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

[Vegas Disney Fan]

If someone proposed the full RCID setup today it would likely not receive positive public sentiment.

I agreed with 99% of your post except this one line, I think if they proposed it affectively people would still support it.

The first thing that came to mind reading that was land in the desert outside Vegas, if a company bought 27 square miles (or whatever WDW is) of land 30 miles away from the city and they proposed a special district to let them pay for the roads, water, drainage, electrical, etc instead of using our limited tax dollars (purely for the benefit of that company) I would absolutely support that special district.

RCiD was approved because it benefited Florida as much as Disney, I think there are still scenarios where that’s just as true today, it may be unpopular to give companies so much power but I think if it was properly explained people would still support it.

 

[Tha Realest]

I was reading up on the issues with the new construction affecting Shades of Green’s walkway over to Poly/TTC, and had a thought. The DOD apparently owns the physical buildings for SOG, and has a 100 year lease for the land underneath. We’re seeing how these road projects affect their property in real time. Is DOD an “affected property owner” for the purposes of notice?

 

[tissandtully]

Why is Ron DeSantis so determined to keep taking on Disney? — Orlando Sentinel

DeSantis’ war with Disney has some fellow Republicans questioning why he’s spending so much time battling Florida’s biggest name in tourism.

apple.news

 

[JAB]

I was reading up on the issues with the new construction affecting Shades of Green’s walkway over to Poly/TTC, and had a thought. The DOD apparently owns the physical buildings for SOG, and has a 100 year lease for the land underneath. We’re seeing how these road projects affect their property in real time. Is DOD an “affected property owner” for the purposes of notice?

I don't believe so because it's "affected landowners" and Disney owns the land. Same thing with Swan & Dolphin - Tishman owns the buildings, but Disney owns the land.

 

[Chi84]

Disney's special tax district is special. You and I can't simply walk up to city hall and get our own special tax district. It takes time, money, and political connections. Whether it's Disney or Universal or The Villages, it is a sweetheart deal that applicants pursue because it benefits the applicants. Whether it benefits anyone else, well, that's incidental. To the average poll respondent, it is preferential treatment that only the rich and powerful get.

I agree there may be a misconception of what a special taxing district is, why one was necessary for WDW to choose Florida as a location and build an entertainment complex of that size and scope, and what benefits the company actually gets from it.

Why on earth would anyone need or want a special taxing district? I know people can be silly, but to dislike something simply because they can't have one themselves seems a bit farfetched.

But if all you're doing is explaining that people answered a poll without knowing enough to have an informed opinion on the subject matter, I agree that's common.

 

[GoofGoof]

I was reading up on the issues with the new construction affecting Shades of Green’s walkway over to Poly/TTC, and had a thought. The DOD apparently owns the physical buildings for SOG, and has a 100 year lease for the land underneath. We’re seeing how these road projects affect their property in real time. Is DOD an “affected property owner” for the purposes of notice?

I think the rub may be that they don’t own the land. So just like the hundreds of vendors who operate stores at Disney Springs or the vendors who run stores in the parks are not included they wouldn’t be included since they are not landowners. There are also thousands of DVC owners who all pay taxes to RCID as part of their annual maintenance fees but they have no standing either due to the way the timeshare is setup.

 

[GoofGoof]

I agreed with 99% of your post except this one line, I think if they proposed it affectively people would still support it.

The first thing that came to mind reading that was land in the desert outside Vegas, if a company bought 27 square miles (or whatever WDW is) of land 30 miles away from the city and they proposed a special district to let them pay for the roads, water, drainage, electrical, etc instead of using our limited tax dollars (purely for the benefit of that company) I would absolutely support that special district.

RCiD was approved because it benefited Florida as much as Disney, I think there are still scenarios where that’s just as true today, it may be unpopular to give companies so much power but I think if it was properly explained people would still support it.

I agree. I’m not saying no special districts would have favorable approval. I imagine the one Universal is proposing is going to happen and we won’t hear a peep about it. I was saying something of the scope of RCID would be very unlikely to get favorable approval these days most places. The district did have 2 “cities“ under its control (Still does for now). Musk is attempting to setup something with a pretty large scope in TX with corporate owned cities that he controls, but there’s been a lot of blowback over that even in TX which is very pro-business state (like FL had been until recent years). That situation should be interesting to watch unfold.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't believe so because it's "affected landowners" and Disney owns the land. Same thing with Swan & Dolphin - Tishman owns the buildings, but Disney owns the land.

I believe the Department of Defense does now own the land as well. If you look at the Orange County Interactive Mapping I believe they’re listed as the owner. They don’t appear on the property tax rolls because the feds don’t pay property taxes. It’s a weird arrangement because Disney still owns the golf facilities which still exist under the lobby and hotel offices.

It all comes down to the definition of “affected”. The land development agreement only applies to Disney. The Department of Defense also already has its own agreements where Disney controls their development at the site with any changes to the exterior having to go through Disney for approval. Any hotel expansion would also go through Disney. So are they affected since nothing is changing for them?

 

[peter11435]

I agree. I’m not saying no special districts would have favorable approval. I imagine the one Universal is proposing is going to happen and we won’t hear a peep about it. I was saying something of the scope of RCID would be very unlikely to get favorable approval these days most places. The district did have 2 “cities“ under its control (Still does for now). Musk is attempting to setup something with a pretty large scope in TX with corporate owned cities that he controls, but there’s been a lot of blowback over that even in TX which is very pro-business state (like FL had been until recent years). That situation should be interesting to watch unfold.

The district did not control the cities.

 

[GoofGoof]

So, when a poll question asks a respondent about Disney's "autonomy in Florida" and "special tax status", it should surprise no one that Disney does poorly.

Exactly this. It is not surprising to see the results of that poll the way it was worded. I imagine a bunch of people here could come up with many different ways to word the same question that get the opposite result. As I posted earlier a Reuters poll done a year ago showed 62% of the people opposed this action including the majority of Republicans polled. That poll had biased wording the other way, but I think those posts were deleted so if anyone wants to see it you have to Google it.

 

[Tha Realest]

I think the rub may be that they don’t own the land. So just like the hundreds of vendors who operate stores at Disney Springs or the vendors who run stores in the parks are not included they wouldn’t be included since they are not landowners. There are also thousands of DVC owners who all pay taxes to RCID as part of their annual maintenance fees but they have no standing either due to the way the timeshare is setup.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But the act says “affected property owners,” not “affected land owners.” I do think an argument could be made property is meant to encompass landowners, not owners above the land, but it’s not entirely clear.

 

[Tha Realest]

I believe the Department of Defense does now own the land as well. If you look at the Orange County Interactive Mapping I believe they’re listed as the owner. They don’t appear on the property tax rolls because the feds don’t pay property taxes. It’s a weird arrangement because Disney still owns the golf facilities which still exist under the lobby and hotel offices.

It all comes down to the definition of “affected”. The land development agreement only applies to Disney. The Department of Defense also already has its own agreements where Disney controls their development at the site with any changes to the exterior having to go through Disney for approval. Any hotel expansion would also go through Disney. So are they affected since nothing is changing for them?

I agree it depends on 1) whether SOG was “carved out” of the property description in the DA (and whether thats availing or controlling), and 2) whether property carved out from the description could be viewed as “affected.” In the instance of this road development project that’s cutting off pedestrian access to Poly/TTC, this property is definitely being affected. My point was whether future developments under the act could be similarly viewed as affecting those other properties.

 

[castlecake2.0]

I believe the Department of Defense does now own the land as well. If you look at the Orange County Interactive Mapping I believe they’re listed as the owner. They don’t appear on the property tax rolls because the feds don’t pay property taxes. It’s a weird arrangement because Disney still owns the golf facilities which still exist under the lobby and hotel offices.

It all comes down to the definition of “affected”. The land development agreement only applies to Disney. The Department of Defense also already has its own agreements where Disney controls their development at the site with any changes to the exterior having to go through Disney for approval. Any hotel expansion would also go through Disney. So are they affected since nothing is changing for them?

Could you link me to that map?

 

[peter11435]

I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But the act says “affected property owners,” not “affected land owners.” I do think an argument could be made property is meant to encompass landowners, not owners above the land, but it’s not entirely clear.

Sometimes I park my car there. I guess that means I’m affected.

The conversation is unnecessary though because the DOD owns the land now. The question really is are they technically affected and were they notified.

 

[GoofGoof]

Musk though already has a reputation for trying to be sneaky and flouting regulations. Who he’s been trying to impress on Twitter lately has further injured his reputation. Disney was looking to introduce regulation where few existed, nobody would believe Musk making similar claims.

100% agree. RCID was setup 50+ years ago. If Disney really decided to pick up shop and move to NC and the state attempted to create the equivalent of the original RCID in NC to accommodate that there would be a lot of pushback on that. It may ultimately happen but not without a fight.

 

[GoofGoof]

I believe the Department of Defense does now own the land as well. If you look at the Orange County Interactive Mapping I believe they’re listed as the owner. They don’t appear on the property tax rolls because the feds don’t pay property taxes. It’s a weird arrangement because Disney still owns the golf facilities which still exist under the lobby and hotel offices.

It all comes down to the definition of “affected”. The land development agreement only applies to Disney. The Department of Defense also already has its own agreements where Disney controls their development at the site with any changes to the exterior having to go through Disney for approval. Any hotel expansion would also go through Disney. So are they affected since nothing is changing for them?

The list of RCID landowners was posted here a while back. I believe there were somewhere around 25 listed but I don’t remember seeing DoD on the list. Maybe it’s a shell company that owns for DoD. Either way I agree that they may not be considered “affected” since they do not control development.

 

[mkt]

I agree. I’m not saying no special districts would have favorable approval. I imagine the one Universal is proposing is going to happen and we won’t hear a peep about it. I was saying something of the scope of RCID would be very unlikely to get favorable approval these days most places. The district did have 2 “cities“ under its control (Still does for now). Musk is attempting to setup something with a pretty large scope in TX with corporate owned cities that he controls, but there’s been a lot of blowback over that even in TX which is very pro-business state (like FL had been until recent years). That situation should be interesting to watch unfold.

Hardly the same.

Disney was willing to foot the bill to develop and was mostly a positive example of self regulation.

Tesla - and Elon - have attempted to flout regulations and regularly accept actual cash and tax incentives from government to attract them.

 

[Surferboy567]

Still think the only end result of this is a court battle.

Source: Blog Mickey

 

[Figgy1]

The list of RCID landowners was posted here a while back. I believe there were somewhere around 25 listed but I don’t remember seeing DoD on the list. Maybe it’s a shell company that owns for DoD. Either way I agree that they may not be considered “affected” since they do not control development.

DoD has a 99 year lease

 

[mkt]

Still think the only end result of this is a court battle.

Source: Blog Mickey

Of course they have been. They never stopped.

I'm also sure that litigation and lots of dark money donations to friendly politicians and primary challengers to those who pushed this are also on the agenda.