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

[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.

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

But the sole landowner isn’t just “Disney.”

As someone posted earlier, here are the previously recognized land owners within RCID. Now are some auxiliaries of “Disney?” Perhaps. But many are not. Shouldn’t be difficult to find out, for example, if the FL DOT was mailed a notice of intent as required by law.

 

[LAKid53]

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.

Any idea how that debt will be retired?

 

[lazyboy97o]

But the sole landowner isn’t just “Disney.”

As someone posted earlier, here are the previously recognized land owners within RCID:

”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.”

 

[GBAB1973]

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.

Again, define "corporate welfare".

The benefits Disney gets from having their own district isn't really tied to tax breaks or exemptions, it was tied to having control over their land and infrastructure projects. That's the real value in the district (as it is in other districts such as the various ones the comprise The Villages, for example). And it operated smoothly and efficiently for decades. So I am struggling to find the corporate welfare angle here.

By a strict definition, corporate welfare is direct payments or subsidies bestowed on a corporation. That's really not happening here. What was bestowed to Disney was simply control over how they operated their lands.

 

[LAKid53]

But the sole landowner isn’t just “Disney.”

As someone posted earlier, here are the previously recognized land owners within RCID. Now are some auxiliaries of “Disney?” Perhaps. But many are not. Shouldn’t be difficult to find out, for example, if the FL DOT was mailed a notice of intent as required by law. View attachment 710976

Good luck getting that info out of DOT.

 

[GoofGoof]

But the sole landowner isn’t just “Disney.”

As someone posted earlier, here are the previously recognized land owners within RCID. Now are some auxiliaries of “Disney?” Perhaps. But many are not. Shouldn’t be difficult to find out, for example, if the FL DOT was mailed a notice of intent as required by law. View attachment 710976

The post I quoted spells out that the agreement does not impact the land owned by anyone other than Disney and RCID.

 

[jpeden]

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.

I believe the relevant statute says that mailing the notice is required, but failure to mail the notice in and of itself is not grounds to invalidate any agreement related to the said notice IF the meeting was properly noticed as required.

The meeting was properly noticed in the Orlando Sentinel as required by law. This “didn’t mail” Hail Mary absolutely does not pass legal muster. Even if they found a sympathetic judge in Florida, this thing is going to end up in federal court and no federal judge is going to undo 230+ years of contract law precedence.

 

[LAKid53]

Again, define "corporate welfare".

The benefits Disney gets from having their own district isn't really tied to tax breaks or exemptions, it was tied to having control over their land and infrastructure projects. That's the real value in the district (as it is in other districts such as the various ones the comprise The Villages, for example). And it operated smoothly and efficiently for decades. So I am struggling to find the corporate welfare angle here.

By a strict definition, corporate welfare is direct payments or subsidies bestowed on a corporation. That's really not happening here. What was bestowed to Disney was simply control over how they operated their lands.

Agree.

 

[GBAB1973]

Agree.

Capt later said "corporate welfare" doesn't have to involve monetary benefits but reducing red tape others have to face.

OK, well The Villages operates as a special district. They also avoid the red tape that others face in terms of how they operate their properties. Using Capt's logic, The Villages districts should have been shut down too. And yet they weren't. Not hard to figure out why.

This isn't about ending "corporate welfare" in FL.

 

[GoofGoof]

I believe the relevant statute says that mailing the notice is required, but failure to mail the notice in and of itself is not grounds to invalidate any agreement related to the said notice IF the meeting was properly noticed as required.

The meeting was properly noticed in the Orlando Sentinel as required by law. This “didn’t mail” Hail Mary absolutely does not pass legal muster. Even if they found a sympathetic judge in Florida, this thing is going to end up in federal court and no federal judge is going to undo 230+ years of contract law precedence.

The statute only requires that the mailing go to affected landowners. @lazyboy97o posted the section of the agreement that exempts any landowner other than Disney and RCID from the agreement. Therefore the only person the district would need to mail the notice to would be Disney who clearly already had notice.

 

[LAKid53]

I believe the relevant statute says that mailing the notice is required, but failure to mail the notice in and of itself is not grounds to invalidate any agreement related to the said notice IF the meeting was properly noticed as required.

The meeting was properly noticed in the Orlando Sentinel as required by law. This “didn’t mail” Hail Mary absolutely does not pass legal muster. Even if they found a sympathetic judge in Florida, this thing is going to end up in federal court and no federal judge is going to undo 230+ years of contract law precedence.

I meant call or email those required to be noticed to check IF they received said required notice.

I'm beginning to think the new Board doesn't know what it's doing and just throwing things out there. I'm pretty sure staff at RCID knew what their legal obligations were regarding notice.

 

[LAKid53]

Capt later said "corporate welfare" doesn't have to involve monetary benefits but reducing red tape others have to face.

OK, well The Villages operates as a special district. They also avoid the red tape that others face in terms of how they operate their properties. Using Capt's logic, The Villages districts should have been shut down too. And yet they weren't. Not hard to figure out why.

There are over 1800 special districts in the state.

 

[GoofGoof]

There are over 1800 special districts in the state.

And special districts aren’t unique to FL. This type of arrangement exists in different forms in many places.

 

[LAKid53]

And special districts aren’t unique to FL. This type of arrangement exists in different forms in many places.

But we are talking just about Florida.