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

[Chip Chipperson]

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?

But what he advocated for necessarily required additional parking. So here we are.

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.

Again, if the taxes generated by the impact of the project outweigh those "lost" by having the District build the garages, then they aren't lost at all. No garages = less room for expansion since parking needs to be adequate for the capacity of the commercial space.

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.

When the issue is cited as a reason why RCID was bad, then the "whataboutism" is absolutely relevant because it shows that exactly this type of thing can and does happen quite often without a Special District such as this. The difference here is that the only taxpayers involved in paying those costs are Disney, the entities leasing property from Disney, and the handful of other property owners in the District - all of whom entered into the situation fully aware of what it is/was. The entire thing has been a net gain for the Counties and the State so using those taxes as an example of harm willingly ignores the reality of the economic impact of the District. If this is the one item anyone can point to as a reason why RCID should have been taken over then it's not even an argument.

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.

Have you been to the parking garages? They're as close to the road as they could get. Where is this extra land coming from that could have been used instead? If flat surface parking was a realistic possibility then there would be no reason for Disney to ask for the garages that ultimately raised the company's own taxes. The 15% or so of the cost saved by sharing the burden would easily have been saved by paving some blacktop and calling it a day - but only if the space existed without requiring other more costly adjustments. And if they did go with a parking lot that required rerouting roads, people would just complain that the District shouldn't have approved that plan, either - even though the District was created specifically so that Disney would develop the land and promote tourism in Central FL.

 

[flynnibus]

Again, if the taxes generated by the impact of the project outweigh those "lost" by having the District build the garages, then they aren't lost at all. No garages = less room for expansion since parking needs to be adequate for the capacity of the commercial space.

Your logic hinges on the idea that the garages wouldn't have happened if the District didn't pay for the garages. That's not sound. If the District didn't pay for the garages, the need for Disney to redo DTD is still there. The need for the garages is still there.. and Disney would have paid for them. The success of DS is not predicated on RCID paying for the garages.

Second, conceding some tax revenue is not the same as "not lost". It's still lost revenue, it's simply a CHOICE that accepting the lost revenue is worth other gains. The math doesn't disappear -- it's just an accepted loss.

Do you really believe Disney Springs redevelopment would not have happened if RCID didn't pay for the garages?

When the issue is cited as a reason why RCID was bad, then the "whataboutism" is absolutely relevant because it shows that exactly this type of thing can and does happen quite often without a Special District such as this.

And know what, those same examples are frequently criticized along with the governments that made those policy decisions. So citing them as why you shouldn't disagree with the policy doesn't mean anything except to say "you are not alone...". It does not address the disagreement with the policy or why the disagreement is there in the first place. It shows a misunderstanding of the disagreement by just trying to point to other conclusions.

The difference here is that the only taxpayers involved in paying those costs are Disney, the entities leasing property from Disney, and the handful of other property owners in the District - all of whom entered into the situation fully aware of what it is/was. The entire thing has been a net gain for the Counties and the State so using those taxes as an example of harm willingly ignores the reality of the economic impact of the District.

You don't erase the cost of the concession when you conclude the concession is worth a net gain. Additionally, it's not the counties that made the choice to give the concession - they are the ones that must accept the lost revenue without being part of the decision.

Your rationale is "hey, as long as I'm giving you money, don't worry about how much it is... I'm still giving you more money!" When the real discussion in concessions is... "If you are going to be doing this anyway, why should I give up revenue.. I'd rather have all the money you owe, not some discounted portion. Concessions are incentivies to drive new opportunities. If you don't need incentive.. I'm not giving you a discount"

If this is the one item anyone can point to as a reason why RCID should have been taken over then it's not even an argument.

It wasn't the argument - so again you keep attacking points no one made.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

This right here sums up the root problem. It’s the same problem at the root of a lot of criticisms of the district. You have preconceived assumptions based on how other places operate and keep refusing to accept information to the contrary.

The big reason CFTOD is suing Disney over the development agreements is because, as is very common in Florida, permitted uses only need administrative planning approval. That's why they can't go mucking about with Disney's plans and act as a censorship board, because nothing permitted by the existing zoning goes before the zoning commission. Know who else uses administrative approval for permitted uses and permits parking structures in all of their commercial zoning districts? Orange County, Florida.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And know what, those same examples are frequently criticized along with the governments that made those policy decisions. So citing them as why you shouldn't disagree with the policy doesn't mean anything except to say "you are not alone...". It does not address the disagreement with the policy or why the disagreement is there in the first place. It shows a misunderstanding of the disagreement by just trying to point to other conclusions.

Not when the original issue was having the authority that included praise for another body because it was not realized that it has the same authority. That's what you jumped in to correct, was claims that other districts, and Shingle Creek in particular, do not possess certain powers.

 

[flynnibus]

This right here sums up the root problem. It’s the same problem at the root of a lot of criticisms of the district. You have preconceived assumptions based on how other places operate and keep refusing to accept information to the contrary.

The big reason CFTOD is suing Disney over the development agreements is because, as is very common in Florida, permitted uses only need administrative planning approval. That's why they can't go mucking about with Disney's plans and act as a censorship board, because nothing permitted by the existing zoning goes before the zoning commission. Know who else uses administrative approval for permitted uses and permits parking structures in all of their commercial zoning districts? Orange County, Florida.

Thanks for trying to explain by-right...

Tell me again how that necessities the concession for RCID to pay for the garages again? I eagerly await your response... (or even a correction over actual parking garage approvals... and not some insinuation about my ignorance of by-right)

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Your logic hinges on the idea that the garages wouldn't have happened if the District didn't pay for the garages. That's not sound. If the District didn't pay for the garages, the need for Disney to redo DTD is still there. The need for the garages is still there.. and Disney would have paid for them. The success of DS is not predicated on RCID paying for the garages.

Your assuming that the scale of the project would have remained the same without the concession from the District. That's not a safe bet when the company was being run by Budget Cuts Bob. A smaller scale refresh was certainly a possibility.

Second, conceding some tax revenue is not the same as "not lost". It's still lost revenue, it's simply a CHOICE that accepting the lost revenue is worth other gains. The math doesn't disappear -- it's just an accepted loss.

It's an acceptable "loss" if the alternative is worse. If the project was scaled back to reduce capital expenditures then there would be less sales tax revenues for the state and counties in the long-term. Decisions of this magnitude are never made by governments with an eye solely on today with no consideration for down the line.

Do you really believe Disney Springs redevelopment would not have happened if RCID didn't pay for the garages?

As said above, there is a good chance the scale of the project changed without the garages. And with multiple taxpayers wanting the project to get done, it's logical that it be done with public funds for the garages.

And know what, those same examples are frequently criticized along with the governments that made those policy decisions. So citing them as why you shouldn't disagree with the policy doesn't mean anything except to say "you are not alone...". It does not address the disagreement with the policy or why the disagreement is there in the first place. It shows a misunderstanding of the disagreement by just trying to point to other conclusions.

Again, it was cited as an example of why RCID was bad. If you don’t understand that then I can't help you. Citing it as a reason to change the District's Board means that we have to assume that such a deal wouldn't have been done if the District never existed. That's clearly incorrect, so feel free to dislike the policy or the logic behind it all you want but don't pretend that it's not relevant to the conversation you joined.

You don't erase the cost of the concession when you conclude the concession is worth a net gain. Additionally, it's not the counties that made the choice to give the concession - they are the ones that must accept the lost revenue without being part of the decision.

Your rationale is "hey, as long as I'm giving you money, don't worry about how much it is... I'm still giving you more money!" When the real discussion in concessions is... "If you are going to be doing this anyway, why should I give up revenue.. I'd rather have all the money you owe, not some discounted portion. Concessions are incentivies to drive new opportunities. If you don't need incentive.. I'm not giving you a discount"

The counties made the decision to accept these types of "losses" decades ago when they supported the creation of RCID to save themselves and their taxpayers from the burden on helping foot the bill for the infrastructure required to develop WDW. Even today they see real benefits from that because many of the roads in RCID are District roads rather than County roads, so maintenance and expansion falls on the District's taxpayers alone.
And if the argument is don't say "don't complain about the extra money I'm giving you just because it could have been more in some alternate reality" then you have to acknowledge the possibility that there's an alternate reality where there is LESS money being given - and you also have to realize that the cou ties are getting extra tax revenues from Disney Springs thanks to the increased assessment associated with the overhaul even without the sales taxes from the garage construction. And the state sees increased sales tax revenues when WDW is expanding, whether it's increased retail space, resorts, dining, or parks. They've known this since Day 1, have done studies showing that the arrangement is better than the alternative, and we're fine with it until Disney exercised it's 1st Amendment rights.

It wasn't the argument - so again you keep attacking points no one made.

Again, this was absolutely an argument made before you started responding. Context matters.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Thanks for trying to explain by-right...

Tell me again how that necessities the concession for RCID to pay for the garages again? I eagerly await your response... (or even a correction over actual parking garage approvals... and not some insinuation about my ignorance of by-right)

Then don't use terminology that suggests you don't know when complaining about a lack of nuance. There was no need for “planning approval”.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Again, it was cited as an example of why RCID was bad. If you don’t understand that then I can't help you. Citing it as a reason to change the District's Board means that we have to assume that such a deal wouldn't have been done if the District never existed. That's clearly incorrect, so feel free to dislike the policy or the logic behind it all you want but don't pretend that it's not relevant to the conversation you joined.

It wasn’t just cited as an example of a problem and need for reform. It was paired with praise for another special district because it was not realized that it has the same power and the same method of choosing leadership.

 

[Just JBC]

There seems to be a lot of emphasis over the parking garages being paid with tax dollars vs. just Disney paying but ultimately I think that's a bit of a red herring. Because the tax dollars used come from assessments to the district. So if the district doesn't need to pay for a parking garage, they can do what the CFTOD did and lower the assessment rate. That frees up roughly the same amount of money that Disney could then use to pay for the garage itself. And, with the lower assessment, Disney could (at least in theory) raise the rents charged by the same amount as the reduced assessment (yes, this would require a perfect crystal ball to know what the assessment rates would be in the future and price the lease agreements accordingly. That's not really the point).

There were definitely advantages to Disney for having the district build the parking garages, but from a cost/maintenance perspective, it looks like it is a pretty zero-sum game for Disney.

I'm more concerned that Shades of Green didn't get their pedestrian walk-way. We had an opportunity to stay there once when my kids were really little, and I opted to book Boardwalk at the time because I was concerned about crossing the street with a stroller. Shades must still be doing okay, because every time I've checked since, the criteria for booking keeps us out. I'm glad that they got rid of the "just run across the street" access, but if Shades of Green was willing to have a pedestrian bridge/tunnel/stoplight, I wish that they hadn't allowed Disney to push to just close the path without building an alternative.

My understanding was that CFTOD was supposed to be using their report to determine what services they could eliminate so that by the time the last bond was paid off, then whoever was currently governor (who would obviously be a BFF of DeSantis) could at that point complete the rejection of Disney and have the R controlled legislature complete the dissolution of the district without increasing the burden on nearby communities. This report, which dredges up questionable but possibly not impermissible items in the district's past, does not accomplish that stated goal.

 

[pdude81]

There seems to be a lot of emphasis over the parking garages being paid with tax dollars vs. just Disney paying but ultimately I think that's a bit of a red herring. Because the tax dollars used come from assessments to the district. So if the district doesn't need to pay for a parking garage, they can do what the CFTOD did and lower the assessment rate. That frees up roughly the same amount of money that Disney could then use to pay for the garage itself. And, with the lower assessment, Disney could (at least in theory) raise the rents charged by the same amount as the reduced assessment (yes, this would require a perfect crystal ball to know what the assessment rates would be in the future and price the lease agreements accordingly. That's not really the point).

There were definitely advantages to Disney for having the district build the parking garages, but from a cost/maintenance perspective, it looks like it is a pretty zero-sum game for Disney.

I'm more concerned that Shades of Green didn't get their pedestrian walk-way. We had an opportunity to stay there once when my kids were really little, and I opted to book Boardwalk at the time because I was concerned about crossing the street with a stroller. Shades must still be doing okay, because every time I've checked since, the criteria for booking keeps us out. I'm glad that they got rid of the "just run across the street" access, but if Shades of Green was willing to have a pedestrian bridge/tunnel/stoplight, I wish that they hadn't allowed Disney to push to just close the path without building an alternative.

My understanding was that CFTOD was supposed to be using their report to determine what services they could eliminate so that by the time the last bond was paid off, then whoever was currently governor (who would obviously be a BFF of DeSantis) could at that point complete the rejection of Disney and have the R controlled legislature complete the dissolution of the district without increasing the burden on nearby communities. This report, which dredges up questionable but possibly not impermissible items in the district's past, does not accomplish that stated goal.

I find it ironic that CFTOD claims they have a mission of eliminating special benefits, but want to rebuild a walkway or bridge for people staying at another resort to be able to use the amenities at the nearest deluxe resort. Do they not have pools or buses at SOG?

 

[flynnibus]

but want to rebuild a walkway or bridge for people staying at another resort to be able to use the amenities at the nearest deluxe resort.

That's not the argument at all.

It's that it was a preferred method to access Disney's transportation network and has been used for decades, now to be removed due to road expansion without consideration to retain that path.

 

[mikejs78]

Your logic hinges on the idea that the garages wouldn't have happened if the District didn't pay for the garages. That's not sound. If the District didn't pay for the garages, the need for Disney to redo DTD is still there. The need for the garages is still there.. and Disney would have paid for them. The success of DS is not predicated on RCID paying for the garages.

Second, conceding some tax revenue is not the same as "not lost". It's still lost revenue, it's simply a CHOICE that accepting the lost revenue is worth other gains. The math doesn't disappear -- it's just an accepted loss.

Do you really believe Disney Springs redevelopment would not have happened if RCID didn't pay for the garages?

Your logic hinges on the fact that the project would have been the same in any other scenario - that the Springs redo would have been as extensive, thus requiring garages. I'm sure the financial consideration of the district financing and owning the garages played a role.

And that's the key problem with most of your arguments here. That you assume the status quo if another arrangement was in place. If RCID didn't exist, Disney likely wouldn't be in central Florida to begin with, and all of that economic activity that is part of the central Florida tourism industry today would be nonexistant. Even, for the sake of argument, if Disney had set up WDW in Central Florida without RCID, If Disney had to pay for the infrastructure privately, or had to fund it through some other means besides RCID, would the investments over the years been as great? Or would they have been more modest. Would Epcot have ever gotten built? Animal Kingdom? All of the countless hotels? And how would that have impacted the property tax base that Disney pays to Orange and Osecola Counties? There's not a 1:1 comparison that can be made because we don't know how a different situation would have changed the way that things unfolded over the years.

You say that Disney doesn't have to negotiate to get concessions - and that's true, they *did* negotiate to get concessions in 1967. And this is the fruit of those concessions. But also, saying they don't have to negotiate for concessions means that concessions would be available that would cost the taxpayers money. You saat y that sales tax revenue was lost - and impact fees. But even if those had been collected in some parallel universe where Disney did not have a special district, it is highly likely that Disney would extract concessions for major new projects, just like they did for Lake Nona originally. And those concessions would result in taxpayers footing the bill for infrastructure that they don't have to foot today. And even if Disney never got any concessions, and were assessed fees to cover expansions of infrastructure like you suggested happens all the time elsewhere, that doesn't take into account the ongoing costs of supporting said infrastructure - maintenance and upkeep, services such as police, etc. which would all be passed back to the taxpayers of Orange and Osecola counties.

Finally, with regards to the parking garage, this goes back to the idea that we don't know what the Disney Springs project would have looked like absent the garage being paid for. How invested was Disney in revitalizing Downtown Disney? Yes, it needed to be done - but it could have been done on a much smaller scale and may have been had Disney completely funded the garage through CapEx. The point being, it's likely that different outcomes would have occured without RCID than exist today. How different is impossible to know, but we can't assume a 1:1 match to what we have today.

Even if, in some alternate reality where RCID doesn't exist, Disney had paid for public road expansions throughout its history through some means, the local government would still have ongoing maintenance costs - and those would be shouldered by the taxpayers of the county, not just the district. The arrangement in place with RCID has the district paying everything via Disney (and some other businesses), including ongoing maintenance, upkeep, and services (policing the roads, etc.), whereas in a traditional arrangement, that would be costs that the counties would have to incur through general taxation.

 

[flynnibus]

Then don't use terminology that suggests you don't know when complaining about a lack of nuance. There was no need for “planning approval”.

Already addressed before -> https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads...urism-oversight-district.976968/post-10798098

Still waiting to hear about a by-right parking garage correction...

 

[pdude81]

That's not the argument at all.

It's that it was a preferred method to access Disney's transportation network and has been used for decades, now to be removed due to road expansion without consideration to retain that path.

Yes, but I believe there are legitimate safety concerns in widening and changing a road while allowing for pedestrian foot crossings. It persisted as long as it had because it was already there. The only reason this has any traction is because the hotel is only for military families.

 

[JoeCamel]

There seems to be a lot of emphasis over the parking garages being paid with tax dollars vs. just Disney paying but ultimately I think that's a bit of a red herring. Because the tax dollars used come from assessments to the district. So if the district doesn't need to pay for a parking garage, they can do what the CFTOD did and lower the assessment rate. That frees up roughly the same amount of money that Disney could then use to pay for the garage itself. And, with the lower assessment, Disney could (at least in theory) raise the rents charged by the same amount as the reduced assessment (yes, this would require a perfect crystal ball to know what the assessment rates would be in the future and price the lease agreements accordingly. That's not really the point).

There were definitely advantages to Disney for having the district build the parking garages, but from a cost/maintenance perspective, it looks like it is a pretty zero-sum game for Disney.

I'm more concerned that Shades of Green didn't get their pedestrian walk-way. We had an opportunity to stay there once when my kids were really little, and I opted to book Boardwalk at the time because I was concerned about crossing the street with a stroller. Shades must still be doing okay, because every time I've checked since, the criteria for booking keeps us out. I'm glad that they got rid of the "just run across the street" access, but if Shades of Green was willing to have a pedestrian bridge/tunnel/stoplight, I wish that they hadn't allowed Disney to push to just close the path without building an alternative.

My understanding was that CFTOD was supposed to be using their report to determine what services they could eliminate so that by the time the last bond was paid off, then whoever was currently governor (who would obviously be a BFF of DeSantis) could at that point complete the rejection of Disney and have the R controlled legislature complete the dissolution of the district without increasing the burden on nearby communities. This report, which dredges up questionable but possibly not impermissible items in the district's past, does not accomplish that stated goal.

Did they really lower costs in the district or did they just shift what bucket they pull from and the end taxpayer is paying more overall?

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I find it ironic that CFTOD claims they have a mission of eliminating special benefits, but want to rebuild a walkway or bridge for people staying at another resort to be able to use the amenities at the nearest deluxe resort. Do they not have pools or buses at SOG?

2 pools (1 with a slide), a hot tub, and buses to all the WDW parks and buses to the TTC since the walkway to Poly closed. While I certainly understand that a walkway would be nice, it's a bit like saying there needs to be a walkway from the Holiday Inn to Wyndham Garden.

 

[flynnibus]

Your assuming that the scale of the project would have remained the same without the concession from the District. That's not a safe bet when the company was being run by Budget Cuts Bob. A smaller scale refresh was certainly a possibility.

Certainly things could have changed in design, but to present it like DS wouldn't have happened at all.. and get no benefit from the redevelopment... is not real either.

So let's put it in real context... DS was going to happen. The future community benefits you tout were going to happen if DS was a success. Does Disney build one garage instead of three (like the original leaked plans showed). Is the community benefit radically lessened? Are people not coming to DS because of that?

It all boils down to 'was it necessary?' - I advocate no.

It's an acceptable "loss" if the alternative is worse. If the project was scaled back to reduce capital expenditures then there would be less sales tax revenues for the state and counties in the long-term.

You omit that the county and state didn't even get to make this decision or determination. They are get to accept the consequence. The District's revenues are based on property, not sales tax. So you wanna compare what nearly $100 in district capex looks like vs decreased property taxes on what 'downsizing' Disney might have done and the ROI on that? I can tell you without even doing the napkin math.. that's not a good ROI.

Again, it was cited as an example of why RCID was bad. If you don’t understand that then I can't help you. Citing it as a reason to change the District's Board means that we have to assume that such a deal wouldn't have been done if the District never existed. That's clearly incorrect, so feel free to dislike the policy or the logic behind it all you want but don't pretend that it's not relevant to the conversation you joined.

'joined'? been here since the start. What I interjected here is when people tried to deny Disney's role and benefit to having work completed as public works.

'why RCID was bad' is an interesting take. The statement made by the user was:
"
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"

None of those statements are incorrect. Yet posters went onto claim they were, in particular #3.

The statements on their own are factual - The disagreement is over do they bother you... and if you are ok with that status quo.

The counties made the decision to accept these types of "losses" decades ago when they supported the creation of RCID to save themselves and their taxpayers from the burden on helping foot the bill for the infrastructure required to develop WDW.

So now, the answer to any criticism of the district is 'you reap what generations before you sowed'?

Should we make the same claim everyone should accept CFTOD's decisions blindly because that's what the state created?

The county didn't agree to giving up property taxes when RCID was created, nor did it sign up to some notion of lack of government independence.

And if the argument is don't say "don't complain about the extra money I'm giving you just because it could have been more in some alternate reality" then you have to acknowledge the possibility that there's an alternate reality where there is LESS money being given

I have no problem with the belief that Disney would have solved their parking problem even without the help of the district. Same way they manage to find a way to pay for it everywhere else.

It was a completely unnecessary concession.

 

[flynnibus]

Did they really lower costs in the district

YES - it's been documented and not in dispute.

Besides, why would you think Disney would have the district do it if it WASN'T better for them? This is a choice, not a requirement.

 

[flynnibus]

Your logic hinges on the fact that the project would have been the same in any other scenario - that the Springs redo would have been as extensive, thus requiring garages. I'm sure the financial consideration of the district financing and owning the garages played a role.

Certainly things could have changed - but what didn't happen is... Garages by the district first... and is unlikely is the redevelopment not happening at all without the concession. What no one can tell is how much the plan would have changed in detail. But we do know the need and desire for the redevelopment did not originate with the garages.

And that's the key problem with most of your arguments here. That you assume the status quo if another arrangement was in place. If RCID didn't exist, Disney likely wouldn't be in central Florida to begin with, and all of that economic activity that is part of the central Florida tourism industry today would be nonexistant.

So we're going to go all the way back to 1967 and that decision in another time and era... to give unilateral support to every choice decision the district makes going forward??

No one is comparing worlds without the district.. this is nuts. This is simply a project decision that the district made by choice - that I would argue they didn't need to. There is nothing to suggest the garages COULDN'T have been done without RCID being in place either. This isn't some project that the uniqueness of RCID made possible.

Let's not forget RCID didn't pay for the parking lots before the redevelopment either... Disney managed to fund their own parking lots and the district got all the same improvement benefits for the area just fine.

You saat y that sales tax revenue was lost - and impact fees. But even if those had been collected in some parallel universe where Disney did not have a special district, it is highly likely that Disney would extract concessions for major new projects, just like they did for Lake Nona originally.

1) I never mentioned impact fees in this tangent
2) Disney did not extract concessions for Lake Nona - They were granted benefits open to everyone who met the criteria.

Yes, there is a reality that Disney could have extracted concessions of another type here... the whole point is it's still Disney getting to shift capex to the district when Disney is (for all effects) both sides of the negotiation. Which is what the original statement was.

The point being, it's likely that different outcomes would have occured without RCID than exist today. How different is impossible to know, but we can't assume a 1:1 match to what we have today.

But we do know what they gain from having it there is, and know what the consequence of their decision is. There is no ambiguity here... Yes, maybe Disney does nothing at all instead. But that's hyperbolic. The consequence of the concessions are not vague. Ironically the vague part is the 'future potential of doing it'... which no one has any problem believing is a happy ROI without a lick of data into what the actual return vs investment is for this project.

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, but I believe there are legitimate safety concerns in widening and changing a road while allowing for pedestrian foot crossings.

Well yeah.. that's what "without consideration to retain that path." means. Retaining the functionality in the new design (in a safe manner).

It persisted as long as it had because it was already there. The only reason this has any traction is because the hotel is only for military families.

The reason it has traction is because it's a onsite hotel many Disney fans use and they used that route. The military angle is meaningless. Similar grief would be heard if Disney decided to take away pedestrian access from DTD hotels to DS. It's a complaint about change people feels impacts them negatively.