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

[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.

 

[sblank]

This is exactly what has happened so far. The new board has zero qualifications, but all “friends of the program” and donors to the Governor. They are paying it forward with hiring consultants and lawyers and administrators as favors. It’s all very corrupt. We haven’t even gotten to new road contracts or other services which will likely all follow the same pattern.

Correct. The Reedy Creek takeover is also just one in an emerging pattern of local, independent (from the state) authorities that desantis and the legislature are attempting to take over in order to install his own people in and thus have control over their huge budgets.

There's also the takeover-in-progress of publicly owned Gainesville Regional Utilities and of MDX in south Florida. Both of which are being done under the flimsiest of pretenses and the latter of which is also constitutionally sketchy at best, like Reedy Creek. They just don't involve Disney so aren't as flashy.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

Not that facts matter, but most of the District is already zoned for affordable housing.

What you describe would cause some potential issues in the future, but I also don’t see Disney building a lot out of where they have existing development.

More immediately I think it’s just a lie to justify changing the development process to put more projects in front of the zoning commission, which is now the Board. That’s the thing they want. That’s where they get to control content.

 

[flynnibus]

This is an intelligent and well thought out post. We are not dealing with intelligent people who think anything out. Their “plan” is as well thought out as the original one to dissolve the district.

I think what you see is people putting on a facade of 'progressing the idea' when in fact they already have their end-game decided, but won't admit it. That's why the ideas don't seem to follow any natural flow or progression in the public view... because the steps are just being 'faked' for all intents.

Instead of a discussion that naturally tries to address uncertainties or concerns.. you get what looks like a bullheaded approach that ignores plainly obvious things.

These are all tells of something that is pre-determined instead of organically progressing.

 

[fotofx]

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?


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?


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

If you go on Youtube there are plenty of videos of Walt showing what he had planned and the press conference with the Governor stating he did not want a sequel but something entirely new.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

How do you think you would have gotten to the Magic Kingdom if it was still in a swamp, without power, without roads, without potable water and was still filled with bugs?

And what is all this infrastructure that was built out doing these days since EPCOT wasn't built? Are they all sitting around idle??

Or... was it all actually needed for things besides EPCOT too?

 

[flynnibus]

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.”

It was a long winded setup to try to argue why they need new density changes to support their agenda of forcing some residential into the property.

Not an actual argument, but a setup to tee up their pre-determined conclusion.