Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
Apologies, if this was posted.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
Apologies, if this was posted.
Can you point out some examples where the WDW and RCID were too intertwined?
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's possible actually. Public bonds can't be absorbed by a private entity - they can only be absorbed by another public entity. Additionally, there are a lot of government functions that could not be performed by Disney (inspections, land use, etc.) that wouldn't be able to be done by them and would have to fall to the counties if RCID went away. A private company can't absorb all the functions that RCID performs.
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
I think the CFTOD might have misinterpreted the Judge‘s willingness to explore the underlying issues of the case (as opposed to dismissing it outright) as implicit support for their cause.
I don’t think she’s going to have much patience for their games.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
It's not possible because there are municipal bonds outstanding that can't suddenly be converted to corporate debt. There are income tax implications for bondholders. Also, some of those bonds cannot be paid off early, so even if RCID managed to operate without taking on any more debt for infrastructure projects, they're still handcuffed by the terms of the outstanding debt. This is the same reason why the state had to change gears their plans to dissolve RCID to the hostile takeover they eventually chose.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Plenty of evidence... the question is only if you feel the inner-dependency was acceptable or shady.
The relationship and authority put into RCES vs the board is.. generous. The contracting of Disney services instead of open market. The extended perks Disney extended to RCID staff (like retirement perks, etc). This was a cozy, self-serving relationship... but one that was above the line.
There is plenty of intermingling... there isn't anything to necessarily suggest RCID acted NEFARIOUSLY, but they certainly were not fully independent. Their motivations were aligned with Disney... and even the infamous '11th hour' agreements were all completely one-sided and generated by Disney.
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
I think the argument is that generally as a regulatory agency RCID did maintain their independence. Of course this was with Disney's blessing, considering that they very much wanted to maintain the RCID arrangement as it benefitted them.
As a provider of services? Yes they were functionally an extension of WDW, it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Presumably they offered the MEP benefits to RCID specifically to remove any incentive to working for one organization over the other - the same reason they used to offer it to OPs.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I think even that is questionable. Regulatory includes planning. Planning obviously was done with only one stakeholder's view that matters. Did they do their job? Yes. Did they hold Disney to the rules? All signs point to yes. And like I said before, everything appears to be 'above the line'.
But were they --truly-- independent? No. I think the end-result was much more akin to a internal auditor that ensures a business complies with both their own rules and the legal obligations. They ensure other departments stay above the line - but accountability is still to the owners and they aren't independent.
They keep people honest, they are intended to be objective, but ultimately the rulebook is 'in house'.
But in recognizing that I'm not saying it was 'wrong', illegal, or unethical. It's basically what the thing was constructed to do... which is no shock since Disney is the one who conceived the thing in the first place
Which is why I do not believe Disney will ever regain control. I know everyone on this forum thinks it is a forgone conclusion, but count me as one that thinks The State of Florida will keep control- not Disney.I think even that is questionable. Regulatory includes planning. Planning obviously was done with only one stakeholder's view that matters. Did they do their job? Yes. Did they hold Disney to the rules? All signs point to yes. And like I said before, everything appears to be 'above the line'.
But were they --truly-- independent? No. I think the end-result was much more akin to a internal auditor that ensures a business complies with both their own rules and the legal obligations. They ensure other departments stay above the line - but accountability is still to the owners and they aren't independent.
They keep people honest, they are intended to be objective, but ultimately the rulebook is 'in house'.
But in recognizing that I'm not saying it was 'wrong', illegal, or unethical. It's basically what the thing was constructed to do... which is no shock since Disney is the one who conceived the thing in the first place
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Except Walt Disney World has more discreet zoning with more opportunities for public input and more state review than the other parks in the area. The other parks are designated as Master Planned Developments that more directly do hand over zoning control to the landowner. Universal’s new South Campus is being laid out as Universal desires to Universal’s benefit and how they continue to develop the property will be at their discretion largely without public input or the sort of 10-year review process required of the District’s Comprehensive Plan.I think even that is questionable. Regulatory includes planning. Planning obviously was done with only one stakeholder's view that matters. Did they do their job? Yes. Did they hold Disney to the rules? All signs point to yes. And like I said before, everything appears to be 'above the line'.
But were they --truly-- independent? No. I think the end-result was much more akin to a internal auditor that ensures a business complies with both their own rules and the legal obligations. They ensure other departments stay above the line - but accountability is still to the owners and they aren't independent.
They keep people honest, they are intended to be objective, but ultimately the rulebook is 'in house'.
But in recognizing that I'm not saying it was 'wrong', illegal, or unethical. It's basically what the thing was constructed to do... which is no shock since Disney is the one who conceived the thing in the first place
flynnibus
Premium Member
In practice though it doesn't really result in much change. The 'public input' you highlight has zero teeth because there was no accountability to anyone beyond Disney. As long as they met their legal obligations, Disney called the shots and wrote the rules. And because of it's definition.. in a box that had far greater autonomy to do so within it's legal construct vs a MPD. So Disney had to go through more documentation and hearings.. doesn't really change anything except the motions.
Land Development and Planning is one of the primary tasks of the entity - and for that, Disney steered the ship.
I get that the RCID - Disney relationship can seem inappropriate on first impression, but I really don't see anything that's even arguably shady here.
Re. RCES, the new board paid outside consultants a lot of money to find fault there, and they were visibly disappointed when none was found. I admit I'm confused about your reference to "the relationship and authority put into RCES vs the board", but it's a big and complicated situation and I only know a tiny piece of it so I'm open to hearing more.
The 'perks' (by which I assume you mean the AP's) have been discussed in this thread at length. The district bought them from Disney, just as other 3rd party businesses in the district did. There was nothing inappropriate. Yes, the district's taxpayers bore that cost, but who are the taxpayers? On the other hand, the district's proposed replacement plan could cost the taxpayers more while still ticking off many employees.
The "11th hour" agreements essentially enforce the Comprehensive Plan which RCID completed (as required by statute) in mid-2022 and which was approved by the State of Florida. How are they "one-sided"? As far as I can tell (based on my extremely low level of knowledge about these things) the agreements are not unusual - if I'm wrong about that someone please let me know.
The district (both RCID then and CFTOD now) is supposed to be inter-dependent with Disney, because its purpose is to support the development of WDW. Its obligations are to the landowners, who in this case are mostly Disney plus a few others who depend on Disney's success. For that matter, any government's actions and goals should be inter-dependent with those of its constituents. Concerns about self-dealing, cronyism, etc. are generally related to government officials making decisions that benefit themselves, family, friends, big-interest donors, etc. at the expense of the taxpayers. At first glance, yes, Disney is a "big corporate interest", but in this particular situation they are also the taxpayer. The district landowners have already paid all their taxes to the other levels of government, including Orange & Osceola counties. The taxes collected by RCID/CFTOD are an additional levy that is intended to support development of the WDW resort area. A decision that benefits the WDW resort benefits the taxpayers.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s more than the nothing of the master planned developments. The District could have just filled in the whole property as a master planned development and done nothing. Instead we can all see and discuss the planning documents for Walt Disney World while we have no such access to similar documents for other large developments including the other theme parks.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The reference there is that RCES has the sole authority to set rates - vs having rates regulated or approved by a gov like would be more typical. The board paid the consultants to investigate if the rates were reasonable.. and they concluded they were. But the very arrangement itself (even if they aren't abusing it) is not typical and is an example of the lopsided relationship granted because the district subverts themselves to Disney. (plus the entire arrangement to exclusively contract out to a wholly owned Disney company in the first place)
It's not just the cost (and who paid) but the exceptional perks like the retiree benefits. The District was not independently buying into an open program. The District was paying for the program because Disney wanted it to be part of their benefits. I never said it was inappropriate - the question is 'are they intertwined'.
Because it wasn't just an update to the Comprehensive Plan - it was new additional agreements beyond that were absolutely not required by statute. Agreements that basically gave Disney unilateral say. New extensive arrangements that the district agreed to with essentially zero debate. That is not independence, that's collusion.
Their mission does not define them to 'inter-dependent' - Its all defined from the start to be separate from the company - but it was also concurrently designed to never truly be independent because of the lock tight control over eligibility and votes.
Yes the district's PURPOSE is to advance the development of the property - that does not equate to solely serving Disney. As we have seen over time, it's possible for the constituents of the District and the audience it serves to be people beyond Disney.
I get what you are trying to say - but I don't agree with your usage of 'inter-dependent' nor how that justifies insider dealings. Their goals and motivations should overlap - but that does not mean a breakdown of independence.
flynnibus
Premium Member
So you get to watch - but as it was already said... doesn't change anything in practice. "public input" is nothing more than a puppet show. I don't think this tangent of 'vs MPD' adds anything for or against what was discussed.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It sets the appropriate baseline. A lot of your comparisons are really only notable if one assumes a different baseline regulatory environment.
Batman'sParents
Active Member
regardless of the outcome of the cases, the district is not going to be the same at the end of this. So much value has been lost by way of many of the experienced employees leaving. The district will be able to operate, it’s just a matter of effective it will actually be able to.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
OK, that makes sense, but can RCID still exist to just float bonds without any other authority or does it have to have a direct oversite function.
Batman'sParents
Active Member
It needs to have other functions in order for the bondholders to be paid. RCID pays the bonds based off revenue generated from property taxes.
To do all this, you need to have the ability to assess and collect taxes.