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

[lazyboy97o]

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

That’s not answering the question. You have repeatedly claimed there is some land being held by the District that others cannot use. What is this land? Tell us. Show us on a map.

 

[peter11435]

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

Why not? Everything else seems to be fair game.

 

[Stripes]

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.

How do you feel about the fact that the new board has the power to set local tax rates and spending levels and neither the landowners nor the residents have any vote on said representatives?

One of the founding principles of this country was the idea that taxation required representation. Now, I am not opposed to dissolving Reedy Creek, but having a state-appointed board setting local tax rates and spending levels is fundamentally immoral and un-American, in my opinion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

He didn’t make his point then because it was quickly realized that it would create a financial nightmare if it actually came to pass.

 

[GoofGoof]

How do you feel about the fact that the new board has the power to set local tax rates and spending levels and neither the landowners nor the residents have any vote on said representatives?

One of the founding principles of this country was the idea that taxation required representation. Now, I am not opposed to dissolving Reedy Creek, but having a state-appointed board setting local tax rates and spending levels is fundamentally immoral and un-American, in my opinion.

….and if Disney really shouldn’t have control of a municipal district then why not have the board appointed by the county? Because this has nothing to do with actual municipal services and everything to do with punishing Disney and attempting to control their content.

 

[Willmark]

I'm not sure if you watched it live, or read the reporting on it after the fact. I watched the whole thing live, and it was extremely clear that he was joking.

You would think we'd be familiar with this pattern by now.

1. Say something that's mildly controversial and probably inappropriate while maintaining plausible deniability.
2. Watch the media completely overreact.
3. Fundraise and campaign on #2 to great success because #2 is so disproportionate that it pushes #1 out of the news cycle.

It was bait. A troll. It wasn't a bona fide policy proposal. You can still say "baiting and trolling are bad" without resorting to the hyperbole that he literally wants to build a prison at Walt Disney World.

Maybe after seeing the cost increases at Disney it’ll be a Debtors Prison?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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.

EXACTLY! I understand it perfectly well. I'm not describing it differently than you are, I'm saying I understand what it is, exactly as you're describing it, and I don't like it.

"Turning it over" to a board controlled by themselves to be used exactly and only how they want, while getting it off of their balance sheet and eligible for municipal debt is exactly what I don't like.

 

[Skibum1970]

He didn’t make his point then because it was quickly realized that it would create a financial nightmare if it actually came to pass.

I know that my mentality just isn't that way but that doesn't mean you double-down on it. You make the best of it, quietly fix the relationship, and get on with running the state or preparing for a presidential run. He won't come out of this looking good if he keeps pushing. Again, a good thing that I'm not in politics as I don't have the right approach.

 

[LAKid53]

A for-profit enterprise should not have access to municipal bonds.

Either the whole place is a business and they should finance the thing through corporate debt and/or the issuance of equity, or the infrastructure is public and should be paid for by a bona fide government body.

The state Division of Bond Finance issues and reviews government bonds on behalf of state agencies and local governments. It would have reviewed every single supplement to the 1972 Ad Valorem Tax Bond Resolution. Furthermore, the Division collects, maintains, and disseminates information on tax-exempt bonds issued by units of local government.

If the Division deemed the RCID bonds were inappropriate, it would have challenged the original bonds and every single supplement.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I thought his big selling point was that he was supposed to have been the pro-business, open-up-Florida governor versus the big government Democrats. This muddies the water on that front, making him seem like an ideological warrior first who will use the state to go after private enterprise if they disagree with him.

All he's left with, then, is being a knock-off version of a far more effective troll.


The problem with this is that he is actually inflicting grief on a private company that is one of the big economic motors of his state. To go behind closed doors and wink at pro-business donors that he's actually on their side becomes less convincing when your actions show that you will go after their investments if it suits your political interests.

He’s picked a losing strategy and the polls prove it, he can’t out-Trump Trump, his only hope was appealing to more moderate and traditional Reps and he botched it.

He may have even doomed his chance to run in 2028 after Trump.

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.

I fall into that category, voted Trump in 2016, didn’t in 2020, won’t again in 2024. It’s not so much the other side gains a new voter, the side just loses a voter.

 

[V.i.n.c.e.n.t.]

You already know....

They haven't paid any taxes ever. They are the only special district in the entire universe. They have never inspected anything ever. They get to write all of their own laws. They can do anything they want whenever they want and its JUsT NOt FaIR

A simple google search shows you are wrong.

Who is the largest taxpayer in Florida?

Disney is the largest taxpayer in central Florida, paying $280 million in taxes from 2015 to 2020.

 

[LAKid53]

The company didn’t have access to municipal bonds… the district did.

The infrastructure in question is public and was paid for by a bona fide government body

Well, technically paid for by investors who purchased the bonds....

 

[LAKid53]

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).

Again, the bonds were not issued by TWDC. They are municipal bonds issued by RCID.

 

[GoofGoof]

EXACTLY! I understand it perfectly well. I'm not describing it differently than you are, I'm saying I understand what it is, exactly as you're describing it, and I don't like it.

"Turning it over" to a board controlled by themselves to be used exactly and only how they want, while getting it off of their balance sheet and eligible for municipal debt is exactly what I don't like.

You are kidding right? When a housing development is built and the county takes over maintenance of the new roads this is exactly what happens.….all the time. This is no different. Of all the things to find an issue with it’s really bizarre to have a problem with turning over land for roads or municipal services. That’s the whole point of the special district. Literally why they exist.

 

[peter11435]

EXACTLY! I understand it perfectly well. I'm not describing it differently than you are, I'm saying I understand what it is, exactly as you're describing it, and I don't like it.

"Turning it over" to a board controlled by themselves to be used exactly and only how they want, while getting it off of their balance sheet and eligible for municipal debt is exactly what I don't like.

They aren’t turning over undeveloped land to get it off their balance sheet. They are turning over land they own so that it can be developed into roads, bridges, fire stations, power plants, etc… using tax money they pay. Why shouldn’t they get to dictate how their tax dollars are spent developing their land?

 

[mkt]

Sure if you consider the 6 largest county in the state by populations over 350,000 residents all to be nobody

I'd argue that since it was an over 100% increase in population from the previous decade (340k btw, not 350k), the local government apparatus still hadn't caught up to Disney's needs, since they were catching up to their own population boom.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

How do you feel about the fact that the new board has the power to set local tax rates and spending levels and neither the landowners nor the residents have any vote on said representatives?

One of the founding principles of this country was the idea that taxation required representation. Now, I am not opposed to dissolving Reedy Creek, but having a state-appointed board setting local tax rates and spending levels is fundamentally immoral and un-American, in my opinion.

The new board is not just a clown show, they're the entire circus.

They replaced a corporate puppet board with a board that's openly antagonistic to the corporation, and that's not better. It was a huge misstep.

 

[Chi84]

You are kidding right? When a housing development is built and the county takes over maintenance of the new roads this is exactly what happens.….all the time. This is no different. Of all the things to find an issue with it’s really bizarre to have a problem with turning over land for roads or municipal services. That’s the whole point of the special district. Literally why they exist.

This is exactly why I keep pointing to earlier discussions and source material explaining special districts.

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

But they’re different types of documents, each requiring different mechanisms for public hearings and required notices.

Are you suggesting the January/Feb ‘23 development agreement wasn’t required to comply with public notice requirements (newspaper notices, mailings to land owners) because it “locks in” an earlier plan?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

They aren’t turning over undeveloped land to get it off their balance sheet. They are turning over land they own so that it can be developed into roads, bridges, fire stations, power plants, etc… using tax money they pay. Why shouldn’t they get to dictate how their tax dollars are spent developing their land?

Because the infrastructure that's being developed is for the operation of their business, it's not for public use. World Drive isn't fundamentally any different than the walking paths in Adventureland.