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

[Disstevefan1]

Everybody, this thread is about Florida Legislators Want To Remove The Reedy Creek Improvement District, please be sure not to discuss anything about Florida Legislators Want To Remove The Reedy Creek Improvement District!

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Politics discussion is not allowed on these forums so it is indeed a mute point.

It's not political to say that the government can't punish people or businesses for disagreeing with them. It's 100% relevant to the topic of this thread. And it's not a mute point. I read all of my posts out loud as I type.

 

[The Mom]

This particular thread is about RCID. Not the bill itself. Although a post may appear benign, it can be the catalyst for more off topic debate/argument about the bill itself which will then turn this thread into a continuation of another.

There are many unmoderated (or moderated more to your liking) sites out there that are devoted to political/social issues discussions.

Since this is a WDW forum, news - even if political in nature - about WDW cannot be ignored. But that doesn't mean that out and out political and social issues discussion is allowed. We attempted to have a subforum where people could discuss these sort of issues in a polite, adult manner with no insults or name calling being tossed back and forth. Posters couldn't comply so it was removed.

 

[Midwest Elitist]

This is a political topic, but it's not hard to stay on topic. I think that's the main issue.

 

[The Mom]

Everybody, this thread is about Florida Legislators Want To Remove The Reedy Creek Improvement District, please be sure not to discuss anything about Florida Legislators Want To Remove The Reedy Creek Improvement District!

That can certainly be discussed, and whether posters consider it right or wrong to do so. But it is not a thread to discuss the bill, and motives for it's existence nor reactions to it. Nor a discussion of individual politicians or parties, nor the social issues involved.

 

[The Mom]

10. If you have a problem with or question about a moderator’s decision, contact the moderator privately or submit a message through the contact system. Posts or topics discussing moderator actions will be removed.

 

[awilliams4]

I wonder why Universal and all the other major theme park/entertainment companies don't find themselves with this PR issue that Disney now seems to have.

 

[The Mom]

We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content posted for any reason without explanation. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We reserve the right to take action against any account with the Service at any time.

 

[wdwmagic]

Everybody, there is to be no thinking/discussion/debate on these discussion forums especially if it had to do with Walt Disney world
I am ready to be blocked for my thoughts now

I think you need to step back and consider how difficult these thread are to moderate. It is a no-win impossible situation when there are two very divided sides to every thread that is political in nature. Each time we try to let people carry on the conversation, and each time someone gets upset with comments, can't control what they say, gets angry with moderation - and so on. Please try to help and these types of threads can maybe more successful.

 

[flynnibus]

And how exactly would anyone justify applying that special tax to on WDW but not Universal, Sea World, or any other tourist attraction?

Simple.. by justifying a need. If the county were to suddenly take on a whole lot of infrastructure or future needs it didn't already have covered... they need to find a way to fund that. This is done all the time.

In the case of UNI - if there is no need because they previously negotiated proffers or other funding methods then there is no justification for the overlay district.

There's no loophole that would allow legislators to punish Disney for exercising its First Amendment rights and I'm honestly stunned that there is anyone posting here that would support doing so even in a roundabout "if we make this complicated enough we might get away with plausible deniability" kind of way. It's basically saying that you're okay with the First Amendment only applying to people who agree with whoever happens to be in power at that given moment. There are plenty of places people could go where free speech is applied that way, but the United States isn't one of them - and I'm not sure anyone suggesting ways for the government to punish Disney would ever actually be happy living in any of the places where such punishment occurs.

Nothing I talked about had anything to do with First Amendment crap - nor would anything about taking away the RCID be wound up in that. The State giveth, the state can take away.

Nothing I'm talking about is 'punishment' - it's a matter of funding and need.

 

[Figgy1]

I wonder what Universal and all the other major theme park/entertainment companies don't find themselves with this PR issue that Disney now seems to have.

If a guest sneezes on Peter Pan it makes the news not so much at other theme parks

 

[Disstevefan1]

I give up. I am back to -

 

[flynnibus]

Special tax districts are a common way to fund initiatives that government feels may be best funded by targeted areas... or who may benefit more from the initiative so they use a more pay-to-play justification.

This isn't a first amendment topic.

Legislature taking away the RCID certainly would be a punitive move in today's climate - but it is also something one may justify through other means. Just because the state is being 'mean' doesn't mean they couldn't do it. Disney would have to file civil suits to try to block stuff.. but given it's about WRITING law, not enforcement of law.... they'd have to find ways to find the new law unconstitutional in the state... which would be really hard to do given everyone else operates under the same position.

And given the pickle Disney put themselves in by basically saying they are stopping political contributions... it's not like the politicians think their sugar daddy is going to cut them off. So it's all about placating to their voter base.. not to Disney.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And how exactly would anyone justify applying that special tax to on WDW but not Universal, Sea World, or any other tourist attraction? There's no loophole that would allow legislators to punish Disney for exercising its First Amendment rights and I'm honestly stunned that there is anyone posting here that would support doing so even in a roundabout "if we make this complicated enough we might get away with plausible deniability" kind of way. It's basically saying that you're okay with the First Amendment only applying to people who agree with whoever happens to be in power at that given moment. There are plenty of places people could go where free speech is applied that way, but the United States isn't one of them - and I'm not sure anyone suggesting ways for the government to punish Disney would ever actually be happy living in any of the places where such punishment occurs.

He’s not talking about punishment, but something like a tax allocation district where additional taxes are levied in a specific area for the purpose of funding improvements within that area.

Universal Orlando Resort is actually already in sort of similar situation. As part of the buildout of the resort in the late 90s, the City issued bonds to pay for the roadway improvements. Additional taxes are levied at Universal Orlando Resort to pay back those bonds since they were issued to benefit Universal.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Simple.. by justifying a need. If the county were to suddenly take on a whole lot of infrastructure or future needs it didn't already have covered... they need to find a way to fund that. This is done all the time.

In the case of UNI - if there is no need because they previously negotiated proffers or other funding methods then there is no justification for the overlay district.



Nothing I talked about had anything to do with First Amendment crap - nor would anything about taking away the RCID be wound up in that. The State giveth, the state can take away.

Nothing I'm talking about is 'punishment' - it's a matter of funding and need.

We know it's punishment because the reason for considering doing so was already stated. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Changing course and thinking, "Well we can't do that now because I admitted it was a punishment, so let's just do this instead and we'll get away with it because nobody will ever figure out what I'm doing now if I just don't say it publicly," wouldn't be a sound legal strategy for the State. And a Special Tax would only be "needed" if RCID ceased to exist, anyway, so then we get back to the punishment part. They couldn't even argue that they weren't punishing Disney or negatively impacting local taxpayers because a special sales tax would impact any locals who visit the same as people from out of state.

 

[larryz]

Please tell me why it’s a good business decision to step into the middle of that minefield?

Seems to me they've jumped to one side of the line that goes down the middle.

 

[larryz]

Why Reedy Creek Improvement District was essential in 1965...

But why is it needed now that that dream will never come to pass?

 

[flynnibus]

We know it's punishment because the reason for considering doing so was already stated. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Changing course and thinking, "Well we can't do that now because I admitted it was a punishment, so let's just do this instead and we'll get away with it because nobody will ever figure out what I'm doing now if I just don't say it publicly," wouldn't be a sound legal strategy for the State.

You have a nice emotional argument here - but it really doesn't matter. The state can argue plenty of other justifiable reasons as well. RCID is basically a gift the state gave... not having RCID would put Disney on the same footing as everyone else. You'd have a hard time arguing 'punishment' for an end-state that is 'equal'.

And a Special Tax would only be "needed" if RCID ceased to exist,

Not really - if they identify a need they could do it with RCID too. RCID is limited in scope, its existence is not some bubble. But the entire discussion was about tax payer burden IF RCID was removed.. so I really don't understand your point. Yes, it was talking about if RCID was removed.

They couldn't even argue that they weren't punishing Disney or negatively impacting local taxpayers because a special sales tax would impact any locals who visit the same as people from out of state.

An emotional argument easily defeated with the 'only charge those who use it, not everyone' mantra. Politician says "I don't want to raise taxes on everyone... we'll just tax those who use it". Majority who don't use it.. say 'sounds good to me.. make those people pay'. Problem solved.

 

[lazyboy97o]

We know it's punishment because the reason for considering doing so was already stated. The toothpaste is out of the tube. Changing course and thinking, "Well we can't do that now because I admitted it was a punishment, so let's just do this instead and we'll get away with it because nobody will ever figure out what I'm doing now if I just don't say it publicly," wouldn't be a sound legal strategy for the State. And a Special Tax would only be "needed" if RCID ceased to exist, anyway, so then we get back to the punishment part. They couldn't even argue that they weren't punishing Disney or negatively impacting local taxpayers because a special sales tax would impact any locals who visit the same as people from out of state.

That stated intent would not be written into the legislation itself. Instead the legal justification would be something like being an unfair advantage or having fulfilled its purpose and no longer being necessary. Improper motives are not themselves not necessarily illegal.

 

[Lilofan]

Everybody, this thread is about Florida Legislators Want To Remove The Reedy Creek Improvement District, please be sure not to discuss anything about Florida Legislators Want To Remove The Reedy Creek Improvement District!

This idea regarding Reedy Creek removal is pure March Madness ( Go DUKE!) without basketball. Pure and simple it is retaliation against WDW, who happens to be a big donor to causes and parties.