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

[flynnibus]

We act like DeSantis forced these people to do it. I suspect this is not the case and they "wanted" to do this. Its easy to blame DeSantis as a sole "king"...but the legislators seemed to be on board with the concept.

Do you have no concept of how the poltical parties operate in the legislature?

And if you truly believe this hypothesis… you should even be more worried why legislators would be so emphatically for something so new to them, without any asking any questions, when something just appears out of the blue, that they would advance it without any debate or investigation. That would mean they are even more careless with their authority

 

[mikejs78]

Is it possible that the majority of Legislators are not supporting this because they "pressured" into it...but because the sincerely AGREE with this district change?

Most of the legislators said they were doing this to punish Disney for their speech.

 

[GoofGoof]

I 100% believe in the freedom of speech...even speech that bothers me or speech that I find horrible. Yes, I will support a persons right to offend me with that speech.

I also am 100% "against" left and right cancel culture for the words they each say. Im not affraid to be offended by words i disagree with. Its part of life.

I hope this new board will be fair with Disney in the future....I suspect they will be fair as this begins to play out in time. Yes....Disney will ALSO need to be fair with them too!

1. This whole thing is 100% done to punish speech so is 100% anti-free speech. You can’t believe in free speech but then be ok with this. Not saying you are ok with it, not really sure at this point. Seems like maybe.
2. The whole idea of the Governor punishing a company for disagreeing with his politics is the epitome of cancel culture. He is using government power to try to harm Disney. Just like point 1 you can’t be against cancel culture and in favor of this.
3. I don’t think there’s any hope that this particular board will be “fair” to Disney and there’s no reason for Disney to be “fair“ back. The board was selected specifically to harm and interfere with Disney. They are all people who contributed to DeSantis and/or support his causes. I call them “friends of the program” which is a term borrowed from college sports boosters. None of these people is remotely qualified to run a special district. So far the board of a special district designed to encourage tourism and economic growth hasn’t mentioned a single thing they plan to do to encourage tourism or economic growth in the district. They have no intent of honoring their responsibilities.
4. In the future once DeSantis is long gone Disney may be able to work with the state to repair the relationship and maybe they could work with a different board once these political hacks are gone. That assumes they lose on all 4 counts in court which seems unlikely. If they win I assume Disney will continue to grow WDW and entertain guests business as usual while adding jobs and paying tax to the state and local governments.….like they have for the past 50+ years.

 

[scottieRoss]

The District does enforce regulations, the most famous being the EPCOT Building Code. It created a regulatory environment where one largely did not exist.

Building codes do serve the residents and visitors to the district. It ensures their safety. And the district created the codes before there were building codes in the state. It has always been a hallmark of the services from Reedy Creek.

 

[scottieRoss]

In O'Hare Truck Service v the City of Northlake, the Court's two most stanch conservatives (Scalia and Thomas) argued that Freedom of Speach protections are limited:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes.​

In Citizens United, the Court's four most liberal justices (Stevens, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer) argued that Freedom of Speach protections can be based on the "speaker's identity":

“Our jurisprudence over the past 216 years has rejected an absolutist interpretation” of the First Amendment. WRTL, 551 U. S., at 482 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.). The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Apart perhaps from measures designed to protect the press, that text might seem to permit no distinctions of any kind. Yet in a variety of contexts, we have held that speech can be regulated differentially on account of the speaker’s identity, when identity is understood in categorical or institutional terms. The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees.​

We have both liberal and conservative justices arguing that Freedom of Speach rights are not absolute, that the Constitution provides only limited protection. Note that both cases involve corporations.

Citizens United is a 5-4 decision, and most of us are old enough to remember that it was (and remains) highly controversial. The news media in particular viciously attacked the ruling.

The current Court has not shied away from overturning precedent they believe was decided wrongly. Indeed, during his confirmation process, there was much hope that Gorsuch would vote to overturn Citizens United, if given the opportunity.

As you note, a decision from the Supreme Court could "significantly change how free speech works for corporations."

It should be pointed out that these arguments were not from the opinion of the court, but rather from dissenting opinions.

 

[Cliff]

Easy way to understand me:

1,) This RCID move should have been done years ago. Long before the Parental Rights in Education Bill ever bacame a thing.

2.) MKT made a point. I do not want the RCID or ANY new district to be a puppet government for Disney or any other political force.

3.) I want Disney to he held to the exact same expectations that any other corporation in Florida...and also not be "targeted" unfairly or specifically too. Zero special "perks" that nobody else has.

If Disney wants to have a woke message? Fine, that will be up to the consumers to not buy Disney products. Its not the roll of govt. to take sides in the culture war in this way.

I'm right down the middle on this and that's something that is confusing to some people.

I dont think that Disney EVER should have been granted RCID...especially when they didnt build EPCOT like they said they would. EPCOT was the driver of the RCID idea and it was flawed from the start back in 1967.

 

[GoofGoof]

3.) I want Disney to he held to the exact same expectations that any other corporation in Florida...and also not be "targeted" unfairly or specifically too. Zero special "perks" that nobody else has.

This is not what is happening now. Disney is not being held to the exact same standard as anyone else. No other corporation in Florida has a special district that covers primarily just their land where they have no say in how the district is run and the Governor personally gets to decide who runs the district and what actions they take.

There are over 1,800 special districts in FL. Should all of those also be eliminated? Special districts are’t unique to FL either they exist in some form in most states. The purpose of the districts is not to perform general government function. That’s what the counties are for. Thee special districts have a narrowly defined and specific purpose as does RCID. If FL eliminated all special districts it would be a big negative to the state and the economy. They aren’t evil or unfair. RCID was one of the most successful private/public partnership in history. The district has provided so much more to the state and local taxpayers than it has for Disney.

Even without special districts many corporations have development agreements that streamline development and encourage growth. Universal has one. It’s not evil either. It helps encourage growth and investment in the state and county.

 

[GoofGoof]

It should be pointed out that these arguments were not from the opinion of the court, but rather from dissenting opinions.

I think that’s his point. He’s saying today‘s court more closely resembles the 2 justices who dissented than the 7 who voted yes. I still don’t think the Supreme Court wants anything to do with this case, but I guess we shall see.

 

[Stripes]

Easy way to understand me:

1,) This RCID move should have been done years ago. Long before the Parental Rights in Education Bill ever bacame a thing.

2.) MKT made a point. I do not want the RCID or ANY new district to be a puppet government for Disney or any other political force.

3.) I want Disney to he held to the exact same expectations that any other corporation in Florida...and also not be "targeted" unfairly or specifically too. Zero special "perks" that nobody else has.

If Disney wants to have a woke message? Fine, that will be up to the consumers to not buy Disney products. Its not the roll of govt. to take sides in the culture war in this way.

I'm right down the middle on this and that's something that is confusing to some people.

I dont think that Disney EVER should have been granted RCID...especially when they didnt build EPCOT like they said they would. EPCOT was the driver of the RCID idea and it was flawed from the start back in 1967.

Let’s be clear about one thing: Walt Disney World would never have existed without RCID. It was vital in order to facilitate the development of undeveloped swamp into a resort that attracts 60 million guests per year and directly employs 75,000 jobs, let alone the hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs.

Without Disney’s money paying for all the roads, sewer systems, electrical systems, etc. the resort would not have been possible. And without Disney having control over how their tax dollars were spent, they would never have agreed to build the resort.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Let’s be clear about one thing: Walt Disney World would never have existed without RCID. It was vital in order to facilitate the development of undeveloped swamp into a resort that attracts 60 million guests per year and directly employs 75,000 jobs, let alone the hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs.

Without Disney’s money paying for all the roads, sewer systems, electrical systems, etc. the resort would not have been possible. And without Disney having control over how their tax dollars were spent, they would never have agreed to build the resort.

All very nice, but the whole basis for wanting a special district with governing authority like a county was the Walt Disney plan for an EPCOT City not an amusement park. Prior to Mr. Disney's death the presentation to the Florida government was made about the development of EPCOT City (and actual community with residents) not an amusement park. What was proposed / presented is not what evolved.

 

[GoofGoof]

Let’s be clear about one thing: Walt Disney World would never have existed without RCID. It was vital in order to facilitate the development of undeveloped swamp into a resort that attracts 60 million guests per year and directly employs 75,000 jobs, let alone the hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs.

Without Disney’s money paying for all the roads, sewer systems, electrical systems, etc. the resort would not have been possible. And without Disney having control over how their tax dollars were spent, they would never have agreed to build the resort.

Yes and don’t forget that TWDC was much smaller in 1967. They had less access to cash than they have today so allowing them to finance the infrastructure through municipal dent really was essential. I’ve heard people say that Disney could have built the same infrastructure privately as they did using RCID but that ignores the muni debt. It’s a symbiotic relationship between the company and the state that was a huge win/win. Today RCID is politicized as an unfair advantage but in reality very few other corporations would have any desire to have anything similar to RCID.

All very nice, but the whole basis for wanting a special district with governing authority like a county was the Walt Disney plan for an EPCOT City not an amusement park. Prior to Mr. Disney's death the presentation to the Florida government was made about the development of EPCOT City (and actual community with residents) not an amusement park. What was proposed / presented is not what evolved.

You should go back and read the article @Chi84 posted that details the history of the district. EPCOT was not the whole basis for RCID.

 

[lazyboy97o]

All very nice, but the whole basis for wanting a special district with governing authority like a county was the Walt Disney plan for an EPCOT City not an amusement park. Prior to Mr. Disney's death the presentation to the Florida government was made about the development of EPCOT City (and actual community with residents) not an amusement park. What was proposed / presented is not what evolved.

This has been addressed many, many times. Reedy Creek Improvement District was not predicated on a city being developed. Its purpose was to develop tourism, one that was reiterated by the Supreme Court in 1968 and again by the legislature in 2004.

 

[lazyboy97o]

3.) I want Disney to he held to the exact same expectations that any other corporation in Florida...and also not be "targeted" unfairly or specifically too. Zero special "perks" that nobody else has.

What expectations was Disney not held to?

 

[scottieRoss]

Easy way to understand me:

1,) This RCID move should have been done years ago. Long before the Parental Rights in Education Bill ever bacame a thing.

2.) MKT made a point. I do not want the RCID or ANY new district to be a puppet government for Disney or any other political force.

3.) I want Disney to he held to the exact same expectations that any other corporation in Florida...and also not be "targeted" unfairly or specifically too. Zero special "perks" that nobody else has.

If Disney wants to have a woke message? Fine, that will be up to the consumers to not buy Disney products. Its not the roll of govt. to take sides in the culture war in this way.

I'm right down the middle on this and that's something that is confusing to some people.

I dont think that Disney EVER should have been granted RCID...especially when they didnt build EPCOT like they said they would. EPCOT was the driver of the RCID idea and it was flawed from the start back in 1967.

1) But they brought it up to punish Disney for their speech, have been clear in saying that is why they are doing it, and finally the emails show that they specifically tried to hide it from Disney to make the punishment a surprise. The Governor told the legislative leadership that he called the special session for one reason and not to tell anyone he was going to change it on the day it convened to dissolve the RCID.
2)The fact that you call it a puppet government displays that you do not understand the structure our purpose of the District. The purpose is to serve Disney in the role of promoting tourism and economic development. It is not there to punish Disney, control their content, or any other reason.
3) Then compare it to any other development in Florida that has 91,000 employees. (75,000 Disney castmembers and 15,000 employed by other companies within the District. But if you want to treat them like other amusement parks, then make sure you appoint a board to oversee the district that Universal is in and the district they have asked for. Make sure those special districts are named Oversight Boards when their charters are not to provide oversight. You know, like the RCID charter is not to provide oversight.
Finally, regarding your comment about RCID being created for about Epcot, you seem to not have read the charter. Epcot is not mentioned in the charter. But Disney did build an experimental prototype community of tomorrow within the District in that little area known as Celebration. And they built the community for the Uber rich called Golden Oak. And do not forget the affordable housing at the north edge of the District and at Flamingo Crossings.

 

[Stripes]

All very nice, but the whole basis for wanting a special district with governing authority like a county was the Walt Disney plan for an EPCOT City not an amusement park. Prior to Mr. Disney's death the presentation to the Florida government was made about the development of EPCOT City (and actual community with residents) not an amusement park. What was proposed / presented is not what evolved.

Even if EPCOT was developed, Disney’s plan was always to rent the homes to tenants but still own the properties, thereby keeping control as primary landowner.

Regardless, the Florida Supreme Court validated the public purpose of the district when they stated that the purpose was to “promote recreation-oriented projects, economic development, and tourism within district boundaries.” Nothing was said in regards to residential development.

 

[GimpYancIent]

This has been addressed many, many times. Reedy Creek Improvement District was not predicated on a city being developed. Its purpose was to develop tourism, one that was reiterated by the Supreme Court in 1968 and again by the legislature in 2004.

Yes, addressed many times and with many volumes of discussion. You cherry pick what you want. There are many references and quotable references. The core fact that EPCOT's original (documented in prior to color film, by Mr. Disney himself) concept was for an actual community, of course tourism was welcome enjoy this community.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, addressed many times and with many volumes of discussion. You cherry pick what you want. There are many references and quotable references. The core fact that EPCOT's original (documented in prior to color film, by Mr. Disney himself) concept was for an actual community, of course tourism was welcome enjoy this community.

What was cherry picked? Nobody has denied Walt’s interest in EPCOT. Walt though was dead and the District was not just about a city Disney didn’t delivery.

 

[GimpYancIent]

What was cherry picked? Nobody has denied Walt’s interest in EPCOT. Walt though was dead and the District was not just about a city Disney didn’t delivery.

Finaly! You are correct "Disney didn't deliver"!

 

[Brian]

Perhaps we can acknowledge that, notwithstanding the original intent of RCID being, in part, to build a city (EPCOT) and that though it didn't turn out, RCID was still critical to the development of WDW, as neither the state nor the company had the resources necessary to create the infrastructure needed to support such a project.

In 2023, the same can't be said. The company is wealthy beyond Walt and Roy's wildest imagination, and could develop a WDW-like project in a similar environment (ground-up infrastructure), if they were so inclined. They also have enough financial resources to support themselves without needing RCID to continue the operation of WDW; the only barrier to dissolution (done fairly, and without retaliation), in my mind, are the existing bonds.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Perhaps we can acknowledge that, notwithstanding the original intent of RCID being, in part, to build a city (EPCOT) and that though it didn't turn out, RCID was still critical to the development of WDW, as neither the state nor the company had the resources necessary to create the infrastructure needed to support such a project.

In 2023, the same can't be said. The company is wealthy beyond Walt and Roy's wildest imagination, and could develop a WDW-like project in a similar environment (ground-up infrastructure), if they were so inclined. They also have enough financial resources to support themselves without needing RCID to continue the operation of WDW; the only barrier to dissolution (done fairly, and without retaliation), in my mind, are the existing bonds.

Yes, exactly! The obstacle in a word "bond's".