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

[DCBaker]

From Orlando Sentinel:

NOTICE OF MEETING
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 13, 2023 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at 1900 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Interested parties may appear at the public meeting and hearing to be heard with respect to the proposed resolutions. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of Supervisors with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
By: Alycia Mills, District Clerk Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

Here's the agenda for the December 13 Board of Supervisors meeting.

 

[flynnibus]

In the case of Disney and RCID, it really wasn't any different. RCID made the decision to build the garages. Presumably, they thought it would provide better services to those in the district. Increased use of shopping, less traffic, more prosperous businesses. Additionally, the decision was supported and desired by constituents of the district.

But it is different. Normally governments shift the burden to developers by forcing them to proffer services/infrastructure as part of the process to get the zoning approvals they need. The governments have high barriers to invest large amounts of money into projects with limited constituent gain. They work on the regional plan, not usually the individual site plan. But here, the decision to build garages was tied into DTD's redevelopment. Redevelopment driven by Disney, not the District. In any other situation, it would have been an incredibly high barrier to get the municipality to build multiple garages where development already existed as well as parking. Cites would tell the developer "you build it, it's your shopping center".. and probably force the developer to pay for all the traffic lights and road realignments too. But here, because RCID basically takes it's initiatives and motivations from Disney directly.. they can easily decide 'its better for Disney if we do it this way...' and take on responsibilities that in any other government would be far more resistant to do under the same terms.

The roles are like any other place - but the process and motivations are certainly unique. Any other public parking like that would be metered in this day and age to help directly fund their upkeep and debt load.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Here's the agenda for the December 13 Board of Supervisors Villains meeting.

FTFY

(Sorry, it's silly, but I couldn't resist. These people just annoy me with their petty politics and trying to control Disney.)

 

[Figgy1]

FTFY

(Sorry, it's silly, but I couldn't resist. These people just annoy me with their petty politics and trying to control Disney.)

Something else Disney did better as Villans Night had food and adult beverages, heck even Jollywood nights had those.
The board really needs to step up when inflicting these meeting upon people

 

[WoundedDreamer]

What would you replace it with, then?

Honestly, I am not sure exactly what form the new governance would take. I think you're skipping to the end of the process. To determine the future of the RCID, the conversation would have needed to include the counties, Disney, other businesses, and of course citizens. I think certain concessions could have and should have been made by Disney. But in this environment any reasonable conversation is pretty much impossible. Among the criticisms I have of this whole process, was the decision to dissolve the RCID without a meaningful and better replacement. This goes to the heart of the political retaliation element of the story. It's led to a damaging battle in the court of public opinion. Instead of being about the immediate needs of the state, its citizens, and other stakeholders, the issue has become about national politics. Very unfortunate.

There are limitations to how properties acquired through eminent domain can be utilized. Development would have to be done directly by the district.

I'm glad to hear this. I took a look at Florida eminent domain, and it looks like it's pretty solid. This is good for Disney and Florida. Disney for the obvious reasons, and Florida needs to be protected from potentially damaging business development in the state.

 

[mmascari]

But here, the decision to build garages was tied into DTD's redevelopment. Redevelopment driven by Disney, not the District.

In two different states I've lived, a town in one and a county in the other, local government has built parking infrastructure to attract businesses to a downtown area.

In the county (which is significantly larger than the town), there have also been projects where the county made a developer do it.

But here, because RCID basically takes it's initiatives and motivations from Disney directly.. they can easily decide 'its better for Disney if we do it this way...' and take on responsibilities that in any other government would be far more resistant to do under the same terms.

That's a constituent problem. In any other area, getting enough support from a majority of constituents would be difficult. In RCID, getting the majority of constituents to agree to something is simply an easier problem.

The roles are like any other place - but the process and motivations are certainly unique. Any other public parking like that would be metered in this day and age to help directly fund their upkeep and debt load.

Same constituent problem. In any other area, the local tax payers would tend to want to lower their taxes and have the garage be more self sustaining. Especially by people who don't use them but pay taxes. Which again, in RCID, this is much less of an issue. Convincing all the taxpayers to foot the bill, or at least a large majority of the vote to take on the tax burden involves way less opinions.

This isn't some nefarious thing. There's no taxpayer who is having a fast one pulled on them and being taken advantage of. The structure of the tax payers impacted in the district, the extra taxes they pay, and how that impacts priorities is managed specifically for this. Every article that says something like "Disney has control of RCID" should be read as "Constituents within RCID have control of RCID" and see if it still sound like some nefarious thing.

Now, if this was some alternate fake history, where Celebration wasn't removed from the district. If all of those houses had to pay extra taxes to the district, but then were steamrolled for decisions because their vote was so small. Then, we would look at it differently. As those taxpayers would be getting a poor deal. Fortunately, that's not what exists.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

I understand what you are saying. If WDW was built say in the late 1980s vs the late 1960s/early 1970s, we would have a completely different situation.

Florida and Orange County in the 1980s vs the 1960s are two different situations. If WDW had been built in the 1980s, the state would have more a developed economy, and Orange County would be more likely to have the needed facilities in place. This would probably lead to a smaller and less comprehensive special district.

But we also need to keep in mind the conditions of the 1960's. Florida was a state whose main economic industries and growth were tied to coastal cities, mainly Tampa Bay and SE FL.

The state's economy wasn't that diverse and the center of the state was lagging in growth compared to their coastal counterparts.

Enter RCID and Disney.


If you are a policy-maker in 1960s Florida and can transform the economic prospects of not just a region, but the whole state by forming the RCID to help facilitate EPCOT, which later turns into WDW, you are going to take that deal 9 out of 10 times.

The growth of Central Florida (economy and population) and the development of the state's economy since the 1970s can partially be attributed to the formation of RCID and its impact on Disney's operations.

Now are there other factors that stimulated growth?

Yes, without a doubt. Lockheed's expansion, tech, and defense companies, and the growth of UCF have helped facilitate the growth of the area as well.

But RCID/CFTOD is a byproduct of the economic and political environment of the 1960s and while we all do talk about the pros and cons of the district, it's important to keep in mind why it exists and what it has helped facilitate.

The other thing is no one will want to dissolve the district because of existing debt obligations. The debt will still exist for another 15 years. So, we have at least 15 more years of RCID existing before it is even practical for oversight to revert to the counties.

Fair points all around. And I don't blame the Florida Legislature for partnering with Disney back in the 1960s. It was worth it, and it clearly has been a wonderful driver of growth. That's why municipalities all over the world have partnered with Disney for expansion! I guess for me, governments need to serve the interests of their citizens. The citizens of Florida are well within their rights to reassess the structure of the RCID to make sure its still meeting their needs. Remember, the RCID was primarily made for the citizens of Florida and not for Disney. Adjusting the structure and governance of the RCID to better help the citizens of Florida is reasonable. Of course, Disney has certain rights as a corporate citizen, but they do not have a right to unchecked governmental power.

What's disheartening about this whole debacle, is that the new board is primarily interested in digging up dirt and putting on a show. They're choosing easy slogans and attention-grabbing headlines over good governance. It's an opportunity wasted.

 

[flynnibus]

That's a constituent problem

I said it - and it's to the point... "The roles are like any other place - but the process and motivations are certainly unique"

The structure is the same as elsewhere, yes, but the circumstances and cooperation are not.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Honestly, I am not sure exactly what form the new governance would take. I think you're skipping to the end of the process. To determine the future of the RCID, the conversation would have needed to include the counties, Disney, other businesses, and of course citizens. I think certain concessions could have and should have been made by Disney.

Stating what authority is too much shouldn’t be difficult if you’ve ready come to the conclusion that changes needed to be made.

The biggest, most unique powers held by the District are that it has planning authority, building authority and is an electric utility. Zoning and building authority would fall to the municipalities without the district. Large developments are also typically given the master planned development designation which gives control to the developer. Undoing the electrical utility would require forcibly selling it off to a private company. After that, which doesn’t change much, you’re entering into the realm of deny authority offered to others.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Stating what authority is too much shouldn’t be difficult if you’ve ready come to the conclusion that changes needed to be made.

The biggest, most unique powers held by the District are that it has planning authority, building authority and is an electric utility. Zoning and building authority would fall to the municipalities without the district. Large developments are also typically given the master planned development designation which gives control to the developer. Undoing the electrical utility would require forcibly selling it off to a private company. After that, which doesn’t change much, you’re entering into the realm of deny authority offered to others.

Examples of RCID's excesses include: "using it to acquire limited issue bonds, which means other agencies in the state could not acquire those bonds. By building a garage for Disney's own use. By trying to prevent access to Bonnet Creek. By being able to build with impunity despite impacts on the surrounding areas. Married to the Mouse is an entire book of such issues."

As one observer noted: "Disney has constantly taken advantage of and been cavalier about using the power of the Improvement District. Disney profiting from the garages (which isn't the only outcome of charging) wouldn't be the first time people have called for Reedy Creek's dissolution."

 

[Batman'sParents]

DeSantis’ Disney board vows to take on affordable housing, traffic woes

Members of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ tourism oversight board are vowing to tackle affordable housing and traffic issues they say their Disney-controlled predecessors ignored.

www.orlandosentinel.com

What areas in RCID could the district improve the traffic situation?

Their roads aren't too bad. The only bad areas I'm thinking of are Buena Vista to Western Way, Western Way and toll road intersections (this area needs work), and Reams Rd.

Also text of the article:

Members of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ tourism oversight board are vowing to tackle affordable housing and traffic issues they say their Disney-controlled predecessors ignored.

That was one of the takeaways Wednesday from a scathing report that blasted Disney’s decades-long control over the Reedy Creek Improvement District, calling it the “most egregious exhibition of corporate cronyism in modern American history.”

“The Reedy Creek Act was a Pandora’s box, a curse disguised in the form of a beautiful gift,” Chairman Martin Garcia said at a board meeting Wednesday. “Now that the truth is out, Florida lawmakers and government officials should expel the curse with more reforms to the district.”

Garcia did not list specific policy proposals but mentioned he wants to address transportation and affordable housing needs that should be “welcomed on a bipartisan basis.”

And the work might not be limited to the 39-square mile district that includes Disney World. The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District’s new legislative act allows for the board to invest in projects elsewhere in the Orlando area, board member Brian Aungst Jr. said.

“It is entirely possible, entirely feasible for the district to provide incentives for affordable housing developments and public transportation that are even not within the district,” he said.

One potential project cited during the meeting is a pedestrian bridge for Shades of Green, a hotel for military personnel, that one of the board’s hired lawyers says was blocked by Disney. That bridge would make it easier for guests at Shades of Green to get to the Magic Kingdom.

DeSantis replaced the Disney-aligned board with five Republican allies in February, upending an arrangement that allowed Disney to effectively self-govern its Central Florida properties since 1967.

Disney called the new district’s review of Reedy Creek “revisionist history” and “neither objective nor credible.”
Last month, it released its own study highlighting its contributions to Florida’s economy. The Disney-commissioned study conducted by Oxford Economics found the corporation has a statewide $40.3 billion economic impact and generates $3.1 billion annually in state and local taxes.

In 2022, Disney announced it would build about 1,300 affordable housing units near its theme parks. Company officials said earlier this year the first apartments will be available in 2026.

The meeting came as one of DeSantis’ hand-picked board members Bridget Ziegler was under fire after a woman made a sexual battery accusation against her husband Christian Ziegler, who chairs the Republican Party of Florida.
Bridget Ziegler told police she was involved in a one-time consensual sexual encounter with her husband and the woman about a year ago, according to a search warrant affidavit.

Christian Ziegler has not been charged with a crime. DeSantis and other prominent Republicans have called on him to resign his post.

One public speaker, Debie McDonald, called on Bridget Ziegler, a co-founder of the conservative education group Moms for Liberty, to step down from the Disney oversight board. Critics have accused the Zieglers of hypocrisy, saying they have publicly fought against LGBTQ+ rights.

Ziegler attended Wednesday’s meeting remotely and did not address the accusations. Garcia, the board’s chairman, declined to answer questions after the meeting.

District spokesman Matthew Oberly said the district has not received any correspondence from Ziegler regarding changes to her status on the board.

At the meeting, the board heard presentations from experts it hired to compile the Reedy Creek review.
David Thompson, an attorney with the firm Cooper & Kirk, said during his presentation Disney was able to evade “hundreds of millions of dollars” in impact fees over the years because of Reedy Creek.

Those impact fees paid by developers could have been used to address transportation needs, he said.
“The bottom line is Disney put forth a fairy tale in which the prior governance structure was a model of good governance, but the audit shows that the exact opposite is true,” Thompson said.

 

[mmascari]

"using it to acquire limited issue bonds, which means other agencies in the state could not acquire those bonds."

So, they don't believe in free markets or competition?

Were those other agencies so inept that they couldn't compete with RCID and needed special government thumb on the scale favoritism to control the market outcome to find bond buyers?

 

[castlecake2.0]

the board is saying they can now invest in areas not within their boundaries? How do the “taxpayers” feel about this? Zero representation on how their taxes are being spent. Is someone able to post the Sentinel article?

 

[JoeCamel]

That is some responsible governance, preparing for a Covid-19 surge......

 

[SourcererMark79]

That is some responsible governance, preparing for a Covid-19 surge......

View attachment 757818

Perhaps it's in preparation for some additional house cleaning.

 

[Batman'sParents]

the board is saying they can now invest in areas not within their boundaries? How do the “taxpayers” feel about this? Zero representation on how their taxes are being spent. Is someone able to post the Sentinel article?

I tried but it is waiting on mod approval

 

[Batman'sParents]

the board is saying they can now invest in areas not within their boundaries? How do the “taxpayers” feel about this? Zero representation on how their taxes are being spent. Is someone able to post the Sentinel article?

Members of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ tourism oversight board are vowing to tackle affordable housing and traffic issues they say their Disney-controlled predecessors ignored.

That was one of the takeaways Wednesday from a scathing report that blasted Disney’s decades-long control over the Reedy Creek Improvement District, calling it the “most egregious exhibition of corporate cronyism in modern American history.”

“The Reedy Creek Act was a Pandora’s box, a curse disguised in the form of a beautiful gift,” Chairman Martin Garcia said at a board meeting Wednesday. “Now that the truth is out, Florida lawmakers and government officials should expel the curse with more reforms to the district.”

Garcia did not list specific policy proposals but mentioned he wants to address transportation and affordable housing needs that should be “welcomed on a bipartisan basis.”

And the work might not be limited to the 39-square mile district that includes Disney World. The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District’s new legislative act allows for the board to invest in projects elsewhere in the Orlando area, board member Brian Aungst Jr. said.

“It is entirely possible, entirely feasible for the district to provide incentives for affordable housing developments and public transportation that are even not within the district,” he said.

One potential project cited during the meeting is a pedestrian bridge for Shades of Green, a hotel for military personnel, that one of the board’s hired lawyers says was blocked by Disney. That bridge would make it easier for guests at Shades of Green to get to the Magic Kingdom.

DeSantis replaced the Disney-aligned board with five Republican allies in February, upending an arrangement that allowed Disney to effectively self-govern its Central Florida properties since 1967.

Disney called the new district’s review of Reedy Creek “revisionist history” and “neither objective nor credible.”
Last month, it released its own study highlighting its contributions to Florida’s economy. The Disney-commissioned study conducted by Oxford Economics found the corporation has a statewide $40.3 billion economic impact and generates $3.1 billion annually in state and local taxes.

In 2022, Disney announced it would build about 1,300 affordable housing units near its theme parks. Company officials said earlier this year the first apartments will be available in 2026.

The meeting came as one of DeSantis’ hand-picked board members Bridget Ziegler was under fire after a woman made a sexual battery accusation against her husband Christian Ziegler, who chairs the Republican Party of Florida.
Bridget Ziegler told police she was involved in a one-time consensual sexual encounter with her husband and the woman about a year ago, according to a search warrant affidavit.

Christian Ziegler has not been charged with a crime. DeSantis and other prominent Republicans have called on him to resign his post.

One public speaker, Debie McDonald, called on Bridget Ziegler, a co-founder of the conservative education group Moms for Liberty, to step down from the Disney oversight board. Critics have accused the Zieglers of hypocrisy, saying they have publicly fought against LGBTQ+ rights.

Ziegler attended Wednesday’s meeting remotely and did not address the accusations. Garcia, the board’s chairman, declined to answer questions after the meeting.

District spokesman Matthew Oberly said the district has not received any correspondence from Ziegler regarding changes to her status on the board.

At the meeting, the board heard presentations from experts it hired to compile the Reedy Creek review.
David Thompson, an attorney with the firm Cooper & Kirk, said during his presentation Disney was able to evade “hundreds of millions of dollars” in impact fees over the years because of Reedy Creek.

Those impact fees paid by developers could have been used to address transportation needs, he said.
“The bottom line is Disney put forth a fairy tale in which the prior governance structure was a model of good governance, but the audit shows that the exact opposite is true,” Thompson said.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Examples of RCID's excesses include: "using it to acquire limited issue bonds, which means other agencies in the state could not acquire those bonds. By building a garage for Disney's own use. By trying to prevent access to Bonnet Creek. By being able to build with impunity despite impacts on the surrounding areas. Married to the Mouse is an entire book of such issues." As one observer noted, "Disney has constantly taken advantage of and been cavalier about using the power of the Improvement District. Disney profiting from the garages (which isn't the only outcome of charging) wouldn't be the first time people have called for Reedy Creek's dissolution."

We’re all aware of Married to the Mouse.

The bond issue had nothing to do with the setup of Reedy Creek Improvement District. That was entirely on the state because that’s how the state chose to handle bonds at the time. Being able to issue bonds is also not a unique power.

Garages are often considered part of roads and transportation so that too would not be a unique power.

Trying to prevent access to Bonnet Creek was based more around Disney’s ownership. The District didn’t really make that boneheaded attempt more likely as right of access is rather well established in common law.

Disney has paid significantly more in property taxes than they ever would have paid in impact fees. The scale of difference is not even comparable. Disney would have to build hundreds of thousands of new square feet every year to even get close.

So what you’re really talking about is prohibiting Disney from utilizing tools and powers offered to other large land owners.

 

[Twirlnhurl]

And the very fact the Universal is forced to go through a burdensome public process while Disney is not is a cause for alarm. That is anticompetitive.

I like reading your posts, because although I ultimately disagree with them, they are clearly articulated and totally reasonable positions to take.

I would like to push back on the idea that Universal doesn't get similar treatment. The City of Orlando and Orange County (depending on the campus we are talking about) are extremely deferential to Universal on matters regarding land use and development issues.

The City of Orlando has (or at least had) a person dedicated to expanding Universals permit applications who was stationed in the Promenade Building. And Orange County has a rule that says that Universal (as defined using neutral languathat excludes everyone else) will either have a permit accepted or rejected within a week of application, otherwise it will automatically be accepted.

Additionally, Universal is located in land with a Planned Unit Development zoning district, whose characteristics were created by Universal. This zoning innovation is common now (most master planned suburban developments built today are under that type of zoning), but it had not yet been invented in the 1960s when the RCID was created.

The unique capabilities of the RCID that separate it from their competitors and make it unusual lie pretty much entirely in the powers that were not executed: build a nuclear power plant, have a police force, etc. EDIT: I am not actually able to think of any powers that RCID gave Disney that aren't common for large scale developers to have. There are some powers that Disney has through the cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista that are unique, but Disney doesn't actually use them. Thanks, @lazyboy97o for the correction.

Any other public parking like that would be metered in this day and age to help directly fund their upkeep and debt load.

I'm not so sure. I am aware of several projects where very complicated legal arrangements were made to keep parking free. Just think of how much less successful Disneyland's Downtown Disney and Universal Citywalk are. They cater to a much lower proportion of the population and a much higher proportion of theme park visitors and hotel guests than Disney Springs. That is mostly because of people's expectation that parking will be free for shopping and dining in all but the most dense of urban areas, regardless of the cost of the infrastructure.

 

[JoeCamel]

Members of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ tourism oversight board are vowing to tackle affordable housing and traffic issues they say their Disney-controlled predecessors ignored.

That was one of the takeaways Wednesday from a scathing report that blasted Disney’s decades-long control over the Reedy Creek Improvement District, calling it the “most egregious exhibition of corporate cronyism in modern American history.”

“The Reedy Creek Act was a Pandora’s box, a curse disguised in the form of a beautiful gift,” Chairman Martin Garcia said at a board meeting Wednesday. “Now that the truth is out, Florida lawmakers and government officials should expel the curse with more reforms to the district.”

Garcia did not list specific policy proposals but mentioned he wants to address transportation and affordable housing needs that should be “welcomed on a bipartisan basis.”

And the work might not be limited to the 39-square mile district that includes Disney World. The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District’s new legislative act allows for the board to invest in projects elsewhere in the Orlando area, board member Brian Aungst Jr. said.

“It is entirely possible, entirely feasible for the district to provide incentives for affordable housing developments and public transportation that are even not within the district,” he said.

One potential project cited during the meeting is a pedestrian bridge for Shades of Green, a hotel for military personnel, that one of the board’s hired lawyers says was blocked by Disney. That bridge would make it easier for guests at Shades of Green to get to the Magic Kingdom.

DeSantis replaced the Disney-aligned board with five Republican allies in February, upending an arrangement that allowed Disney to effectively self-govern its Central Florida properties since 1967.

Disney called the new district’s review of Reedy Creek “revisionist history” and “neither objective nor credible.”
Last month, it released its own study highlighting its contributions to Florida’s economy. The Disney-commissioned study conducted by Oxford Economics found the corporation has a statewide $40.3 billion economic impact and generates $3.1 billion annually in state and local taxes.

In 2022, Disney announced it would build about 1,300 affordable housing units near its theme parks. Company officials said earlier this year the first apartments will be available in 2026.

The meeting came as one of DeSantis’ hand-picked board members Bridget Ziegler was under fire after a woman made a sexual battery accusation against her husband Christian Ziegler, who chairs the Republican Party of Florida.
Bridget Ziegler told police she was involved in a one-time consensual sexual encounter with her husband and the woman about a year ago, according to a search warrant affidavit.

Christian Ziegler has not been charged with a crime. DeSantis and other prominent Republicans have called on him to resign his post.

One public speaker, Debie McDonald, called on Bridget Ziegler, a co-founder of the conservative education group Moms for Liberty, to step down from the Disney oversight board. Critics have accused the Zieglers of hypocrisy, saying they have publicly fought against LGBTQ+ rights.

Ziegler attended Wednesday’s meeting remotely and did not address the accusations. Garcia, the board’s chairman, declined to answer questions after the meeting.

District spokesman Matthew Oberly said the district has not received any correspondence from Ziegler regarding changes to her status on the board.

At the meeting, the board heard presentations from experts it hired to compile the Reedy Creek review.
David Thompson, an attorney with the firm Cooper & Kirk, said during his presentation Disney was able to evade “hundreds of millions of dollars” in impact fees over the years because of Reedy Creek.

Those impact fees paid by developers could have been used to address transportation needs, he said.
“The bottom line is Disney put forth a fairy tale in which the prior governance structure was a model of good governance, but the audit shows that the exact opposite is true,” Thompson said.

I finally realized what Garcia's and the report's wording reminds me of, have you ever seen or heard a criminal prosecutor's opening statement to a jury? Not on TV but in real life they try to paint a picture of the most egregious crimes against humanity and often use metaphors that general society shares as repugnant such as comparing the defendant to spoiled food or the bottom of the barrel. This is so over the top in hyperbole that it becomes comical, the message is lost in the messaging.