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

[Figgy1]

I love Disney and have been a shareholder for several decades. That being said, I really believe Reedy Creek should have been dissolved in the early 70's.

Reedy Creek came about because Walt's original plan centered around EPCOT which was going to basically be a city. The original plans that were provided to the state at the time Reedy Creek was created included businesses, residences, recreation, transportation, and all the infrastructure to create a city that you could live, work, and play in.

This was never built. Had Walt have just proposed building a theme park I do not believe Reedy Creek would have existed.

The taxpayers of the 2 counties would then be left footing the bill

 

[fotofx]

Not this again.

Sorry, I DID NOT read all 965 pages..

 

[fotofx]

The taxpayers of the 2 counties would then be left footing the bill

If it was dissolved in 1971 when only a theme park was built, the bill would have not existed or not to the degree it is now.

But I agree, it could not be dissolved now without passing that debt to the counties.

 

[mikejs78]

If it was dissolved in 1971 when only a theme park was built, the bill would have not existed or not to the degree it is now.

But I agree, it could not be dissolved now without passing that debt to the counties.

Fine, maybe it should have, but without reashing this for the 223rd time, the district was founded with the objective of promoting tourism, not building a city. It's in the charter.

 

[LittleBuford]

It depends on the jurisdiction.
1. Generally, if someone calls 911, their call is not anonymous. They are asked to provide their name. That is the first thing the operator asks, before the emergency is reported.

Even if they don't provide it, the emergency operator automatically has caller ID. Most 911 calls are made using a cell phone, so the operator automatically knows the cell phone number.

People call 911 for a great number of reasons. A great many people call 911 when they are very distressed, so they often hang up before they have given the operator enough information. Like if they call to report a fire, it might be a small fire (1 truck), or it might be a very large fire (multiple trucks). People very often mistakenly call 911 for non-emergencies. The operator MUST therefore be able to call the person back.


2. It is complicated. In many locations, the unconscious person will be billed, but in a number of locations, if it was an emergency situation, then the government pays for it, or pays a portion of the cost. It has to be an emergency though. The amount owed might be the full cost, or it might be a % split, or it might be something like a $100 or $50 fee.

B. If the person is unconscious due to an auto/insured vehicle accident, the auto insurance might pay.

C. It is even more complicated than this though.

Thank you!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sorry, I DID NOT read all 965 pages..

But you genuinely thought that none of us were aware of EPCOT?

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I love Disney and have been a shareholder for several decades. That being said, I really believe Reedy Creek should have been dissolved in the early 70's.

Reedy Creek came about because Walt's original plan centered around EPCOT which was going to basically be a city. The original plans that were provided to the state at the time Reedy Creek was created included businesses, residences, recreation, transportation, and all the infrastructure to create a city that you could live, work, and play in.

This was never built. Had Walt have just proposed building a theme park I do not believe Reedy Creek would have existed.

If Reedy Creek became "unnecessary" as a result of the original EPCOT plans not coming to fruition, why has it continued to exist for 40+ years?

 

[GoofGoof]

If it was dissolved in 1971 when only a theme park was built, the bill would have not existed or not to the degree it is now.

But I agree, it could not be dissolved now without passing that debt to the counties.

If RCID was dissolved in 1971 then local tax payers would have been forced to foot the bill for all the services the district provides today for the last 50+ years. The debt came from roads and utilities that would have been the responsibility of the counties instead of RCID. The fire department would still be needed but paid for 100% by the counties. Since Disney already pays its full share of taxes to the counties those extra costs would have to be paid by all local taxpayers. RCID was and still is a much bigger advantage to local taxpayers than it ever was for Disney.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Also, at the May 1st meeting, Garcia went on and on about how the district‘s urban planning and design was stuck in 1967. Obviously that’s complete nonsense and he knows it. Just because the district was founded in ‘67 doesn’t mean that the urban planning was stuck in that era. He also went on to applaud Disney’s innovation in this field.

Which begs the question: “At the May 1st meeting, Chairman Garcia said and I quote, ‘That’s what we’re trying to do, is bring this district from an urban planning perspective into today’s times. And think about the innovation that has occured in that industry. Think about why Disney has been so successful in the past 56 years…because they innovated. Innovation is the American way.’ Now, if Disney had control over this district as you say they did, and they own the vast majority of land in the district, and they’re an innovator in urban planning and design, then your theory that this district was stuck in the urban planning of the sixties is nonsense. And therefore, the task assigned to you by the legislature and the governor is total bunk.”

Baseless speculation, but I’d even venture that the Board likely prefers the car and suburb focused urban design that still dominated in the mid-60s and not more contemporary urban design. I don’t buy for a second that any of these people actually believe there should be more affordable housing. Like everything, they likely see it as a punishment and it’s only a punishment because it’s something they view as undesirable.

 

[fotofx]

But you genuinely thought that none of us were aware of EPCOT?

Just did not know it had been discussed.

 

[peter11435]

I love Disney and have been a shareholder for several decades. That being said, I really believe Reedy Creek should have been dissolved in the early 70's.

Reedy Creek came about because Walt's original plan centered around EPCOT which was going to basically be a city. The original plans that were provided to the state at the time Reedy Creek was created included businesses, residences, recreation, transportation, and all the infrastructure to create a city that you could live, work, and play in.

This was never built. Had Walt have just proposed building a theme park I do not believe Reedy Creek would have existed.

Nothing in the charter mentions a requirement to build EPCOT

Aside from permanent residences (beyond a select few) everything you mentioned exists within RCID currently. There are businesses, recreation, transportation, and all the infrastructure to create a city that you could live, work, and play in. The district today exists exactly as intended and outlined in the charter.

 

[GoofGoof]

Just did not know it had been discussed.

Hey no worries. To summarize, that point has been brought up multiple times mostly by DeSantis apologists looking for a way to justify his actions. It is sorta a Disney fan urban legend that the only reason for the district was to create EPCOT. While Walt’s original plans included EPCOT that was not the reason for a special district, it was always about control of the land and development which they lacked in CA. The district charter spells out the purpose of the district. The FL Supreme Court has also ruled on it as well. The primary purpose of the district is to promote tourism and growth in the district. RCID is not a general government so it would not be equipped to govern a residential community. When Disney eventually built Celebration they de-annexed the land from RCID for that reason. It has its own general government now. Disney never wanted landowners in their district.

 

[fotofx]

Nothing in the charter mentions a requirement to build EPCOT

Aside from permanent residences (beyond a select few) everything you mentioned exists within RCID currently. There are businesses, recreation, transportation, and all the infrastructure to create a city that you could live, work, and play in. The district today exists exactly as intended and outlined in the charter.

I still feel that what the state thought they were going to get and what they actually got are very different. Universal seems to be doing very well without the benefits. I agree it is a much smaller scale land wise but they managed.

 

[fotofx]

Hey no worries. To summarize, that point has been brought up multiple times mostly by DeSantis apologists looking for a way to justify his actions. It is sorta a Disney fan urban legend that the only reason for the district was to create EPCOT. While Walt’s original plans included EPCOT that was not the reason for a special district, it was always about control of the land and development which they lacked in CA. The district charter spells out the purpose of the district. The FL Supreme Court has also ruled on it as well. The primary purpose of the district is to promote tourism and growth in the district. RCID is not a general government so it would not be equipped to govern a residential community. When Disney eventually built Celebration they de-annexed the land from RCID for that reason. It has its own general government now. Disney never wanted landowners in their district.

I did not realize they de-annexed Celebration. Interesting point.

 

[LittleBuford]

I still feel that what the state thought they were going to get and what they actually got are very different. Universal seems to be doing very well without the benefits. I agree it is a much smaller scale land wise but they managed.

Leaving aside the claims you’re making, the district hasn’t been dissolved anyway, merely taken over by the governor’s people and renamed.

 

[GoofGoof]

I still feel that what the state thought they were going to get and what they actually got are very different. Universal seems to be doing very well without the benefits. I agree it is a much smaller scale land wise but they managed.

What the state got was better than anyone could have dreamed back then if you think about it. RCID was more successful than anyone could have imagined.

Universal has a limited special district as well plus a development agreements with the city of Orlando. That’s why Orlando built and paid for the pedestrian bridges when they built a new hotel.

 

[Stripes]

Baseless speculation, but I’d even venture that the Board likely prefers the car and suburb focused urban design that still dominated in the mid-60s and not more contemporary urban design. I don’t buy for a second that any of these people actually believe there should be more affordable housing. Like everything, they likely see it as a punishment and it’s only a punishment because it’s something they view as undesirable.

I think what they‘ll actually try to do is try to push through a new comprehensive plan and then rezone a bunch of Disney’s land for residential development so Disney can’t build new parks, hotels, retail, etc. on their property. And they’ll make a bunch of noise saying it’s for affordable housing yada yada when in actuality Disney just won’t build anything and they’ll point to the developments they’re building just outside of the district as their commitment to affordable housing.

 

[mmascari]

I love Disney and have been a shareholder for several decades. That being said, I really believe Reedy Creek should have been dissolved in the early 70's.

Reedy Creek came about because Walt's original plan centered around EPCOT which was going to basically be a city. The original plans that were provided to the state at the time Reedy Creek was created included businesses, residences, recreation, transportation, and all the infrastructure to create a city that you could live, work, and play in.

This was never built. Had Walt have just proposed building a theme park I do not believe Reedy Creek would have existed.

Can you provide a reference to support any of these claims?

Something in the charter maybe? News stories from the time period? Documentaries that delve into the details? Court case findings from previous changes? Opinion pieces from prior to 2022? Talking points from politicians? Crazy internet theories? Anything at all that supports (even if incorrectly) any of this?

Sorry, I DID NOT read all 965 pages..

Thread moves fast. Reading it all, especially with off topic deletes could be hard. But, did you read any of it? 50, 30, or even 10 pages of it?

Just did not know it had been discussed.

Can you give any reasons at all that this would be new to the discussion?

 

[peter11435]

I still feel that what the state thought they were going to get and what they actually got are very different. Universal seems to be doing very well without the benefits. I agree it is a much smaller scale land wise but they managed.

The state knew exactly what it was getting.

And multiple times in the districts history the Supreme Court, the state legislature, the attorney general, and past governors have ruled, opined, and spoken in favor the district and how it has developed, operated, and benefited the state.

Also, the original plan for EPCOT was that residents would not own property. So given the structure of the charter Disney would have always maintained control.

 

[mmascari]

I think what they‘ll actually try to do is try to push through a new comprehensive plan and then rezone a bunch of Disney’s land for residential development so Disney can’t build new parks, hotels, retail, etc. on their property.

What's the tourism or general economic impact of say 100 or 500 houses (or even 1,000 dense condos, or 3,000 high rise apartments) vs an additional theme park?

I thought tourism was a key goal of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. I've never seen some housing attract more tourists.