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

[Vegas Disney Fan]

See first couple hundred pages of the thread on that debate when the original bill actually dissolved the district. No point rehashing that. What we have today is not that. We have a board controlled by political appointees intent on exacting revenge on a corporation. It’s no longer a hypothetical debate on whether the district will be used to harm Disney. The Governor made that crystal clear with his press tantrum the other day. It’s not possible to just call this the state removing a perk Disney had. It’s well beyond that. So a long winded way of saying….not exactly reasonable

Who could have guessed during those first couple hundred pages of discussion that outright dissolution of the RCID would have been preferable to what we have now?

A year ago dissolution seemed like a horrible outcome, now I think Disney should sue for dissolution of the new board so they aren’t under different standards as everyone else.

 

[flynnibus]

Who could have guessed during those first couple hundred pages of discussion that outright dissolution of the RCID would have been preferable to what we have now?

A year ago dissolution seemed like a horrible outcome, now I think Disney should sue for dissolution of the new board so they aren’t under different standards as everyone else.

Dissolution was always a worse outcome for Florida - not Disney. Which is why the gov finally pivoted.

Meanwhile has anyone heard anything about all the other special districts the state zapped, or did the language of the new law just wipe that prior one out completely for them? I'm not clear in my reading of the text, but I don't see it nullifying the entire prior law?

 

[lazyboy97o]

@castlecake2.0 This would be an excellent question for the board. If businesses impose COVID-type mitigation measures contrary to the board's "resolutions to make regulations" what would happen to them? What enforcement powers does the board have?

And I would even suggest asking it like you support it. Don’t put them on the defensive. Get them to open up.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Who could have guessed during those first couple hundred pages of discussion that outright dissolution of the RCID would have been preferable to what we have now?

A year ago dissolution seemed like a horrible outcome, now I think Disney should sue for dissolution of the new board so they aren’t under different standards as everyone else.

Dissolution could have put all of Florida into an economic crisis. There’s some existentially dangerous things at play now but they’re not quite as sudden.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Who could have guessed during those first couple hundred pages of discussion that outright dissolution of the RCID would have been preferable to what we have now?

Not for the residents of Orange and Osceola counties.

I think there's a principled case to be made that Orange and Osceola taxpayers have been the beneficiaries of Disney's economic development the past 50 years and should have participated in the costs of the infrastructure all along, but you can't just spring that on them out of the blue. You can't un-ring a bell that's been ringing for half a century.

 

[Chi84]

And I would even suggest asking it like you support it. Don’t put them on the defensive. Get them to open up.

But would he be convincing?

Ooh, maybe we could hire an actor to play the part of @castlecake2.0 at the hearing! Who do you look like?

 

[GoofGoof]

No kidding. My point is that the board taking illegal action against Disney would not be cause for a lawsuit against the governor, as some here have claimed.

People were saying things like "Disney should sue the Govenor (or the State of Florida, or the Legislature) because the board seems poised to take hostile and possibly illegal action." No. You sue the governor for governor things, and you sue the board for board things. You don't get to sue the Governor for the actions of the board.


My point is, the Governor isn't the one running the board. So the Governor blustering in a campaign speech followed by board action on a related topic does not create a course of action against the governor.

So the point of your post was to establish that the Governor cannot be sued for this stuff? The mundane contract stuff, no. The 1st amendment stuff, absolutely. So it depends on what case. He can also potentially be sued for “running the board” illegally. These same public records requests go both ways. Is he smart enough to not send direct communications to board members via e-mail? Texts to their personal cell phones? He seems too arrogant to me to care to take those steps and that could come back to bite him should a case be heard where the Governor is the defendant and he has to show proof he wasn’t controlling the board to do his bidding in attempt to punish Disney for speaking out. Since he is stating that he’s doing that publicly all over the country now the burden of proof may fall to him to show that’s just political speech and not what’s actually happening.

 

[drnilescrane]

Not for the residents of Orange and Osceola counties.

I think there's a principled case to be made that Orange and Osceola taxpayers have been the beneficiaries of Disney's economic development the past 50 years and should have participated in the costs of the infrastructure all along, but you can't just spring that on them out of the blue. You can't un-ring a bell that's been ringing for half a century.

I'd also argue that they have a right to participate in the planning processes for development that affects their communities. While Reedy Creek is ultimately beneficial to the surrounding communities in the sense they don't have to bear the cost, and nor should they, I still believe it disenfranchises them. At least DisneylandForward has the facade of community consultation.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'd also argue that they have a right to participate in the planning processes for development that affects their communities. While Reedy Creek is ultimately beneficial to the surrounding communities in the sense they don't have to bear the cost, and nor should they, I still believe it disenfranchises them. At least DisneylandForward has the facade of community consultation.

I think the difference is the scope of the property and the layout. If more residential property was up against Disney development it would be a much bigger issue. Any commercial property next to Disney is directly benefiting from Disney being there so likely not a problem. In Anaheim Disneyland is not as isolated.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'd also argue that they have a right to participate in the planning processes for development that affects their communities. While Reedy Creek is ultimately beneficial to the surrounding communities in the sense they don't have to bear the cost, and nor should they, I still believe it disenfranchises them. At least DisneylandForward has the facade of community consultation.

There’s been no community participation in Universal Orlando Resort’s South Campus beyond the land being zoned as a planned development that lets its developer have incredibly wide latitude to develop the property as they desire. There is no community participation in new developments at SeaWorld.

As I’ve said many, many times before, Reedy Creek Improvement District was created at a time when local governments in Florida were not even required to enforce a building code. The state has a long history of large, privately planned land development. Saying the government should have exerted a level of control over Disney that it did not exert over others at the time and in many ways still does not exert is to apply standards that are completely outside of the actual context of the situation.

 

[castlecake2.0]

@castlecake2.0 This would be an excellent question for the board. If businesses impose COVID-type mitigation measures contrary to the board's "resolutions to make regulations" what would happen to them? What enforcement powers does the board have?

Bingo! I was trying to come up with what I was going to say. This would be a great question. The board will not respond to anything being put towards them, it’s only time for “public comment” and all they will say is “thank you for your comment” but it would be a great question, especially if it catches the news reporters attention.

 

[drnilescrane]

I think the difference is the scope of the property and the layout. If more residential property was up against Disney development it would be a much bigger issue. Any commercial property next to Disney is directly benefiting from Disney being there so likely not a problem. In Anaheim Disneyland is not as isolated.

Yeah, I guess the situation is different now than it was in 1967. There's absolutely residential development on Reams and out to the west by Siedel that's impacted by RCID.

There’s been no community participation in Universal Orlando Resort’s South Campus beyond the land being zoned as a planned development that lets its developer have incredibly wide latitude to develop the property as they desire. There is no community participation in new developments at SeaWorld.

As I’ve said many, many times before, Reedy Creek Improvement District was created at a time when local governments in Florida were not even required to enforce a building code. The state has a long history of large, privately planned land development. Saying the government should have exerted a level of control over Disney that it did not exert over others at the time and in many ways still does not exert is to apply standards that are completely outside of the actual context of the situation.

Yes, I'm applying my Californian and native Australian values to this beyond the explicit situation at hand. I care about this issue because I do care about Disney and good governance, but I am ultimately against the concept of an independent special district. I was also clear that again, independent of this situation, that the argument that RCID as an entity should never be changed purely because the status quo was good enough is not a sensible approach to governance, but again, different values.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

This is how you know the other person isn't capable of discussing a topic at hand.

It's your loss. Maybe you would've learned something.

Logical Fallacies

You seem incapable of distinguishing between "acceptable" and "a winning legal argument."

OJ Simpson was found not guilty of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson.

It doesn't mean he didn't do it.

It doesn't mean that murder is acceptable, or good.

It doesn't mean that the prosecutors failed to prove the case to a reasonable observer.

All it means, as in the ONLY thing it means, is that the prosecutors failed to convince a jury of 12 people to unanimously agree that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am not "okay with" any of the things you claim I'm okay with. I do not find "acceptable" any of the things you claim I find acceptable. Finding X unacceptable is not the same as saying "I think it's a slam dunk that a judge and/or jury will overturn X in a court of law."

 

[castlecake2.0]

@Chi84 @lazyboy97o could you help me understand the second part more? I get the first part is restricting businesses, but the second part confuses me.

What if like to ask the board is where this authority comes from, why bring this up after the pandemic is under control and restrictions lifted, what sort of precedence this starts, and what would the board do to enforce it.

It’s difficult because the question period is before the actual discussion of the resolution. So I don’t have much info to go with.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

i think Disney, Universal, and Sea World should get together and threaten to shut down operations if retaliation against Disney is allowed to continue.

They also should insist that all of their guests and employees are welcome and recognized in the state.

 

[mikejs78]

My point is, the Governor isn't the one running the board. So the Governor blustering in a campaign speech followed by board action on a related topic does not create a course of action against the governor.

Is that the case in fact though? The new structure of Reedy Creek is akin to an executive department. It could be argued by virtue of his office as chief executive of the state, he's now responsible for the district's running.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Is that the case in fact though? The new structure of Reedy Creek is akin to an executive department. It could be argued by virtue of his office as chief executive of the state, he's now responsible for the district's running.

He’s definitely not taking a hands off approach to its administration. He just gave a speech talking about things the board could do with landholdings before the board ever held any required public meetings on such topics.

 

[Disney Analyst]

i think Disney, Universal, and Sea World should get together and threaten to shut down operations if retaliation against Disney is allowed to continue.

They also should insist that all of their guests and employees are welcome and recognized in the state.

It really will take all the parks standing up with Disney. Their silence is cowardice.

Disney's success is also their success.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

It really will take all the parks standing up with Disney. Their silence is cowardice.

Disney's success is also their success.

In all honest the true cowardice is with their trade associations and the Florida Chamber and major Tourism trades as well. There are many businesses that are simply afraid to speak out on any issues impacting their operations or employees now because of fear of state repercussions. A common retort I hear working in Public Affairs for a fortune 50 is “no one wants to be the next Disney” as we approach many issues that impact employers and their operations across states.

Any thought leadership on areas of interest and even engagement with charitable foundations from even a direct business perspective are run through new layers of bureaucratic steering committees.

So it has had its intended chilling effect.

 

[flynnibus]

My point is, the Governor isn't the one running the board. So the Governor blustering in a campaign speech followed by board action on a related topic does not create a course of action against the governor.

Did you hear the lines from the meeting where the board was hurrying to get the recommendations back to the legislature for new laws as part of their response to Disney's actions? Or when the govenor was telling everyone at RCFD what the agenda for the new board was going to be?

Maybe someone needs some FOIA requests to see what the dialog is between the governor and his new appointees.