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

[mkt]

Funny enough, I have been playing with this exact idea in my head. I was reading over the legislation that reenabled the district, and saw that there were mentions to being able to fund projects outside of the district, which has been previously stated as a potential focus of the new board. one of these possibilities that they are allowed to help is rail.


It’s a crazy thought, but it’s not too crazy to think that there is some extremely remote possibility that the district tries to get involved with the sunshine corridor in someway. I could see them potentially helping with funding or with maybe helping set up a station on their land or land immediately outside the district that could be the international Drive south station.

If it’s most of their criteria for their version community benefit and a direct connection to universal is something Disney has fought in past rail proposals.


Again, I am just 100% speculating about the possibility of them working with Sunrail and Brightline, but I wouldn’t immediately toss it into the rubbish bin of history.

As someone who spent half of his life in a very corrupt latin-american colony of the US, the CFTOD board reminds me of every corrupt politician back there. I wouldn't be surprised that if they were to issue debt to extend the term of the CFTOD board, that debt would be used to pay for more lawsuits against Disney and more sweetheart deals to their contractors.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

As someone who spent half of his life in a very corrupt latin-american colony of the US, the CFTOD board reminds me of every corrupt politician back there. I wouldn't be surprised that if they were to issue debt to extend the term of the CFTOD board, that debt would be used to pay for more lawsuits against Disney and more sweetheart deals to their contractors.

Agree 100%

The flaw in this whole thing - other than it was a political hoax stunt from the start - is the belief held by many that reedy creek was being “used for Disney’s gain”

…of course it was, stupid…it was being used to enrich Walt Disney world…which Florida and the people gained on every dollar for 50 years…

Flaws aside…it was as mutually beneficial a piece of legislation as you’ll ever see in this country.

I think when the Tallahassee cronies got their hands on the operation…they realized right away they can’t run it…don’t understand it…there’s no political benefit to be had…and they never should have poked this bear.

 

[lentesta]

I'm sure the Simpson's at least did an episode on this lol

Oh god, it exists!

Here's Eddie Murphy in the first SNL "Prose and Cons" skit, with a poem titled "Cill My Landlord".

 

[mkt]

Agree 100%

The flaw in this whole thing - other than it was a political hoax stunt from the start - is the belief held by many that reedy creek was being “used for Disney’s gain”

…of course it was, stupid…it was being used to enrich Walt Disney world…which Florida and the people gained on every dollar for 50 years…

Flaws aside…it was as mutually beneficial a piece of legislation as you’ll ever see in this country.

I think when the Tallahassee cronies got their hands on the operation…they realized right away they can’t run it…don’t understand it…there’s no political benefit to be had…and they never should have poked this bear.

The Florida legislature and governor cut off their noses to spite their faces.

This law is pure third world nonsense and will have a long term effect on business investment in Florida. Who wants to invest in a place where your ability to do business effectively can change due to the political whims of an autocratic leader?

 

[flynnibus]

But it says absolutely nothing about taking away powers that are not being used to repay the bonds. In other words, if a specific power is tied to bond repayment it is protected. If it is not, then it's fair game.

I think your disagreement is because you are extending beyond the original claims.

The claims aren't that the district powers can't be modified or are immutable - the claims are that the constraints on the modifications IN EFFECT lock the district in and that CERTAIN powers can't be removed - not that no powers can't be removed. The Bond obligations lock in the purpose and ability to sustain those projects for which the bonds are issued.

The district hasn't issued bonds with revenue tied to tolls.

 

[MagicRat]

Where is the guy eating popcorn meme….

Florida school board may seek ouster of Moms for Liberty co-founder over Republican sex scandal

Bridget Ziegler has long been active in conservative politics and was a champion of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law.

www.nbcnews.com

I can’t say anything political…I can’t say anything political….I can’t say anything political.

What I enjoyed second most, after the just deserts, was that the lady’s name on the school board who wants her gone is actually named Karen.

 

[LSLS]

The Florida legislature and governor cut off their noses to spite their faces.

This law is pure third world nonsense and will have a long term effect on business investment in Florida. Who wants to invest in a place where your ability to do business effectively can change due to the political whims of an autocratic leader?

You've got this all wrong. "The Florida legislature and governor cut off their noses to spider face."

 

[mkt]

You've got this all wrong. "The Florida legislature and governor cut off their noses to spider face."

That explains a lot. Maybe spiders laid eggs in their brains, and the baby spiders smoothed them out.

 

[drnilescrane]

Florida school board may seek ouster of Moms for Liberty co-founder over Republican sex scandal

Bridget Ziegler has long been active in conservative politics and was a champion of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law.

www.nbcnews.com

So we all agree that tomorrow's meeting has been canceled because it's likely Bridget gets ousted from the Sarasota County Schools Board today?

 

[mikejs78]

The text is plain that the specific powers given to the RCID cannot be taken away if they are currently part of an agreement that is repaying a bond.

The text does not state any such thing. Please show where in the text of the law that it indicates that the state will only pledge not to remove powers specified in the bonds.

You can't infer things in law.

But it says absolutely nothing about taking away powers that are not being used to repay the bonds.

It says absolutely nothing about taking away only powers that are being used to repay bonds either.

If Mr. Schumer is to be believed, any change to the RCID's ability to do any of the things mentioned above would constitute a breach of contract and be a violation of law.

Quite possibly, yes. This was also the conclusion of the state legislature in a study they conducted two decades ago.

"Removing the District’s ability to charge tolls"

According to Mr. Schumer's legal opinion, this would constitute a violation of law. However, no one from the Walt Disney Company's legal team or from the those holding legacy RCID bonds has raised any objection.

That is correct - it is likely an unconstitutional impairment of contracts. Just because the legislature did it, it doesn't mean it's legal. However, you don't just get a court to say something is illegal - someone has to bring suit. And there are two critical things that need to happen to bring suit:

• A party must determine that bringing suit will be worth their while - i.e. that they were injured in some way, and that bringing suit can make them whole.
• That person has to have standing to sue - their injury based on an action of the legislature has to be a real injury, and a result of the legislation.

So let's look at the parties involved:

• Disney may consider it a violation of the law, but they don't have any standing to bring this matter in suit, as they are not a party to these contracts. The bond contracts were between RCID and the bondholders, backed by the guaruntee of the State of Florida. This is why Disney can't bring this point up in any of their lawsuits.
• The district probably would have standing to sue, but they are controlled by the new CFTOD. board now, who has no motivation to sue over the potential imparement of contracts.
• Bondholders would have standing to sue in this matter - but the powers removed were things that the District didn't really do anyways, so it's likely that they did not see removing those powers as an injury to their overall bond contract, and therefore not worth pursuing. However, if the State removed the power of the district to build anything, that would likely result in a material breech that someone would sue over. From S&P Global Rating's upgrade statement:

The outlook revision reflects recent state legislation that provides for the district's continued ability to levy ad valorem taxes consistent with the security pledges at the respective bond issuances, while limiting operational changes that could affect timely debt service payment

They also stated:

We also note that CFTOD's assets, liabilities (including bonds outstanding), and operational responsibilities will not be transferred to other local government units as had been contemplated under the April 2022 legislation that required the reorganization or dissolution of RCID.

and:

We view its social and governance risks as credit neutral within our analysis. In regard to governance, the provisions of the recent legislation clarify the district's governance structure, mitigating uncertainty around continued operations.

So continued operations are important to the ratings agency. This supports the point that divesting all operational powers from the district and leaving it as a bond servicing entity would not be acceptable to the bond market.

recently the several asset rating firms have upgraded the bond's rating because they feel the independent oversight will improve accountability

None of them said that. They upgraded it because the uncertainty was gone, the district wasn't going to be dissolved, and the assets and liabilities weren't going to be transferred to the counties.

RCID's powers or altering them in some way, but there has been no legal objection raised to this point. Instead, Disney's case hinges on a long shot First Amendment argument.

Because, as I stated above, Disney doesn't have standing to do so. And the points where there were changes were so minor that it probably wasn't worth it to bondholders.

I know I'm not popular around this thread

It's not personal - I have nothing against you, I just disagree with your points and think they are unworkable under the law.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Where is the guy eating popcorn meme….

Florida school board may seek ouster of Moms for Liberty co-founder over Republican sex scandal

Bridget Ziegler has long been active in conservative politics and was a champion of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law.

www.nbcnews.com

I can’t say anything political…I can’t say anything political….I can’t say anything political.

What I enjoyed second most, after the just deserts, was that the lady’s name on the school board who wants her gone is actually named Karen.

…wait for it…

So we all agree that tomorrow's meeting has been canceled because it's likely Bridget gets ousted from the Sarasota County Schools Board today?

I figured she was probably having a “meet and greet” at the four seasons with two other dudes?
Maybe a couple girls?

Gotta keep your constituency happy…

OWWWWWWWW!!!

 

[MagicRat]

…wait for it…

I figured she was probably having a “meet and greet” at the four seasons with two other dudes?
Maybe a couple girls?

Gotta keep your constituency happy…

OWWWWWWWW!!!

Nah, she is busy waiting for Boebert to fly down to meet Beetlejuice at Universal.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Nah, she is busy waiting for Boebert to fly down to meet Beetlejuice at Universal.

View attachment 758623

“Hands were I can see em…”

 

[DCBaker]

Here's an update from the federal hearing today.

"Yet, in court filings and as recently as a Tuesday morning court hearing, the governor’s attorneys say DeSantis is immunefrom the lawsuit and should be removed as a defendant. And they told U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor the action was about making sure Disney played by the same rules as every other business.

But the state and the district also say it doesn’t matter if the action was retaliatory.

Citing a 2015 appellate decision, they say if a law is constitutional on its face, it doesn’t matter if it was created for retaliatory reason.

The state mentions that case in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit. But it’s extensively expanded on by attorneys for the Disney district, previously called the Reedy Creek Improvement District and renamed the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.

Charles Cooper, an attorney for the district, talked in length about the case, telling Winsor it “dooms” Disney’s First Amendment challenge.

It’s a big argument, as Disney’s lawsuit is focused on the motive of the actions against its district. Questioned by the judge, Disney attorney Jonathan Hacker said the company wouldn’t have a constitutional claim if those actions had been done for genuine economic reasons.

Hacker told Winsor this was the most “clear case” of government retribution he was likely to find and that the defendants' arguments didn’t apply in this circumstance, despite their assertions.

Winsor’s view may soon become clear. Tuesday’s hearing featured arguments from both sides on whether he should dismiss the case. The judge said he would try to have a ruling out on that in the next couple of weeks."

Full article is available at the link below.

Attorneys: It doesn't matter if Florida punished Disney for opposing 'Don't Say Gay'

Lawyers for DeSantis, his Disney district say the company's First Amendment lawsuit should fail regardless of whether the state punished it.

www.tallahassee.com

 

[Nevermore525]

Just to add here’s the case the state was referencing: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-11th-circuit/1715663.html

​

 

[Surferboy567]

But the state and the district also say it doesn’t matter if the action was retaliatory.

This I feel is the most important snippet of that article. It really comes down to how the judge feels about this statement.

I’m hoping the right decision will be made, it seems quite obvious to myself that this violates first amendment rights.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

The text does not state any such thing. Please show where in the text of the law that it indicates that the state will only pledge not to remove powers specified in the bonds.

You can't infer things in law.



It says absolutely nothing about taking away only powers that are being used to repay bonds either.



Quite possibly, yes. This was also the conclusion of the state legislature in a study they conducted two decades ago.



That is correct - it is likely an unconstitutional impairment of contracts. Just because the legislature did it, it doesn't mean it's legal. However, you don't just get a court to say something is illegal - someone has to bring suit. And there are two critical things that need to happen to bring suit:

• A party must determine that bringing suit will be worth their while - i.e. that they were injured in some way, and that bringing suit can make them whole.
• That person has to have standing to sue - their injury based on an action of the legislature has to be a real injury, and a result of the legislation.

So let's look at the parties involved:

• Disney may consider it a violation of the law, but they don't have any standing to bring this matter in suit, as they are not a party to these contracts. The bond contracts were between RCID and the bondholders, backed by the guaruntee of the State of Florida. This is why Disney can't bring this point up in any of their lawsuits.
• The district probably would have standing to sue, but they are controlled by the new CFTOD. board now, who has no motivation to sue over the potential imparement of contracts.
• Bondholders would have standing to sue in this matter - but the powers removed were things that the District didn't really do anyways, so it's likely that they did not see removing those powers as an injury to their overall bond contract, and therefore not worth pursuing. However, if the State removed the power of the district to build anything, that would likely result in a material breech that someone would sue over. From S&P Global Rating's upgrade statement:

They also stated:


and:


So continued operations are important to the ratings agency. This supports the point that divesting all operational powers from the district and leaving it as a bond servicing entity would not be acceptable to the bond market.



None of them said that. They upgraded it because the uncertainty was gone, the district wasn't going to be dissolved, and the assets and liabilities weren't going to be transferred to the counties.



Because, as I stated above, Disney doesn't have standing to do so. And the points where there were changes were so minor that it probably wasn't worth it to bondholders.



It's not personal - I have nothing against you, I just disagree with your points and think they are unworkable under the law.

Let's go back to the text of the law.

The State of Florida pledges to the holders of any bonds issued under this Act that it will not limit or alter the rights of the District to own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, maintain, operate or furnish the projects or to levy and collect the taxes, assessments, rentals, rates, fees, tolls, fares and other charges provided for herein and to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the holders of such bonds or other obligations, that it will not in any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Act, until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with any action or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are fully met and discharged.

Read that line carefully with a specific focus on "the projects." What "projects" is the law talking about? In the same sentence (it's a bit of a run on lol) we get the answer. The answer is, "to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the holders of such bonds or other obligations." Now that's a reasonable explanation. In the preceding text of the RCID legislation (See Section 34) we see the Florida Legislature stipulate the right of RCID to issue bonds backed by revenue. This is clearly why the specific power has been given:

The District shall have the power to issue revenue bonds from time to time without limitation as to amount. Such revenue bonds may be secured by or payable from the gross or net pledge of the revenues to be derived from any project or combination of projects, from the rates, fees, tolls, fares or other charges to be collected from the users of any project or projects, from any revenue-producing undertaking or activity of the District, or from any other source or pledged security. Such bonds shall not constitute an indebtedness of the District, and the approval neither of the qualified electors nor of the qualified electors who are freeholders shall be required unless such bonds are addi- tionally secured by the full faith and credit and taxing power of the District.

Here in Section 34 we see those "projects" again. This ultimately would come to down to a decision by the judge. Personally, I think the text is pretty clear that Florida is promising not to interfere in the ability for the RCID to repay its debts. Those powers of the RCID that are not critical to paying back its debts would then be open to change or reform. Ultimately, it would come down to a court to decide. But I've presented at the very least a credible different interpretation to the narrative Mr. Schumer offered. I will note that when Mr. Schumer quoted those lines for his articles he omitted several sentences of context with the infamous "...".

To pivot to the issues of proving harm and standing, let's consider the suggestion you originally took issue with:

The answer is simply to strip the RCID of all its powers except for the ability to levy a property tax. All the other powers could be devolved to the two counties. Next, the legislature can set an end to the RCID only after the last of the legacy bonds are payable. Guarantee that the RCID cannot issue new bonds unless they are simply replacing bonds that already exist. This would prevent potential shortfall or default. Then, once the bonds are paid, the RCID ceases to function. And like that the RCID has ceased to exist and the powers are devolved.

The text of the bonds state clearly that Ad Valorem taxes would be the method of payment. Reasonable. That's why I suggested leaving the RCID's ability to levy Ad Valorem taxes uninterrupted. I also suggested that the RCID be able to issue additional bonds in the case of emergency shortfall in tax revenue.

Now, the RCID's bondholders might have the standing to sue. But could they prove harm? That's doubtful. My suggestion protects the powers necessary to repay and service the bonds. Therefore there is no harm created in my suggestion and their case would be dismissed.

All Disney would have needed to do is find a single aggrieved bondholder to file a suit and instantly have the RCID restored completely. But they didn't. Because no injury was caused by the Florida Legislature.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Let's go back to the text of the law.

The State of Florida pledges to the holders of any bonds issued under this Act that it will not limit or alter the rights of the District to own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, maintain, operate or furnish the projects or to levy and collect the taxes, assessments, rentals, rates, fees, tolls, fares and other charges provided for herein and to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the holders of such bonds or other obligations, that it will not in any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Act, until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with any action or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are fully met and discharged.

Read that line carefully with a specific focus on "the projects." What "projects" is the law talking about? In the same sentence (it's a bit of a run on lol) we get the answer. The answer is, "to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the holders of such bonds or other obligations." Now that's a reasonable explanation. In the preceding text of the RCID legislation (See Section 34) we see the Florida Legislature stipulate the right of RCID to issue bonds backed by revenue. This is clearly why the specific power has been given:

The District shall have the power to issue revenue bonds from time to time without limitation as to amount. Such revenue bonds may be secured by or payable from the gross or net pledge of the revenues to be derived from any project or combination of projects, from the rates, fees, tolls, fares or other charges to be collected from the users of any project or projects, from any revenue-producing undertaking or activity of the District, or from any other source or pledged security. Such bonds shall not constitute an indebtedness of the District, and the approval neither of the qualified electors nor of the qualified electors who are freeholders shall be required unless such bonds are addi- tionally secured by the full faith and credit and taxing power of the District.

Here in Section 34 we see those "projects" again. This ultimately would come to down to a decision by the judge. Personally, I think the text is pretty clear that Florida is promising not to interfere in the ability for the RCID to repay its debts. Those powers of the RCID that are not critical to paying back its debts would then be open to change or reform. Ultimately, it would come down to a court to decide. But I've presented at the very least a credible different interpretation to the narrative Mr. Schumer offered. I will note that when Mr. Schumer quoted those lines for his articles he omitted several sentences of context with the infamous "...".

To pivot to the issues of proving harm and standing, let's consider the suggestion you originally took issue with:



The text of the bonds state clearly that Ad Valorem taxes would be the method of payment. Reasonable. That's why I suggested leaving the RCID's ability to levy Ad Valorem taxes uninterrupted. I also suggested that the RCID be able to issue additional bonds in the case of emergency shortfall in tax revenue.

Now, the RCID's bondholders might have the standing to sue. But could they prove harm? That's doubtful. My suggestion protects the powers necessary to repay and service the bonds. Therefore there is no harm created in my suggestion and their case would be dismissed.

All Disney would have needed to do is find a single aggrieved bondholder to file a suit and instantly have the RCID restored completely. But they didn't. Because no injury was caused by the Florida Legislature.

That’s all well and good…but we know this is political…

It’s basically kangaroo court

Hopefully the generation of money - Disneys primary leverage in the end - will be enough to win the day.

 

[flynnibus]

The text of the bonds state clearly that Ad Valorem taxes would be the method of payment. Reasonable. That's why I suggested leaving the RCID's ability to levy Ad Valorem taxes uninterrupted. I also suggested that the RCID be able to issue additional bonds in the case of emergency shortfall in tax revenue.

Just being able to collect a tax - without any say in how that area is developed would be an impairment compared to what they do now.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Just being able to collect a tax - without any say in how that area is developed would be an impairment compared to what they do now.

If I'm a bond holder, all I need is for the entity that issued the bonds to remain solvent and to have access to the revenue that backs the bonds. I don't care if it builds something else or has some regulatory powers. I just need to get my money back. As long as the RCID has the source of revenue contractually promised and is paying back the bonds, then no harm has been created. RCID's ability to zone is not meaningfully connected to its ability to pay back its debts.

Again, we'd ultimately have to let courts decide this. But I think I have presented a credible alternative legal reasoning derived from the text of the law. Trying to prove harm when they are still being backed by the contractually promised low-risk Ad Valorem taxes would be difficult.