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

[Cliff]

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.

I do not subscribe to that. Every area that Disney has ever built a park, the surrounding area exploded and grew. If RCID was never estabilished, the surrounding counties and the state would have promoted the development of the theme parks and hotels. They grew because of pop-culture demand and there was a profit/loss business model that drove it.

Again...RCID was estabilished for the purpose of supporting the AGRESSIVE idea of the Experimental Prototype City of Tomorrow. This was a GIGANTIC futuristic functioning CITY with THOUSANDS of actual "RESIDENTS"...actually LIVING in the city!!

If Disney had told the state "before" they estabilished RCID in 1967...that EPCOT would NEVER be built and that only a theme park would be built...the state would have said "nope".

Special taxing districts are great...like The Villages...when you have thousands of real people LIVING there...

 

[GoofGoof]

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

If the state decided it was time to dissolve RCID they could have addressed the bonds using a gradual approach. Stop issuing new bonds as much as possible and pay down some of the existing debt. They could start transitioning services and assets slowly to the counties which would have to happen anyway. Doing it gradually would avoid the 25% tax increase they were facing under last year’s flawed plan. It would still result in the counties carrying a significant burden for those services. The state should have worked with Disney and the counties to develop a plan like this. Disney would get a major tax break but would lose control of development to the counties. I’m sure a compromise could have been worked out where maybe the counties signed a development agreement with Disney and Disney agreed to take certain services private.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If the state decided it was time to dissolve RCID they could have addressed the bonds using a gradual approach. Stop issuing new bonds as much as possible and pay down some of the existing debt. They could start transitioning services and assets slowly to the counties which would have to happen anyway. Doing it gradually would avoid the 25% tax increase they were facing under last year’s flawed plan. It would still result in the counties carrying a significant burden for those services. The state should have worked with Disney and the counties to develop a plan like this. Disney would get a major tax break but would lose control of development to the counties. I’m sure a compromise could have been worked out where maybe the counties signed a development agreement with Disney and Disney agreed to take certain services private.

The cities still exist. They are what stops the counties from being able to create tax districts to pay for services. The cities would still have authority over land use. Dissolving the district doesn’t shift control to the counties.

 

[GoofGoof]

I do not subscribe to that. Every area that Disney has ever built a park, the surrounding area exploded and grew. If RCID was never estabilished, the surrounding counties and the state would have promoted the development of the theme parks and hotels. They grew because of pop-culture demand and there was a profit/loss business model that drove it.

Again...RCID was estabilished for the purpose of supporting the AGRESSIVE idea of the Experimental Prototype City of Tomorrow. This was a GIGANTIC futuristic functioning CITY with THOUSANDS of actual "RESIDENTS"...actually LIVING in the city!!

If Disney had told the state "before" they estabilished RCID in 1967...that EPCOT would NEVER be built and that only a theme park would be built...the state would have said "nope".

Special taxing districts are great...like The Villages...when you have thousands of real people LIVING there...

The FL Supreme Court disagrees with you on the purpose of RCID. If you are really interested in learning the actual history I can post something to read, but I suspect you don’t have any interest.

 

[GoofGoof]

The cities still exist. They are what stops the counties from being able to create tax districts to pay for services. The cities would still have authority over land use. Dissolving the district doesn’t shift control to the counties.

That could be addressed too. If Disney was working with the state on a plan it wouldn’t be an issue.

 

[LAKid53]

I do not subscribe to that. Every area that Disney has ever built a park, the surrounding area exploded and grew. If RCID was never estabilished, the surrounding counties and the state would have promoted the development of the theme parks and hotels. They grew because of pop-culture demand and there was a profit/loss business model that drove it.

Again...RCID was estabilished for the purpose of supporting the AGRESSIVE idea of the Experimental Prototype City of Tomorrow. This was a GIGANTIC futuristic functioning CITY with THOUSANDS of actual "RESIDENTS"...actually LIVING in the city!!

If Disney had told the stare "before" they estabilished RCID in 1967...that EPCOT would never be built and that only a theme park would be built...the state would have said "nope".

Special taxing districts are great...like The Villages...when you have thousands of real people LIVING there...

1. Walt was DEAD and had been so for 5 months, when the state, by legislative act, created RCID. His dream of an Experimental Prototype City Of Tomorrow died with him. EPCOT wasn't the only project planned.

2. Walt WANTED to control development around his next park, given what happened in Anaheim after 1955. Seedy hotels lined Harbour Freeway. Neighborhoods butt up to DLR's boundaries. One reason he decided to build his next project in Central Florida and purchased some 27,000 acres.

Eventually the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District was created to enhance tourism and hotel stays. Anaheim Resort Transportation was created to provide mass transportation to/in the Anaheim Resort area and surrounding destinations, like Angel Stadium.

3. The state still would have created RCID. They wanted Disney's project. They wanted the tourism dollars they knew a Disney park would generate.

 

[RamblinWreck]

The trolls are taking this way off topic again

 

[mikejs78]

I do not subscribe to that. Every area that Disney has ever built a park, the surrounding area exploded and grew. If RCID was never estabilished, the surrounding counties and the state would have promoted the development of the theme parks and hotels.

The counties and state did not have the means to build the infrastructure Disney needed in 1967. If RCID didn't exist, WDW wouldn't have been built. Remember, WDW is about 51x the size of Disneyland.

Also, RCID can't be dissolved. Even without the bond issue, there's the matter of taxes. No district, and all those services get paid for by the taxpayers instead of Disney. Is that your preference?

 

[Stripes]

I do not subscribe to that. Every area that Disney has ever built a park, the surrounding area exploded and grew. If RCID was never estabilished, the surrounding counties and the state would have promoted the development of the theme parks and hotels. They grew because of pop-culture demand and there was a profit/loss business model that drove it

There isn’t another Disney property that encompasses nearly 30,000 acres. Walt Disney bought all this land with the intention of preventing the blight that comes with attracting money to the area. What incentive would the state have to invest in building up Disney’s property if the benefit to nearby taxpayers and businesses was relatively minor?

Anaheim created the Anaheim Tourism Improvement District, but they did it primarily for the benefit of the businesses that surround the Disneyland Resort. What businesses surround the Magic Kingdom?

 

[flynnibus]

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.

No epcot was not the driver of rcid - development and control were

And your ideal of no perks… so you are against your government getting involved in encouraging prosperity for its citizens?

No tax breaks? No incentives? Sit on their hands?

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Categorically false

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Even more convincing is the research into the project future seminar where the special district concept was proposed and why. No cherry picking needed. You instead chose to continue to repeat this distortion because it suits your predisposition that it should be removed on the premis epcot didn’t happen.

This is all fiction

 

[GoofGoof]

Also, RCID can't be dissolved. Even without the bond issue, there's the matter of taxes. No district, and all those services get paid for by the taxpayers instead of Disney. Is that your preference?

100% this ^ The district can legally be dissolved by the legislature at any time. The fallout from it would be devastating for local taxpayers and I have not heard a single valid benefit to dissolving it. So just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

In 2023, Can you name any similar project that does as you claim at this scale?

 

[GoofGoof]

For anyone actually interested in the real history of the district I’ll keep posting this link:

Reposting

https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=lr

I’m giving the benefit of the doubt people actually are interested. I think the conversation would be more constructive with a better understanding of history.

 

[Brian]

In 2023, Can you name any similar project that does as you claim at this scale?

No, it's all hypothetical. Disney bought Fox for 71.3 billion. I'm quite certain they are financially capable of developing rural land into a destination of a similar size to WDW without government assistance if they wished to do so, at least in terms of sheer land size, not necessarily everything that exists at WDW today. Though, as @GoofGoof wisely and rightly pointed out, corporations often accept tax incentives to bring jobs to a state, so there would likely be some sort of deal between Disney and any state they would hypothetically wish to bring a new, WDW-like destination to.

 

[GoofGoof]

In 2023, Can you name any similar project that does as you claim at this scale?

No, it's all hypothetical. Disney bought Fox for 71.3 billion. I'm quite certain they are financially capable of developing rural land into a destination of a similar size (at least in terms of land) to WDW if they wished to do so. Though, as @GoofGoof wisely and rightly pointed out, corporations often accept tax incentives to bring jobs to a state, so there would likely be some sort of deal between Disney and any state they would hypothetically wish to bring a new, WDW-like destination to.

Look no further than the NFL. Every one of those teams is worth billions with billionaire owners yet only 2 stadiums in the last 20 years has been built with 100% private funding (LA and MetLife in NJ). The Raiders moved to Vegas and took nearly a billion in public funding. Every one of those stadiums could have been privately financed but each time a city or state kicked in they did so for the huge economic benefit. A WDW clone would be worth much, much more than any Football stadium so I can’t imagine any state wouldn’t cough up a small fortune in incentives to attract Disney. Maybe not Montana if you believe the plot of Yellowstone is based in reality

 

[mikejs78]

If Disney had told the state "before" they estabilished RCID in 1967...that EPCOT would NEVER be built and that only a theme park would be built...the state would have said "nope".

Not historically accurate. When going before the legislature in 1967 (after Walt died), the legislature was really pushing to get a "Disneyland East", and the plans were for a vacation resort. Epcot was a far off possibility, but it was not the leading part of the discussion in 1967. Everyone forgets, the area WDW is in now was basically useless swampland.

Disney would not have been built if RCID hadn't happened. And FL wanted Disney and all of the tourism it would bring.

 

[GoofGoof]

Proposed Universal Studios theme park in Frisco set for votes on zoning and incentives

Universal Parks & Resorts plans to build a family-focused theme park with rides, shows and a 300-room hotel, on a 97-acre plot of land off the Dallas North Tollway.

www.wfaa.com

To add to the discussion on whether RCID would be needed today, here’s and interesting summary of the new park Universal is building in TX. It only covers 93 acres and is expected to add 1,000 jobs. The local government approved a development agreement as well as economic incentives to bring the park there. Here’s a clip from the article:

The City Council is also slated to consider and act on a proposed development agreement among the city of Frisco, the Frisco Economic Development Corp., the Frisco Community Development Corp. and FTNV Corp, which is the Delaware-based shell company that acquired the land for the theme park.
A development agreement is a contract between the developer and the city that governs the development process. Development agreements can include economic incentives as well.
The City Council is scheduled to meet at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday in a closed-door session to get legal advice from the city attorney on the specific use permit as well as the proposed development agreement with FTNV. “Economic incentives and other related matters” will be discussed in the closed session, according to an agenda posted on the city’s web site Saturday evening.

I think this highlights that many places would absolutely be willing and interested in offering incentives even to wealthy corporations.

 

[flynnibus]

No, it's all hypothetical. Disney bought Fox for 71.3 billion. I'm quite certain they are financially capable of developing rural land into a destination of a similar size to WDW without government assistance if they wished to do so, at least in terms of sheer land size, not necessarily everything that exists at WDW today. Though, as @GoofGoof wisely and rightly pointed out, corporations often accept tax incentives to bring jobs to a state, so there would likely be some sort of deal between Disney and any state they would hypothetically wish to bring a new, WDW-like destination to.

You are really comparing apples and pineapples.

1) the value of the deal was 71b… but it wasn’t a 71b outlay of cash

2) when a company decides to spend money as an investment, they do so with an expectation of what kind of return that spend will generate in a specific period of time. Agreeing to spend 100million on a product hou expect to sell is not the same decision on deciding to spend 100million on water management.

You can’t treat these things as equals.

3) you are making claims based on ‘they are rich…’ assumptions instead of anything actually based in comparables or without even a spitball of what the type of scale what you propose would be

It’s not hypothetical - it’s a pure emotional argument based on seeing the size of the disney company.