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

[GoofGoof]

Sure...interacting is expected. As long as it was leagal and within the proper boundries. Its my guess that Disney, over time, got so "comfortable" with RCID that tge crossed the lines. I suspect that crossing the line got so "common" and "normal"...that it became standard operating proceedure. Why?....because Disney never dreamed in a million years that the state would suddenly pull out a giant flashlight and start looking under all the rocks.

I suspect that MANY people will be formaly questioned and I think that hundreds of people know where the proverbial bodies are burried.

My guess is that the state will seize email servers and hard drives. I think that IT people and document handlers will he heavily questioned too.

But again...I might be 100% wrong

You can hope I guess . Why would Disney need to commit an illegal act when they controlled the board? The majority of what RCID handled was very mundane stuff like roads and power. Lawyers handled all the contracts.

 

[Stripes]

Any idea what Palm Hospitality and ARDC is?

Both are Disney subsidiaries.

 

[Surferboy567]

I forsee two possible outcomes coming out of this:

1.) Disney does nothing and let's itself become a state punching bag (unlikely)
2.) Disney takes this to the courts

After yesterday's conference, I suspect the state inspector as well as the possible use of district land may be the two things that finally makes Disney take some action against the state. The state inspection of all rides and attractions could be a major problem, they could make the inspection so stringent that they can close virtually anything they want whenever they want. I also read that this would only be for Disney. Meaning that Uni and other parks can keep their exception. The district land part is obvious why this could be a problem for Disney.

Tomorrow is the next board meeting, I can also see further threats coming out of that.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

I do think there will be some show of force on Disney property. My bet, given the social views of the current administration, is that there will be a police presence IN the parks during gay days, and guests will arrested for doing nothing wrong other than existing.

I thought the sheriff deputies were all located outside the parks? Couldn't Disney simply not allow them into the parks if they suspect something like this will happen?

 

[Kamikaze]

I forsee two possible outcomes coming out of this:

1.) Disney does nothing and let's itself become a state punching bag (unlikely)
2.) Disney takes this to the courts

After yesterday's conference, I suspect the state inspector as well as the possible use of district land may be the two things that finally makes Disney take some action against the state. The state inspection of all rides and attractions could be a major problem, they could make the inspection so stringent that they can close virtually anything they want whenever they want. I also read that this would only be for Disney. Meaning that Uni and other parks can keep their exception. The district land part is obvious why this could be a problem for Disney.

Tomorrow is the next board meeting, I can also see further threats coming out of that.

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.

 

[mmascari]

(Hey Disney, there's two resorts here in Vermont under receivership after a developmental deal went bad...).

Which ones?

Any chance I could get a deal on a mountain? I've got some spare change in the couch cushions.

 

[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.