[codeguro]

That's an abhorrent lie. Their independent tax district is absolutely a sweetheart deal. The ability to privately govern the land that it owns (i.e. not pay state/property taxes) outright flies in the face of the first clause in 14th amendment. Their special privileges would not hold up to scrutiny in the court of law.

[dave5104]

Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false. In fact, the special tax district is allowed to (and does) charge Disney additional taxes over the state maximum to provide services like utilities and infrastructure.

Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture.

If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.

[daenz]

If it's not beneficial in any way for Disney, then why are they saying they are being retaliated against? You're attempting to paint the removal of these special corporate privileges as a positive thing for Disney. If that's the case, then the State is doing them a favor, and it's not retaliation from Disney's perspective.

[dave5104]

It is beneficial, just not from a financial aspect.

With Reedy Creek, Disney doesn't need to worry about whether local politicians will approve expansions or meet the needs of the Walt Disney World complex since the local government is purely serving Disney.

If you take a look at Disneyland in California, Disney is going up against Anaheim and Orange County councils on a pretty routine basis to get new things built.

[daenz]

What you just described absolutely has financial benefits, in time and opportunity costs.

[dragonwriter]

So...Disney would be worse off without it?

[daenz]

They would be worse off in the same sense that a child who doesn't get to eat cookies for dinner is worse off: they didn't get a thing that they really wanted. And in the same way, a child isn't harmed by denying them cookies for dinner.

[colburnmh]

So, what's your opposition to the special district that provides Disney with the ability to maintain it's property is a manner that is consistent with their business needs--which surpass the normal requirements of either Orange or Osceola counties?

Sure it's a benefit to Disney, but it's also a benefit to the county taxpayers:

* Disney subsidizes both counties' services and infrastructure by paying property taxes to pay for services/infrastructure, but not consuming them, or contracting for them where needed.

* Allows counties to avoid costly legal and procedural issues when Disney wants to add new features, attractions, or services at their park, or wish to ensure consistency of services provided by the two different counties.

So, what is the crux of your objection?

[codeguro]

Yeah, I'm sure that not following the building codes in the state of Florida is financially beneficial to Disney.

> Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false.

It is absolutely true. Stop lying.

> The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.

The district, in turn, provides services, including fire response, emergency medical services, water and sewage treatment, and can issue municipal bonds to finance infrastructure projects, which comes with tax advantages which are shared by no other corporation or individual in the nation. The arrangement gives Disney control over municipal services and autonomy when it comes to how the land is used and developed, exempting it from a number of regulations. Again, a privilege enjoyed exclusively by Disney Corp.

[colburnmh]

> > Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false.

> It is absolutely true. Stop lying.

Disney paid $780 million dollars in state and local taxes in FY 2021. Florida law does not allow an entity to be charged a different county property tax rate than other citizens. That's why, if the special district is dissolved, every property owner in Orange and Osceola will be facing a 20% property tax hike: the counties can't simply charge Disney a higher property tax rate to cover the costs of providing Disney infrastructure and services.

> which comes with tax advantages which are shared by no other corporation or individual in the nation.

You mean not shared by any of the 1844 other special districts in Florida, including Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, HOAs, fire and water districts, law libraries, energy facilities, etc.?

Can you be more explicit about the tax advantages of municipal bonds compared to corporate bonds that you are referring to? You make an overly broad claim, here.

> Again, a privilege enjoyed exclusively by Disney Corp.

And, again, you are wrong. That privilege ("right", really, since it's enshrined in law), is afforded to a number of other entities in Florida (see above). And similar arrangements exist in many, if not most, other states.

[colburnmh]

They pay county property taxes, state sales taxes, etc., just like everyone else. In fact, Florida law requires that Disney pay the same rate as everyone else.

They consume no county services that property taxes generally cover (by agreement with the counties). The RCID then levies additional taxes, 2-3x more than the county property tax, on RCID residents which pay for infrastructure and services within the RCID. In some cases, the RCID contracts back to the counties (e.g., the sheriff's office for ~$13 million) to provide services within the RCID.

The result: Disney subsides property taxes in both Orange and Osceola counties, and RCID residents pay 3x more in property taxes than Orange or Osceola counties do, and 2-3 times more than Florida law would allow outside of a special district.

The real benefit that the RCID confers to Disney is control of the consistency and quality of infrastructure and services that they have on their property. And it avoids contention between the counties and Disney in cases of zoning or other civil issues like alcohol licensing, where the two counties may differ, forcing Disney to either have to cater to the most restrictive policies of the two counties, if the policies are compatible, or have different levels of service depending on which county a particular piece of Disney's property sits. Imagine being able to buy alcohol on one side of the park, but not the other, or having great roads on one side of the park, but not the other?