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

[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...

 

[CAV]

Mine has. I said i wasnt going to have another beer.. but looks like i might.

Just one????

 

[Chip Chipperson]

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."

With all due respect, your legal expert may have a bias towards DeSantis if he thinks that several outright admissions of the legislature's and governor's motivation for this wouldn't be considered, particularly when there was no plan to discuss the issue during the regular legiative session and they changed the original scope of the "emergency session" after Disney spoke out. If this was a legitimate act rather than a political vendetta for speaking out, there's no "emergency" here that couldn't have waited until the next regular session. If what your legal expert said was true then there wouldn't be any real protection under the First Amendment other than not being thrown in jail since nobody would ever write a bill blatantly stating, "Because [insert person/business here] spoke out about [insert issue/politician here], we're punishing them with _____." Is it in the bill dissolving RCID? No. Was it stated before, during, and after the passage of the bill? Yes, many times.

 

[chrisvee]

Fitch Ratings issues a warning to FL that financial standing could be harmed.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article260873762.html

 

[mikejs78]

A lot of people throughout the political spectrum don’t like powerful corporations.

Historically, Democrats have been against them. More recently, Republicans are increasingly against them because of their forays into social issues.

And lots of people across the political spectrum are upset at Citizens United, which was a 5-4 ruling with all 4 liberal justices voting against it.

Combined, this explains why polls show that DeSantis’ recent actions are more popular than not among Florida voters.

This matters for RCID because it means Disney is sailing into a headwind, and needs to take this into consideration as it attempts to reverse the recent law dissolving RCID.

Avoiding a First Amendment fight is in Disney’s best interests for now. IMO, Disney would win, but Disney needs to win more than just the legal battle.

I don't disagree about the distrust of corporations or the Citizens United backlash - although the backlash there was primarily about money.

Let's look at what Chapek actually did here.

• He said he thought a piece of legislation was wrong and that Disney would work to overturn it
• He stopped all political donations

What is particularly egregious about that? Even if you don't agree with Citizens, there's a long history of the courts siding with even corporations when it just came to statements. Citizens was more about the idea that the government couldn't limit corporate donations.

That being said, I do agree that their better path at the moment is around procedural issues in the state of FL - whether the Notwithstanding in the law is valid enough to remove the requirement for a referendum, whether contract law prevents the dissolution of the district because of the outstanding bonds, etc.

I don't think Disney actually does have to win more than the legal battle here. Nothing Disney says or does at this point is going to change anyone's minds. The best thing that can happen to Disney on that front is to get a new CEO who is more politically astute.

 

[castlecake2.0]

You may want to catch the replay of the DeSantis town hall on faux news tonight. It was pretty interesting if you want to know what he really thinks, unfiltered. He comments on RCID funding.

VP DeSantis did very well and the crowd was incredible. Don’t discount the number of people who support Florida’s bill, are behind dissolving RCID, and are furious with Disney’s public politics.

Just because they’re behind it doesn’t mean it’s legal

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Fitch Ratings issues a warning to FL that financial standing could be harmed.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article260873762.html

I'm sure it's just a matter of time before Moody's and S&P issue similar statements. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone - yet somehow I'm sure that none of the people voting for or signing the bill saw it coming.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

You may want to catch the replay of the DeSantis town hall on faux news tonight. It was pretty interesting if you want to know what he really thinks, unfiltered. He comments on RCID funding.

VP DeSantis did very well and the crowd was incredible. Don’t discount the number of people who support Florida’s bill, are behind dissolving RCID, and are furious with Disney’s public politics.

How people handle “Disneys public politics” is by not going. Just like any other business.. if you dont like what they say or who they support etc.. is by using the power of your money by not supporting them. Not by retaliation.

 

[mikejs78]

This may not even end up in courts. DeSantis has to solve this fast or it may tank FL's credit status.

 

[Lilofan]

This may not even end up in courts. DeSantis has to solve this fast or it may tank FL's credit status.

Freest state in the nation.

DeSantis should have been more careful what he wished for, while he still leads FL even though his personal sights are looking past FL

 

[mikejs78]

DeSantis should have been more careful what he wished for, while he still leads FL even though his personal sights are looking past FL

This is why you don't rush legislation without studying it first.

 

[ParentsOf4]

How people handle “Disneys public politics” is by not going. Just like any other business.. if you dont like what they say or who they support etc.. is by using the power of your money by not supporting them. Not by retaliation.

Conversely, if you agree with what Disney has done, buy more Disney stock, purchase more Disney products, watch more Disney movies, and plan more WDW vacations.

Especially that last one!

(Says the person whose next Orlando trip is a week away. )

 

[lazyboy97o]

This may not even end up in courts. DeSantis has to solve this fast or it may tank FL's credit status.

Most free state in the nation.

This looks like it will show us how much those involved believed their own statements. There has generally been denial of any problems, so do they acknowledge that there is a problem or double down on the denial because they’re that lost in their own narrative? Florida has become increasingly retaliatory on a number of issues. I’m not sure I would be surprised if there is some attempt at trying to punish rating agencies for negative comments based on legislative action. That would be very much in line with the attitude that the state will do what it wants and nobody will stop them from doing it.

 

[GimpYancIent]

“Damage control mode” wrongly implies they’re publicly contesting the allegation that they’re “[injecting] sexuality into the programming for these young kids.” Letting RCID drama play out behind closed doors is one thing; this is something far more damaging to public perception, and TWDC leadership hasn’t had much (anything?) to say about it.

A flock of legal eagles is involved in working through the RCID situation to achieve a resolution. Exciting on T.V. or movies but actually boring, time consuming and minutely detailed. The public TWDC image is now tarnished with the senior management team's continued misjudgments and decisions a new team is necessitated to replace the existing team to show a cleanup and movement to again becoming the gold standard in entertainment. As for the parks an adjustment to a reasonable pricing model and return to providing a unique guest experience and not being like everyone else is also needed. Right now, the speculation is interesting to read about, but it will be a wait before actual results emerge from any legal actions.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Is he also still saying they don’t pay their fair share?

Because that is historically and logically false.

He exclaimed (referring to RCID tax) and I quote “they are paying money to run their operations!”

I know, how horrible of them.

 

[GoofGoof]

As far the RCID issue there is no real upside for Disney. Their best outcome is a return to status quo so I agree it makes no sense for them to pursue a more public and contentious strategy. If they are smart they say very little publicly and get an agreement that gives them exactly what they want. Some people want to see Disney pursue a 1st Amendment lawsuit but that plays right into DeSantis’s hands. He wants a large public conflict with big, bad woke Disney because it juices up the base. He has numbers on his side for re-election so as long as the base shows up he wins. Nothing gets voter turnout better than a trumped up issue (no pun intended)