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

[Stripes]

Just to better understand, why do they need to wait 10 years?

The Florida Constitution requires that governments wait 10 years before selling land acquired via eminent domain to private parties.

 

[mkt]

Just to better understand, why do they need to wait 10 years?

I'm sure some of that will have to do with the wetlands that will take years to legally convert into land suitable for building on. If you think that Disney's got a nightmare to deal with the CFTOD, the CFTOD has no idea what's in store when the army corps of engineers gets involved with wetlands.

They'll beg Disney to take that land back.

 

[tissandtully]

Seeing a lot of "What ifs" in this thread lately

 

[StaceyH_SD]

Disney’s already building affordable housing. Are they going to have dueling developments? How is this even under the CFTOD purview?

 

[Brian]

Will Josh D the parks chairman with his wit and charm be there ?

Don't forget handsome! He is very handsome, or so I'm told.

 

[Stripes]

There’s a few of us planning to speak at the May 24th meeting, this is definitely a point that can be brought up. They won’t respond but it gets it out in the open

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.”

 

[Fox&Hound]

I think this WAS the plan. DeSantis wanted the fight, he wanted to be able to campaign about how much of a fighter he was. He wanted to be able to stand on a debate stage and look into every camera that anyone would point at him and talk about how he was the only one brave enough to take on the woke corporations.

The development agreement ruined his plans.

At best the development agreement move by Disney made DeSantis look incompetent, at worst it made him look like a complete fool.

Now every time he says anything about a woke corporation, every talking head on cable news is going to be quick to point out how he got completely outmaneuvered by Disney. If he dares bring this up on a debate stage, anyone standing across from him will be quick to point out in a perfect soundbite how Mickey Mouse made him look like an idiot.

From your linked article:


The Republican base might want to see a fighter, but they don't want to see a loser. The current state of events makes it very easy to portray DeSantis as a loser in this fight by all opponents from both sides of the aisle.

Disney's development agreement didn't just lock in their plans for the next 30 years - it completely neutralized one of DeSantis' main campaign talking points, and with it, his plans of becoming the nominee in 2024.

Very well said!

 

[shortnana47]

I asked this on another thread - wouldn't this mean the taxpayers in Orange County would have to foot the bill for all the services that Disney currently pays the cost for? Water, fire protection, etc. ...

Yeesh.

Yes

 

[celluloid]

Seeing a lot of "What ifs" in this thread lately

Yes. A lot of hypotheticals. A lot of it I think comes with denials of bad things happening and hope that bad things will happen to the people they feel did bad.

 

[GoofGoof]

Where are they going to build the homes? Looking at RCID landholdings there isn’t anywhere they could build a significant number of homes. The only large area of land they own are wetlands and those wetlands are outside the jurisdiction of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista so if the idea is to dismantle Disney’s control over the cities, that’s not going to work.

Furthermore, if they use eminent domain they‘d have to wait 10 years before building homes on Disney’s land.

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.

 

[fotofx]

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.

 

[tissandtully]

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.

Not this again.

 

[GoofGoof]

It's also a good way to funnel district money to your buddies who have no connection or reason to do business with Disney or the district.

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.

 

[MickeyLuv'r]

A general question out of curiosity: What happens in most places in the US when an unidentified individual calls an ambulance for someone else? If you see an unconscious person, for example, and call 911 without providing your own name, is anyone still expected to pay for the ambulance?

It depends on the jurisdiction.
1. Generally, if someone calls 911, their call is not anonymous. They are asked to provide their name. That is the first thing the operator asks, before the emergency is reported.

Even if they don't provide it, the emergency operator automatically has caller ID. Most 911 calls are made using a cell phone, so the operator automatically knows the cell phone number.

People call 911 for a great number of reasons. A great many people call 911 when they are very distressed, so they often hang up before they have given the operator enough information. Like if they call to report a fire, it might be a small fire (1 truck), or it might be a very large fire (multiple trucks). People very often mistakenly call 911 for non-emergencies. The operator MUST therefore be able to call the person back.


2. It is complicated. In many locations, the unconscious person will be billed, but in a number of locations, if it was an emergency situation, then the government pays for it, or pays a portion of the cost. It has to be an emergency though. The amount owed might be the full cost, or it might be a % split, or it might be something like a $100 or $50 fee.

B. If the person is unconscious due to an auto/insured vehicle accident, the auto insurance might pay.

C. It is even more complicated than this though.

 

[Figgy1]

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.

The taxpayers of the 2 counties would then be left footing the bill

 

[fotofx]

Not this again.

Sorry, I DID NOT read all 965 pages..

 

[fotofx]

The taxpayers of the 2 counties would then be left footing the bill

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.

 

[mikejs78]

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.

Fine, maybe it should have, but without reashing this for the 223rd time, the district was founded with the objective of promoting tourism, not building a city. It's in the charter.

 

[LittleBuford]

It depends on the jurisdiction.
1. Generally, if someone calls 911, their call is not anonymous. They are asked to provide their name. That is the first thing the operator asks, before the emergency is reported.

Even if they don't provide it, the emergency operator automatically has caller ID. Most 911 calls are made using a cell phone, so the operator automatically knows the cell phone number.

People call 911 for a great number of reasons. A great many people call 911 when they are very distressed, so they often hang up before they have given the operator enough information. Like if they call to report a fire, it might be a small fire (1 truck), or it might be a very large fire (multiple trucks). People very often mistakenly call 911 for non-emergencies. The operator MUST therefore be able to call the person back.


2. It is complicated. In many locations, the unconscious person will be billed, but in a number of locations, if it was an emergency situation, then the government pays for it, or pays a portion of the cost. It has to be an emergency though. The amount owed might be the full cost, or it might be a % split, or it might be something like a $100 or $50 fee.

B. If the person is unconscious due to an auto/insured vehicle accident, the auto insurance might pay.

C. It is even more complicated than this though.

Thank you!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sorry, I DID NOT read all 965 pages..

But you genuinely thought that none of us were aware of EPCOT?