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

GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
Again... BY DESIGN OF DISNEY. You all are taking the model they implemented by Disney and applying it as if it were the design of the state.

They schemed this to be based on landowners which is agreeable to the state because they couldn't just give appointment powers to WDP itself. But the scheme to manipulate who is a landowner with CONDITIONAL privileges is where it gets messy in terms of addressing the difference between an elected person and a puppet.
Click to expand...
When the state approved the RCID charter there were no other landowners but Disney so by passing the bill that way isn’t it by the design of the state? Who did the state think those board members would be? I assume they knew the plan.

In the original charter the rules were laid out that a majority of board members must be residents of Orange/Osceola counties or the surrounding counties and that they all must be landowners in the district. They could have left the landowner part out I suppose but they didn’t. Either way the landowners elect the based on acreage so Disney was always going to have total control of who served on the board.
 
castlecake2.0

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
GoofGoof said:
When the state approved the RCID charter there were no other landowners but Disney so by passing the bill that way isn’t it by the design of the state? Who did the state think those board members would be? I assume they knew the plan.

In the original charter the rules were laid out that a majority of board members must be residents of Orange/Osceola counties or the surrounding counties and that they all must be landowners in the district. They could have left the landowner part out I suppose but they didn’t. Either way the landowners elect the based on acreage so Disney was always going to have total control of who served on the board.
Click to expand...
Which to me doesn’t sound like a problem, Disney owns all the land so why shouldn’t they be allowed to pick who sits on the board? My issue is now neither the land owner or local residents pick the board, it’s picked by the governor and now we have people that are acting like an unelected municipal government instead of just focusing on the mundane things the district is actually supposed to be doing.
 
Bullseye1967

Bullseye1967

Is that who I am?
Premium Member
flynnibus said:
Yet we all the the ‘gift’ you mention is basically worthless to the recipient and is just a way to facilitate something….

Yet the new district administrator is being paid twice the amount of anyone in governments orders of magnitude bigger than the district. Highest paid orlando employees were paid $220k in 2019.

This guy is getting 400k for a district that should be on cruise control….

Talk about suspect interests….
Click to expand...
The previous administrator made over 300k.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
Other districts don’t even have the residency requirements. If Universal gets its CDD they’re not going to be building five little houses somewhere near Epic Universe. The landowner(s) can pick whomever so long as they’re a resident of the state and US citizen.
Click to expand...
Well the other districts aren’t defined the same either. The point is the people once appointed are still under the the influence and threat of disposition. That’s the conflict pointed out. The fact its allowed or not doesn’t change that.

There is a difference between bring tapped… and being a puppet because your continuation is always conditional on the master’s approval.

Disney didn’t just control who was elected… they controlled them period. I know that’s what people are ok with - but there is a distinction when talking about people being independent or not
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
mikejs78 said:
No, by design of the state. The landowner method of voting is not uncommon in FL special districts.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was - but the manipulation of who the landowners actually are and the ability to redact someone's ownership unilaterally IS different. The point being that the eligibility (which is what the state defined) was in effect able to be revokable by Disney due to their "temporary" arrangement they would setup people up with instead of them truly being land owners. It's not just a situation of picking people and electing them, but you also get to arbitrarily control their continued eligibility. Ultimately it doesn't matter much because Disney can just not elect them again... but the scheme does not enable objectivity when your legal eligibility is also at stake.

The model continued to function not because of state's design, but by Disney's manipulation of land ownership. They never had to give up additional land to bring in more candidates or deal with landowners who wouldn't give up their votes.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
I didn't say it was - but the manipulation of who the landowners actually are and the ability to redact someone's ownership unilaterally IS different. The point being that the eligibility (which is what the state defined) was in effect able to be revokable by Disney due to their "temporary" arrangement they would setup people up with instead of them truly being land owners. It's not just a situation of picking people and electing them, but you also get to arbitrarily control their continued eligibility. Ultimately it doesn't matter much because Disney can just not elect them again... but the scheme does not enable objectivity when your legal eligibility is also at stake.

The model continued to function not because of state's design, but by Disney's manipulation of land ownership.
Click to expand...
How is it different than placing an employee and being able to unilaterally revoke their employment?
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
That’s exactly what the state has set up as allowed and expected for the base community development district.
Click to expand...
That's example of... something else. Not a valid concern for the district under discussion.

Again, the point all along was acknowledging the person is not really independent and faces a conflict that their enabler is also who they are regulating. Not that it's 'unknown' or 'not allowed' - but facing the reality that they are in fact conflicted.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
That's example of... something else. Not a valid concern for the district under discussion. .

Again, the point all along was acknowledging the person is not really independent and faces a conflict that their enabler is also who they are regulating. Not that it's 'unknown' or 'not allowed' - but facing the reality that they are in fact conflicted.
Click to expand...
We’re trying to point out to you that the state’s base, default independent special district offered to anyone expects a single or few landowners who place employees on the Board of Supervisors as part of their employment. State rules regarding conflicts of interest exempt such districts because it is expected, not because they were only protecting Disney. Reedy Creek was more unique in requiring ownership in the district, but not in having a Board of Supervisors that is not truly independent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
flynnibus said:
That's example of... something else. Not a valid concern for the district under discussion.

Again, the point all along was acknowledging the person is not really independent and faces a conflict that their enabler is also who they are regulating. Not that it's 'unknown' or 'not allowed' - but facing the reality that they are in fact conflicted.
Click to expand...
The board was never independent. I also don’t think that means there’s a conflict of interest. It was by design.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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

Back
Top Bottom