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

GoofGoof

Premium Member
The difference between Reedy Creek though and something like Broward Health District is the ability to raise revenue via ad valorem taxes. I believe it was @GoofGoof who did the research and found that there are no state controlled districts with the power to raise revenue via ad valorem taxes, which is where landowner or voter approval might be required.

So - the question is, does the state have that power?
Yeah. Out of all of the special districts in FL currently where the Governor appoints the board and they also have taxing authority all that I checked have clauses which require the board to be selected from land owners of the district. In those cases landowners can apply to be board members and then the best qualified is appointed. Probably done to avoid the costs and time needed to run elections. If the Governor‘s talking points become the “actual plan” it will be the first time a special district with taxing authority also has Government appointed board members from outside the district.
 

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
Strange worlds was abnormally bad… like no one knew what this even was. Calling it out in this example is not apologist. It legitimately was abnormal
Because the movie tested poorly. (I also thought it was bad, but that’s beside the point)

Do you spend another $100m throwing good after bad, or do you throw in the towel and take the write down?

Especially when this is peak Chapek/McCarthy and they’ll let the Studios segment take the loss to give cheap content to D+
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Strange worlds was abnormally bad… like no one knew what this even was. Calling it out in this example is not apologist. It legitimately was abnormal
Because the movie tested poorly. (I also thought it was bad, but that’s beside the point)

Do you spend another $100m throwing good after bad, or do you throw in the towel and take the write down?

Especially when this is peak Chapek/McCarthy and they’ll let the Studios segment take the loss to give cheap content to D+
Yeah, this is my take on it too. They were not great movies and they didn’t market them very heavily. Lightyear did get some more marketing but not a full court press. So if someone wants to make the argument that the reason they tested poorly and ultimately received little marketing help was because of a political boycott then maybe that’s more plausible but impossible to quantify too.
 

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
Yeah, this is my take on it too. They were not great movies and they didn’t market them very heavily. Lightyear did get some more marketing but not a full court press. So if someone wants to make the argument that the reason they tested poorly and ultimately received little marketing help was because of a political boycott then maybe that’s more plausible but impossible to quantify too.
I know it’s easy to make everything politics these days, but it’s not like Disney’s never been boycotted in the past by some fringe group upset at them.

I think the truth is a bit more nuanced - that Disney’s brand has been damaged severely over the last three years and people generally are less willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The company is seen as self serving and untrustworthy by a broad cross section of the population.
 

celluloid

Well-Known Member
I think people need to seperate the idea of a true Boycott zero tolerance situation to brand distaste and apathy/losing loyalty. As drnilescrane pointed out, its more akin to the lack of trust in the brand, which is not subjective, it is fact, as the reports and metrics of business has showed and why Iger stated he returned. The films and other projects' lack of success have had a part played by that.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
The difference between Reedy Creek though and something like Broward Health District is the ability to raise revenue via ad valorem taxes. I believe it was @GoofGoof who did the research and found that there are no state controlled districts with the power to raise revenue via ad valorem taxes, which is where landowner or voter approval might be required.

So - the question is, does the state have that power?
I’m a bit under the weather right now so I may be missing it, but I don’t see that limitation in the state constitution. There is a prohibition on the state assessing ad valorem taxes. Ignorantly summing it has not been answered in the constitution or prior cases, I think the questions are whether or not a special district, which is considered a form of local government, can also be considered the state and if so at what threshold does that duality occur?

I imagine the argument would be that supervisors are appointed but otherwise independent. Throw in provisions that they cannot be fired at will by the governor and you help solidify that independence. Staggering terms to exceed and overlap the governor’s would help that argument, saying they’re not all appointed by one person (except that first time that really matters in this case). Then, if necessary, you could throw in a minority of elected seats to provide representation along with those “independent“ appointees who could be persuaded by the elected supervisors.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
I’m a bit under the weather right now so I may be missing it, but I don’t see that limitation in the state constitution. There is a prohibition on the state assessing ad valorem taxes. Ignorantly summing it has not been answered in the constitution or prior cases, I think the questions are whether or not a special district, which is considered a form of local government, can also be considered the state and if so at what threshold does that duality occur?

I imagine the argument would be that supervisors are appointed but otherwise independent. Throw in provisions that they cannot be fired at will by the governor and you help solidify that independence. Staggering terms to exceed and overlap the governor’s would help that argument, saying they’re not all appointed by one person (except that first time that really matters in this case). Then, if necessary, you could throw in a minority of elected seats to provide representation along with those “independent“ appointees who could be persuaded by the elected supervisors.

Hope you feel better soon.

Doesn't the FL constitution give the Governor pretty broad powers to remove anyone who holds an office in the state? If so a provision that they cannot be fired would possibly be unconstitutional, because as we've seen, DeSantis can pretty much make up a reason to fire anyone. If that's the case, then this might be considered the state implementing ad valorem taxes?

Also, Article V, Section 9 of the FL constitution lays out the limits for ad valorem taxes, and this clause caught my eye:

and for all other special districts a millage authorized by law approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation.

If this is a new district, then I think that they would have to have a vote to tax Disney at all. If they are amending the existing district's charter, then maybe they can keep the current tax structure there, but I think that's even more of a tangled process given how the Reedy Creek act was written.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I know it’s easy to make everything politics these days, but it’s not like Disney’s never been boycotted in the past by some fringe group upset at them.

I think the truth is a bit more nuanced - that Disney’s brand has been damaged severely over the last three years and people generally are less willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The company is seen as self serving and untrustworthy by a broad cross section of the population.
It’s possible that has happened. It’s possible the brand has been permanently damaged. It’s possible Disney will never have the past success it had with Disney animation and Star Wars and Marvel and Pixar movies. Maybe people will stop going to the theme parks too. We need to wait and see if that actually happens. There’s no way to look at a handful of less successful films last year and draw the definitive conclusion that this is the reason. Even if it was the reason it’s also too soon to determine this is a permanent situation. As I stated earlier many people were upset with the knee during national anthem thing with the NFL and maybe some even stopped watching some games at first, but we now know it has had very little negative long term impact to the league or ratings.
 

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
It’s possible that has happened. It’s possible the brand has been permanently damaged. It’s possible Disney will never have the past success it had with Disney animation and Star Wars and Marvel and Pixar movies. Maybe people will stop going to the theme parks too. We need to wait and see if that actually happens. There’s no way to look at a handful of less successful films last year and draw the definitive conclusion that this is the reason. Even if it was the reason it’s also too soon to determine this is a permanent situation. As I stated earlier many people were upset with the knee during national anthem thing with the NFL and maybe some even stopped watching some games at first, but we now know it has had very little negative long term impact to the league or ratings.
Oh, I don't think it's permanent. We've been here before in the early 2000s.

It's just going to be hard to turn around, and it's going to be painful. And Bob himself - once he works through this proxy fight - has to take some responsibility for some bad hires. And biting off too much merger that fundamentally transformed the company into one he doesn't know how to manage. Much like Michael had to roughly 15-20 years in.
 

Polkadotdress

Well-Known Member
Ran across this article in a different thread, and couldn't help but notice the irony that Uni is building a new entry road to their EPIC expansion which is priced at $300M, with Uni contributing at least $174. Where's the balance of that $ coming from? Taxpayer funds??? And yet there's no outrage at that...


From the article: "As for the Kirkman Road extension, the project is expected to help with traffic in that part of the tourist corridor. When finished, it will add a 1.7-mile connector between Carrier Drive and Universal Boulevard. The project has an estimated cost of $300 million, with Universal providing at least $164 million for the road work. It’s expected to be completed in 2024."
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Ran across this article in a different thread, and couldn't help but notice the irony that Uni is building a new entry road to their EPIC expansion which is priced at $300M, with Uni contributing at least $174. Where's the balance of that $ coming from? Taxpayer funds??? And yet there's no outrage at that...


From the article: "As for the Kirkman Road extension, the project is expected to help with traffic in that part of the tourist corridor. When finished, it will add a 1.7-mile connector between Carrier Drive and Universal Boulevard. The project has an estimated cost of $300 million, with Universal providing at least $164 million for the road work. It’s expected to be completed in 2024."
This particular road project has been mentioned previously. Universal is also seeking the creation of a community development district to support the proposed SunRail and Brightline station near the convention center (they want to get special treatment for their station).

Those who drop in to repeat the falsehoods about Disney have not shown any interest in engaging with the actual facts of how things work.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Ran across this article in a different thread, and couldn't help but notice the irony that Uni is building a new entry road to their EPIC expansion which is priced at $300M, with Uni contributing at least $174. Where's the balance of that $ coming from? Taxpayer funds??? And yet there's no outrage at that...


From the article: "As for the Kirkman Road extension, the project is expected to help with traffic in that part of the tourist corridor. When finished, it will add a 1.7-mile connector between Carrier Drive and Universal Boulevard. The project has an estimated cost of $300 million, with Universal providing at least $164 million for the road work. It’s expected to be completed in 2024."
Yep. So without RCID work on many of the roads through Disney property would have been at least partially paid for by local taxpayers. Instead that work was 100% paid for by only RCID taxpayers, or primarily Disney. The exact opposite of the narrative “Disney does not pay its fair share of taxes”. I believe that is called an inconvenient truth.
 

Rich Brownn

Well-Known Member
Ran across this article in a different thread, and couldn't help but notice the irony that Uni is building a new entry road to their EPIC expansion which is priced at $300M, with Uni contributing at least $174. Where's the balance of that $ coming from? Taxpayer funds??? And yet there's no outrage at that...


From the article: "As for the Kirkman Road extension, the project is expected to help with traffic in that part of the tourist corridor. When finished, it will add a 1.7-mile connector between Carrier Drive and Universal Boulevard. The project has an estimated cost of $300 million, with Universal providing at least $164 million for the road work. It’s expected to be completed in 2024."
The project was planned even before Epic. By adding the extra money Universal made it possible to move forward.
Ran across this article in a different thread, and couldn't help but notice the irony that Uni is building a new entry road to their EPIC expansion which is priced at $300M, with Uni contributing at least $174. Where's the balance of that $ coming from? Taxpayer funds??? And yet there's no outrage at that...


From the article: "As for the Kirkman Road extension, the project is expected to help with traffic in that part of the tourist corridor. When finished, it will add a 1.7-mile connector between Carrier Drive and Universal Boulevard. The project has an estimated cost of $300 million, with Universal providing at least $164 million for the road work. It’s expected to be completed in 2024."
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
The project was planned even before Epic. By adding the extra money Universal made it possible to move forward.

Either way it’s still local taxpayers footing part of the bill for a road that obviously benefits Universal enough that they are footing the other half of the bill. Every RCID road project through Disney property was paid for by RCID taxpayers only. That’s a very significant savings for every other local taxpayer. If RCID didn’t exist Disney’s road projects would also need to be added to the long term plans for the counties and ultimately would lead to either higher taxes, other projects getting pushed back or cancelled to cut costs or most likely a combination of both.
 

Skibum1970

Well-Known Member
Either way it’s still local taxpayers footing part of the bill for a road that obviously benefits Universal enough that they are footing the other half of the bill. Every RCID road project through Disney property was paid for by RCID taxpayers only. That’s a very significant savings for every other local taxpayer. If RCID didn’t exist Disney’s road projects would also need to be added to the long term plans for the counties and ultimately would lead to either higher taxes, other projects getting pushed back or cancelled to cut costs or most likely a combination of both.

I can also see more red tape coming into play. Governments, state and federal, seem to delay things through the whole selection process of contractors, funding, and prioritization. I hope that this doesn't happen but it seems unlikely.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom