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

[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).

 

[castlecake2.0]

"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.

I commented last week, was nervous, but had everything written down. You get three minutes, but if you bring other people they can give you their time so you can speak longer. They will “listen” but will not answer any questions. I’ve asked the RCID if they would provide any more information on this resolution and waiting for a response. So far all I can find is this. Also does anyone have a link to the charter (I’m in my last week of university before graduating so I apologize for being needy, just got lots of final papers due this week so I do t have a lot of time to add this on top)

 

[Chi84]

I commented last week, was nervous, but had everything written down. You get three minutes, but if you bring other people they can give you their time so you can speak longer. They will “listen” but will not answer any questions. I’ve asked the RCID if they would provide any more information on this resolution and waiting for a response. So far all I can find is this. Also does anyone have a link to the charter (I’m in my last week of university before graduating so I apologize for being needy, just got lots of final papers due this week so I do t have a lot of time to add this on top)View attachment 711633

https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RCID-Charter.pdf

 

[GoofGoof]

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).

What could the state possibly give as the legitimate public purpose? What is allowed in Disney’s development agreement that could be considered a problem that would warrant passing a law essentially designed to only cancel that contract?

 

[UNCgolf]

What could the state possibly give as the legitimate public purpose? What is allowed in Disney’s development agreement that could be considered a problem that would warrant passing a law essentially designed to only cancel that contract?

No idea. I'm sure they can come up with something, but who knows if it would be enough to convince a judge (or multiple judges, since it would likely be appealed one way or another).

 

[LaPo@1972!]

I just do not understand why, after all these years, now there is an issue with WDW. When the vast majority of people that live around WDW purchased their homes, WDW was already there and owned all the property around them. Now there is a problem?!? WDW brings so much tourism to Orlando. If they were to uproot and leave, it would devastate the economy in Orlando. The tourists that come to WDW don't just spend money at WDW. There is a huge home rental market...that would be gone. There are so many restaurants and shopping...that would be gone. It may not be immediate, but I truly think this is not being thought through to what Orlando looks like at the end of this.

 

[GoofGoof]

No idea. I'm sure they can come up with something, but who knows if it would be enough to convince a judge (or multiple judges, since it would likely be appealed one way or another).

Yeah it will be interesting to see what they come up with. I understand that there could be a legitimate change in law for the public’s best interest that could impact a contract, particularly a long term contract, but I would hope the bar for that would be set very high and can’t just be ”because I said so”. Otherwise any and every contract could be voided with a simple act of the legislature. That’s definitely not the intention. I also think a lot of judges (old school particularly conservative ones) would have a real hard time allowing a government entity to void a contract for political reasons. That sets a dangerous precedent and is extremely anti-business.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No idea. I'm sure they can come up with something, but who knows if it would be enough to convince a judge (or multiple judges, since it would likely be appealed one way or another).

Isn’t that the sort of thing you’d put in the Whereas section?

Affordable housing is a reason they cannot really use since state law now considers affordable housing an acceptable use for much of the District’s existing zoning.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

What could the state possibly give as the legitimate public purpose? What is allowed in Disney’s development agreement that could be considered a problem that would warrant passing a law essentially designed to only cancel that contract?

He could double down on how the new board wanted to have influence over the content of what was in the parks, would could say not having that ability prevents them from protecting children or some other nonsense

 

[ParentsOf4]

No idea. I'm sure they can come up with something, but who knows if it would be enough to convince a judge (or multiple judges, since it would likely be appealed one way or another).

On February 27, DeSantis' office released the following statement:

Allowing a corporation to control its own government is bad policy, especially when the corporation makes decisions that impact an entire region,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “This legislation ends Disney’s self-governing status, makes Disney live under the same laws as everybody else, and ensures that Disney pays its debts and fair share of taxes.”​

​

HB 9-B ends Disney’s self-governing status and imposes a five-member state control board that is appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation.​

This legislation amends the Reedy Creek Improvement District charter which:​

• ENDS Disney’s self-governing status.
• ENDS Disney’s exemption from the Florida Building Code and Florida Fire Prevention Code.
• ENDS Disney’s exemption from state regulatory reviews and approvals.
• ENDS Disney’s secrecy by ensuring transparency.
• ENSURES that Disney will pay its fair share of taxes.
• PREVENTS leftist local governments from using the situation to raise local taxes.
• IMPOSES Florida law so that Disney is no longer given preferential treatment.
• ENSURES that Disney’s municipal debt will be paid by Disney, not Florida taxpayers.

All of these could be legitimate reasons for the governor's actions, if they were true.

None of these are the real reason for the governor's actions.