Reedy Creek RIP

[WEDcryoHEAD]

Why are bigots coming out of the woodwork again?

Thanks for so eloquently proving my point about intolerance of opposing points of view. I have been very respectful of everyone and their opinions and beliefs. I haven't and will not ever resort to name calling and stereotyping someone based on their opinion. I do not feel I said anything that was bigoted or intolerant of the opposing side of the coin.

 

[starlite_]

Thanks for so eloquently proving my point about intolerance of opposing points of view. I have been very respectful of everyone and their opinions and beliefs. I haven't and will not ever resort to name calling and stereotyping someone based on their opinion. I do not feel I said anything that was bigoted or intolerant of the opposing side of the coin.

I never mentioned you at all.

 

[HokieRaven5]

Show me any other county in this country where a business get a vote?

You’re arguing about the existence of RCID in general vs the current restructuring plan. Those are 2 separate arguments.

An argument can be had on the validity of the existence of RCID, however by agreements and law it cannot be dissolved until the last of the existing bonds is paid off.

The easy solution would then be to revise the original bill that passed and say RCID will be remain in place and effectively dissolve following the repayment of all outstanding bond debts by bond holder.

That’s not what’s happening here. This is Disney still keeping a majority of its privileges, but someone else has all the initial approval autonomy.

 

[HopperFan]

Hypothetical: Let's say Disney decides they want to embark on a project that requires district approval. They submit a plan for their project, and the district refuses to approve the project because they're concerned that Disney is, again, behaving too "woke." Is that a reason to believe that a governor should not have the power to choose who runs the district?

In other words, would Florida have prevented Splash Mountain from making the Tiana's Bayou Adventure transition?

I envision Disney working to protect their turf. But they can't start that process until the state takes actual action against them, so they're waiting for this session to end.

A CID is put together by the LANDHOLDER with permission from the government so they can tax higher (in this case Disney taxing themselves) and therefore provide higher than local standard utilities, roads, etc. In this case there was no local standards in 1960s so Disney asked for this entity since they had to build their own infrastructure.

Disney has made Reedy Creek the "middle man" that looks over all permitting etc prior to sending it on to Orange or Osceola County for final approval. Depending on the structure of this process your hypothetical could happen if the state takes over the Reedy Creek Board. There is a representative in Tampa that has basically said so much and implied Disney needed to be taken over to stop their "changes".

I think the best interest for Disney is to get that bond paid off and take whatever means they must to dissolve the Reedy Creek District. They no longer need it for the purpose it was designed. They will continue to have a working relationship with the local counties and could let things like the fire department be absorbed into the counties. That might even be a better move for Disney, not so much for fireman whose salaries would go down. Deal could be Disney provides building/land and the equipment and employees belong to the County.

Allowing a takeover of the Board is not being done for positive reasons, they have made that clear.

 

[MartyParty]

Pure guess on my part but I would guess Disney has worked lots of angles publicly and privately. One of the Disney presidents made a statement that the company operates in all kinds of jurisdictions (China, Hong Kong, Paris, etc.). Although perhaps legally correct, I'm guessing this will be workable and that Disney will not pursue legal action. Risk/Reward isn't there. And besides, certainly would prefer to be off the radar of a potential future president in Ron.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating Ron is the next president. I'm not advocating right, left, R, D or any of that. No corporation wants to make an enemy out of a senior elected official.

Disney has been around a long time and will be around after this passes. Different governor will appoint different board members. I think they wait this out long long long term.

But just my guess.

 

[WEDcryoHEAD]

I never mentioned you at all.

A CID is put together by the LANDHOLDER with permission from the government so they can tax higher (in this case Disney taxing themselves) and therefore provide higher than local standard utilities, roads, etc. In this case there was no local standards in 1960s so Disney asked for this entity since they had to build their own infrastructure.

Disney has made Reedy Creek the "middle man" that looks over all permitting etc prior to sending it on to Orange or Osceola County for final approval. Depending on the structure of this process your hypothetical could happen if the state takes over the Reedy Creek Board. There is a representative in Tampa that has basically said so much and implied Disney needed to be taken over to stop their "changes".

I think the best interest for Disney is to get that bond paid off and take whatever means they must to dissolve the Reedy Creek District. They no longer need it for the purpose it was designed. They will continue to have a working relationship with the local counties and could let things like the fire department be absorbed into the counties. That might even be a better move for Disney, not so much for fireman whose salaries would go down. Deal could be Disney provides building/land and the equipment and employees belong to the County.

Allowing a takeover of the Board is not being done for positive reasons, they have made that clear.

You seem very knowledgeable on this subject. Thanks for your informed subject matter on this discussion.

 

[AvidDisReader]

The thing is, if Disney challenges and some concessions are made, that wouldn't necessarily be a loss. It's not that any and all changes are unwarranted/unwanted - it's that the changes as currently proposed as they stand are problematic.

Never underestimate how devious politicians can be. So the major issue is taxation without repr. The revised bill states same five member board, 3 land owner no restrictions regarding working for theme park (Dis employees). But the other 2 appointed by gov (cannot have worked at theme park). Now they add to the make up of the board. One of the gov appointed members will be chairman of the board With Veto power. Further define that it takes 75% vote to overturn a veto. See the problem, since 2 are appointed by the Gov a veto cannot be overturned. So while Gov only has 2 members, they actually control the board. I go back to my original opinion that the Disney Board is discussing all of this and will not challenge the bill currently being reviewed by the Senate.

 

[WEDcryoHEAD]

I never mentioned you at all.

Plausible deniability is good. If not me then to whom are you referring? If you are going to make a statement inferring someone is a bigot, you should be brave enough to let us know to whom you are referring.

 

[Wood Nymph]

I can see a similarity to the Boston Tea Party - taxation without representation. Florida wants to "forbid" the landowners from having a say in how the land they own is run. Florida has already shown that it will act against an entity they don't like just because they don't like something that was said, not because things were being done that were wrong or illegal. So I could understand where Disney might be worried that a Florida appointed board could stop Disney from building an overpass, for example, because they thought Tiana was too "woke". Florida has shown that it will take an action unrelated to the "crime" and may do so again.

I have to imagine that other corporations are watching this closely.

 

[WEDcryoHEAD]

Money talks. Businesses make money in the free market economy of Florida. The regulations will not matter. As long as the money is there, the businesses will be there. The only deterrent would be a poor business economy in Florida. I don't ever see that happening.

 

[reddog21]

It's another great example of a politicians claiming victory when in actuality have done absolutely nothing.

 

[BrianL]

Money talks. Businesses make money in the free market economy of Florida. The regulations will not matter. As long as the money is there, the businesses will be there. The only deterrent would be a poor business economy in Florida. I don't ever see that happening.

Yeah, but if businesses start losing money because of over regulation, and those regulations are enacted specifically because the business owner criticized the state government, you can bet they will be leaving!

 

[starlite_]

Plausible deniability is good. If not me then to whom are you referring? If you are going to make a statement inferring someone is a bigot, you should be brave enough to let us know to whom you are referring.

Whoever the shoe fits.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Yes, but elected officials can't just do anything that they want - EVEN if they have 100% support of the people that elected them. That's why there is a legislature and a juciciary, to provide checks & balances. In this case, there is definitely a concern of overreach and it doesn't matter how many people voted one way or the other.

Over reach is when one branch of government act without consent of the others.

What we having happening in Florida is known as changing a law.

We like laws to change when it benefits us, we complain when it doesn’t……

You can’t win them all

 

[Jrb1979]

It's another great example of a politicians claiming victory when in actuality have done absolutely nothing.

They have done something. While the district is technically staying there is changes. The big one is the State decides who's on the board not Disney anymore and it can't be anyone associated with Disney.

 

[BrianL]

Over reach is when one branch of government act without consent of the others.

What we having happening in Florida is known as changing a law.

We like laws to change when it benefits us, we complain when it doesn’t……

You can’t win them all

Well, clearly not everyone has given consent here as there are many detractors. There are many who do not believe that this move actually is legal or will stand up to judicial scrutiny. It really has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. The governor can't just change any law he want's to just because he won an election.

 

[WEDcryoHEAD]

Yeah, but if businesses start losing money because of over regulation, and those regulations are enacted specifically because the business owner criticized the state government, you can bet they will be leaving!

for sure

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Well, clearly not everyone has given consent here as there are many detractors. There are many who do not believe that this move actually is legal or will stand up to judicial scrutiny. It really has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. The governor can't just change any law he want's to just because he won an election.

That is how our democracy works.
The citizens of the state of Florida elected their representatives.

Those representatives voted to disband RCID, then GOT RE-ELECTED

They have a mandate from the residents and they are acting the authority of citizens of the state of Florida.

Not everyone get what they want ever day, however the majority have.

It doesn’t matter what everyone wants. This isn’t kinder garden. There are not points for second place, and election have consequence.

That the civics lesson for today.

 

[WEDcryoHEAD]

Whoever the shoe fits.

I haven't read any comments in this thread that fit that particular shoe. That is what I'm saying. I think the participants here are all stating their opinion on the subject matter but have not been critical or intolerant of anyone else or their opinion. You are the only one that resorted to inferring that I, or someone else, is a bigot. I would just like to know your basis for making such an accusation.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I don't see any comments that have been shared here that fit this definition. If you could kindly point me to one, I'd be interested to read it. Thanks.

 

[starlite_]

I haven't read any comments in this thread that fit that particular shoe. That is what I'm saying. I think the participants here are all stating their opinion on the subject matter but have not been critical or intolerant of anyone else or their opinion. You are the only one that resorted to inferring that I, or someone else, is a bigot. I would just like to know your basis for making such an accusation.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I don't see any comments that have been shared here that fit this definition. If you could kindly point me to one, I'd be interested to read it. Thanks.

You seem awfully obsessed about this. I don't think pointing it out would work and it is probably against the rules. Who the shoe fits will know, and that is all that matters.