Talk:Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

message: "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)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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  or . 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,  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)
thread_title:  Include or exclude "Dissolved" date in infobox? 

message: : 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  or . 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,  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)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Legal Fight Over New Board Authority 

message: 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)
replies: text: I added the word "current" to denote the date for the current implementation. – The Grid (talk)  12:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead needs to make it clearer when it's discussing the predecessor district