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

[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.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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

Hellz yeah.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

Impacted or adversely impacted? I understand there is neighboring property but it’s not like Disney is building a trash dump next to their fence. I’m all for residents having some say in how land in their community is developed but this is a rare case where the size of the property and the amount of it preserved really does create a natural buffer for most people.

 

[drnilescrane]

Impacted or adversely impacted? I understand there is neighboring property but it’s not like Disney is building a trash dump next to their fence. I’m all for residents having some say in how land in their community is developed but this is a rare case where the size of the property and the amount of it preserved really does create a natural buffer for most people.

In terms of Reams Rd, I'd say adversely impacted. CL FL's patchwork approach to infrastructure, and an inability to hold developers responsible for the impacts they create (bigger issue than just RCID) has directly lead to the death of one of my former WDW coworkers because the roads are so unsafe.

We've got this situation where yes, Disney and Universal can ring fence themselves off and directly build their own infrastructure, but meanwhile everything leading to and from it is underdeveloped. It should be done in harmony.

Disney's building that new affordable hosing on Hartzog and Avalon on land inside the district, but the roads are Orange County.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

Especially given the board has already started running the day to day of the district and is now beginning the process of voting and passing policy for the district but they have not been approved by the Senate. There Is nobody else to hold accountable for their actions and their existence but the Governor.

 

[tissandtully]

Impacted or adversely impacted? I understand there is neighboring property but it’s not like Disney is building a trash dump next to their fence. I’m all for residents having some say in how land in their community is developed but this is a rare case where the size of the property and the amount of it preserved really does create a natural buffer for most people.

I'd argue that the outside area has impacted Disney more. Just look at the new apartment complex next to Animal Kingdom Lodge, you could be on that property in 30 seconds if you walked through the small amount of trees, it's literally on the property line. It's a shame what's happened to the views around DAKL, especially on the Savannah view. You see a bright neon Slingshot ride out your expensive room on the Savannah now. It also used to be quiet in that area, now all you hear is cars from the nearby busy road.

 

[MrPromey]

I'd argue that the outside area has impacted Disney more. Just look at the new apartment complex next to Animal Kingdom Lodge, you could be on that property in 30 seconds if you walked through the small amount of trees, it's literally on the property line. It's a shame what's happened to the views around DAKL, especially on the Savannah view. You see a bright neon Slingshot ride out your expensive room on the Savannah now. It also used to be quiet in that area, now all you hear is cars from the nearby busy road.

View attachment 711624

Nobody forced Disney to build that resort on the absolute edge of their 47 square miles of land.

There is a two lane road that goes out right near the entrance of that resort that'll take you past the Company D store and right into one of the more run-down areas outside of WDW.

They knew all of that before they broke ground just like they knew what sight-lines they had control over and which ones they didn't.

 

[Chi84]

@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.

Is this time for comments only or questions? If you have an opportunity to ask questions, you could ask something like: This special district has a charter. Where in the charter is the authority to ban COVID mitigation measures and what will you, as a board, do if businesses don't comply?

If it's comments, maybe: I've read through the special district's charter and I don't see anything giving it the authority to ban businesses in the district from enacting whatever COVID mitigation measures they see fit. Since there's no authority to enact that particular regulation, there's no mention of who would enforce it or how. It seems like a useless exercise to pass a resolution to enact regulations that can be simply ignored by businesses in the district without consequence.

@LAKid53 may have some insight or better suggestions.

 

[tissandtully]

Nobody forced Disney to build that resort on the absolute edge of their 47 square miles of land.

There is a two lane road that goes out right near the entrance of that resort that'll take you past the Company D store and right into one of the more run down sides of that area.

Fair enough, I can still complain about it lol

 

[LAKid53]

Is this time for comments only or questions? If you have an opportunity to ask questions, you could ask something like: This special district has a charter. Where in the charter is the authority to ban COVID mitigation measures and what will you, as a board, do if businesses don't comply?

If it's comments, maybe: I've read through the special district's charter and I don't see anything giving it the authority to ban businesses in the district from enacting whatever COVID mitigation measures they see fit. Since there's no authority to enact that particular regulation, there's no mention of who would enforce it or how. It seems like a useless exercise to pass a resolution to enact regulations that can be simply ignored by businesses in the district without consequence.

@LAKid53 may have some insight or better suggestions.

"Why are y'all such boneheads?"

Oh, wait, serious questions...

Your recommendations are spot on. Read the Charter several times, highlight those parts that are unclear or which you want to ask questions regarding.

Write down your questions. Review the public notice in the Orlando paper in order to find how to get a copy of the agenda...they must provide if asked. Ask how long each member of the public will be given to make public comments. This is important so you can pare down questions/comments so you don't exceed the time limit. Be succinct - they don't like folks who ramble. Don't shout - they won't hear you any better. Frankly, I'd practice asking my questions. Media will be there and that can make some nervous. Get there early - typically there's a list you put yourself on to make comments.

I am hoping this Board isn't like some of the Legislative committees that limited public comments to 15-30 seconds. That's barely enough time to state your name.

 

[lentesta]

Which is why I'm referencing Florida's constitution, not the US Constitution.

This law would be a state issue, not a federal one.

The Florida Supreme Court seems to think it's also only for criminal laws (see page 7 here).

 

[UNCgolf]

The issue is is the contracts clause, not the ex post facto clause (ex post facto relates to criminal activity, as mentioned). They're separate.

There are limits to the contracts clause in that it no longer bans any government action impairing contracts, but any laws doing so have to be appropriately tailored for a legitimate public purpose.

Which would end up as a decision for a judge (and then likely an appellate judge, and then potentially the Supreme Court).