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

[tissandtully]

Groan.

I know that groan from anywhere, Bridget!

 

[mmascari]

We hold corporations to a different standard than fellow citizens. You telling a community you're not a part of how to run that community is meaningfully different from a community holding a gigantic firm accountable. It would be one thing if the RCID was filled with fellow citizens, but it's dominated by a single entertainment complex.

Why? What makes it different? RCID is district based on land ownership. Why should anyone who doesn't own land get a say? It's not like the existence of RCID allows those within it to just break County and State laws. It's a very limited governance structure targeted at land use. There is no community subject to RCID governance. So, no I'm not telling a community that they get no part in governance. On the contrary, you are either inventing a community to make them victims or imposing community not subject to RCID governance to make them a victim. The "oh the poor community being taken advantage of by RCID" is a made up myth.

The parking garages serve The Walt Disney Company. There's a term for infrastructure that is built for a company with an aim of enhancing its property. Capital expenditures.

Again, governments all over the country build parking for local business development. Much like they build roads. If that's good or bad or neutral while a local policy decision isn't some nefarious thing. The shopping mall that is Disney Springs acts much like a downtown business district within RCID. That RCID would take steps to make that area more prosperous isn't outside any normal policy decisions all over the country.

Any other examples of RCID doing Disney CapEx? Anything at all? Something that is clearly not public infrastructure. Its' been 50 years right? There must be another example?

And the poor governance examples include the Bonnet Creek incident. There's also a question of whether RCID can be an effective regulator of itself.

Bonnet Creek isn't in the district. The district should clearly play nice with neighbors, but that's a "play nice" not some governance control.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Bonnet Creek isn't in the district. The district should clearly play nice with neighbors, but that's a "play nice" not some governance control.

It is a governance issue in that the right of access to property is rather well established in common law. Disney didn’t want RCID to build connections to Bonnet Creek because they didn’t want it developed. They lost because that’s well established law. That though was over 30 years ago. In 1993 Bonnet Creek became part of a joint planning area where the district worked with the county on planning.

 

[peter11435]

Examples of why it should be reformed:

1) The RCID does not allow the hundreds of thousands of individuals that live near it to participate in its management
2) The RCID and Disney became intertwined and it impacted good governance
3) Disney shifted CapEx from its balance sheet to the local government apparatus, thus obscuring true CapEx

No lies necessary.

1. Does your city, county, or state allow those living near it to decide how it’s managed? Residents in Osceola county don’t get to vote in Orange County elections.

2. They didn’t become intertwined. They were always intertwined as designed and intended. RCID is generally considered one of the best example of a well run municipality in the nation. Do you have an example of poor governance that didn’t come from DeSantis or the current board?

3. This is an outright lie.

 

[mmascari]

It is a governance issue in that the right of access to property is rather well established in common law. Disney didn’t want RCID to build connections to Bonnet Creek because they didn’t want it developed. They lost because that’s well established law. That though was over 30 years ago.

Google wasn't much help in researching what the issue was. Was the entire thing about allowing Bonnet Creek an access road to an RCID owned road? From an otherwise island locked property with no other access to public roads?

Sounds like it was ruled right, getting them the access. Probably a good example of a difference between the entire area being Disney private property and RCID existing and turning some of the roads into public roads. If E. Buena Vista Dr. was a private road on private property instead of a public road, the ruling would likely have been different, with them looking for access to a road that was a public road. It's still possible Bonnet Creek could have won a right of way easement, but that's way less helpful than direct access to a public road.

Since, RCID roads are public road and not private Disney roads. A condition that only exists because RCID existed.

 

[flynnibus]

3. This is an outright lie.

It's not a lie - it's a simply a question of 'justified' or not.

There is a lot of infrastructure Disney had RCID build instead of Disney building itself. In other places, more of the road improvements Disney needed would have been privatedly funded. In WDW, Disney gets to drive infrastructure needs through the District pretty much at their whim... where in any other arrangement, they would be forced to build or proffer much more of it themselves. Disney doesn't have to negotiate and horse trade with the local government like people do elsewhere.

 

[Figgy1]

It's not a lie - it's a simply a question of 'justified' or not.

There is a lot of infrastructure Disney had RCID build instead of Disney building itself. In other places, more of the road improvements Disney needed would have been privatedly funded. In WDW, Disney gets to drive infrastructure needs through the District pretty much at their whim... where in any other arrangement, they would be forced to build or proffer much more of it themselves. Disney doesn't have to negotiate and horse trade with the local government like people do elsewhere.

Disney is paying for about 90% of all district projects. So pretty much privately funded to a far greater extent than most other projects around the country.
When off property I've often traveled RC roads to get to places NOT Disney or Disney related in the area. Shopping, other tourist destinations etc..
IN RC/COFTD taxpayers = Disney

 

[mkt]

Examples of why it should be reformed:

1) The RCID does not allow the hundreds of thousands of individuals that live near it to participate in its management
2) The RCID and Disney became intertwined and it impacted good governance
3) Disney shifted CapEx from its balance sheet to the local government apparatus, thus obscuring true CapEx

No lies necessary.

1- Governments do not allow non-residents to participate in its management. CFTOD is an odd exception to this rule, since in colonial style, its government is now appointed by a non-resident, and is entirely comprised of non-residents.
2- They were intertwined from the beginning
3- They built parking garages. This was done legally, and are public infrastructure that governments across the US regularly build without issue.

 

[mmascari]

There is a lot of infrastructure Disney had RCID build instead of Disney building itself. In other places, more of the road improvements Disney needed would have been privately funded.

Are there any roads that RCID funds that it is not possible to drive on without paying Disney to be able to do it? Anything that is restricted access, behind a gate. Something only a cast member, or a guest who has paid to be at Disney can access. Something where someone just cutting across the district wouldn't be able to access the road.

Something like that would be a good example of an improper funding.

For instance, I assume Avenue of the Stars is NOT a district road and that the district doesn't fund it in any way. If this is incorrect and the district does fund Avenue of the Stars, that sounds suspicious.

 

[GrumpyFan]

I know that groan from anywhere, Bridget!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Google wasn't much help in researching what the issue was. Was the entire thing about allowing Bonnet Creek an access road to an RCID owned road? From an otherwise island locked property with no other access to public roads?

Sounds like it was ruled right, getting them the access. Probably a good example of a difference between the entire area being Disney private property and RCID existing and turning some of the roads into public roads. If E. Buena Vista Dr. was a private road on private property instead of a public road, the ruling would likely have been different, with them looking for access to a road that was a public road. It's still possible Bonnet Creek could have won a right of way easement, but that's way less helpful than direct access to a public road.

Since, RCID roads are public road and not private Disney roads. A condition that only exists because RCID existed.

Even if it was all private Disney still couldn’t just prohibit access.

 

[Figgy1]

I know that groan from anywhere, Bridget!

 

[mikejs78]

Basis of security for the bonds as listed in the contract :

Source? I found the text you pasted in the Reedy Creek bond disclosure document, which is not the same as the bond covenants - that document contains some summary information, but indicates that it doesn't contain everything in the bond covenants (of which there are several). It also references the covenants enshrined in the Reedy Creek act.

Irrespective of that, the same document references that the district covenants to "find additional capital improvements" in reference to its utility bonds.

The ability to zone and other powers are not listed in the bond covenant, nor would I argue does it have a meaningful or really any impact on the ability for the bonds to be repaid

Again, this is a summary, not the full bond covenants. But even so, this is a myopic view as a lot of things go into assessed value.

The case you referenced is meaningfully different, because it potentially undercut the ability for the entity to repay the bonds

No, the opinion specifically referenced that it did *not* undercut the ability of the entity to repay the bonds, but rather affected the market value of the bonds. This is a similar situation. Removing the government authority to improve infrastructure and develop the area would likely affect the value of the bond on the bond market if the holder(s) wanted to sell the bonds.

The RCID does not allow the hundreds of thousands of individuals that live near it to participate in its management

I live on the border of my town and another. I am not allowed to participate in the management or my neighboring town or any businesses located in that town, even if they affect me. That's local government.

 

[Figgy1]

Wow almost $400k billed to “the taxpayers” AKA DISNEY for last weeks report

The snarky part of me wants to blast Destiny child's Say My Name every time the board uses the words tax payers

 

[mikejs78]

We hold corporations to a different standard than fellow citizens. You telling a community you're not a part of how to run that community is meaningfully different from a community holding a gigantic firm accountable. It would be one thing if the RCID was filled with fellow citizens, but it's dominated by a single entertainment complex.

Yes, which is why Disney is still subject to the laws of the State of Florida and the ordinances of Orange and Osceola counties, except in the specific areas outlined in the district charter. The powers aren't unlimited.

It's also a bit of a bargain. Disney may not be willing to pay a 12% tax in addition to state and county taxes without having that control.l and flexibility. Other businesses don't have that level of tax and get infrastructure built by the counties out of the general fund. Disney agreed to more taxes in exchange for more flexibility, within the law (i.e. strict building codes, etc.)

The parking garages serve The Walt Disney Company. There's a term for infrastructure that is built for a company with an aim of enhancing its property. Capital expenditures.

They also serve all of the many 3rd party businesses that operate at Disney Springs.

And the poor governance examples include the Bonnet Creek incident.

Stipulating that you're right, that's one example out of a 55 year history. And the outcome was the right one, so it proves there are checks and balances.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Examples of why it should be reformed:

1) The RCID does not allow the hundreds of thousands of individuals that live near it to participate in its management
2) The RCID and Disney became intertwined and it impacted good governance
3) Disney shifted CapEx from its balance sheet to the local government apparatus, thus obscuring true CapEx

No lies necessary.

1. I live near the town next to mine. I have no say in its government. Why should those "near" but not within RCID have a say in how it is run?

2. RCID and Disney are "intertwined" because Disney is the owner of the overwhelming majority of property within the District. It's not even unique in that sense. Universal has a Special District that it controls as the majority landowner and Daytona Speedway has its own Special District as well.

3. What specific CapEx were shifted to RCID? The Disney Springs parking garages? There are plenty of non-Disney businesses operating in Disney Springs who benefit from those garages (AMC, Planet Hollywood, etc.). And again, government bonds for parking garages are very common. The other bonds are all for things that the County would have had to pay for if RCID didn't exist - so those poor neglected souls living "near" RCID who have no say in how it is run actually benefit from RCID by not having their taxes raised to pay for the infrastructure that allowed WDW to become what it is (which has also had a tremendous positive effect on the local economy, thus benefitting the locals in another way at no cost to them).

 

[MagicRat]

How noble of her. And she can stay regardless of the vote.

Also like that she said nobody brought up her removal during the CFTOD meeting. Guess we need a few more Debbie’s for the next public comment section.

I agree we need more pitchforks.

We can all argue on the merits if this district should be here or not and use legal precedent but I want to know was this a recurring topic of conversation before Desantis got his feeling hurt by Disney standing up to the bill? The simple answer is no. His actions and the elected people who support them acted like a dictatorship because they didn’t like a company’s response. There is something called the eye test and it’s very simple to see.

Now they are climbing over each other like pests to get out of harms way.

 

[mmascari]

Even if it was all private Disney still couldn’t just prohibit access.

If it hadn't been a public road, it wouldn't' have provided access in the same way. It would have created a super huge access easement on private property. Disney would have argued that a different route would have given more direct access to a public road. This is the scenario where RCID never existed at all and the entire area was one big private property. It might have turned out the same way, the Bonnet Creek parcel is locked in by the interstate and drainage canals.

If I look at a map today, there's some land East of Aldford Dr and West of Legado Dr, South toward Maple Rd, all outside the district. There's a drainage canal along the district boundary. If we pretend the canal doesn't exist to make this easier, and then pretend someone acquires that a chunk of land there, where there are currently no access roads. That land would need to find access to one of Aldford Dr, Legado Dr, Maple Rd, Floridian Pl, Seidel Rd, maybe all the way to Reams Rd. In this fiction, that person could argue the most efficient access it to Maple Rd, right next to the fireworks buildings. They would likely get pushback that one of the other options is better. The houses on both Aldford Dr and Legado Dr would likely argue that it would add to much traffic. The developer might argue that Seidel Rd and Reams Rd are to far away. There would be lots of options for a court to evaluate and determine which one solves the access problem. In this pretend example, I would bet that Floridian Pl is where access would end up. All the parties arguing that a different "not past me" route is better is not nefarious.

Back to the Bonnet Creek case. The evaluations on the least impactful way to provide access to the disconnected property would have been evaluating entirely different criteria if RCID never existed. That RCID did exist, and that because of that, all the RCID roads are public roads clearly had an impact on the evaluation. One that after it was solved, it looks like RCID has been cooperating with Bonnet Creek on issues ever since, presumably mostly on stuff that impacts both of them, like that drainage canal that runs between them.

 

[mmascari]

that's one example out of a 55 year history.

So far there appear to be two complaints about the district over that time.

1. They made the same spending decision many other governments have made and some people disagree with it, to build parking garages.
2. They tried to "not in my back yard" get Bonnet Creek to connect to public roads some other way, and failed.

Neither of those sounds nefarious.

I'm still waiting to hear that RCID funds and municipal bonds were used to build an attraction. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

 

[Batman'sParents]

Even if it was all private Disney still couldn’t just prohibit access.

Wasn’t the big issue with the Bonnet Creek development?

Bonnet Creek resides in unincorporated Orange County, but the only way to access it is through the district.