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

[MrPromey]

Government owned land in Florida isn't subjected to property tax. So no.

Is RCID a government entity that owns land?

 

[GBAB1973]

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.

Somehow this was never a problem for 50+ years, the two counties had no issues with the set up, the state had no issues with the set up and Disney essentially ran the property well.

I think people stating things like you did above (the morality of a corporation owning a special district) is just backfill to try to justify what DeSantis is doing here. One thing you never see is proponents of this move point out significant, real issues with how the district was set up and had been operating. Roads were maintained, buildings were built to higher standard that outside the district, Disney reimbursed the localities for services they used (such as county sheriff services), etc.

I'd be more willing to buy what the state legislature and DeSantis have done here if people could point out real, significant issues caused by the RCID/Disney that had an effect on public welfare.

 

[LittleBuford]

One can be concerned with both.

Yes, but one is a matter of personal preference whereas the other has significant legal and constitutional implications. I guess I’m just confused as to why you seem more concerned with the former.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It would be interesting to see a map which detailed which roads in the resort area were owned by Disney and which were owned and maintained by Reedy Creek. My understanding is that a lot of the roads that people assume are owned by Disney aren't actually owned or maintained by Disney.

Really? So your understanding of how things work is based on what if not easily available information?

 

[wdwmagic]

Disney has launched a website that essentially highlights the contributions the company makes to Central Florida and Florida as a whole. There’s also a section that talks about the Reedy Creek situation.

Disney in Florida

At Walt Disney World Resort we are honored to be part of the Central Florida community. Explore how we create a brighter future for our region.

disneyconnect.com

Reedy Creek situation:

Reedy Creek: The Facts You Need in 2024 - Disney in Florida

What is Reedy Creek – Central Florida Tourism Oversight District The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (formerly known as Reedy Creek Improvement District or RCID) is a special taxing district that was established by the Florida State Legislature in 1967 to provide and manage municipal...

disneyconnect.com

Any idea when this site started? Had not seen it before.

 

[Brian]

Any idea when this site started? Had not seen it before.

It's been around for about a year.

 

[Stripes]

Any idea when this site started? Had not seen it before.

Not entirely sure. It appears to be fairly new or at least updated recently with more information.

The RCID portion mentions the new name for the district and the estimate of 13,000 new jobs over the next decade that Iger mentioned in the annual meeting.

The disneyconnect website itself has been around for quite some time.

 

[LAKid53]

LAKid53​

Because you keep quoting without actually posting anything, I can't respond directly to you so...

Do you not see what I said? DISNEY would not have been able to issue government bonds.

We agree on this, right?

Disney can't issue government bonds but RCID could?

Right?

So if Disney owns the land and wants to build the garages, they can't issue bonds.

But if Disney owns the land and transfers ownership to RCID, RCID can issue bonds, right?

How did RCID get the land that it owns?

You seem too smart for me to have to spell out what I'm saying, in such simple terms.

Again, I'm not against any of this. I disagree with Captain's take but I'm not pretending I don't understand what he's saying, either.

You said "Disney would not have been able to issue municipal bonds". Even WITH the existence of RCID, TWDC couldn't issue municipal bonds.

Is RCID a government entity that owns land?

List of land owners from a May 2021 RCID Board meeting...

None of the land owners that are governmental bodies would pay property taxes, including RCID.

The State of Florida doesn't pay property taxes to Leon County on all the land it owns in the county.

 

[mkt]

Any idea when this site started? Had not seen it before.

Domain was registered in 2006, earliest Internet Wayback Machine entry is April 7 2022

 

[Tha Realest]

You said "Disney would not have been able to issue municipal bonds". Even WITH the existence of RCID, TWDC couldn't issue municipal bonds.



List of land owners from a May 2021 RCID Board meeting...

View attachment 710953

None of the land owners that are governmental bodies would pay property taxes, including RCID.

The State of Florida doesn't pay property taxes to Leon County on all the land it owns in the county.

It should be pretty easy to establish whether or not they were mailed the development agreement that was voted on in January and February of this year.

 

[MrPromey]

Gated communities by their very nature have private roads. WDW isn't a gated community.

I never said it was but what you said was "That's akin to saying roads in neighborhoods aren't public."

I'd say my neighborhood has a lot more in common with what most people would call a neighborhood than WDW does but whatever.

For someone jumping all over my words for some weird reason, you sure don't seem to be choosing your own very well.

You said "Disney would not have been able to issue municipal bonds". Even WITH the existence of RCID, TWDC couldn't issue municipal bonds.



List of land owners from a May 2021 RCID Board meeting...

View attachment 710953

None of the land owners that are governmental bodies would pay property taxes, including RCID.

The State of Florida doesn't pay property taxes to Leon County on all the land it owns in the county.

Congratulations!

GOLD STAR!!!

HECK, THREE GOLD STARS!!!



So Disney as a private company cannot issue bonds - GREAT, WE AGREE!

RCID does not pay taxes for the property it owns - GREAT, WE AGREE!

RCID could (when it still existed) issue public bonds - I THINK we agree?

So if RCID did not exist and Disney wanted state-of-the-art Parking Garages for its Disney Springs or a special overpass right near the parking entrance to MK, do you think they would have:

A) handed over that land to the county and asked them to build them?

B) kept the property private and built them, themselves?

If B, we can agree Disney would not have been able to issue public bonds themselves since they are a private company, right? That means they would have had to pay directly up front or taken on their own debt to finance them, right? They also would be paying property taxes on them, right?

That's a unique benefit, for the area they have/had, in that they have their own government entity that essentially serves at their (Disney's) pleasure, wouldn't you say?

I can't imagine them going with option, A - can you? I don't even want to imagine it, personally given the way public works usually unfold.

Again, I was happy with the arrangement. I don't agree with Capt. I have no argument against how things worked moral or otherwise but I'm not pretending to be totally blind to his position.

I think it's okay to disagree with someone without having to pretend they're taking crazy pills.

Anyway, I'm out - if you want to find something new to disagree with that I've written, knock yourself out but for the record - I DID NOT WANT THE DISILLUSION OF THE RCID. I FELT IT WAS A BENEFIT TO DISNEY, THE STATE, THE GUESTS AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. I DO NOT AGREE WITH OUR GOVERNOR'S ACTIONS IN ANY WAY REGARDING THIS...

Want to make that clear so nobody says "are you suggesting" or otherwise tries to put words in my mouth. The bold part above is my position - nothing else suggested or implied.

..

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I wonder if any states are talking to Disney behind the scenes about granting incentives to open a new park in their states? A third US park is highly unlikely but if a state could convince them it would be very smart move from a tourism perspective.

After the garage debacle and the hotel debacle I thought Disney would be crazy to invest any more than necessary (to maintain current attendance) in Anaheim, now I think they’d be crazy to invest any more money than necessary in FL either.

The fact they’re working towards Disneyland forward proves Disney forgives and forgets political battles, so Orlando likely won’t suffer from this long term, but I’d be looking for a more friendly environment to invest in if I were Disney.

 

[LAKid53]

It should be pretty easy to establish whether or not they were mailed the development agreement that was voted on in January and February of this year.

A simple email or phone call would do.

 

[GBAB1973]

You said "Disney would not have been able to issue municipal bonds". Even WITH the existence of RCID, TWDC couldn't issue municipal bonds.



List of land owners from a May 2021 RCID Board meeting...

View attachment 710953

None of the land owners that are governmental bodies would pay property taxes, including RCID.

The State of Florida doesn't pay property taxes to Leon County on all the land it owns in the county.

The part about land owners that are governmental bodies like RCID wouldn't pay property taxes doesn't appear to be accurate.

For example, attached is a parcel owned by RCID, as you can see they definitely pay property taxes on the parcel.

Orange County Property Appraiser

ocpaweb.ocpafl.org

EDIT: Looks like I am partially wrong. The Orange Parking Garage in Disney Springs, that parcel is owned by RCID and has a property tax exemption. My bad.

EDIT II: It appears that the district pays property taxes on properties that house municipal services like sewer and water that benefit the district. But the parking garages, for example, were granted property tax exemptions because they were seen as a benefit to the county at large providing parking to area residents who could visit/eat/shop at Disney Springs.

 

[GoofGoof]

I never said it was but what you said was "That's akin to saying roads in neighborhoods aren't public."

I'd say my neighborhood has a lot more in common with what most people would call a neighborhood than WDW does but whatever.

For someone jumping all over my words for some weird reason, you sure don't seem to be choosing your own very well.


Congratulations!

GOLD STAR!!!

HECK, THREE GOLD STARS!!!



So Disney as a private company cannot issue bonds - GREAT, WE AGREE!

RCID does not pay taxes for the property it owns - GREAT, WE AGREE!

RCID could (when it still existed) issue public bonds - I THINK we agree?

So if RCID did not exist and Disney wanted state-of-the-art Parking Garages for its Disney Springs or a special overpass right near the parking entrance to MK, do you think they would have:

A) handed over that land to the county and asked them to build them?

B) kept the property private and built them, themselves?

If B, we can agree Disney would not have been able to issue public bonds themselves since they are a private company, right? That means they would have had to pay directly up front or taken on their own debt to finance them, right? They also would have had to pay property taxes on these newly built structures, right?

That's a unique benefit, for the area they had, in that they have their own government entity that essentially serves at their (Disney's) pleasure, wouldn't you say?

I can't imagine them going with option, A - can you? I don't even want to imagine it, personally given the way public works usually unfold.

Again, I was happy with the arrangement. I don't agree with Capt. I have no argument against how things worked moral or otherwise but I'm not pretending to be totally blind to his position.

I think it's okay to disagree with someone without having to pretend they're taking crazy pills.

Anyway, I'm out - if you want to find something new to disagree with that I've written, knock yourself out but for the record - I DID NOT WANT THE DISILLUSION OF THE RCID. I FELT IT WAS A BENEFIT TO DISNEY, THE STATE, THE GUESTS AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. I DO NOT AGREE WITH OUR GOVERNOR'S ACTIONS IN ANY WAY REGARDING THIS...

Want to make that clear so nobody says "are you suggesting" or otherwise tries to put words in my mouth. The bold part above is my position - nothing else suggested or implied.

..

I don’t disagree that without RCID Disney would have most likely just built the garages themselves, but option A would not be unheard of either. Universal is having the county build them a road to their new park (splitting the cost) and the county will I assume be paying for their portion with municipal debt.

 

[Chi84]

I never said it was but what you said was "That's akin to saying roads in neighborhoods aren't public."

I'd say my neighborhood has a lot more in common with what most people would call a neighborhood than WDW does but whatever.

For someone jumping all over my words for some weird reason, you sure don't seem to be choosing your own very well.


Congratulations!

GOLD STAR!!!

HECK, THREE GOLD STARS!!!



So Disney as a private company cannot issue bonds - GREAT, WE AGREE!

RCID does not pay taxes for the property it owns - GREAT, WE AGREE!

RCID could (when it still existed) issue public bonds - I THINK we agree?

So if RCID did not exist and Disney wanted state-of-the-art Parking Garages for its Disney Springs or a special overpass right near the parking entrance to MK, do you think they would have:

A) handed over that land to the county and asked them to build them?

B) kept the property private and built them, themselves?

If B, we can agree Disney would not have been able to issue public bonds themselves since they are a private company, right? That means they would have had to pay directly up front or taken on their own debt to finance them, right? They also would be paying property taxes on them, right?

That's a unique benefit, for the area they have/had, in that they have their own government entity that essentially serves at their (Disney's) pleasure, wouldn't you say?

I can't imagine them going with option, A - can you? I don't even want to imagine it, personally given the way public works usually unfold.

Again, I was happy with the arrangement. I don't agree with Capt. I have no argument against how things worked moral or otherwise but I'm not pretending to be totally blind to his position.

I think it's okay to disagree with someone without having to pretend they're taking crazy pills.

Anyway, I'm out - if you want to find something new to disagree with that I've written, knock yourself out but for the record - I DID NOT WANT THE DISILLUSION OF THE RCID. I FELT IT WAS A BENEFIT TO DISNEY, THE STATE, THE GUESTS AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. I DO NOT AGREE WITH OUR GOVERNOR'S ACTIONS IN ANY WAY REGARDING THIS...

Want to make that clear so nobody says "are you suggesting" or otherwise tries to put words in my mouth. The bold part above is my position - nothing else suggested or implied.

..

Did you read the article that's been cited several times about how and why the RCID was created? It's long, but it speaks expressly to the parties wanting exactly what you're talking about.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Exhibit 1 of the land development agreement is the description of the property.

”The property is defined as the following property less and except any portions of the following property that are, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, owned in fee simple by a party other than Reedy Creek Improvement District or Master Developer.”

Statute 163.3225(2)(a) specifies that mailings must be to affected land owners.

Section 62 of the original charter which was law at the time also stated “Any action required under this Act or under chapter 298, Florida Statutes, to be taken on notice to the landowners of the District and on public hearing for the purpose of receiving and passing on objections by landowners may be taken without such notice or hearing upon the written consent of all of the landowners affected by such action.”

So argument is that the agreement is invalid because the District did not mail a notice to Disney, a party to the agreement who in all likelihood requested the agreement. And Disney asking for an agreement would also not constitute written consent. So the District needs a mulligan because the District, controlled by Disney, did not tell Disney what Disney was up to?

And my wild thought is that doing the deal without any public notice might have been allowed since Chapter 163 didn’t repeal the relevant portions of the original Reedy Creek Improvement District act.

 

[Chi84]

The two are unrelated.

I'm pleased to see a repeal of corporate welfare. I'm not bothered that the reason for the repeal of the corporate welfare is a petty political squabble.

So you're okay with the reason as long as it achieves a desirable result. The "petty political squabble" according to the governor's own words is Disney speaking out against a law it opposed.

A lot of people object - as a matter of principle - to "ends justifies the means" philosophy.

 

[GoofGoof]

Exhibit 1 of the land development agreement is the description of the property.

”The property is defined as the following property less and except any portions of the following property that are, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, owned in fee simple by a party other than Reedy Creek Improvement District or Master Developer.”

Statute 163.3225 (2)(a) specifies that mailings must be to affected land owners.

Section 62 of the original charter which was law at the also stated “Any action required under this Act or under chapter 298, Florida Statutes, to be taken on notice to the landowners of the District and on public hearing for the purpose of receiving and passing on objections by landowners may be taken without such notice or hearing upon the written consent of all of the landowners affected by such action.”

So argument is that the agreement is invalid because the District did not mail a notice to Disney, a party to the agreement who in all likelihood requested the agreement. And Disney asking for an agreement would also not constitute written consent. So the District needs a mulligan because the District, controlled by Disney, did not tell Disney what Disney was up to?

And my wild thought is that doing the deal without any public notice might have been allowed since Chapter 163 didn’t repeal the relevant portions of the original Reedy Creek Improvement District act.

Yeah, so the “didn’t mail notice” Hail Mary is clearly not going to work. If Disney provided the contract to the district to be read at the meeting then they clearly had notice it existed.

 

[Bullseye1967]

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.

There were 250K people in Orlando in 1965. That is hardly a little town with a stoplight and a post office. Through the 60s pre Walt, they were growing about 10K a year.