How did Disney get control of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which it runs mostly autonomously despite the district being part of the territory of Florida? The Florida legislature granted it the territory in 1966. But a new audit of that decision argues that the legislature’s decision to grant Disney the territory for the autonomous district was made because, at least in part, Disney pulled a “bait and switch” on the Florida legislature.
That audit was conducted for the state of Florida by an independent auditor and explored the current situation in the district and why the mid-1960s Florida legislature made the decision to hand over the territory to Disney. Its devastating conclusion was that the legislature was convinced by a “bait and switch” and “facilitated the most egregious exhibition of corporate cronyism in modern American history.”
The audit was obtained by and reported on by The Daily Wire, and comes after Gov. Ron DeSantis’ fight with Disney over control over the Reedy Creek Improvement District and whether Disney should continue to exercise control over the district, control which mainly lets it raise municipal debt and make construction decisions with somewhat less oversight. The report found that the decision to grant Disney the land with such a free hand “represented a stunning deviation from the good governance standards of the State of Florida.”
The report mainly focuses on how the Reedy Creek Improvement District’s Board of Supervisors tends to govern the district in a way that seems meant much more to put Disney’s priorities first rather than to help out Floridians and demand the company act and district be developed in a way that is more in line with Florida’s general goals and policies.
One section, for example, claimed, “Kimley Horn investigated the District’s past land use planning practices and operative Comprehensive Plan and produced a report, which is attached as Exhibit 3. Kimley Horn concluded that the operative Comprehensive Plan (adopted by the District in 1991 and subsequently amended) is no longer a state-of-the-art plan. The District’s Comprehensive Plan is focused almost entirely on optimizing corporate goals, rather than considering and responding to conditions in the region surrounding the District. It does not account for state-of-the-art local planning concepts like those set out in MetroPlan Orlando; this includes balancing jobs and housing to be closer together to reduce vehicle miles and hours travelled and reduce traffic congestion on the stressed regional roadway system.”
Continuing, that section added, “The plan does not fully meet some of its goals and objectives, including those related to affordable housing, workforce employment, and sustainability. The plan lacks diversity in land uses, excessively relies on large parking lots that create adverse environmental and land use effects, and fails to implement state requirements intended to address Florida’s housing shortage. Between 2019 and the present, the workforce required by Disney has grown from 70,000 to more than 100,000, and future anticipated development could add another 30,000 employees.”
The fact that the Board acts in such a way makes sense, as the report also notes that “The Walt Disney Company controlled the election of the Board of Supervisors, the Board of Supervisors effectively reported to Disney and represented Disney’s interests. This created the potential for corruption.”
Another section refers to the district as a “mousetrap” because Disney initially indicated that it would use the territory to build a futuristic city, but then quickly abandoned that and built its now-famous amusement park, hotels, and golf courses. “The RCID was a mousetrap. Disney dangled savory cheese in front of the Florida Legislature and the people of Orlando, but quickly abandoned its city-building pretense,” the report argued.
That section of the report, describing how Disney obtained control of the RCID and what its goals are, also argued, “Disney lobbied the Florida Legislature for its powerful, unilateral, and unaccountable special district by claiming it would build a city on its central Florida property. Once Disney secured the special district it sought, however, it abandoned the city-building pretense. The historical record demonstrates that Disney disdained voters from the outset and did not want its special district or its corporate choices to be subject to public accountability through popular elections, despite how it had marketed its ideas to the legislature. Disney’s consultants on the Disney World and special district project advised Disney to “limit the scope of democracy” so Disney would be “freed from impediments to change, such as … elected political officials.” Documentary evidence from Walt Disney himself makes clear that he did not want permanent residents in his model community. Because the legislature did not tie Disney’s special district privileges to any enforceable metrics, Disney could abandon its promises without repercussions.“
"*" indicates required fields