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

GhostHost1000

Premium Member
Posting this because it references how the DeSantis/Disney situation is being viewed as a "self-inflicted wound" by the donor class.

good... I know people who like DeSantis but thinks it doesn't make sense for him being a republican who are typically for business and less government trying to enforce more government
 
Last edited:

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Exactly. Part of the reason that big businesses don't invest into third world countries is because of leadership that is unstable and unlikely to honor agreements.
I can think of one guy worth over $120B who invested $5B in one of the fastest growing third world countries ( India ) for Amazon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
I'm sure it had some in terms of the details and degree of control it offered as the justifiable reason but I'm pretty confident our state government was far more interested in the promised Disneyland East than they were the other purpose Disney had bought up all that land here.

It was always my understanding that the Magic Kingdom was giving us what we wanted so WD could get the freedom to do what he wanted with the rest of the land - not the other way around like you seem to be suggesting.

After all, it's not like the state of Florida had to be sold on the idea of getting a major tourist attraction built to increase vacation travel to our state.

The specifics were probably written with the needs of a real lived-in city in mind but I don't believe for a minute the Disney Co. couldn't have pushed for and gotten what they got and used, without talk of EPCOT... maybe not the nuclear power plant that never was and such but again, pretty much everything else, including the airport that they have made use of.

Florida was glad to take whatever Walt (and later Roy) was proposing. Outside of South Florida and the space and treasure coasts, tourism was scarce. Disney plopping down in Central Florida not only helped that region grow, but the entire state.
 

mikejs78

Well-Known Member
I know a lot of people think he doesn't need the high end doners but he does

Absolutely.

Billionaire Bloomberg of NYC also had plenty of cash, spent $500M of his own monies to seek the top job. That didn't help . But he is currently worth over $50B. If DeSantis needs a loan..

Having money doesn’t guarantee that you win an election…..not having money guarantees that you won’t win.

Correct no guarantees, but having huge cash on hand from donations and or personal net worth does help your chances but not for Wall Street billionaire Bloomberg.

Definately not a guaruntee as Bloomberg showed. But if he doesn't get the money, he's essentially out. You can't run a presidential campaign without big money, but just having money isn't enough. Trump spent a lot of his own fortune in 2016; DeSantis doesn't have that luxury. He needs the donor class, and a lot of the money he's raised to date can't be used in a Presidential campaign.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Everyone who claims the Epcot issue needs to give me the reason why it continued to exist until this year and what changed in the last year.
You are 900+ pages and 18,000+ posts in. With lots and lots of direct references to the RCID charter not being about creating an actual EPCOT city. With nobody able to cite anything saying a city was needed, and lots of cites, directly from the RCID charter that tourism is the goal.

At this point, anybody saying that not creating city is a reason to dissolve or take over RCID doesn't really need to give a reason. They just need to be ignored. They're not serious and not interested in real dialog about what is going on. They're trying to rationalize an outcome and looking for anything that will let them do that.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
The specifics were probably written with the needs of a real lived-in city in mind but I don't believe for a minute the Disney Co. couldn't have pushed for and gotten what they got and used, without talk of EPCOT... maybe not the nuclear power plant that never was and such but again, pretty much everything else, including the airport that they have made use of.

It's a pretty dim view of Florida politicians to think that they would have granted such powers had mention of EPCOT never been made, but to be honest, they don't seem all that bright these days either.

But the broader point is: we will never really know. Disney pitched the whole affair, creating the two municipalities and the district, on the premise that it was absolutely necessary to build EPCOT. They kept advertising EPCOT and talking it up in the press and privately among the lawmakers in the run up to get their charter passed. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that they passed Disney's legislation, satisfied in knowing EPCOT wouldn't be built, and yet that bit of misinformation persists.
 

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
That term was coined to describe communist-socialist states and has been largely obsolete since the fall of the USSR.
It was, but has since been redefined based on the economic development of a country, with SOME political connotations still remaining in the definitions of second and third worlds.
 

Dranth

Well-Known Member
It's a pretty dim view of Florida politicians to think that they would have granted such powers had mention of EPCOT never been made, but to be honest, they don't seem all that bright these days either.
Why not have a dim view of them? According to you, the whole batch of them was so dumb that they truly believed the main reason to implement RCID was so Disney could build a fancy apartment complex with some office space and stores and then NEVER ONCE mention it in any of the laws/contracts.

How about a much more plausible explanation? None, or nearly none of them cared one iota about EPCOT being built. What they wanted was the never-ending tax influx into the state from having Disney located there and the form it took was trivial and unimportant, hence why it wasn't included in the legislation.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
It was, but has since been redefined based on the economic development of a country, with SOME political connotations still remaining in the definitions of second and third worlds.
I deleted my post after seeing that @Heppenheimer had said the same thing.

The sense in which you’re using the term isn’t standard, even if it is out there. “Developed”, “developing”, and “least developed” is the more current (though still overly simplistic) way of dividing the world, with India falling in the middle category.
 

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
I deleted my post after seeing that @Heppenheimer had said the same thing.

The sense in which you’re using the term isn’t standard, even if it is out there. “Developed”, “developing”, and “least developed” is the more current (though still overly simplistic) way of dividing the world, with India falling in the middle category.
Agreed is overly simplistic.

Now I challenge you to have a discussion on the subject with more context and detail with an average human being. They'll walk away.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
Why not have a dim view of them? According to you, the whole batch of them was so dumb that they truly believed the main reason to implement RCID was so Disney could build a fancy apartment complex with some office space and stores and then NEVER ONCE mention it in any of the laws/contracts.

They did:

WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Legislature through​
the within enactment to supplement, expand and otherwise​
modify the powers, functions and authorities of the Reedy​
Creek Drainage District, which shall hereafter be known as the​
Reedy Creek Improvement District, so as to enable that district​
to undertake the improvements herein provided for, to promote​
and create favorable conditions for the development and​
practical application of new and advanced concepts, designs and​
ideas for a recreation-oriented community and to undertake,​
and enable enterprises conducted within the District to under​
take, a broad and flexible program of experimentation and development​

That mirrors some of the statements that Disney were making to them prior to passing it:

Tatum's rationale for Disney's government charter centered on Epcot as a residential community. "In serving the needs of those residing there, our Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow must utilize the technological advances of American industry as they continually develop." They needed "flexibility"-autonomous control-to keep it in "a state of becoming."​


How about a much more plausible explanation?

The more plausible explanation is that Disney's lawyers knew that having permannent residents in EPCOT, under Disney's control was most likely unconstitutional, and they purposefully wrote the charter with the idea of referring to EPCOT's residents as temporary visitors, aka tourists.


None, or nearly none of them cared one iota about EPCOT being built.

Prove it. Cite a source where they (I am assuming the lawmakers at the time?) actually said that.
 

DCBaker

Premium Member

Attachments

  • gov.uscourts.flnd.463456.25.0.pdf
    553.4 KB · Views: 95
  • gov.uscourts.flnd.463456.26.0.pdf
    184.5 KB · Views: 131
Last edited:

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

Back
Top Bottom