My predictions (speculation) are that the financial and tax implications of abolishing the Reedy Creek Improvement District will be a wash. And, that Disney will remain influential in Florida, but the influence will depend on politicians who are not as reliable as state laws. And, that Disney will remain very profitable in Florida.
Is "Some employees might transition from RCID or Disney to Orange County" supposed to be "Some debts/taxes might transition from RCID or Disney to Orange Count"?
The only people allowed to live on Disney property towns are mostly retired Disney employees and are less than 200 people altogether. There is another development, Golden Oaks, which is little more than a year round residency resort for 300 families, 2/3s of which use theirs as vacation homes, leaving around 200 voting residents at most. Golden Oaks is Disney services on steroids. They can call in a Disney chef to cook dinner, all automatically have Disney maid service and yard maintenance, and Disney controls who they can sell to and even who their visitors are.
All residents vote how Disney wants them to vote in RCID matters.
Myth 2: "These taxes won’t change if RCID is dissolved." You're likely correct that the taxes you listed won't change when RCID is dissolved. However, Disney pays RCID the majority of taxes by a huge margin. Those taxes go back to Disney's coffers, not the state's or the other counties'. Below I link the 'property cards' from just two of Disney's holdings. The taxes paid to RCID will go to the two counties Disney sits in instead of RCID when it's dissolved in summer of next year.
Just for those two holdings, RCID received $2,748, 057 last year.
You can click through and find what Disney paid themselves through RCID for each hotel/park
Grand Floridian was $3,640,264.50. Quite a chunk of change going to Orange and Osceola counties in the near future.
It's humorous that "the city of Bay Lake" gets over $500,000 in taxes a year when there's only 20 residents and they live in mobile homes out in the middle of nowhere under the graces of Disney.
Part 2 Myth 2: "these bonds would pass from the company to the taxpayers of Orange and Osceola Counties" Both counties can and will arrange taxes to cover the bonds over a period of time using the income from the property tax increase they'll be getting from dissolving RCID. Not to mention liquor licensing from Disney properties, building permit fees and such. Then there's always rearranging the hotel tax to fund more than tourism ads as it currently is managed.
Myth 3 Part 2: "Disney will be more politicized than ever." You assume the majority of Orange and Osceola counties are liberals, not just Democrat voters. Patrick Murphy, previously a Republican, won Orange and Osceola counties against Rubio in 2016 but he ran as a very moderate Democrat. Val Demings is a moderate Democrat and touts her law enforcement credentials. Her husband, Mayor of Orange County, is a moderate Democrat. But that's not even the point. It's not all about Disney but about other corporations that think they can tell elected representatives how to govern using covert and overt means.
And tying it altogether, does anyone really think Disney would have it's 36 lobbyists trying their best to prevent the new law going into effect if Disney wasn't profiting off the way things are now and would lose some of those profits next year when the law takes effect?
First, thank you for taking this up but you're wrong on some things. I will break it down by subject matter for ease of response, if any.
"poorly-written political throwaway that encourages parents to go full Karen when dealing with overtly gay and transgender topics"
The bill isn't poorly written. People are defining it as stand alone legislation and that's not accurate. All new laws other than stand alone legislation have to tie in to the agenc(ies) that will enforce them. In the case of the Parental Rights in Education law, that is the Florida Department of Education. Here is where the reasoning behind changing discussion to instruction is more than semantics. Instructional materials are defined in FLDoE's bylaws.
I'm linking here for greater context but clicking through will bring you to instructional materials for Health, which is what sex education in Florida falls under. https://www.fldoe.org/academics/standards/
School districts can use materials from sources outside of those listed in the standards but the state will only pay half the costs and the standards still have to be met. The state would only be party to any lawsuits if the standards are objected to by parents. The same holds true for school boards if they are staying within the standards. Following through, it would apply to teachers using the standards for instructional material. If the teacher were using instructional material authorized by the school board but not the state, then the school board could be a defendant in a lawsuit as well.
My predictions (speculation) are that the financial and tax implications of abolishing the Reedy Creek Improvement District will be a wash. And, that Disney will remain influential in Florida, but the influence will depend on politicians who are not as reliable as state laws. And, that Disney will remain very profitable in Florida.
That's a lot of moving parts. Speculating on the outcome is pretty iffy.
Good thread on the fiscal impacts:
https://twitter.com/NPapantonisWFTV/status/1517272880882585602?s=20&t=Vdci9mc3tSQediYHOOpvKw
Is "Some employees might transition from RCID or Disney to Orange County" supposed to be "Some debts/taxes might transition from RCID or Disney to Orange Count"?
Part of Myth 1: "Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista"
The only people allowed to live on Disney property towns are mostly retired Disney employees and are less than 200 people altogether. There is another development, Golden Oaks, which is little more than a year round residency resort for 300 families, 2/3s of which use theirs as vacation homes, leaving around 200 voting residents at most. Golden Oaks is Disney services on steroids. They can call in a Disney chef to cook dinner, all automatically have Disney maid service and yard maintenance, and Disney controls who they can sell to and even who their visitors are.
All residents vote how Disney wants them to vote in RCID matters.
Myth 2: "These taxes won’t change if RCID is dissolved." You're likely correct that the taxes you listed won't change when RCID is dissolved. However, Disney pays RCID the majority of taxes by a huge margin. Those taxes go back to Disney's coffers, not the state's or the other counties'. Below I link the 'property cards' from just two of Disney's holdings. The taxes paid to RCID will go to the two counties Disney sits in instead of RCID when it's dissolved in summer of next year.
Just for those two holdings, RCID received $2,748, 057 last year.
https://ocpaweb.ocpafl.org/propertycard/272412000000002
https://ocpaweb.ocpafl.org/propertycard/272411000000007
You can click through and find what Disney paid themselves through RCID for each hotel/park
Grand Floridian was $3,640,264.50. Quite a chunk of change going to Orange and Osceola counties in the near future.
It's humorous that "the city of Bay Lake" gets over $500,000 in taxes a year when there's only 20 residents and they live in mobile homes out in the middle of nowhere under the graces of Disney.
Part 2 Myth 2: "these bonds would pass from the company to the taxpayers of Orange and Osceola Counties" Both counties can and will arrange taxes to cover the bonds over a period of time using the income from the property tax increase they'll be getting from dissolving RCID. Not to mention liquor licensing from Disney properties, building permit fees and such. Then there's always rearranging the hotel tax to fund more than tourism ads as it currently is managed.
Myth 3 Part 2: "Disney will be more politicized than ever." You assume the majority of Orange and Osceola counties are liberals, not just Democrat voters. Patrick Murphy, previously a Republican, won Orange and Osceola counties against Rubio in 2016 but he ran as a very moderate Democrat. Val Demings is a moderate Democrat and touts her law enforcement credentials. Her husband, Mayor of Orange County, is a moderate Democrat. But that's not even the point. It's not all about Disney but about other corporations that think they can tell elected representatives how to govern using covert and overt means.
And tying it altogether, does anyone really think Disney would have it's 36 lobbyists trying their best to prevent the new law going into effect if Disney wasn't profiting off the way things are now and would lose some of those profits next year when the law takes effect?
First, thank you for taking this up but you're wrong on some things. I will break it down by subject matter for ease of response, if any.
"poorly-written political throwaway that encourages parents to go full Karen when dealing with overtly gay and transgender topics"
The bill isn't poorly written. People are defining it as stand alone legislation and that's not accurate. All new laws other than stand alone legislation have to tie in to the agenc(ies) that will enforce them. In the case of the Parental Rights in Education law, that is the Florida Department of Education. Here is where the reasoning behind changing discussion to instruction is more than semantics. Instructional materials are defined in FLDoE's bylaws.
I'm linking here for greater context but clicking through will bring you to instructional materials for Health, which is what sex education in Florida falls under. https://www.fldoe.org/academics/standards/
School districts can use materials from sources outside of those listed in the standards but the state will only pay half the costs and the standards still have to be met. The state would only be party to any lawsuits if the standards are objected to by parents. The same holds true for school boards if they are staying within the standards. Following through, it would apply to teachers using the standards for instructional material. If the teacher were using instructional material authorized by the school board but not the state, then the school board could be a defendant in a lawsuit as well.