Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: rktman

I mean maybe, but the fact was that those of tens of thousands of acres had next to no infrastructure. I don’t criticize the initial decision to form the district.

I like this article, and the author at least takes a run at being even-handed. My favorite part is saying that “Don’t Say Gay” was a “nickname” for the bill Nickname? Like when we call Peter “Petey,” but we know that’s not really his name? I don’t recall “Don’t Say Gay” being presented as a nickname at the time


5 posted on 02/07/2023 6:41:21 AM PST by j.havenfarm (22 years on Free Republic, 12/10/22! more then 6500 replies and still not shutting up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: j.havenfarm
A fundamental problem with the Reedy Creek Improvement District is that its territory includes considerable property not owned by Disney. Being controlled by Disney, the District therefore sets the terms and timing of development for other property owners in a way that benefits Disney and its local allies and sticks it to others.

In addition, the District gives Disney wide exemptions from having to coordinate their infrastructure development with local governments. Disney has therefore used the District to block road and rail projects that it sees as potentially making it easier for its guests to visit other attractions or stay in hotels that are not on the Disney property.

22 posted on 02/07/2023 7:53:37 AM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson