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

[Cliff]

The entire action is unconstitutional because it destroys a functioning governing body and replaces it with logistical costs to reorganize it and saddles the state with debt and operating expenses that now have to be collected.

But we live in a post-responsibility world. Politicians are doing illegal or unconstitutional things all the time and if anybody pays for it, it's their lackeys and/or orbiters. DeSantis will never see any repercussions for his middle school behavior.

So you believe that what the Florida legislators are about to do is making a bill that is completely unconstitutional? And,...the reasons why they are doing it are are completely invalid? If you are right, the state courts will "eventually" shoot this new law down.

But how long will this take? Once the bill is passed on both sides and gets signed by the governor, it immediately goes into effect and Disney loses their precious control.

Yes, they will challange the law to try and get their power back.... but that will be tied up for a year or two. During this time, Disney will be twisting in the wind and subject to the same horrible business conditions that other Florida parks operate under.

Im no lawyer but it "seems" to be a solid 2 year slam-dunk win by the Florida legislators and governor???

 

[roj2323]

I respect the willpower of those attempting to have a rational conversation with people who would absolutely not be defending this if Charlie Crist were trying to dissolve the district instead.

You're forgetting that Charlie Crest was once a Republican too and he's also intelligent enough to know better than to bite the hand that feeds the state 75 billion dollars worth of economic impact yearly.

BTW I'm saying this as someone who hates Charlie Crist and actively campaigned against him.

 

[Lilofan]

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

The millionaires and billionaires that live in the gated area Golden Oak near Port Orleans have private roads .

 

[Lilofan]

Golden Oak residents , resort and theme park guests and prison inmates, corrections officers would be treated to a nightly thing- nightly viewing of theme park fireworks. Would building a state prison near their million dollar homes at Golden Oak bring down the value of their residences ?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Golden Oak residents , resort and theme park guests and prison inmates, corrections officers would be treated to a nightly thing- nightly viewing of theme park fireworks. Would building a state prison near their million dollar homes at Golden Oak bring down the value of their residences ?

It turns out that the real prisoners all along were Golden Oaks residents living in their gilded cages.

 

[WDWFanRay]

As things play out in Florida, I wouldn’t be shocked by leaks about this sort of plan, if only to try to gain leverage.

Same thing happened in California in the 90’s. My dad was on the “Westcot” planning commission, which was to be an Epcot like park built on the old Pike and Todd Shopyard area in Long Beach Harbor, using the Queen Mary ship as a centerpiece. The local politicians made trouble and asked for too much, the local residents complained about the noise and traffic and Disney eventually pulled out and used the same plans to build Tokyo Disney Sea, even going so far as to build a scale model of the Queen Mary. Disney is heavily invested in Florida, but at some point, they’ll start looking to greener (and more agreeable/profitable) pastures.

 

[Lilofan]

It turns out that the real prisoners all along were Golden Oaks residents living in their gilded cages.

If that's the case , give me a long sentence to be at Golden Oak, a 5 bed 7 bath $12M estate please.

 

[mikejs78]

Yes, they will challange the law to try and get their power back.... but that will be tied up for a year or two. During this time, Disney will be twisting in the wind and subject to the same horrible business conditions that other Florida parks operate under.

Probably not. Any court case would likely end up with an injunction preventing the law going into effect until the case was settled.

Oh, and the new laws (and the recent Reedy Creek replacement law) make Disney's situation considerably *worse* than other Florida parks have.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Same thing happened in California in the 90’s. My dad was on the “Westcot” planning commission, which was to be an Epcot like park built on the old Pike and Todd Shopyard area in Long Beach Harbor, using the Queen Mary ship as a centerpiece. The local politicians made trouble and asked for too much, the local residents complained about the noise and traffic and Disney eventually pulled out and used the same plans to build Tokyo Disney Sea, even going so far as to build a scale model of the Queen Mary. Disney is heavily invested in Florida, but at some point, they’ll start looking to greener (and more agreeable/profitable) pastures.

WestCOT and Disney Sea are not the same thing. WestCOT was in Anaheim and Port Disney, along with Disney Sea, was in Long Beach. The two projects were also in competition with one another to see which city would offer the best deal.

 

[Cliff]

Probably not. Any court case would likely end up with an injunction preventing the law going into effect until the case was settled.

Oh, and the new laws (and the recent Reedy Creek replacement law) make Disney's situation considerably *worse* than other Florida parks have.

But the state just did this once and it was not considered unconstitutional. Why will their second try be considered unconstitutional?

To me, It almost seems that Disney's last minute "trick" strengthins Florida"s argument that Disney and RCID were "self serving" and a conflict of interest. Disney took power and RCID passed it for Disney in order to deliberetely circumvent the state.

Wont the state use that as more evidence that RCID's only purpose was to do Disney's bidding?

 

[lazyboy97o]

But the state just did this once and it was not considered unconstitutional. Why will their second try be considered unconstitutional?

To me, It almost seems that Disney's last minute "trick" strengthins Florida"s argument that Disney and RCID were "self serving" and a conflict of interest. Disney took power and RCID passed it for Disney in order to deliberetely circumvent the state.

Wont the state use that as more evidence that RCID's only purpose was to do Disney's bidding?

The constitutionality of past laws was never challenged. Legislation is not reviewed by the courts before it is enacted. To get a law overturned as unconstitutional someone with standing must sue the government to challenge it, something that can happen years later.

The land development agreement and covenants were not last minute deals. The entire public hearing and approval process was done months before the dissolution date then set in state law. It was the state legislature who proposed a different set of legislation the day before the final hearing and approval. The governor then waited nearly 20 days to make the legislation law.

There was no taking of power. The covenants and land development agreement are all allowed under Florida. This is literally what the state claims they want, Disney being treated the same.

Land ownership based special districts are supposed to serve the landowners. That’s their whole purpose. That’s why their officials are exempt from certain conflict of interest requirements, because they have to serve the landowners.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'm not into looking up tax payments or property lines or statutes and such so I'll leave that to the people who do seem to enjoy it but my main point was, I can see how someone could look at their arrangement with RCID isn't "fair". I think fair is entirely subjective and despite me not being the biggest fan of the property in recent years, I've always looked positively at the RCID arrangement and was not happy to see it all get screwed up by a vindictive governor that they are, of course, going to outlast.

I agree that “fair” is is very much subjective. I think once this became politicized it skewed how some people viewed the district. I am seeing a lot of revisionist history with people who support the Governor claiming that the district was always a problem that the Governor finally got around to fixing. Outside of maybe first responders wanting better pay or benefits (which is going to happen just about anywhere) I don’t think there were many actual complaints before this feud. Outside of locals who worked for or interacted with the district and Disney geeks who read a lot about the history of the parks most people never knew RCID existed or cared one way or the other. In the past the majority of Disney’s political donations in the state went to Republicans (they donated to both parties but more to GOP) so it isn’t until this Governor that the party is suddenly against Disney.

 

[ParentsOf4]

But the state just did this once and it was not considered unconstitutional. Why will their second try be considered unconstitutional?

Disney has not yet challenged the constitutionality in court. This does not make what the legislature/governor did constitutional.

 

[GBAB1973]

But the state just did this once and it was not considered unconstitutional. Why will their second try be considered unconstitutional?

To me, It almost seems that Disney's last minute "trick" strengthins Florida"s argument that Disney and RCID were "self serving" and a conflict of interest. Disney took power and RCID passed it for Disney in order to deliberetely circumvent the state.

Wont the state use that as more evidence that RCID's only purpose was to do Disney's bidding?

Disney never challenged the first action in court. We actually don't know it if was unconstitutional or not. Disney decided a different path here instead of fighting it in court.

Disney's "trick" appears to be perfectly legal and doesn't show self serving at all. If anything, the fact DeSantis and the legislature are passing bills to essentially change the law would seem to indicate they know what Disney did was legal and now need a way around that legality.

If this thing goes to trial, the state has way more holes to fill in than Disney. At the end of the day, I don't think DeSantis even cares about a W here. He just covets the PR that comes from this, showing him to be a fighter against wokism, etc. If this thing gets tied up in courts for years, he won't care, he'll be long gone by then.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

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.

Since when is having land as an asset on the balance sheet a bad thing??? You think they were patting themselves on the back thinking, "We finally dumped those valuable assets," and it was some sort of scheme to make their financial statements look better?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

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.

You can't walk down a path in Adventureland without paying to get into the park. There's no such requirement for driving down World Dr. There are roads within WDW that connect to roads outside of RCID, so it is very possible to drive along roads there with no intention of stopping anywhere on WDW property. Also, the District was set up to promote tourism in Central FL, so the roads do indeed serve a public purpose since you can't expect people to walk along swampy paths from MCO to WDW, so they need roads in order to fulfill their purpose.

 

[GoofGoof]

But around two decades ago, Universal did build their own massive garages.

I wonder if Disney had built them, if they'd still be free to park in.

I suspect if the county had built them, we wouldn't have those nifty sensors and lights that tell us if a space is open... and there'd probably be a fee to park.

I’m not sure I understand why you would think that. Disney as almost the sole taxpayer in the district is paying for the parking garages almost 100% (through tax payments) as well as paying the interest on the bonds same as they would if they built the garages themselves. The only difference is RCID issued municipal bonds which by the time those garages were built did not have a significantly lower interest rate than where Disney’s corporate debt was at. I just don’t think Disney wanted to charge for parking either way. Now maybe under Chapek when they added parking charges for hotels the garages would have been hit too, but I would think the vendors who pay a boat load in rent for Disney Springs would probably not be happy.

I agree that if the county was to be involved they would likely charge for parking. That’s typically how a municipal project like that is funded. Muni bonds with a parking fee used to pay down the debt and build up a reserve for deferred maintenance. The train station by my office did this a few years back when building a parking garage. Publicly funded through muni debt and a fee to use.

 

[GBAB1973]

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.

So then I assume you would like to see most of the larger special districts in Florida go away too since they are set up similarly?

 

[mmascari]

I am very curious to see a map of what is owned in whole by WDW and what is RCID, does such a map exist online? I want to know where this new non-disney theme park or prison could be built.....

Map Viewer

www.arcgis.com

 

[GoofGoof]

Since when is having land as an asset on the balance sheet a bad thing??? You think they were patting themselves on the back thinking, "We finally dumped those valuable assets," and it was some sort of scheme to make their financial statements look better?

Yeah I think he got that one backwards. Getting the assets off the books was never the benefit. In the beginning of WDW and RCID when Disney was much less leveraged getting the debt liability off the books was a much bigger advantage. Since the FOX acquisition Disney has 40+ billion in debt anyway so getting less than a billion off their books to RCID is a rounding error in their financials today. In the 70s and 80s when the company was much smaller and had a much less healthy balance sheet it may have actually moved the needle.