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

[flynnibus]

I don't think you understand how zoning works. There was never a need to zone for parking. Just waving your hand and repeating "Intertwined!" doesn't change that.

You go ahead and try getting development approval without a parking plan. Try looking up any project approvals, including retail, and you’ll find minimum parking requirements and site plans. Parking is part of every project approval like this.

Nobody goes into RCID specifically for McDonald's or gas. Both are just something you might need/want while there. People do, however, drive into RCID for Disney Springs to shop or see a Cirque de Soliel show. It's more than just WDW resort guests. To compare the 2 is either dishonest or a sign that you don't understand what Disney Springs really is. I assume you know what it is, though.

you don’t find gas and food services an important amenity where tens of thousands of employees commute daily?

So your argument is that Hilton is afraid of Disney? They could shutter their Disney Springs hotel tomorrow and survive just fine. Maybe Wyndham is shaking in their boots? The tax impact on any of these businesses is minimal. Disney foots the vast majority of the property tax bill.

So you argue against yourself. Saying why didn’t they complain… then minimize the impact to them?

You won’t find hilton complaining about disney in the paper because they are smarter than to risk relationships for petty public stuff when the real business is behind closed doors.

Meanwhile you have real local business owners who can’t stand up to the mouse and know the value of having access to disney. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

The "lost" taxes pale in comparison to the tax revenues generated by WDW.

the reality is few were in a position to do anything about it. They were autonomous. What good is it to stomp your feet about it and put other relations at risk. That is why it’s on independents like the media to speak up.

And let's not pretend that Orange County didn't foot the bill for a parking garage for Universal, so what did Disney and RCID do that isn't done elsewhere?

Irrelevant and not even a claim made. Comparing government conclusions without looking at the circumstances is also dumb.

OR there was no negative impact. Think about this logically. If operating in WDW is having a negative impact on these other businesses, why should they care about pleasing Disney?

What strawman is this? Stick to what was said… no idea where you are throwing out nonsense like ‘if operating in wdw is having a negative impact’

What's Disney going to do, terminate their lease? That would be a positive outcome according to your logic.

I think you need to go back and reread because you’ve not followed at all.

Disney holds all the cards and their tenants want to be part of the action. This is not a situation for tenants to act like they are the public voice against disney.

Disney’s reputation for being ruthless is established. “Don’t mess with the mouse”

Yet businesses keep happily agreeing to Disney's terms.

People sit on grievances all the time because the world is more complex than every tiny item in isolation. Smart business owners don’t act like entitled children. Do not take silence for support. It can simply be picking your battles or biting your tongue to focus on the net gain.

 

[flynnibus]

@Chip Chipperson i’d love to hear your theory on how the Disney springs garages cane to be. Who do you think initiated the proposal? Who do you think suggested the district build them? You think that was before or after disney wanted to redo dtd?

 

[TiggerDad]

Here's an example of government spending like the RCID garages: https://wapo.st/3RGNB4Z











Looks like sometimes governments do fund the project and don't make the developer pay all the costs. Who knew.

If this is a good policy decision for Virginia or not is a different question. It certainly looks like a good one for Monumental and JBG Smith.

This is also an example of government acting in secret. DC was completely blindsided that they were about to lose their NBA and NHL teams until this leaked the day before. Neighbors are furious about the massive increase in traffic this will bring to an already congested area.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

You go ahead and try getting development approval without a parking plan. Try looking up any project approvals, including retail, and you’ll find minimum parking requirements and site plans. Parking is part of every project approval like this.

I never said parking wasn't necessary. I said it didn't require specific zoning, which your previous posts suggested. Obviously any commercial development requires a minimum amount of parking, which is typically determined by the size and type of development. So, yes, the garages were necessary to meet the parking needs of the development.

you don’t find gas and food services an important amenity where tens of thousands of employees commute daily?

Why twist words? Of course people need to eat and fill their tanks. However, fast food isn't a necessity and gas stations don't require much in terms of space and resources. If there was ever a situation where a McDonald's or gas station was requesting that the local government build them a parking garage they'd be laughed out of the room. Nobody ever says, "Boy the local economy really picked up once that Exxon station was built." Now, if the gas station was being built in an area that was somehow lacking any gas stations and the local government was having trouble attracting any gas companies to build a station because of a small isolated population or something then maybe a case could be made to help fund the construction of the station. Unfortunately for your case, however, there are plenty of gas stations in the surrounding area. It would be inconvenient if there were zero gas stations within RCID, but not so inconvenient as to justify government funding of the construction. And McDonald's is even less important in that regard.

So you argue against yourself. Saying why didn’t they complain… then minimize the impact to them?

You won’t find hilton complaining about disney in the paper because they are smarter than to risk relationships for petty public stuff when the real business is behind closed doors.

Meanwhile you have real local business owners who can’t stand up to the mouse and know the value of having access to disney. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

No, it's not contradictory to anything except the point you were trying to make. There's all of this "think about the other taxpayers" nonsense, but the fact is that none of them are complaining about it themselves. Why? Because they aren't seeing the negative impact that people are trying to insist exists.

the reality is few were in a position to do anything about it. They were autonomous. What good is it to stomp your feet about it and put other relations at risk. That is why it’s on independents like the media to speak up.

If the relationship is bad then there's no reason to worry about risking it. You can't argue that the relationship is too good to risk AND say that the relationship is abusive and unfair. All of these businesses have options. They chose to operate in RCID specifically because of the benefits while fully understanding how the government functions. That's why they signed the leases and the other landowners agreed to deed restrictions when buying land from Disney.

Irrelevant and not even a claim made. Comparing government conclusions without looking at the circumstances is also dumb.

It's absolutely relevant because this while discussion began when these garages were cited as an example of corruption. If something is legal, publicly disclosed, and common then there is no corruption. It is literally the local government doing the will of its constituents. Only in a dictatorship would that be considered bad.

What strawman is this? Stick to what was said… no idea where you are throwing out nonsense like ‘if operating in wdw is having a negative impact’

It's not a strawman. You and others are painting these garages as some terrible abuse when the fact is that nobody was harmed.

I think you need to go back and reread because you’ve not followed at all.

Disney holds all the cards and their tenants want to be part of the action. This is not a situation for tenants to act like they are the public voice against disney.

Disney’s reputation for being ruthless is established. “Don’t mess with the mouse”


People sit on grievances all the time because the world is more complex than every tiny item in isolation. Smart business owners don’t act like entitled children. Do not take silence for support. It can simply be picking your battles or biting your tongue to focus on the net gain.

So we're back to agreeing g that the businesses entered into their agreements knowing that they are profitable for them. These garages helped make Disney Springs as big as it is now, which helps all of those businesses. That's exactly the sort of thing public funds should be used for - to develop the community for the good of the taxpayers.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

@Chip Chipperson i’d love to hear your theory on how the Disney springs garages cane to be. Who do you think initiated the proposal? Who do you think suggested the district build them? You think that was before or after disney wanted to redo dtd?

Not a single poster has suggested that RCID asked for this rather than the other way around. It's completely irrelevant. Most projects line this that are funded with government dollars come to exist the same way - the business approaches the government with a request and tries to show why it is in the public's interest to approve it. The case for the garages is pretty simple: expanded Disney Springs means increased taxable value for the land and increased economic activity within the District. Existing businesses benefit. New businesses get the opportunity to benefit. The District benefits. Where's the issue?

 

[LuvtheGoof]

This is also an example of government acting in secret. DC was completely blindsided that they were about to lose their NBA and NHL teams until this leaked the day before. Neighbors are furious about the massive increase in traffic this will bring to an already congested area.

Not to mention the angry shop and restaurant owners near the Capitol One Arena. We were just there last night and it is a vibrant and busy area. If both the NBA and NHL teams move, that area will be a ghost town except on certain concert nights, which won't be enough for some of the businesses to survive. Of course, VA doesn't care how it will hurt DC, only that it might help them. And multiple VA congress persons are already stating that it won't work without billions in infrastructure work on roads and the Metro to make it work. Didn't see anything from VA about helping with that.

Sorry for off topic post.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

@Chip Chipperson i’d love to hear your theory on how the Disney springs garages cane to be. Who do you think initiated the proposal? Who do you think suggested the district build them? You think that was before or after disney wanted to redo dtd?

I only have one question. How do you know that the local businesses in DS didn't complain to Disney that the parking was limiting the visitors, and that parking garages would help? While we were never privy to the internal discussions, you have to admit that it is possible that some of the businesses brought up the idea of increased traffic flow to help them out.

 

[Nevermore525]

Not to mention the angry shop and restaurant owners near the Capitol One Arena. We were just there last night and it is a vibrant and busy area. If both the NBA and NHL teams move, that area will be a ghost town except on certain concert nights, which won't be enough for some of the businesses to survive. Of course, VA doesn't care how it will hurt DC, only that it might help them. And multiple VA congress persons are already stating that it won't work without billions in infrastructure work on roads and the Metro to make it work. Didn't see anything from VA about helping with that.

Sorry for off topic post.

Wouldn’t be the first time a state has rushed into something without fully realizing the financial ramifications. The initial dissolution attempt of RCID comes to mind…

 

[lazyboy97o]

I only have one question. How do you know that the local businesses in DS didn't complain to Disney that the parking was limiting the visitors, and that parking garages would help? While we were never privy to the internal discussions, you have to admit that it is possible that some of the businesses brought up the idea of increased traffic flow to help them out.

Steven Schussler (creator of Rainforest Cafe, T-Rex, Yak & Yeti, and The Boathouse to name a few) was very influential in convincing Disney to close Pleasure Island and redevelop Downtown Disney. He was really the one who believed that Downtown Disney could be redeveloped, expanded and be more third-party operated.

 

[mmascari]

This is also an example of government acting in secret. DC was completely blindsided that they were about to lose their NBA and NHL teams until this leaked the day before. Neighbors are furious about the massive increase in traffic this will bring to an already congested area.

I wasn't commenting on if it was good or bad policy. Just that it's a policy decision well within the scope of valid policy decisions.

The RCID garages are in the same category. They were a policy decision well within the scope of valid policy decisions available to RCID. If this was a good or bad policy decision, or if different people think it was a good or bad decision doesn't change that fact that making the decision either way to build or not was well within the scope of policy decisions that are available to the district.

Reform targeting one specific district should have a reason that specific district requires reform. Them making a decision that is within their scope and appropriate for them to make doesn't rise to that level. Even if not everyone likes the decision they made.

Arguing that the decision shouldn't be in their scope, that they shouldn't be able to make it at all, is easily shown that isn't true. That there are many many instances of similar government structures that make the same decision and that it falls within their charters.

Arguing that no district should be able to make the decision at all, or make it with the same result is an argument to reform all districts not just this one. Reforming all districts, while that may be a worthwhile cause, is not what this discussion or the FL law is about. Had this been a reform of all districts, it would be a very different discussion.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Steven Schussler (creator of Rainforest Cafe, T-Rex, Yak & Yeti, and The Boathouse to name a few) was very influential in convincing Disney to close Pleasure Island and redevelop Downtown Disney. He was really the one who believed that Downtown Disney could be redeveloped, expanded and be more third-party operated.

So that just leads directly into asking for additional parking to add more visitors.

 

[mightynine]

I'm beginning to think this poster is one of the CFTOD board members.

Hopefully not charging us by the word.

 

[mightynine]

Steven Schussler (creator of Rainforest Cafe, T-Rex, Yak & Yeti, and The Boathouse to name a few) was very influential in convincing Disney to close Pleasure Island and redevelop Downtown Disney. He was really the one who believed that Downtown Disney could be redeveloped, expanded and be more third-party operated.

So he was the puppet for the parking garages?

(Yes, I’m kidding, I can’t believe I just spent more than five minutes of my limited time upon this plane of existence reading about the supposed evils of $&*$ing parking garages)

 

[lazyboy97o]

The "lost" taxes pale in comparison to the tax revenues generated by WDW. And let's not pretend that Orange County didn't foot the bill for a parking garage for Universal, so what did Disney and RCID do that isn't done elsewhere?

Universal built their garages. There was an uproar over the pedestrian bridge built by Orlando to serve Cabana Bay. Orlando though was obligated to build the bridge at Universal’s request because the special district that encompasses the North Campus exists for the purpose of providing transportation improvements for the landowners. It’s a dependent district without its own board and yet the city council didn’t really debate the issue because building the bridge was effectively required.

Orange County did provide funding for the Sand Lake Road extension that has been on the drawing boards for years but only moved forward due to Universal. Now in hindsight it’s probably even more of a sweetheart deal as it is work that could have been carried by the Shingle Creek Transit and Utility Community Development District.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So that just leads directly into asking for additional parking to add more visitors.

More parking was required by the District’s development regulations.

 

[flynnibus]

Not a single poster has suggested that RCID asked for this rather than the other way around. It's completely irrelevant. Most projects line this that are funded with government dollars come to exist the same way - the business approaches the government with a request and tries to show why it is in the public's interest to approve it

The reason why it's important is because the entire tangent started because people took offense to the comment that someone suggested that Disney is 'shifted' CapEx to the District. And what you describe is exactly that... Disney has a need, and instead of paying for it, they get to "convince" the district its in everyone's best interest if the district pays for it instead.

It's exactly the very thing people called 'outright lies' and @mmascari has issue with as well. It doesn't matter if its "valid" or "not unique" -- It was never claimed otherwise. The point is Disney gets to benefit from that arrangement and we all known damn well that the decision process the government is going through to make that determination here is far and unique verse other public government, and yes, even most special districts... because RCID is empowered with taxing authority far greater than most, with insulating legislation far more encompassing than most.

Then people are like "but they pay for it in taxes anyway" -- It's still a better deal for Disney to do this... which is why as you even theorize... Disney would suggest doing it. It's cheaper for Disney to pay for it as a government project and through their taxes than it is to do it as a private project. It's cheaper to build as a government project, Disney doesn't pay the taxes on the structure themselves, and Disney gets to lower their own tax liability by getting deductions for paying local taxes. They literally save millions of dollars by having the project paid through taxes instead of doing it themselves.

Then people are like "but who cares, who does it impact?" -- It's the same as everyone who manipulates tax advantages. It impacts the counties and state of florida who lose out on tax revenue that Disney didn't pay during construction and won't pay going forward for assets/improvements.

Then you are like "but why isn't anyone in the district complaining?" -- Because the mouse is god within the district. If you want to play with the mouse, or run a business with the mouse, you don't bad mouth the mouse if you want to stick around.

Personally I think the garages are a great way the RCID/Disney model worked in symbiosis -- but I'm no fool to think this is "just the same as everywhere" or that this isn't by-design behavior by Disney or that the District just said "you know what the SE portion of the district needs is... three parking garages... where should we put them?"

 

[flynnibus]

I only have one question. How do you know that the local businesses in DS didn't complain to Disney that the parking was limiting the visitors, and that parking garages would help? While we were never privy to the internal discussions, you have to admit that it is possible that some of the businesses brought up the idea of increased traffic flow to help them out.

1) We can tell from outside observation over history if parking was heavily contested -- And it wasn't. At best complaints would have been the issues with WHERE available parking was (West End with the most parking, but furthest from the marketplace area)
2) Building parking garages is the most expensive way possible to add parking -- making it the least desirable way to solve that problem in isolation
3) Even if their was a desire from tenants, the unavoidable need came from Disney's redevelopment of the site -- expanding the operation while removing existing parking. This drives change Disney had to solve. They couldn't expand the property, so they traded parking acreage for space to develop. Parking is something they are REQUIRED to address to get the project approved for permits/zoning.

The whole point of the question was to point out that the garages are there because Disney needed them to be there for their DS redevelopment. Not because of some RCID initiated idea of "oh, our constituents are parking deprived... lets solve this community problem by suggesting Disney give us land to build parking garages".

 

[Chip Chipperson]

The reason why it's important is because the entire tangent started because people took offense to the comment that someone suggested that Disney is 'shifted' CapEx to the District. And what you describe is exactly that... Disney has a need, and instead of paying for it, they get to "convince" the district its in everyone's best interest if the district pays for it instead.

It's exactly the very thing people called 'outright lies' and @mmascari has issue with as well. It doesn't matter if its "valid" or "not unique" -- It was never claimed otherwise. The point is Disney gets to benefit from that arrangement and we all known damn well that the decision process the government is going through to make that determination here is far and unique verse other public government, and yes, even most special districts... because RCID is empowered with taxing authority far greater than most, with insulating legislation far more encompassing than most.

Then people are like "but they pay for it in taxes anyway" -- It's still a better deal for Disney to do this... which is why as you even theorize... Disney would suggest doing it. It's cheaper for Disney to pay for it as a government project and through their taxes than it is to do it as a private project. It's cheaper to build as a government project, Disney doesn't pay the taxes on the structure themselves, and Disney gets to lower their own tax liability by getting deductions for paying local taxes. They literally save millions of dollars by having the project paid through taxes instead of doing it themselves.

Then people are like "but who cares, who does it impact?" -- It's the same as everyone who manipulates tax advantages. It impacts the counties and state of florida who lose out on tax revenue that Disney didn't pay during construction and won't pay going forward for assets/improvements.

Then you are like "but why isn't anyone in the district complaining?" -- Because the mouse is god within the district. If you want to play with the mouse, or r un a business with the mouse, you don't bad mouth the mouse if you want to stick around.

Personally I think the garages are a great way the RCID/Disney model worked in symbiosis -- but I'm no fool to think this is "just the same as everywhere" or that this isn't by-design behavior by Disney or that the District just said "you know what the SE portion of the district needs is... three parking garages... where should we put them?"

Maybe you missed lazyboy97o's post pointing out that the expansion of Disney Springs was suggested/supported by the Boathouse owner. If you have multiple parties advocating for improvements in the District, why should only the largest taxpayer shell out the funds from its own budget?

All the rest of your points such as the "lost" tax revenues from the construction have been addressed repeatedly. Those funds are more than made up for by the additional sales taxes generated from the expansion - unless you think that years and years of additional sales from the additional retail and dining spaces will never equal the cost of construction (and let's not forget that the sales taxes for the construction/refurbishment) of the Disney-owned buildings in Disney Springs did generate sales tax revenue, too). If the best argument against it is "the poor state lost sales tax dollars" then it's not much of an argument against doing what was done.

Edit to add: your own poi to about the garages being more expensive includes the caveat "in isolation," which necessarily requires us to ignore any extenuating circumstances such as how much space is available and would expa ding flat surface parking require additional changes to existing roadways to make room. "In isolation" the garages being 4 floors quadrupled the amount of parking compared a flat surface lot on the same footprint.

 

[flynnibus]

I never said parking wasn't necessary. I said it didn't require specific zoning, which your previous posts suggested. Obviously any commercial development requires a minimum amount of parking, which is typically determined by the size and type of development. So, yes, the garages were necessary to meet the parking needs of the development.

Sorry, I'm using 'zoning' here as a catch-all because clearly this thread can't handle the nuances of actually getting into the details of what it means for permitting within by-right verse projects that need approval before permitting verse projects that want variances to actually fit within exisitng regulations. Zoning and building codes are the mechanisms by which government regulate development. It is the framework that defines what can be built and what needs approval. Talking about 'zoning' is just an easy simplification to talk about projects that need local planning or development approvals because it's not something that can be done purely by-right.

And without bothering to lookup the district's code... I can pretty much confidently say I'd wager Parking garages of this size would require planning approval. They would just about everywhere. Parking is highly regulated... most people just don't realize it.

Why twist words? Of course people need to eat and fill their tanks. However, fast food isn't a necessity and gas stations don't require much in terms of space and resources. If there was ever a situation where a McDonald's or gas station was requesting that the local government build them a parking garage they'd be laughed out of the room

Wait - so now the district's focus on transportation needs in the district is limited to just parking garages? You laid out this entire sob story of how adding garages was for the common good of MORE than just Disney Springs... to avoid people having to go outside the district... and then can't grasp how access to common amenities like fuel for tens of thousands of commuters isn't a significant topic for that population? Do you not see the absurdity of your stretch armstrong story from before and how somehow your logic doesn't apply outside that story?

Nobody ever says, "Boy the local economy really picked up once that Exxon station was built." Now, if the gas station was being built in an area that was somehow lacking any gas stations and the local government was having trouble attracting any gas companies to build a station because of a small isolated population or something then maybe a case could be made to help fund the construction of the station. Unfortunately for your case, however, there are plenty of gas stations in the surrounding area. It would be inconvenient if there were zero gas stations within RCID, but not so inconvenient as to justify government funding of the construction. And McDonald's is even less important in that regard.

I suggest you actually look at a map of local gas stations in the area and access... I think you will be suprised. There is a giant hole in the map NW of the I4/192 area... and It's called Reedy Creek and north.

No, it's not contradictory to anything except the point you were trying to make. There's all of this "think about the other taxpayers" nonsense, but the fact is that none of them are complaining about it themselves. Why? Because they aren't seeing the negative impact that people are trying to insist exists.

A majority of the population can't even do their own taxes.. and you think they are going to understand how a business benefits from this public subsidity? Hell even in this thread it needs to be revisted countless number of times because people can't grasp how still paying taxes is BETTER than paying less taxes and paying for something outright. The reason you don't see local politicans not complaining is not because there is no negatives, but because they choose to focus on the NET gain. BTW, they also know Disney paid crap wages... but are they screaming at Disney to do more? NO because they also know they are the biggest employer and also one of the biggest influencers in the region.

Lack of noise doesn't mean consent - It means there is a choice not to make a fuss.

If the relationship is bad then there's no reason to worry about risking it.

Again with you making stuff up no one said.

You can't argue that the relationship is too good to risk AND say that the relationship is abusive and unfair.

Then I think you are naive. It's called the end game. People tolerate stuff they hate all the time because the net outcome is what they want or need. People hate their boss, but keep working because they need the job. Politicans tolerate undesirables because they bring prosperity they need, etc. Again, lack of noise is not a sign of consent or agreement.

All of these businesses have options. They chose to operate in RCID specifically because of the benefits while fully understanding how the government functions. That's why they signed the leases and the other landowners agreed to deed restrictions when buying land from Disney.

Yes, options they've decided are more valuable to them, then putting at risk to fight the mouse over stuff that isn't even their fight. You're saying exactly why they wouldn't speak up, but failing by taking that to mean they are in agreement or happy with Disney's choices. That's not reality. They tolerate the bad, to get to the good.

It's absolutely relevant because this while discussion began when these garages were cited as an example of corruption. If something is legal, publicly disclosed, and common then there is no corruption.

It wasn't called corruption. And it's also possible for actions to be UNDESIRABLE in your opinion while still being legal and common.

If you learn that your district attorney or adjacent area's attorney declines to prosecute 67% of crimes and you are upset about it and want reform... that is what we are talking about here. To believe that decision is something that deserves reform does not mean you are calling it corruption, it does not mean you believe it's unique, it does not mean you believe it is illegal. In this case, it's completely up to the DA to make that decision and within their power to do so. Just like it's completely within RCID's authority to fund a parking garage and within their power to do so. That doesn't mean you can't disagree with it and believe it should be changed... and believe it's something that should be reformed.

 

[flynnibus]

Maybe you missed lazyboy97o's post pointing out that the expansion of Disney Springs was suggested/supported by the Boathouse owner.
If you have multiple parties advocating for improvements in the District, why should only the largest taxpayer shell out the funds from its own budget?

Because the guy wasn't advocating they needed parking garages - he was advocating that the broken PI corpse and leftovers of marketplace+PI+westend needed to be reworked. Are you suggesting RCID should have been the one to redevelop Disney's failing shopping district because so many parties were advocating for it?

All the rest of your points such as the "lost" tax revenues from the construction have been addressed repeatedly. Those funds are more than made up for by the additional sales taxes generated from the expansion - unless you think that years and years of additional sales from the additional retail and dining spaces will never equal the cost of construction (and let's not forget that the sales taxes for the construction/refurbishment) of the Disney-owned buildings in Disney Springs did generate sales tax revenue, too). If the best argument against it is "the poor state lost sales tax dollars" then it's not much of an argument against doing what was done.

I never made the argument the lost taxes are more significant. The taxes were only brought up because of the point you made about 'who is impacted' and trying to argue that this is solely a decision for the district's constituents. The decision impacts MORE than within the district's boundaries - that's what the reference to other taxes was for. Not that the lost taxes somehow are more important than the net gain. It was purely a cite to disprove that this is a thing only within the RCID boundaries. The rest is you just trying to minimize that reality instead of just accepting, that yes, the impact is more than RCID constituents.

I'll make this really simple for you.

RCID building the garages was a concession to Disney. A concession that Disney greatly benefits from. An idea that likely came from Disney - not RCID's assessment of underserved needs in the area. So when someone uses it as an example of how Disney benefits from the district by having the district supply capital improvements -- it's true.

You can also disagree with the decision that the government made this concession to Disney and disagree that it was some necessity by the district.

Just like many people are against large government concessions to build sports stadiums for teams... or against incentives to attract busineses (Like Amazon HQ2). Disgust for that does not mean you believe it's illegal or unique - It's a topic of POLICY.

That disagreement does not mean you think that the concession was unique, nor illegal. So all the whataboutism is pointless. It's attacking stuff that isn't even under contention.

Edit to add: your own poi to about the garages being more expensive includes the caveat "in isolation," which necessarily requires us to ignore any extenuating circumstances such as how much space is available and would expa ding flat surface parking require additional changes to existing roadways to make room.

Yes, because it simply means adding garages IS NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION to a problem. You can convert existing land, you can secure more land, etc. And you can't make generalizations on cost comparisons when you don't have the specifics of what the alternative is. But you can say garages are the most expensive form of parking per spot... which is why they are not the first solution to parking problems - they are used when the alternatives are not practical or undesirable for other reasons. It was simply bounding the statement because it would be stupid to generalize beyond it.