News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[Goofyernmost]

Has anyone's mind been changed over these 236 pages?

This doesn't appear to be an effort to change anyone's mind. It is a group of concerned people that are trying to make sense of a senseless action by a despot Governor that thinks he should think for everyone. We don't know for sure how this will end up. There seems to be a whole lot of reaction on the part of a verdictive state government, and very little effort put into considering the consequences. And in the words of Rhett Butler... "They don't give a damn" because they own Florida. A place I used to love but will not make any effort to return to until people come to their senses. To me now, there are a few states that are practically third world ****holes and Florida is one of the most vile. Problem is they don't see what has happened to the place.

 

[flynnibus]

I don't see how that's possible.

I do think this is one of the 'no one knows' until a court decides. The law is written assuming it rolls to the counties.. which is all the language to date. But the law isn't really specific to cover an independent district, nor is it written for a district that overlays other incorporated municipalities. Both of which are curveballs compared to the simple language the special district statues are written around.

You could end up with arguments where the cities try to be the incumbent vs the counties. From my research, I don't think there is a B&W answer here, but is one for the courts to decide. It also doesn't help that the cities as defined now were setup at basically the same time as RCID.. is that a factor? Dunno.

This is just one of the many areas that is not cut and dry IMO.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

While everyone seems to be hyper-focused on the debt, I've yet to see a plausible argument for how Disney will continue to be responsible for the $165 million in services that are provided by RCID. That to me is the biggest indicator that the State will seek to re-establish the district under new terms. It neatly solves both the tax and debt issue.

 

[UNCgolf]

I do think this is one of the 'no one knows' until a court decides.

To be honest, this is the case with the vast majority of issues that make it beyond a relatively quick consultation.

If an attorney tells you they know what will happen with a potential case, you should probably find a different attorney. Of course that's not true 100% of the time -- there are procedural issues and other things that still need to go through the system even when the outcome isn't really in doubt -- but for the most part you just don't know how a judge is going to decide or what a jury will do. There are very few guarantees.

 

[mikejs78]

I do think this is one of the 'no one knows' until a court decides. The law is written assuming it rolls to the counties.. which is all the language to date. But the law isn't really specific to cover an independent district, nor is it written for a district that overlays other incorporated municipalities. Both of which are curveballs compared to the simple language the special district statues are written around.

You could end up with arguments where the cities try to be the incumbent vs the counties. From my research, I don't think there is a B&W answer here, but is one for the courts to decide. It also doesn't help that the cities as defined now were setup at basically the same time as RCID.. is that a factor? Dunno.

This is just one of the many areas that is not cut and dry IMO

I still think two things lens themselves to the cities not taking on the assets and debt:

* It isn't contemplated anywhere in the statute. The only place in the statute referencing assets and debts indicates the counties.
* The fact that the cities don't have the same taxing authority as Reedy Creek did. So they won't be able to service the bonds.
* The issue of unincorporated Reedy Creek land and what happens to that infrastructure and the bonds surrounding it ?

 

[Nubs70]

Has anyone's mind been changed over these 236 pages?

Probably not but we are learning different aspects and arguments.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't know who can operate a FL nuclear power plant, I just know that the authority to build one is a unique power for a RCID among all other special districts and I can't think of any county that would be able to make that call given the hurdles a nuclear power plant requires.

You’re conflating different things. The District was granted the power to build and operate utilities, including electric generation and services. Other special districts aren’t in the electric power generation game. Florida allows utilities to operate nuclear power plants. The power to build and operate a nuclear power plant is just that, a forward looking mention written at a time when that was the big new thing still more than a decade before Three Mile Island. There are no blanket approvals and exemptions from state regulations, much less the far bigger issue of federal regulation.

Instituting your own standards isn't the same as being able to rewrite existing county and state standards or nullifying them within your special district.

The District cannot just rewrite or nullify standards. There are all sorts of regulations outside the District that stay with the counties. There is no District health department inspecting restaurants and pools. Disney submits injury reports to the Department of Agriculture because that is what the state requires of large parks that opt to handle their own inspections. We see plans published by the South Florida Water Management District because projects in the District still have to get those approvals. The District enforces the Florida Fire Prevention Code, a state code.

There are specific areas where the District does not follow county rules, primarily in regards to land use, water management and building. Without the District these issues would not necessarily fall to county control because the municipalities exist. Orlando isn’t governed by Orange County zoning or overseen by the building authority.

I haven't checked GIS in the last month or so, but I know that all residents of RCID live on Disney subsidiary-owned land.

Now you’re changing what you claimed. You said all of the land in the District is owned by Disney or subsidiaries. It is not.

"The governor's great mystery plan" appears to be a partisan dig... I don't do politics or partisanship in how I try to assess facts.

The governor’s office had now made multiple statements about having a plan to deal with the tax and debt issues. It is a mystery as it has not been shared publicly. If it was true that there is no issue about the taxes and debt, as you and this lawyer claim, then there would be no need for the governor to say he has a plan to deal with them.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Orange County wants no part of this. They will probably set up a district as similar to the one that exists today as they are allowed to by law, unless this gets thrown out or the legislature preempts then.

It doesn’t seem like the county can just create a new district, at least not one with the same powers. There are ways they can give de facto powers, but it’s hard not to see that taken as a slight to be challenged by the state.

I do think this is one of the 'no one knows' until a court decides. The law is written assuming it rolls to the counties.. which is all the language to date. But the law isn't really specific to cover an independent district, nor is it written for a district that overlays other incorporated municipalities. Both of which are curveballs compared to the simple language the special district statues are written around.

You could end up with arguments where the cities try to be the incumbent vs the counties. From my research, I don't think there is a B&W answer here, but is one for the courts to decide. It also doesn't help that the cities as defined now were setup at basically the same time as RCID.. is that a factor? Dunno.

This is just one of the many areas that is not cut and dry IMO.

The language is rather specific that it goes to the pre-existing government. While the legislation for the Reedy Creek Improvement District and cities were all written and signed around the same time, the Reedy Creek Improvement District is actually older because it is an expansion of the Reedy Creek Drainage District.

While everyone seems to be hyper-focused on the debt, I've yet to see a plausible argument for how Disney will continue to be responsible for the $165 million in services that are provided by RCID. That to me is the biggest indicator that the State will seek to re-establish the district under new terms. It neatly solves both the tax and debt issue.

I think the debt is such a focus is because there is so much power that comes with bonds.

 

[flynnibus]

While everyone seems to be hyper-focused on the debt, I've yet to see a plausible argument for how Disney will continue to be responsible for the $165 million in services that are provided by RCID. That to me is the biggest indicator that the State will seek to re-establish the district under new terms. It neatly solves both the tax and debt issue.

I don’t think its so neat. Taxes are not something that are free of constraints and limits… while what what disney just decides to contract out directly is pretty free of constant.

So some services are pretty easy for disney to just pay and make the problem gonaway… while things tied specifically to rcid are not as “do whatever we want”. I think that is why you see the disparity in the topics discussed.

 

[castlecake2.0]

More blatant retaliatory comments from Desantis:

“Basically, that arrangement, it was corporate welfare — no question,” DeSantis said Wednesday at a Las Vegas campaign event for Nevada Senate hopeful Adam Laxalt.

“It was totally unfair to every other company in Florida. But it also represented my state being joined at the hip with this one corporation. And if you’re admitting that your intention is to inject sexuality into the programming for these young kids, I can’t have that relationship.”

Dear lord

 

[flynnibus]

I still think two things lens themselves to the cities not taking on the assets and debt:

* It isn't contemplated anywhere in the statute. The only place in the statute referencing assets and debts indicates the counties.

Not counties specifically - but "local general-purpose government" - And municipalities are also considered "local general-purpose government" in other portions of the state law. For instance in Chapter 189 the Uniform Special Districts Accountability, the definition section calls out "Local Governing Authority" as the governing unit of the local general-purpose government, but cites how local general-purpose government can refer to a municipality (aka city)

"(4) “Local governing authority” means the governing body of a unit of local general-purpose government. However, if the special district is a political subdivision of a municipality, “local governing authority” means the municipality."

The rollover to the counties comes from the idea that the counties are the default governing body for the districts area. The Act when written does only reference the counties and survey marks, not the cities. But does the creation of the cities after the fact change this? I don't know..

* The fact that the cities don't have the same taxing authority as Reedy Creek did. So they won't be able to service the bonds.

The cities do have taxing authorities under the state statutes like other cities.. Special Sale taxes, property taxes, etc. There are taxes that require enablement by law, and there are others they are allowed without explicit grants under general law. 67-1104 for instance for Bay Lake specifically enables them to issue bonds, collect ad valorem taxes, business taxes, etc. They can generate revenue... now dealing with the bond garuntees/transfers/etc is another ball of wax... but that's part of any transition plan anyway.

* The issue of unincorporated Reedy Creek land and what happens to that infrastructure and the bonds surrounding it ?

Given Bonds are usually tied to very specific things with very specific revenue sources.. I think that is only a concern for the very specific things that don't fit in the existing cities. And the cities cover the vast majority of RCID.

 

[flynnibus]

The language is rather specific that it goes to the pre-existing government. While the legislation for the Reedy Creek Improvement District and cities were all written and signed around the same time, the Reedy Creek Improvement District is actually older because it is an expansion of the Reedy Creek Drainage District.

Yes, but does it matter? I don't know.. and I'm sure it could be challenged one way or the other. It's clear from the act that the district is defined as carved out from the counties, not referencing the cities. But does the creation of the cities change this dissolution model? Dunno.. but I bet a judge would consider something if the governments involved negotiated something to satisfaction between them.

I think it's one of these things that isn't so B&W... but we'll see

 

[WDW Pro]

So to your 5th point, wouldn't creating a new Special District that will (for some unspecified reason) charge a higher tax rate be an example of harm to Disney? So then we would have multiple politicians on record as stating that the dissolution of RCID was because Disney spoke out about the other bill AND a verifiable financial harm imposed upon Disney as a result of the dissolution of RCID. Doesn't your lawyer friend see how that is an open and shut case for Disney if they claim a First Amendment violation? It's retaliation acknowledged by those who wrote, passed, and signed the bill and there is a provable financial penalty associated with it. In what alternate dimension is that okay in the United States?

I'll get to the other comments from other users tomorrow, but here's a quick response:

We asked That Park Place's legal analyst about this specifically and his response was that political speech is often difficult to use for a 1A violation (entity is retaliated against for free speech) because political speech is generally considered hyperbolic, theatrical, non-binding opinion, etc. That doesn't mean they wouldn't try to make the claim, but that also puts their legal action into the federal courts. It surprised me when I asked, "weren't the legislators foolish to make these statements outright," and his response was, "no, because courts generally don't want to look into individual politicians' expressed opinions rather than the text of the law."

 

[flynnibus]

We asked That Park Place's legal analyst

you keep using this language... why not just refer to him by his actual name?

 

[TalkingHead]

“It was totally unfair to every other company in Florida. But it also represented my state being joined at the hip with this one corporation. And if you’re admitting that your intention is to inject sexuality into the programming for these young kids, I can’t have that relationship.”

I get that TWDC wants to be prudent about commenting publicly on the Reedy Creek legislation, but I can’t believe they’ve allowed politicians to smear their brand name like this for weeks and weeks without putting up a fight. Absolutely wild.

 

[flynnibus]

It surprised me when I asked, "weren't the legislators foolish to make these statements outright," and his response was, "no, because courts generally don't want to look into individual politicians' expressed opinions rather than the text of the law."

Well, what the law does is pretty plain and simple.. as well as being able to draw connection between the law's impact and Disney.

It's not like someone writes a new law to arrest you and spell out it's because of your specific speech before they arrest you... the very fact the impairment happened and was in response to the protected action (and impairs that protected action) is enough. I don't agree with this mindset that the text of the law is the deal breaker. I believe he's talking more about 'what the law does' vs 'what the law was said to be'. And it's not really much of a debate here that the law's outcome would impair disney or at least serve as deterrent to disney.

 

[UNCgolf]

It surprised me when I asked, "weren't the legislators foolish to make these statements outright," and his response was, "no, because courts generally don't want to look into individual politicians' expressed opinions rather than the text of the law."

Eh, I disagree with that take. It depends on the particular judge, but legislative intent is certainly used as part of statutory interpretation. It's not uncommon for judges (or their clerks, more realistically) to look through the legislative history of a particular statute to see what the legislature intended to address. Of course the plain text of the statute is the most important source, but the text alone is often not enough because it's basically impossible to draft legislation that describes how it should apply to every scenario.

I think it's even more likely to be at issue in a First Amendment claim, although I don't imagine they will use that avenue unless others fail. No one is going to write "This law is intended to punish the Walt Disney Company for their political activism." in the text of a statute.

 

[mikejs78]

if the special district is a political subdivision o

That's key language. Here Reedy Creek isn't a subdivision of either Bay Lake or LBV. It encompasses both of them.

The cities do have taxing authorities under the state statutes like other cities.. Special Sale taxes, property taxes, etc. There are taxes that require enablement by law, and there are others they are allowed without explicit grants under general law. 67-1104 for instance for Bay Lake specifically enables them to issue bonds, collect ad valorem taxes, business taxes, etc. They can generate revenue... now dealing with the bond garuntees/transfers/etc is another ball of wax... but that's part of any transition plan anyway.

Yes, they do, but their authority is limited (especially in regards to Ad Velorum Taxes). As are counties. Reedy Creek has a much higher Ad Velorum limit as part of its charter, making it able to tax the landowners (Disney) at a higher rate and thus guarantee a certain income to service the bonds.

Neither Orange County or LBV/BL have the taxing authority to tax at the same rate as Reedy Creek - which is why the bond issue is critical here. There isn't as of yet a clear path to service the debts.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I get that TWDC wants to be prudent about commenting publicly on the Reedy Creek legislation, but I can’t believe they’ve allowed politicians to smear their brand name like this for weeks and weeks without putting up a fight. Absolutely wild.

Disney is in full on damage control mode right now, better to stay silent and privately fight this in the courts rather than publicly feuding with Florida on the nightly news.

Most people aren’t paying much attention to this anymore but if Disney fights back it’ll continue being front pages news for the foreseeable future.

There’s a reason one side calls it the parental rights bill and the other side calls it the don’t say gay bill… there’s no way to pick a side without looking bad to half the country, Disney was just dumb enough to step right into the middle of it, now they’re trying to find a way out with the least amount of PR damage.

 

[flynnibus]

That's key language. Here Reedy Creek isn't a subdivision of either Bay Lake or LBV. It encompasses both of them.

I wasn't trying to apply the definition as written - because it's a different topic (it was defining something else) - point was 'local general purpose government' does not mean county explicitly. The term even applies to special districts themselves

Yes, they do, but their authority is limited (especially in regards to Ad Velorum Taxes). As are counties. Reedy Creek has a much higher Ad Velorum limit as part of its charter, making it able to tax the landowners (Disney) at a higher rate and thus guarantee a certain income to service the bonds.

Different mill rates - sure - but we're also talking about different needs. You said they don't 'the same' taxing authority - they aren't doing the same things either, and have lots of options that aren't even excercised today. RCID's debt servicing is <40% of their budget.. you don't need the same 100% of revenue as RCID. Bay Lake was granted at the start as up to 20 mills for the ad valorem tax - that is well above what RCID has been charging.

They can get money...