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

[el_super]

Wouldn't those resources need to be acquired anyway whether it was the RCID or the counties that would have to provide the resources to operate the district?

That was specifically referring to the 1990 acquisition of state bonds to pay for sewage projects that otherwise would have gone to low income housing.

The set up wasn't perfect but the reality is that other than a few hiccups here or there, the RCID worked well, ran efficiently, wasn't a burden on the county or the residents or the state. It just worked..

That is highly debatable. Again, there have been books written about the setup for RCID that paint a far more fair picture. Painting RCID as some benevolent, perhaps angelic, force for good, simply because of the current political climate is pretty foolish.

The only part that's really relevant today, is that Disney gave up control of RCID because of the Negative feelings and PR surrounding their control of it, and it's not coming back.

 

[Surferboy567]

3) DeSantis realizes he can't do anything about the agreements and has the AG sue.
4) DeSantis declares his campaign and forgets all about this. The state doesn't pursue anything any further.

3) He seems to just be voiding the contract whether it’s legal or not. Which seems to me like Disney could just sue if it’s illegal to void a legally binding contract.

4) Seems super unlikely. Hope that happens though.

 

[Chi84]

That was specifically referring to the 1990 acquisition of state bonds to pay for sewage projects that otherwise would have gone to low income housing.




That is highly debatable. Again, there have been books written about the setup for RCID that paint a far more fair picture. Painting RCID as some benevolent, perhaps angelic, force for good, simply because of the current political climate is pretty foolish.

The only part that's really relevant today, is that Disney gave up control of RCID because of the Negative feelings and PR surrounding their control of it, and it's not coming back.

Am I understanding you to say that Disney itself gave up control of RCID because of negative feelings and bad publicity about how they operated?

 

[scottieRoss]

A lot has been written on this already. Giving Disney quasi-government powers put them in a position to compete for the same resources that other counties and government needed. The counties have pushed back, complained and even sued over the setup in the past. The information is all out there.

Enough to justify being taken over by the state? Maybe not. But that's not really a defense for it being setup that way in the first place, either.

One more time for the record. Disney does not have quasi-government powers. RCID had full government powers and had every legal right to the same resources that every other municipality in the state has. But RCID was not a creature of Disney, it was a creature of the state.
In fact, RCID has been rated one of the best municipalities in the country.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That was specifically referring to the 1990 acquisition of state bonds to pay for sewage projects that otherwise would have gone to low income housing.

That is not what happened. There was absolutely no guarantee that if the District had not been awarded the bonds that those are the ones that would have been awarded by the state.

The state set the rules that the bonds were issued on a first come first served basis. They did not have to do that, much less because of the District. The other governments could have also just submitted their requests more timely.

 

[GBAB1973]

That was specifically referring to the 1990 acquisition of state bonds to pay for sewage projects that otherwise would have gone to low income housing.




That is highly debatable. Again, there have been books written about the setup for RCID that paint a far more fair picture. Painting RCID as some benevolent, perhaps angelic, force for good, simply because of the current political climate is pretty foolish.

The only part that's really relevant today, is that Disney gave up control of RCID because of the Negative feelings and PR surrounding their control of it, and it's not coming back.

Who painted them as benevolent, angelic force? They are, at the end of the day, a business entity looking out for their best interests. But the idea that they are some sort of entity running roughshod over the state, the counties, and the taxpayers like the Florida conservatives are pushing to justify this is a real reach.

That last paragraph seems like a stretch too. Disney didn't fight the transfer of control of RCID because the negative feelings. They waited to see what the state would do before acting. When they saw DeSantis load up the board with ideologues who then said things like how they would use their power now to try to leverage Disney for more conservative content, they acted.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But RCID was not a creature of Disney, it was a creature of the state.

You're referring to the legal mechanism by which it was created. In practice, how did it operate? Who controlled the board?

 

[el_super]

Am I understanding you to say that Disney itself gave up control of RCID because of negative feelings and bad publicity about how they operated?

If you have a better explanation for why they didn't fight it, by all means...

 

[el_super]

In fact, RCID has been rated one of the best municipalities in the country.

Do you think that wil continue under the new board?

 

[Kamikaze]

3) He seems to just be voiding the contract whether it’s legal or not. Which seems to me like Disney could just sue if it’s illegal to void a legally binding contract.

4) Seems super unlikely. Hope that happens though.

3) The doors that this would open would stop it from happening.
4) This is the outcome thats most likely, actually. Theres a lot written that says the legislature thinks DeSantis went too far and they are only doing this to support him, but don't actually want it or care.

 

[MisterPenguin]

................

That's... exactly the point.

"Here, government that we control, hold on to the these protected wetlands for us. We might need them for development later, but shhh we're not going to talk about that. Just make sure that nobody else gets to develop anything on them."

Ten years later...

"Hey, government that we control, remember those sweet wetlands that you've been holding onto so that there can't be any development on them? Those highly valuable, smack-in-the-middle-of-the-biggest-tourism-hub-in-the-world wetlands? Well we'd like to un-protect them because we'd like to build a new DVC resort. Yeah yeah yeah, don't worry about those conservation covenants, we're going to buy some super cheap swampland in the middle of the state that nobody wants anyways and 'donate' that so our conservation obligations will be satisfied. We'll just do a little tradesies and everyone will come out even-steven."

You're confused on this issue. Let's get some clarity...

Within the borders of WDW includes wetlands that are designated as protected under *state law."

The state will not allow Disney to build on them, unless.... Disney buys other wetlands elsewhere and designates them as an offset for the protected wetlands within the WDW border that Disney will now build on.

This is a deal given to any entity in the state that wants to build on protected wetlands, all they have to do is buy wetlands elsewhere and have the *state* designate that newly bought property elsewhere as protected wetlands.

Some things of note:

1. To make this deal with the *state*, you have to buy more wetland acreage to be set aside than the acreage you build upon. We saw this when WDW got the protected wetlands between DHS and CBR to be redesignated *by the state* as no longer protected. Now WDW can build upon it (with enough imported dirt).

2. The wetlands that Disney purchases for its offset (which is much larger than the acreage they will now build on) is not contiguous to WDW. They aren't creating a ring of unbuildable land around WDW.

3. This all done with permission (and negotiation) with the *state*. The *State of Florida's Water Management Agency* is allowing this to happen and overseeing it. Every time Disney builds on protected wetlands *within the borders of WDW*, Florida gets twice [or is it 1 1/2 times] as much acreage eslewhere dedicated to wetlands preservation...

4. ... that no one can build on. Not even Disney. To build on it, someone would have to buy it from Disney, and make a deal with *the state* to offset the acreage they're undesignating as preservation with double the amount of acreage elsewhere, which then becomes unbuildable.

5. Which makes it hilariously incredible... and sad... that DeSantis doesn't know this and thinks the state or some other company can be given these outside-of-WDW preservation wetlands and they can build a mall, or a prison, or ANOTHER THEME PARK (!!!). I believe this outside-the-park protected wetlands are owned by Disney and not the RCID, which makes the fantasy of the state or some other entity building upon it even more hilariously incredible... and sad.

 

[el_super]

The state set the rules that the bonds were issued on a first come first served basis.

Take yourself out of defensive mode for a second and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense that a state, as a whole, should not have the ability to say that low income housing is a more important priority than additional resort expansion for a corporation.

 

[Chi84]

If you have a better explanation for why they didn't fight it, by all means...

The new board has no power. Nothing to fight yet.

 

[GoofGoof]

This. It was always going to be this.

He never actually cared about the policy here, it's all been a show to prove he's a "fighter." He's going to continue to do Florida things and rack up "victories" (as perceived by the GOP primary base) for the rest of the legislative session and then it's off to Iowa and New Hampshire.

What happens a year from now if/when he’s not the candidate? He’s back for 2.5 more years and extremely grumpy that Disney did him wrong and hurt his national image. I could see him dragging this out then. Of course as a term limited lame duck maybe the legislature will come to their senses and stop blindly following. Sounds like maybe they did to some extent with the tolls.

 

[lentesta]

Universal’s proposed community development district would also be controlled by Universal and any other landowners who decide to join the district. While the focus is on transportation, a community development district could take control of things like roads and emergency services, including fire code review of buildings.

Awesome. I don't think the "it's self-dealing" argument makes any sense. It might play well with people who don't know about Florida's special districts. But in a debate with someone who knows about it, I'm not sure what "Step 2" is in that plan.

 

[GoofGoof]

If you have a better explanation for why they didn't fight it, by all means...

Disney didn’t fight the take over publicly because they had a legally executed development agreement protecting what they valued most, their ability to use land that they have legally owned for 50+ years to build more theme parks and hotels.

 

[mmascari]

A district controlled by elected board members, or appointees of elected officeholders, or some other bona fide representatives of the citizens of the relevant counties, that would be fine.

Why should counties get to appoint district governance instead of only those within the district boundary? The vast majority of the county is not within the district boundary and is not impacted by any district governance or taxing at all.

In the north east, where there are pretty much towns everywhere and nothing that is unincorporated land. Should the county get to appoint part of the local town governance? A town with say, 5 selectmen, or a mayor, or a board of governors. Should the county get to appoint a percentage of those people? Even though the county includes lots of stuff that is "not the town".

In this case, the district definition was that it is controlled by the land owners. Presumably because it taxes bases on property. If it taxed based on something else, then based on whatever that something else was. Before the change all of the land owners were represented and able to impact the governance direction. That this meant it was all Disney because they own all the property in the district isn't a reason to impose outside control.

Disney is not the District, they are not the same thing no matter how people refer them as the same. That the district only includes Disney and hence Disney has all the influence is simply representation. A structure created by design. Anything that would have lead to other people being impacted by district was eliminated by changing the district boundary to no include them prior to the sale. Hence, they pay no district taxes and are not governed by the district.


* "All" being close enough for this. The few land owners that are not Disney knew the arrangement prior to purchase and purchased anyway, their comparatively small amount.

 

[el_super]

When they saw DeSantis load up the board with ideologues who then said things like how they would use their power now to try to leverage Disney for more conservative content, they acted.

They acted by releasing a statement that said, "We are focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework."

They could have sued to prevent the new board from taking over, and maintain their control over the government but they didn't. They transferred the most essential controls over and abandoned ship. Why would they do that?

 

[Surferboy567]

4) This is the outcome thats most likely, actually. Theres a lot written that says the legislature thinks DeSantis went too far and they are only doing this to support him, but don't actually want it or care.

I hope your right, I just don’t see why he would make the big threats yesterday if that was his plan.

The legislature has been more than willing to be his puppet up until now, not sure if that would stop.

 

[GoofGoof]

Take yourself out of defensive mode for a second and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense that a state, as a whole, should not have the ability to say that low income housing is a more important priority than additional resort expansion for a corporation.

Doesn’t that happen all the time though? Corporations add jobs that people need too. Why did we lower the corporate tax rate in the country in 2017? To make our corporations more competitive in the world but also to encourages corporate growth that results in jobs. Do you think we should raise corporate taxes back up and use the money to build low income housing? That’s certainly a valid opinion to have, just curious if you believe that across the board or just for Disney.