drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
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.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.
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.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.
Last edited: