GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
They have the benefit of being able to build and maintain the 25,000+ acres they bought and own in a manner that's consistent with their standards and needs which are higher than most of the cities and counties in the rest of the state. Essentially, it gives them their own HOA for which they can control what gets built, where it gets built, and how without having the burden of the local government and their red tape. It allowed them to build the property in the late 60s and the infrastructure needed without state or local funding. It allows them now to maintain that same infrastructure without burdening the local government. They tax themselves to build the roads, waterways, emergency services they need and the local taxpayers are relieved of the bill.So what is Disney’s benefit here with RCID?
It’s been said by some on here they don’t get a financial break, and may even pay more in taxes.
Many of those same people have also said they don’t get an unusual break in terms of various approvals.
Yet their actions - the development agreement, restrictive covenant, lawsuit - suggests they really wanted to keep the status quo above and beyond the principle of defending themselves.
So what benefits did Disney enjoy through this arrangement?
Depending on what it is they build, they still have to comply with state and federal regulations.
For example: Building codes, transportation, power & water, etc.
I think the biggest reason they want to keep it so they can continue to build as they please without the hassle of red tape.
Better still, having a board that represents them and their interests is critical to their success. The newly appointed board does not represent them or their interests and seems more interested in restricting and punishing them.
It should be noted there are nearly 1,300 other districts in Florida that have similar independent authority for their community.
Another similar district is Cape Canaveral and the Villages. These function independently to allow the owner and residents to build and maintain the community in was that best meets their needs.
So, what benefit does the state get in taking control? How does that help "level the field"?
For the most part, they get to build as they please, once approved in open public hearings, without interference or red tape. And, why shouldn't they? It's their land. As long as they aren't building anything harmful to the surrounding community, why would the state want to interefere when they've both greatly benefited from the arrangment for more than 50 years.
I may not have all this entirely accurate, and probably mis-stated, but here's my best response as I understand it. There are others here who understand and can explain it MUCH better.
A much better explanation is here:
Walt Disney World’s setup in Florida is, indeed, unusual, but it doesn’t quite make sense to call it a “carve-out.” Properly understood, a “carve-out” is a rule that is applied differently to entities of a similar or identical nature: The Walt Disney Company, for example, enjoys a brazen carve-out in Florida’s tech-regulation bill: an exemption for Disney+ that was not granted to Netflix, Hulu, or HBO Max. By contrast, the rules that apply to Walt Disney World could be better described as “tailored,” for, despite the insinuations of many Florida Republicans, Walt Disney World’s accommodation is unique not in its type but only in its particulars. As it happens, Florida has 1,844 special districts, of which 1,288 are, like Walt Disney World, “independent.” The Villages — where Governor DeSantis made his announcement about the review of Walt Disney World’s status — is “independent,” as are Orlando International Airport and the Daytona International Speedway. Clearly, Walt Disney World is a weird place: It is the size of San Francisco, it straddles two counties (Orange and Osceola), and, by necessity, it relies on an infrastructure cache that has been custom-built to its peculiar needs. To claim that the laws that enable this oddity to work represent a “special break” is akin to claiming that the laws that facilitate special installations such as Cape Canaveral or the World Trade Center are “special breaks”: true, in the narrowest sense, but false when examined more closely.
Last edited: