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

[KrzyKtty]

Is Reedy Creek responsible for the road maintenance and roadsigns?

 

[mkt]

Is Reedy Creek responsible for the road maintenance and roadsigns?

Yes, although they contract private crews for road maintenance.

 

[castlecake2.0]

So who provides the police and fire protection in a place like Celebration if it isn't a legal municipality? Do those places have to rely on a County Sheriff?

Police and Fire are provided by Osceola County in Celebration.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Another issue I can think of is “the bubble” being eliminated. There is a lot of RCID undeveloped land surrounding WDW and Celebration. I’m not sure who that land would go to if RCID no longer existed. If it becomes part of the county then it could possibly lead to parcels being sold off, more roads constructed through property etc? Maybe? I’m not sure how that would work. I’m sure someone here would have a better idea @mkt @lazyboy97o

This would be an issue if the District retained ownership of the land at the time of its dissolution. It would then probably be handed to the respective counties. But the District could sell the land back to Disney or some sort of trust with deed restrictions.

They pretty much determine the building codes so long as they comply with existing laws from the fed and state. That is probably worth a lot more than you would realize.

Those state requirements are fairly extensive.

 

[mkt]

So who provides the police and fire protection in a place like Celebration if it isn't a legal municipality? Do those places have to rely on a County Sheriff?

Yes.

Osceola County

 

[KrzyKtty]

This would be an issue if the District retained ownership of the land at the time of its dissolution. It would then probably be handed to the respective counties. But the District could sell the land back to Disney or some sort of trust with deed restrictions.


Those state requirements are fairly extensive.

Even if this does go through somehow, that is probably what Disney would do. It's not like they wouldn't have warning. I highly doubt that they would allow the government to absorb without much of their land.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So who provides the police and fire protection in a place like Celebration if it isn't a legal municipality? Do those places have to rely on a County Sheriff?

Yes, it is county services. That’s why you see deputies at SeaWorld. I’m guessing you live in the northeast where counties are entirely incorporated. A lot of the country isn’t actually part of any town or city and is just the county, which out west become huge.

 

[peter11435]

Is Reedy Creek responsible for the road maintenance and roadsigns?

Yes

 

[Brian]

So who provides the police and fire protection in a place like Celebration if it isn't a legal municipality? Do those places have to rely on a County Sheriff?

Much of Central Florida is like this. A fairly small number of addresses that say Orlando, Florida are actually within the limits of the city of Orlando, and fall under the jurisdiction of the Orlando Police and Orlando Fire Departments. The rest has emergency services and governance relegated to the respective county.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Yes, it is county services. That’s why you see deputies at SeaWorld. I’m guessing you live in the northeast where counties are entirely incorporated. A lot of the country isn’t actually part of any town or city and is just the county, which out west become huge.

Las Vegas is a great example of this also, most of the “city“ is actually unincorporated Clark County, including all of the strip, the airport, and just about everything south of Sahara Ave. (with the exception of Henderson being in the far Southeast). Most people who’ve visited “Las Vegas” have probably never stepped foot in Las Vegas.

 

[Tom P.]

You're almost certainly going to have to close this topic. The politician (or multiple ones) who is pushing this has stated flat-out that the reason is due to being against Disney's "support" for LGBTQ+ people. There's no avoiding the discussion when that's literally the stated reason behind this proposal. I can't see how it can be avoided.

Not that it matters. I see no way this ends up happening. I doubt there's a strong push from either side to ACTUALLY go through with this threat. Unless Disney WANTS to remove Reedy Creek (which I also doubt they want). Endlessly talking about something that will almost certainly not happen (while trying to avoid discussing the core of the argument around it) seems kind of pointless.

First off, I totally agree with your conclusion that it's not going to happen. It's an idle threat in the midst of a political back-and-forth. No way that the RCID gets dissolved. No matter how much DeSantis and others wants to rail against Disney, Florida needs Disney, and they are not going to go that far.

However, I would like to see your source for the claim that they have "stated flat-out" that it is due to "being against Disney's 'support' for LGBTQ+ people." I seriously doubt that anyone involved has phrased it that way. That may be your interpretation of it, but I don't think that's what they've "flat-out" said.

 

[KrzyKtty]

One benefit to RCID being disbanded, if it got that far, would be that there is no way Chapek's contract would be renewed. Could you imagine being the 1st CEO in WDW history that lost the special district? He'd be outed before he knew what hit him.

 

[mikejs78]

First off, I totally agree with your conclusion that it's not going to happen. It's an idle threat in the midst of a political back-and-forth. No way that the RCID gets dissolved. No matter how much DeSantis and others wants to rail against Disney, Florida needs Disney, and they are not going to go that far.

However, I would like to see your source for the claim that they have "stated flat-out" that it is due to "being against Disney's 'support' for LGBTQ+ people." I seriously doubt that anyone involved has phrased it that way. That may be your interpretation of it, but I don't think that's what they've "flat-out" said.

They have flat out stated that it is because Disney is being "woke".

 

[Tom P.]

They have flat out stated that it is because Disney is being "woke".

That is different from the original statement.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

That is different from the original statement.

Is it really, though? What else has Disney done in FL that would drive him to make such a stupid statement? What other realistic interpretation is there of the reasoning behind the statement, "If Disney wants to embrace woke ideology, it seems fitting that they should be regulated by Orange County," if it's NOT because of that?

 

[peter11435]

That is different from the original statement.

They pretty clearly said it in reference to Disney embracing woke ideology. What else could that possible mean today in Florida.

 

[Tom P.]

Is it really, though? What else has Disney done in FL that would drive him to make such a stupid statement? What other realistic interpretation is there of the reasoning behind the statement, "If Disney wants to embrace woke ideology, it seems fitting that they should be regulated by Orange County," if it's NOT because of that?

They pretty clearly said it in reference to Disney embracing woke ideology. What else could that possible mean today in Florida.

The original statement was that Florida legislators had "flat-out" said that this bill was because they are against Disney's support of LGBTQ+ people. Whether you agree or not, I think one could reasonably argue that you can support LGBTQ+ people and yet not feel it appropriate to discuss gender identity and sexual orientation in a classroom of 6-year-olds. There is more nuance to the argument than simply, "unless Disney hates gay people, we're going to punish them."

 

[lazyboy97o]

The original statement was that Florida legislators had "flat-out" said that this bill was because they are against Disney's support of LGBTQ+ people. Whether you agree or not, I think one could reasonably argue that you can support LGBTQ+ people and yet not feel it appropriate to discuss gender identity and sexual orientation in a classroom of 6-year-olds. There is more nuance to the argument than simply, "unless Disney hates gay people, we're going to punish them."

The reasoning was Disney having a “woke ideology”. It was not because Disney acted inappropriately regarding a single piece of legislation. In either case, this sort of unrelated retaliation is inappropriate.

 

[Lilofan]

Departments merge all the time. The most difficult part is the dealing union contracts and seniority which have to be reconciled between the two merging organizations. From what I understand, a lot of the RCID FD members would be getting a better deal with OC.

What about the Reedy Creek perks like free passes to the parks? If Orange County were to replace Reedy Creek no guarantee on them getting the same perks but Disney needs more thru the gate to spend in the parks.

 

[peter11435]

The original statement was that Florida legislators had "flat-out" said that this bill was because they are against Disney's support of LGBTQ+ people. Whether you agree or not, I think one could reasonably argue that you can support LGBTQ+ people and yet not feel it appropriate to discuss gender identity and sexual orientation in a classroom of 6-year-olds. There is more nuance to the argument than simply, "unless Disney hates gay people, we're going to punish them."

The state representative that started this said “If Disney wants to embrace woke ideology,…”

I really don’t see any way you can argue that’s not a reference to their support of discriminated against groups. Of which the LGBTQ+ community is certainly the focus in Florida politics today.