Talk:Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

Aftermath

"In January 1990, RCID was granted a $57-million allocation of tax-free state bonds over an agency with plans for a low-income housing development and all additional government applicants in a 6 county region as state distributes the bond proceeds on a first-come order. Disney was criticized for the move with a Republican gubernatorial candidate filed a lawsuit to stop the RCID from using the funds. Also, one legislator moved that would limit the RCID ability to apply to the program and other talk about stripping Disney of the RCID.[8]"

I've read this paragraph 3 times now, and I still don't understand it. Every sentence is either oddly phrased or grammatically incorrect, and the result is an unintelligible blob of words. I'd revise it, but I'm not even sure what idea(s) the writer intended to convey. --2602:30B:8260:5109:F4A1:8F1A:207B:6071 (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Unnamed discussion

Politics through time is funny. The expected POV for this topic has changed its polarization from one end of the US political spectrum to the other. (Comment intended to improve and maintain the quality of this article - not a general comment.) 2600:387:F:4215:0:0:0:8 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

(POV dependent view) While there are absolutely legitimate concerns you could raise about this district; the direct benefits to Disney versus the cost to Florida tax payers, the current political situation is not one of them. From where I am in the world, the UK, it is absolutely obvious that the recent moving and passing of SB 4C was in retaliation to the circumstances surrounding the Don't Say Gay bill.

That said, it's unclear if SB 4C will actually have any effect, given that it doesn't supersede other laws surrounding special districts within Florida, which require consent of those living in those districts before they can be dissolved by any means. Disney is unlikely to give that consent. This is almost certainly going to wind up in an expensive court case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Include or exclude "Dissolved" date in infobox?

So there's somewhat of an edit war between editors who want to include the dissolution date in the infobox, and those who want to exclude it. To try and stop that, and so we can actually establish a consensus I've opened this section to discuss.

Should we include or exclude the dissolved date in the infobox?

Pinging @DirtyKeys, Ltbubbas, Trivialist, 2607:b400:24:0:597a:7f1d:8168:1eff, LaundryPizza03, and 73.85.170.211: as you've all made edits on this specific issue. If there's anyone I've missed, feel free to ping them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm of the opinion no, we should not include it at this time. It is still unclear as to whether this law actually has any effect on Reedy Creek. Per the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, a special act of dissolution passed by the state legislature, such as SB 4C, must Be approved by a majority of the resident electors of the special district or Be approved by a majority of the landowners voting in the same manner by which the special district's governing body is elected. I suspect it is very unlikely that Disney or its executives, as the sole landowners in the district, or the Disney employees who live in Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, will vote in favour of dissolving the district. And to address concerns over this being a huge pile of OR speculation, we have reliable sources like Hollywood Reporter and LA Times that assert this. It also seems very likely that Disney will use their lobbyists to put pressure on the state legislature, and/or launch a series of court cases as asserted in Yahoo Finance.

Per the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy point, which is a subset of the WP:NOT polic, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It strikes me as presumption that this bill will remain unchallenged in any way, and come into effect in June 2023 as it currently stands. Accordingly, while we can mention that a bill was passed to dissolve the district, and the circumstances surrounding the rather rapid pace of that legislation being drafted and passed, we cannot presume that the district will dissolve according to the plans laid out in the bill. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I like to fill in info boxes with as much data as I can, but in this case I agree with Sideswipe9th that it has not actually happened yet. Comfr (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

What SideSwipe9th said, and also, there is no "dissolved_date" field in this infobox. The closest thing is "extinct_date" which, again, hasn't happened yet. Trivialist (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Current state of the district

@Mmw09 and HapHaxion: starting this thread so we can actually discuss what's going on with the district.

I'm seeing conflicting reports on how the district is described in relation to today's announcement. On the one hand I'm seeing a handful of sources like WFTV9 and WBPF stating that the district was dissolved. On the other, I'm seeing sources like Deadline, Miami Herald, and CNN stating that the district was not dissolved and that DeSantis has simply appointed a new management board and that the district might be renamed in the coming weeks/months.

May I suggest that we slow down here a bit, take a survey of all of the available sources, and figure out what the balance of reporting on this is? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The most likely helpful sources would probably be the bills that were passed, both the original one in 2022 (SB 4-C) and the second in 2023 (HB 9-B), rather than external reports which at this time appear conflicted as to what was actually changed. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. We'd be getting into OR territory if we were to use the bills, either to directly support content we've written ourselves, or to try and determine which of the secondary sources are more accurate.

I've ran a quick search, and so far the only sources that are stating the district is dissolved are either the two I've mentioned previously, or several we consider unreliable. But I live over in GDPR land, so my ability to access all sources on this is somewhat restricted. Finding all of the relevant sources is probably something that editors based in non-GDPR countries would need to take the lead on here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Upon quick examination of the more recent bill, near the very end it explicitly states "Notwithstanding s. 189.0311(2), Florida Statutes, the Reedy Creek Improvement District is not dissolved as of June 1, 2023, but continues in full force and effect under its new name." In my eyes this means that the district remains intact and is renamed, although other changes have been made. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

That would jive with the sources I can access, as I'm seeing much stronger sourcing for a new management board and district rename than dissolution of the district. Adding to the sources that support DeSantis appointing a new management board and taking control of the district are Herald-Tribune, Bloomberg, Axios, Sky News UK, Forbes (note Forbes article is from Forbes staff, not Forbes contributor).

As the balance of secondary sourcing on this is in favour of the district not being dissolved, I'd be tempted to chalk this up to unreliable early reporting by WFTV9 and WBPF, and unreliable sources being just unreliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I would probably agree with that. Now we just need to get a general idea of if any additional changes were made besides the appointed board and name and add those into the article if applicable. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

From a quick skim, right now it's just a new management board and potential rename of the district. There probably won't be anything specific on changes within the district until at least the first meeting of the new board concludes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's sounding like a renaming. It seems we won't know the extent until after June 1st. – The Grid (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it a little premature to change the name of the article when the changeover won't official take place Midnight on June 1st. YborCityJohn (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The rename took effect as of the bill's signature by the governor. It looks like the statement referring to June 1st is only a clarification regarding the fact that the district won't be abolished as stated in the first/original bill. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 14:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Legal Fight Over New Board Authority

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting that the previous board passed legislation to restrict the authorities of the new board. Orlando Sentinel. This legal dispute may need its own section to cover the issue, so starting a place for that discussion. OriginalOranges (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely need to. Especially the Charles III clause. Sources include WFTV 9 Orlando, NPR, and BBC News. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 05:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not a section yet, but a sentence or two seems reasonable. It was front page news in today's news cycle. AP News. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The article currently states that the new CFTOD board controls the district, but also states that Disney signed an agreement with RCID which cedes control to Disney... I realize this is the subject of lawsuits, but the article should really clarify who has actual day-to-day operational control right now. Who has control of the district bank accounts and is paying the bills? 71.82.91.152 (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead needs to make it clearer when it's discussing the predecessor district

Current wording:

The district was created on February 27, 2023, after the Florida Legislature passed House Bill 9B to supersede the Reedy Creek Improvement Act, passed in 1967 at the behest of Walt Disney and his namesake media company during the planning stages of Walt Disney World. A major selling point in lobbying the Florida government to establish the district was Walt Disney's proposal of the "Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow" (EPCOT), a real planned community intended to serve as a testbed for new city-living innovations.

In the second sentence, the word "district" would appear to most readers to be referring to the "the district [that] was created on February 27, 2023", but what it's actually describing is the original RCID. -- NapoliRoma (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I added the word "current" to denote the date for the current implementation. – The Grid (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That didn't address the problem in the following sentence. I patched this by explicitly calling out what the "district" in that sentence was, but there really should be a more concerted effort to organize the material in the lead section. -- NapoliRoma (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)