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

Patcheslee

Patcheslee

Well-Known Member
JKick95 said:
During todays board meeting, the board mentioned something about Disney controlling the prices for energy services. From my understanding Disney owns the Reedy Creek Energy Services which gives utilities to this area.

Can someone explain what the issue here is? If Disney owns the utilities then it only makes sense they would set the price.
Click to expand...
Caught on that as well, from what I could find the Board still had to approve the rates and asked if that was still the case. Ones like Duke have to seek approval through the state for rate increases, so assume the new board wants to do similar.
 
mkt

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
Heath said:
Yep I don’t like government. They punish me everyday with unrelenting taxes. I wouldn’t go roll my tax accessor’s yard. That’s what Disney did when they tried to appease political activists instead of stock holders.
Click to expand...

Not even close. In your case it would be like you saying you don't like paying taxes (as your post made clear), and as a result they punish you with more taxes and the loss of ability to do what you want with your property, while at the same time making you pay for an investigation. against you.

What Disney did was speak against the governor, who is the HEAD of government in the state of Florida, due to legislation that they didn't like. And as a result, by exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech, the governor took action specifically against them.

Oh, and political activists ARE stockholders. As a shareholder I'm plenty happy to see Disney take a stand for what's right.
 
J

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Heath said:
Of course they did. They backed and funded legislatures. Some keep trying to make the debate, Disney good, Governor bad. The original premise is businesses need to stay out of politics and none of this would happen. It’s not smart business.
Click to expand...
Regardless, your analogy makes no sense. If you roll your assessor’s yard, you are retaliating and causing actual property damage (unlawful). Disney did not respond in a retaliatory or unlawful way. They simply stated their disagreement with and intent to oppose legislation via whatever legal means are available to them. Then the state retaliated against them in an unlawful way.
 
LAKid53

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
MisterPenguin said:
Didn't the new contract between RCID and WDW limit the new board's ability to use eminent domain?
Click to expand...

Section 1.01(8), Florida Statutes, grants the power of eminent domain to "...all other districts in the state." That would void any agreement limiting the new board's ability to use eminent domain.


Screenshot_20230419-182253.png
 
LAKid53

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
George said:
Bull. Businesses always get involved in politics. It’s very smart business.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. When FPL failed to get a constitutional amendment passed that would adversely impact residential solar in the state, they resorted to the old fashioned method - drafted the legislation and greased the hands of a few members of the Legislature.
 
JAB

JAB

Well-Known Member
Stripes said:
Florida DOT is a landowner in the district. Rest assured, they would object.
Click to expand...
Ah got it; didn't realize there was a state agency in the mix. So basically, if somehow RCID didn't actually mail notices to *all* landowners, then it will come down to a legal battle over whether any objecting landowners are considered "affected." 😬
 
mkt

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
JoeCamel

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
maxairmike said:
Can you be a little more specific? I drive through there daily and I’m blanking at what you’re referring to. I’m not aware of an extension of the existing solar farm, just a lot of utility work, road widening, and housing development.
Click to expand...

LAKid53 said:
If driving north on Hartzog past the hotels, on the left side of the road. Before Hartzog curves and meets Avalon at Four Corners.
Click to expand...
It is water from the treatment plant. They spray it so it soaks in or evaporates
 
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
DCBaker said:
And about that affordable housing -

www.wdwmagic.com

Walt Disney World expands its Affordable and Attainable Housing project and announces planned completion date

Walt Disney World expands its Affordable and Attainable Housing project and announces planned completion date
www.wdwmagic.com www.wdwmagic.com
Click to expand...
Under Eisner, Celebration FL was built in the southern part of the Reedy Creek Improvement District land. The first 350 homes and 123 apts residents were chosen by lottery to prevent racial discrimination. I'm thinking that the future affordable housing at WDW will be chosen by lottery also.
 
LAKid53

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
JAB said:
Ah got it; didn't realize there was a state agency in the mix. So basically, if somehow RCID didn't actually mail notices to *all* landowners, then it will come down to a legal battle over whether any objecting landowners are considered "affected." 😬
Click to expand...

The statute says "affected landowners". But the statute also says "before the first public hearing", which would be the January 2023 hearing.

Screenshot_20230419-183354~2.png
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Stripes said:
I don’t buy those arguments. “Affected property owners” is generally understood to be property owners adjacent to the property subject to the development agreement or relatively close by (within 300 feet).

The property owners don’t necessarily have to live there. And could even be property owners outside the boundaries of the district. There are several properties owned by other entities that are adjacent to Disney and RCID land including the Florida Department of Transportation (who would obviously be willing to sue).

Disney had a golden opportunity here and it seems they took their shot and missed just like DeSantis on his first and second round.

To say that I’m profoundly disappointed would be a gross understatement.

I truly hope something comes to light to explain how or why this happened, but as I see it now things do not look good at all for the development agreement.
Click to expand...
If you look at the maps of the district land holdings you’ll see that there is a small amount that runs along the district’s border creating a buffer. That reduced the amount of property within the 300’ zone.

Even if they did need to send notice to these neighboring parties, they still need some harm for standing. Most zoning disputes arise out of changes, not maintaining the status quo. So the district needs to find an affected land owner who feels they would be harmed by things remaining as they were for over a decade. And since the Comprehensive Plan is relatively new, that they didn’t object during that public process throws the sincerity of their concerns in doubt. This whole ordeal has also now been even more publicized and they still haven’t come forward. That’s a unicorn they’re searching for, an adjacent property owner who in the past year realized that the status quo is a potential harm, has missed the national news coverage but definitely would have responded promptly to a mailed notice. They needed somewhere there today taking about how Walt Disney World still being Walt Disney World was going to be a harm to them as an adjacent landowner.

There’s also the possibility that the existing agreements and covenants with the other land owners in the district limit their being affected.

Last, there is still the original charter and its rules regarding the conduct of the Board of Supervisors.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
If you look at the maps of the district land holdings you’ll see that there is a small amount that runs along the district’s border creating a buffer. That reduced the amount of property within the 300’ zone.

Even if they did need to send notice to these neighboring parties, they still need some harm for standing. Most zoning disputes arise out of changes, not maintaining the status quo. So the district needs to find an affected land owner who feels they would be harmed by things remaining as they were for over a decade. And since the Comprehensive Plan is relatively new, that they didn’t object during that public process throws the sincerity of their concerns in doubt. This whole ordeal has also now been even more publicized and they still haven’t come forward. That’s a unicorn they’re searching for, an adjacent property owner who in the past year realized that the status quo is a potential harm, has missed the national news coverage but definitely would have responded promptly to a mailed notice. They needed somewhere there today taking about how Walt Disney World still being Walt Disney World was going to be a harm to them as an adjacent landowner.

There’s also the possibility that the existing agreements and covenants with the other land owners in the district limit their being affected.

Last, there is still the original charter and its rules regarding the conduct of the Board of Supervisors.
Click to expand...
I think we just don't know nearly enough to speculate on the effect of any procedural defects in this case.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom