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

GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
I think I read somewhere that each city has a population of about 30, all of whom have very close associations with Disney.

Disney gets to decide who lives there.
Click to expand...
It was posted a few pages back that those citizens are all renters and Disney owns the properties. They are employees and families. The only individuals who own land in the district are the RCID board members who each own a 5 acre plot that is deeded to them by a subsidiary of TWDC that holds an option to buy the land back.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
mmascari said:
Why?

Exactly which public are these officials governing that have no say?

“to public officials who serve at the pleasure of their constituents” would be just as accurate.
Click to expand...
Heppenheimer said:
It would be more worrisome in a situation where the corporation maintained control over a parcel of land that supported a robust population. Like if Disney had maintained a similar level of control over Celebration.

But that was never the case with Reedy Creek. It didn't allow Disney to act as feudal landlord over a large population of servile peasents, it simply allowed Disney to maintain municipal control over property with a negligible population that they own. Unless you think animatronics are real people...
Click to expand...
LAKid53 said:
How many residents live within the District? 10, 15, 20?

Disney isn't the feudal master over a population of serfs numbering in the thousands.
Click to expand...
Exactly all of this. Over the years as Disney sold pieces of their land to be used for residential or other development they intentionally amended the district to exclude that land to ensure they were not “feudal masters” over anyone. It’s a lazy political talking point to call out Disney for “controlling a government”. They control a special tax district (1 of 1,800+ in the state) in which they are virtually the only landowner. It’s not even remotely close to controlling a local general government.
 
LAKid53

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
GoofGoof said:
Exactly all of this. Over the years as Disney sold pieces of their land to be used for residential or other development they intentionally amended the district to exclude that land to ensure they were not “feudal masters” over anyone. It’s a lazy political talking point to call out Disney for “controlling a government”. They control a special tax district (1 of 1,800+ in the state) in which they are virtually the only landowner. It’s not even remotely close to controlling a local general government.
Click to expand...

There are other landowners within the District, but they are non-Disney hotels and Target, if I correctly remember the list that was posted.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
It’s a lazy political talking point to call out Disney for “controlling a government”. They control a special tax district (1 of 1,800+ in the state) in which they are virtually the only landowner. It’s not even remotely close to controlling a local general government.
Click to expand...
Just as important, the few that make it virtually instead of only all bought in after the district existed and understood what they were getting into. Nobody governed by the district was unaware of the structure when buying.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
LAKid53 said:
There are other landowners within the District, but they are non-Disney hotels and Target, if I correctly remember the list that was posted.
Click to expand...
I believe there are about 25 landowners including Disney and their subsidiaries. These are all businesses directly tied to WDW. There are no residential landowners except for the board members who own the land but don’t live there.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
If only Disney were so altruistic.

Disney annexed the land so they could maintain full control over RCID without having to deal with pesky homeowners who might want a say in how the district was being run.

Anyone who has served on a local board knows what meetings can devolve into when just a handful of residents band together.

Annexing the land allowed RCID to remain focused on the needs of operating theme parks and hotels, rather than the differing needs of individual residents.

RCID, after all, is about serving the needs of WDW, not the typical community stuff most local governments deal with.
Click to expand...
100% true. It has nothing to do with being altruistic. Disney sold the land as a business decision and Disney has no desire to be feudal masters over anyone so the land was annexed to avoid having residential landowners in the district. They just want to run their parks. RCID has never been and never will be a general purpose government. It has a scope that is broader than many special districts but it’s still very narrowly defined for a specific purpose.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
ParentsOf4 said:
If only Disney were so altruistic.

Disney annexed the land so they could maintain full control over RCID without having to deal with pesky homeowners who might want a say in how the district was being run.

Anyone who has served on a local board knows what meetings can devolve into when just a handful of residents band together.

Annexing the land allowed RCID to remain focused on the needs of operating theme parks and hotels, rather than the differing needs of individual residents.

RCID, after all, is about serving the needs of WDW, not the typical community stuff most local governments deal with.

I think I recall reading somewhere that, early on, Roy Disney or one of the other early CEOs realized that Walt’s original vision of EPCOT just wasn’t going to work for Walt Disney World.

Eisner definitely had this in mind when creating Celebration.
Click to expand...
Originally EPCOT was supposed to be an actual community with actual "residents" living within Walt Disney World soooo I can see where the Disney powers that be would rather have an amusement park and not have to deal with pesky "residents".
 
S

seascape

Well-Known Member
ParentsOf4 said:
If only Disney were so altruistic.

Disney annexed the land so they could maintain full control over RCID without having to deal with pesky homeowners who might want a say in how the district was being run.

Anyone who has served on a local board knows what meetings can devolve into when just a handful of residents band together.

Annexing the land allowed RCID to remain focused on the needs of operating theme parks and hotels, rather than the differing needs of individual residents.

RCID, after all, is about serving the needs of WDW, not the typical community stuff most local governments deal with.

I think I recall reading somewhere that, early on, Roy Disney or one of the other early CEOs realized that Walt’s original vision of EPCOT just wasn’t going to work for Walt Disney World.
Click to expand...
I wonder who will show up to tomorrow's meeting. I will stay through the public comments but want to enjoy AK so I won't waste my time listening to the board and their anti Disney statements. In addition, I believe they are not doing their fiduciary responsibility in doing what is best for the District and as a Taxpayer I hope a lawyer will start a class action case against the Board because they are taking actions that directly harm our investment.
 
V.i.n.c.e.n.t.

V.i.n.c.e.n.t.

Member
seascape said:
I wonder who will show up to tomorrow's meeting. I will stay through the public comments but want to enjoy AK so I won't waste my time listening to the board and their anti Disney statements. In addition, I believe they are not doing their fiduciary responsibility in doing what is best for the District and as a Taxpayer I hope a lawyer will start a class action case against the Board because they are taking actions that directly harm our investment.
Click to expand...
A DVC class action should be started expecially if it going to up the taxes we pay on DVC
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
GimpYancIent said:
Originally EPCOT was supposed to be an actual community with actual "residents" living within Walt Disney World soooo I can see where the Disney powers that be would rather have an amusement park and not have to deal with pesky "residents".
Click to expand...
If the original EPCOT project ever got off the ground I would assume that city would have had a general government and Disney would have lost control. At that point they would have likely annexed the land outside of RCID as well but who knows since it never happened. For comparison when Celebration was developed I believe the land was annexed out of RCID.
 
S

seascape

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
As the saying goes….the only winner here is the lawyers 🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑
Click to expand...
That statement is always made in response to government action. Unfortunately, DeSantis and the Republican Legislature started this. Now we have no choice but to fight this unfair tax increase. To think the 5 member board cares so little of us taxpayers that they want to use my money to defend their illegal behavior. They want to lower ride standards road standards and building standards. Disney has always built to higher standards than the law requires and that is why WDW is known as the safest place to stay during hurricanes or other storms.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Annexing is when you add land to a jurisdiction. Deannexing is when land is removed from a jurisdiction.

There were many ways for Disney to retain control with EPCOT. The Villages provides a model. For one, EPCOT was not going to have any homeowners. Everyone living in EPCOT would have somehow been affiliated with Disney World, either working for Disney or one of the operating participants working at EPCOT or the industrial park. Apartment complexes don’t tend to go to residents for approval of things like a Phase 2, retail spaces in mixed use buildings or when appliances are upgrades.

Even if the landownership model of voting in the District was required to change, a land development agreement would have locked in the zoning.

The biggest risk you have been someone getting bored with it all and selling off assets like they did in Downtown Celebration.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
GoofGoof said:
It was designed that way from day 1. It was designed by the state to be that way intentionally. If you want to know why read the write-up in the below which has been posted here multiple times. Take the time to read if you are really interested. I suspect it is only troubling to you because people are telling you it’s troubling to justify their actions. If we are being honest it was not “troubling” to anyone until Disney spoke out against a bill. That’s what should be troubling to everyone.

Click to expand...
At this point I have to believe people either didn't read the article or don't care what it says. They just want to repeat that Disney shouldn't run its own government.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom