is literally page 5 in the Comprehensive Plan that the development agreement codified.

But the comprehensive plan and development agreement are separate documents.

 

[peter11435]

Yes, NOT letting a favored corporation wield state power is a classic move of fascists.

What state power did a corporation wield?

Again, none of this is happening because the state had legitimate issues with the power the District held, or the influence disney had on the district.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[peter11435]

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.

What public land?

What acreage are you referring to?

 

[Skibum1970]

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.

What's truly annoying is that DeSantis made his point when they eliminated Reedy Creek, although I'm not sure that it did anything. To keep going down this road is ridiculous. Threatening the goose that is laying golden eggs is career suicide. He could back down and quietly let it go away or stay the course and risk losing his political capital. Ego will never help. They might have career politicians or whatever but Disney has teams of lawyers and legal experts who excel at figuring out how to do that which benefits the company most. Learn when to say when.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

What land? The wetlands purchased by Disney and then given to the District to be set aside for conservation?

 

[LivinDISLife]

This thread is moving faster than a Monorail.

That's because it is currently down as it has yet to have its state inspection.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

What land? The wetlands purchased by Disney and then given to the District to be set aside for conservation?

I don't think we really want to air out the shenanigans Disney plays with their "conservation" land, do we?

 

[peter11435]

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.

You have a serious misunderstanding of the arrangement. Disney absolutely did buy up all of the land. And then they turned over very specific parcels of land to the district for the purpose of building roadways, or utilities, or other infrastructure.