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

AdventureHasAName

Well-Known Member
Surely a lawyer would realize the challenge of instituting a whole new tax regimen in a few months. Not to mention the issue of the costs that start now.
Yes, surely a lawyer would. But then again, a lawyer would also surely realize that when a new tax regimen is implemented, everyone involved in the implementation is typically involved in the technical crafting of the regimen itself ... so it's not like anyone would be surprised by how the implementation is going to work on the day it is passed into law by the legislature.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
My bets are on the following...

  1. RCID sue the state over the dissolution citing the Reedy Creek Act and the attack on their municipal powers - with the Bonds being the big hammer
  2. The counties sue the state over the way the dissolution is structured and the consequences and division of stuff
  3. No dissolution happens in the next 3-5 years as all as the case is bogged down in courts
I bet TWDC does not directly challenge the law on 1A grounds because it's a fight they don't really need *YET*. They let the RCID issue stay a state issue and let that process play out.. as RCID likely has a strong position to tear up the law as written now.

Then, TWDC only enters the fray on 1A claims if the challenges to the law faulter and TWDC opens up the potential nuclear war with the GOP and the national stage. I think it's in Disney's interest to downplay this whole thing and suggest it will all be cleared up in the existing courts.. without something that could lead to getting blood on their hands directly.

Letting RCID defeat this on existing laws is cleaner.. and avoids escalating the Disney vs GOP fight. I don't think Disney is eager to win that fight and would rather not have it in the news.
 

HM Spectre

Well-Known Member
I feel like I am repeating myself a lot here, but I keep being stunned at how much people are shrugging at the government openly launching legislation to retaliate against and effectively silence opinions with which it disagrees on the basis that the democratic process doesn't function that well anyway. If I lived in the United States, I would be very worried about where the country is heading.

Disney went out of its way to involve itself in a political issue that didn't directly impact its business and attempted to use its power and influence to pressure the politicians who passed it.

The politicians are now using their power and influence to strip Disney of a special privilege that it held because it acted (in this case) as a purely political entity and not a neutral corporation.

I think both actions have some pretty dire consequences if they set a precedent, but so does letting the first one stand without any reaction. It's bad enough that corporations have massive political influence over areas that impact their business. This country doesn't need corporations flexing their power on issues just to support the political priors of their leadership... THAT should worry everyone, regardless of where your politics lie.

My hope is that this interaction causes corporations and politicians alike to think twice and avoid issues like this in the future... because apparently they weren't smart enough to use common sense and avoid it in the present. This is bad for business.

Chapek absolutely (and unnecessarily) stepped in it here and he 100% deserves what comes next.
 

AdventureHasAName

Well-Known Member
My bets are on the following...

  1. RCID sue the state over the dissolution citing the Reedy Creek Act and the attack on their municipal powers - with the Bonds being the big hammer
  2. The counties sue the state over the way the dissolution is structured and the consequences and division of stuff
  3. No dissolution happens in the next 3-5 years as all as the case is bogged down in courts
I bet TWDC does not directly challenge the law on 1A grounds because it's a fight they don't really need *YET*. They let the RCID issue stay a state issue and let that process play out.. as RCID likely has a strong position to tear up the law as written now.

Then, TWDC only enters the fray on 1A claims if the challenges to the law faulter and TWDC opens up the potential nuclear war with the GOP and the national stage. I think it's in Disney's interest to downplay this whole thing and suggest it will all be cleared up in the existing courts.. without something that could lead to getting blood on their hands directly.

Letting RCID defeat this on existing laws is cleaner.. and avoids escalating the Disney vs GOP fight. I don't think Disney is eager to win that fight and would rather not have it in the news.
I pretty much agree with all of this, except I don't think RCID's position to tear up the current law is that strong.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
RCID sue the state over the dissolution citing the Reedy Creek Act and the attack on their municipal powers - with the Bonds being the big hammer
A tangent, but this basically how Robert “I love Mr. Lincoln” was able to stick around in New York for so long. He tied a bunch of things up into the bonds for Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority and since those bonds were sacrosanct the Authority could keep chugging along.
 

AdventureHasAName

Well-Known Member
You want me to predict the timeline of something I just said I don't believe exists?
Yes. I asked you if you believed it is more likely than not that legislative changes would occur prior to the date of dissolution. I do.

No rain clouds currently exist over my head, but I could tell you whether or not I think it's likely that it will rain on my yard before the end of the year.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Disney went out of its way to involve itself in a political issue that didn't directly impact its business and attempted to use its power and influence to pressure the politicians who passed it.

The politicians are now using their power and influence to strip Disney of a special privilege that it held because it acted (in this case) as a purely political entity and not a neutral corporation.

I think both actions have some pretty dire consequences if they set a precedent, but so does letting the first one stand without any reaction. It's bad enough that corporations have massive political influence over areas that impact their business. This country doesn't need corporations flexing their power on issues just to support the political priors of their leadership... THAT should worry everyone, regardless of where your politics lie.

My hope is that this interaction causes corporations and politicians alike to think twice and avoid issues like this in the future... because apparently they weren't smart enough to use common sense and avoid it in the present. This is bad for business.

Chapek absolutely (and unnecessarily) stepped in it here and he 100% deserves what comes next.
Corporations are under absolutely no obligation to be “neutral”. They have the right to engage in political speech.

Should the broadcasters airing negative stories about this be punished for not being neutral?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
All that proves is that Fine is either liar or doesn't understand the law. If it's the latter then he's not qualified to legislate. If it's the former, ask yourself why he's lying.
I believe a posted the clip earlier of him being caught lying about this bill in the committee hearing. He claimed the dissolution of the pre-1968 districts is not about Disney and then admitted that it is just about Disney.
 

Disone

Well-Known Member
Legislators stated their intent to punish Disney in session. This isn’t just gossip about their true motivations, they said it out loud on video multiple times.

If the districts really violated the state constitution there would be no need for the expense of a special session or legislation. The governor could just sue the district(s).
I don't know about that. They send you to shoot you much more carefully than you state. I would be genuinely understand the delivery You are talking about.
I have seen that is when one state representative said that Disney kicked a hornets nest, but that this has been something that has been brought up many times, The elimination of the reedy Creek improvement district.

Prior to this it wasn't politically advantageous to do so, but now opens the door to finally make that move. I get what that can be but it's not a clear and succinct determination that Disney is being "punished".

I agree that it is, however, I believe the politicians are smarter than just coming out and actually saying that. We're dealing with semantics here but that's what politics is all about. Everybody absolutely knows that this is about punishing Disney, but they're not going to actually say those words.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Yes. I asked you if you believed it is more likely than not that legislative changes would occur prior to the date of dissolution.

I believe the date all along was picked to be game of chicken. To build something the GOP could try to hang over Disney for leverage. But I think their move was rash and not well thought-out.

Whether or not there will be more legislative action before then is really not a question of interest. We know as it stands now the law is incomplete so obviously there will be more changes needed - but they are far more likely to be driven by the courts than the state house... because everything will end up in the courts regardless. GOP would likely wait until they lose something they want before trying to rewrite the rules again.

The only legislation I would expect in the next year is a repeal of this... the rest will be court fights first which will take years.
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
But isn't that how the $1B total keeps creeping upwards in the media? Because these other bonds are being all thrown together into one bond debt number? Isn't that how $1B becomes $1.7B and then becomes $2B?

I don't know where reporters are getting their numbers. They may be adding the 2 types of debt or they may be calculating based on what RCID is allowed to borrow instead of what they have borrowed. Or they are reporting based on what they heard rather than what they researched themselves, which seems to be all the rage these days. All I know is that when the 2021 fiscal year ended, the General Obligation Ad Valorem Tax bonds were closer to $1B than $2B and the RCID has other financial obligations that need to be net, such as pension funding and retiree health benefits. If RCID ceases to exist then those obligations will fall to the taxpayers in Orange and Osceola Counties.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom