Have to beg to differ.
Now it is not exactly the same, because I live in Texas, not Florida. But i live in 2 special districts. 1 is a Crime Control District, where we pay additional taxes (.25% sales and also property taxes) and the district buys equipment for law enforcement and security items in our local district like fences and lighting for schools, playgrounds and the dog park. We also have an economic development one where we have an additional .5% sales tax that is used to encourage businesses and give grants for business exteriors. They were voted into existence by the residents and then have elected boards from the citizens that live here.
I think you’ve established your point that if someone doesn’t know why RCID was created or what it is and does they would be against it based on uninformed beliefs.
I was likewise puzzled by that claim. Thank you for articulating a robust response to it.
The Disney brand ranks 23 in the top 500 in 2023.
apple.news
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 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.
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 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.
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.
The district did not control the cities.
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.
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.
Only question is how long until my wife realizes I’m gone