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

[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.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

I agree it’s not the same but I don’t think there’s any company today which would receive positive feedback. In the 1960s people got their news from newspapers and tv networks from real journalists. Today the echo chambers on one side or the other would stand against any company.

 

[peter11435]

DoD has a 99 year lease

It’s my understanding that it was originally a 99 year lease but then a couple years later they fully purchased.

 

[GoofGoof]

DoD has a 99 year lease

Yeah it appears that way. Per the Shades of Green website:

They received more than 40 responses! It was decided that the offer from the Walt Disney World Company to lease the Disney Inn was the right offer. After negotiations were completed, the Shades of Green opened on 1 February 1994. The Department of Defense leased the resort and the land it sits on with a 100-year lease.

The resort was so successful and popular that MWR decided to purchase the resort in 1996. The resort was purchased outright from Disney. However, Disney still owns the more than 30 acres of underlying property on which the resort sits. Shades of Green is a self-sustaining resort, no outside/taxpayer funds are used in its operation or upkeep.

History

www.shadesofgreen.org

 

[GoofGoof]

It’s my understanding that it was originally a 99 year lease but then a couple years later they fully purchased.

Looks like they bought the resort but the land is still leased so they are not a landowner in the district.

 

[peter11435]

Looks like they bought the resort but the land is still leased so they are not a landowner in the district.

Interesting. I wonder why the OCPA lists them as the owner?

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

It’s a real estate agreement so property means land. The government entity (in this case RCID) has an obligation to inform land owners of record that could be impacted. It’s up to the landowners to inform their tenants of any situation and could be contractually required depending on their lease. The government is not obligated to track down who is leasing the impacted land. If an entity is leasing the land and their lease requires the landowner to inform them of a situation like this then they would have to sue the landowner for damages and breach of the lease contract.

There’s also a requirement to publicly advertise the public meeting which was done through the Orlando Sentinel. The direct mailing to landowners is in addition to that advertisement. The public meeting and newspaper ad are a catch all to inform other potentially impacted parties. Remember these laws are not designed for this situation. It’s done so the government has to inform but not to be overly impractical. Mailing notice to anyone who may be impacted is impractical.

 

[GoofGoof]

Interesting. I wonder why the ORPA lists them as the owner?

You got me on ORPA….not sure what that is. How are Swan and Dolphin listed. I would think it’s a similar setup. Resort is owned by a third party but on leased land.

 

[peter11435]

You got me on ORPA….not sure what that is. How are Swan and Dolphin listed. I would think it’s a similar setup. Resort is owned by a third party but on leased land.

Orange County Property Appraiser. Swan and Dolphin property is listed as owned by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. Shades of green shows US Army.

 

[GoofGoof]

Orange County Property Appraiser. Swan and Dolphin property is listed as owned by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. Shades of green shows US Army.

Is there a tax assessment for Shades of Green? I thought the Federal Government was exempt from local taxes.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

The land development agreement specifically says it is between Disney and the District. If Disney buys [back] property it becomes part of the deal. Other land owners are not part of the deal.

Road projects are generally district projects so it wouldn’t be part of the land development agreement.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Could you link me to that map?

Interactive Mapping