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

[GoofGoof]

Seriously. Ask the Democrats if they think Disney should be paying more in taxes and reduce the costs of public inspections.

A corporate tax rate reduction was one of the central pieces of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act back in 2017. I don’t think any Dems voted for it in the House or Senate. It’s not controversial to say Dems are opposed to Corporate tax breaks.

 

[mkt]

Why did it need to go?

Just my personal beliefs. Government needs to be controlled by the people.

Something as simple as replacing the Disney board with a 5 person elected board comprised of 3 Orange County, 1 Osceola County, and 1 Disney rep would've been good to me.

 

[mikejs78]

Just my personal beliefs. Government needs to be controlled by the people.

Something as simple as replacing the Disney board with a 5 person elected board comprised of 3 Orange County, 1 Osceola County, and 1 Disney rep would've been good to me.

The problem I have with that is that it takes away the link of a body that can set tax policy from those being taxed. IMO Reedy Creek should exist as it is (my preference) or should be dissolved completely and just rely on the counties to provide the services.

 

[Brian]

Just my personal beliefs. Government needs to be controlled by the people.

Something as simple as replacing the Disney board with a 5 person elected board comprised of 3 Orange County, 1 Osceola County, and 1 Disney rep would've been good to me.

A very reasonable and sensible proposition.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The problem I have with that is that it takes away the link of a body that can set tax policy from those being taxed. IMO Reedy Creek should exist as it is (my preference) or should be dissolved completely and just rely on the counties to provide the services.

I agree, you don’t fix a potential advantage by placing them at a disadvantage, you fix it by placing them under the same rules as everyone else.

They just went from one wrong to a new wrong on the other side.

 

[Chi84]

A very reasonable and sensible proposition.

But wouldn't that leave the taxation/representation problem described above by @mikejs78. If the people don't want Disney to have special privileges, then why should Disney bear the burden of public services? I thought I saw that they pay something like 85% of the taxes (no idea of accuracy) and they occupy almost all the land- and they would have 1 rep out of 5?

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I came here to post this poll, but I see it has already been dismissed by most out of hand. Meanwhile internal polling Len Testa cited showing DeSantis/legislature are not polling well was not questioned. I mean zero offense to Len, and my intention is not to cast doubt on his information; just pointing out the discrepancy in the reaction to the two differing polls by most.

View attachment 711777

I trust Len Testa more than I trust Newsweek.

 

[Chi84]

I trust Len Testa more than I trust Newsweek.

Who doesn't?

 

[lazyboy97o]

The problem I have with that is that it takes away the link of a body that can set tax policy from those being taxed. IMO Reedy Creek should exist as it is (my preference) or should be dissolved completely and just rely on the counties to provide the services.

Which ignores how the counties actually operate. They’d sign land development agreements and let Disney decide a lot for themselves just like the do with Universal and SeaWorld.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Corporations generally have poor track records in how they treated people, the environment, and the country. United States history is filled with examples of corporations behaving badly. Most American students have been taught something about the history of muckraker journalism. Or they grew up watching 60 Minutes and its frequent attacks on corporations. Or they or their parents have been laid off, underpaid, mistreated, etc. by corporations they worked for. Or they have felted ripped off by corporations in some product they purchased or service they received. The point is, many have negative views of corporations before you ask a single survey question about them.

In Disney's case, RCID does represent preferential treatment. With the "one vote per acre" election, Disney 100% determined who was on the RCID board. Disney controlled its local government. Corporate Disney was receiving a special consideration.

Those of us who follow this closely know that this benefited Disney, the State of Florida, and its residents. We know that RCID worked, and it worked well.

However, when you ask a causal observer, they typically only know the basics. Disney is a huge, super-rich, mega billion-dollar corporation. Disney received special treatment. Disney charges a lot to vacation in Florida.

So, when you ask the masses should Disney continue to receive special treatment, it's not surprising that the majority say "no". To the casual observer, the details don't matter.

Special districts with land holding based voting is not, to this day, a special treatment. It is offered to others. Universal is in the process of getting just such an arrangement established. Something openly offered isn’t exactly special.

 

[LittleBuford]

I trust Len Testa more than I trust Newsweek.

The poll wasn’t run by Newsweek. This is the second time people have dismissed the information itself just because Newsweek happened to report on it. That makes no sense to me.

 

[mikejs78]

The poll wasn’t run by Newsweek. This is the second time people have dismissed the information itself just because Newsweek happened to report on it. That makes no sense to me.

I'm not dismissing it because it was published in Newsweek, but because it was poorly worded.

 

[Vacationeer]

Maybe that part of the poll was gauging impressions? Most of the US public haven’t delved into all the layers, and likely won’t unless FL vs Disney escalates. The poll shows how people reacted to that wording, for many of them opinions formed on not much more than headlines alone. It could be the current temperature. If this doesn’t simmer down and hits the courts then I expect more of the public will be motivated to understand the details.

Disney seems to be preparing for all roads. The quiet one where they just hang on until ‘this too shall pass’ while trying to limit damage from the new board until a better climate. The legal one keeping their ducks in a row. One where Disney need to shine in the court of public opinion, as seen in the recently updated disneyconnect and the reedy creek PR websites.

Not easy. Not their first rodeo either. I don’t think they prefer to educate the public, but it’s looking necessary if higher courts get involved. Winning legal battles isn’t enough without protecting positive public perception of the brand.

 

[LittleBuford]

I'm not dismissing it because it was published in Newsweek, but because it was poorly worded.

Which is another matter, and entirely legitimate!

 

[JAB]

As an example:

"Are you in favor of removing the district that gives Disney special tax status?"

vs

"Are you in favor of making Orange and Osceola county taxpayers pay for Disney's municipal services instead of Disney paying for all of their own services?"

Both are asking the same question. But they would likely get very different responses because someone not familiar with the details might assume "special tax status" means "tax break" and answer "yes" to the first question, but "no" to the second.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You're missing the point.

How does the average person answering the poll view this?

Can they get their own special district? Can their parents get their own special district? Can their neighbor get a special district? Does the ordinary person working a regular job have a realistic chance of creating their very own special district?

Another mega-corporation (i.e. Universal/Comcast) is just another example of a huge corporation getting special treatment.

RCID was created by Walt Disney himself buddying up with Governor Burns. How many get to shmooze with a governor? How many get to have the legislature create a law just for them?

That's the point. It typically takes means far beyond the average person to get a special district. To the average person, any corporation getting a special district is preferential treatment.

One family has been behind a cluster of about a dozen special destructs in the middle of the state.

 

[tissandtully]

I admire the stamina of the posters in here arguing on a Saturday. Maybe we all should head to the parks?

 

[afterabme]

I admire the stamina of the posters in here arguing on a Saturday. Maybe we all should head to the parks?

If it’s Tokyo DisneySea, you will have no argument from me.

 

[seascape]

I admire the stamina of the posters in here arguing on a Saturday. Maybe we all should head to the parks?

I am at Epcot but I am looking forward to the week ahead and visiting my representatives local offices. I hope they really understand that I will be now be making contributions to their Democratic opposition if they vote against RCID.

 

[Chi84]

Corporations generally have poor track records in how they treated people, the environment, and the country. United States history is filled with examples of corporations behaving badly. Most American students have been taught something about the history of muckraker journalism. Or they grew up watching 60 Minutes and its frequent attacks on corporations. Or they or their parents have been laid off, underpaid, mistreated, etc. by corporations they worked for. Or they have felted ripped off by corporations in some product they purchased or service they received. The point is, many have negative views of corporations before you ask a single survey question.

In Disney's case, RCID does represent preferential treatment. With the "one vote per acre" election, Disney 100% determined who was on the RCID board. Disney controlled its local government. Corporate Disney was receiving a special consideration.

Those of us who follow this closely know that this benefited Disney, the State of Florida, and its residents. We know that RCID worked, and it worked well.

However, when you ask a causal observer, they typically only know the basics. Disney is a huge, super-rich, mega billion-dollar corporation. Disney received special treatment. Disney charges a lot to vacation in Florida.

So, when you ask the masses should Disney continue to receive special treatment, it's not surprising that the majority say "no". To the casual observer, the details don't matter.

Well I agree that if the Democrats polled didn’t know how RCID works and heard the words special tax district without independent oversight they wouldn’t support it.

Disney 100% controlled the board and ran its own government because that’s the way it was intended. (See the RCID charter and the oft-cited Florida law review article explaining it.) If this isn’t a good arrangement, what’s better? What benefit is served by giving a couple of people from Orange and Osceola counties control of the board?