News DeSantis moves to bring state safety oversight of the Walt Disney World Monorail including suspending the service for inspections

[Cliff]

Those bonds belong to Reedy Creek. Disney can’t be held responsible for them. If anything Orange/Osceola counties would have to absolve the $1 Billion in bonds.

No...they are public bonds on the property. The Central Florida Tourism whatever it's new name is...will levi LEINS on the property in WDW if the bonds are called in and not paid. The counties will not pay that. The "property" is the collateral

 

[MagicHappens1971]

No...they are public bonds on the property. The Central Florida Tourism whatever it's new name is...will levi LEINS on the property in WDW if the bonds are called in and not paid. The counties will not pay that. The "property" is the collateral

The municipal bonds they RCID took out? Maybe I missed something somewhere but don’t recall seeing any situation where Disney was responsible for RCID bonds. What public bonds are we talking about?

 

[Cliff]

The municipal bonds they RCID took out? Maybe I missed something somewhere but don’t recall seeing any situation where Disney was responsible for RCID bonds. What public bonds are we talking about?

Im on my phone...but look at Andrew from "Leagal Mindset". He is a Florida proprrty law attourney that spentt his entire career on special taxing distructs in Florida. That is his entire practice. He has dealt closely with RCID and Disney specigically on past issues as well as many other districts like The Villages too.

He knows Disney's prediciment very well because he was involved in some of the bonds that RCID has written.

He goes into extreme detail on explaining how dangerous Disney's property and RCID's bond exposure problem is. He is very very clear and Im sure that the state will build their case on his work.

Yes... if those bonds are called because they were fraudulantly wriiten as "public" bonds...the "property" of WDW will have leins placed them for the value of the bonds. (Almost 1 billion)

Disney will fight with all its might to say the RCID was NOT an agent or an alter ego or puppet of the company. The state will try to prove that it WAS just that. The fate and valifity of those "public" bonds lies in those arguments.

Public bonds are for public use....they are fraudulant if used for a private company benefit.

 

[Patcheslee]

Under this new oversight, what might change if the monorail has an incident like the door or similar, regarding a timeline? Previously, Disney would try and get them operating again in hours. Would this still be the case, or could potentially spill into a 2nd dayday

Here's the SSO they were talking about. With incident reporting requirements.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.fdot.gov/docs/default-source/transit/pages/SafetyandSecurityOversightProgram.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjXnKzvpdv-AhWHrokEHb-XDfAQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2yotPTX0V0QG0PeZKadItf

 

[mkt]

Those bonds belong to Reedy Creek. Disney can’t be held responsible for them. If anything Orange/Osceola counties would have to absolve the $1 Billion in bonds.

This. THIS THIS THIS. All of this.

This is the reason why the legislature and DeSantis replaced the legislation that eliminated RCID with the one creating the CFTOD.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The Florida Supreme Court considered these issues many years ago and held in favor of Disney. Do you know the history of how and why Reedy Creek came into existence? It’s hard to start explaining all this yet again in this thread - it’s been covered several times.

That very ruling is why Disney might have problems now.

Disney's position previously was that the company and the district were distinct entities, not just in a technical sense but in practice. Now they have to argue that the dissolution of the district constitutes harm to Disney.

I'm not sure that Disney even has standing. If John engages in speech that the government doesn't like, so the government retaliates against Steve, Steve is the one who suffered an injury and gets to sue. John can't sue for actions taken against Steve.

 

[seascape]

The inspections shouldn't be too much of a problem. If they do them like the Department of Health inspections of spas, they will only be done rwice a year. Much less than the Spas inspection currently done by RCID. My only concern is will the CFTOD fire the current inspectors of both types and lead to serious injury or disease spread. That was my concern and reason for speaking on Monday. Florida inspections are a joke and lead to the death on the drop ride on I-Drive. Govenor DeSantis is reponsible for Tryone's death along with the Former Director of the Agriculture Department. Dont let this happen at WDW. At the very least keep both RCID inspections and State inspections. Anything less and these 5 members should be personally liable for any injuries resulting from their lowering health and safety standards. I hope all Florids lawyers do the right thing to this current Board.

 

[Casper Gutman]

That very ruling is why Disney might have problems now.

Disney's position previously was that the company and the district were distinct entities, not just in a technical sense but in practice. Now they have to argue that the dissolution of the district constitutes harm to Disney.

I'm not sure that Disney even has standing. If John engages in speech that the government doesn't like, so the government retaliates against Steve, Steve is the one who suffered an injury and gets to sue. John can't sue for actions taken against Steve.

How about if the government seizes full control of John's HOA, fills it full of unelected cronies, announces its intention to use the power of the HOA to punish John unless he only says things the government likes, and then proceeds to take concrete action to carry out such punishment - think that would be a problem?

 

[mkt]

Disney's position previously was that the company and the district were distinct entities, not just in a technical sense but in practice. Now they have to argue that the dissolution of the district constitutes harm to Disney.

Two arguments could be the lack of relevant qualifications of the members of the new board and the bad faith actions by the board.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

How about if the government seizes full control of John's HOA, fills it full of unelected cronies, announces its intention to use the power of the HOA to punish John unless he only says things the government likes, and then proceeds to take concrete action to carry out such punishment - think that would be a problem?

Different issues.

- Disney can sue the new board for actions taken against Disney by the new board.

- Disney can sue the state for actions taken against Disney by the state.

- I'm not sure Disney can sue the state for actions taken against RCID by the state.

I think the big sexy First Amendment claim falls into that last bucket.

 

[mikejs78]

Disney has stated that Reedy Creek was it's own entity and was NEVER a "puppet govt" of the company. (As they should) So how is the state disolving Reedy Creek a first Ammendment "attack" on Disney? Disney swears that Reedy creek is/was NOT an agent of Disney.

Because the state took away Disney's *representation* in regards to taxation, and put in place a board that has stated publicly that they intend to use the board to influence Disney's content, and are doing things that aren't in the best interest of the *district* which the law requires.

There's no question RCID was a benefit to Disney - it gives Disney a degree of autonomy so they can get certain municipal projects done that they need without the red tape. It also was a benefit to the taxpayers - rather than having the taxpayers foot the bill for roads, fire services, medical services, etc, Disney does. That would not be possible without RCID. Finally, it was of huge benefit to the state by significantly growing the tourism industry and economy in central Florida.

So it was a benefit to Disney, but that doesn't mean it was a puppet of Disney. The FL supreme court already ruled it wasn't. Reedy Creek had a real reputation of being very stringent in enforcing the EPCOT building codes, which are more stringent than the state of FL building codes. If something was off, Reedy Creek enforced it. Would a puppet do that?

The 1 billion in bonds floating out there is a potential massive problem for Disney...if...Reedy Creek was not it"s own TRULY seperate entity.

Not at all. Disney has no ownership of the bonds. They are municipal bonds and belong to Reedy Creek. If Reedy Creek had been dissolved as originally planned, the bonds would have been divided between Orange and Osceola counties. There's also the possibility that the dissolution would have caused the bonds to default. This is why the plan changed and the district was not dissolved, it was instead kept intact and placed under state control, because they couldn't figure out what to do with the bonds. The bonds are paid for over time by property taxes, which Disney pays the vast majority of within the district.

They are public bonds so there is no way they could transfer to a private corporation.

No...they are public bonds on the property. The Central Florida Tourism whatever it's new name is...will levi LEINS on the property in WDW if the bonds are called in and not paid. The counties will not pay that. The "property" is the collateral

They are not. The collateral on any municipal bond is the revenue and taxing authority of the bond issuer. Private property cannot be used for collateral in a municipal bond. That is illegal.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That very ruling is why Disney might have problems now.

Disney's position previously was that the company and the district were distinct entities, not just in a technical sense but in practice. Now they have to argue that the dissolution of the district constitutes harm to Disney.

I'm not sure that Disney even has standing. If John engages in speech that the government doesn't like, so the government retaliates against Steve, Steve is the one who suffered an injury and gets to sue. John can't sue for actions taken against Steve.

Chilling speech is an established concept. Going after associates to claim innocence is a common tactic of authoritarians.

 

[mikejs78]

Disney's position previously was that the company and the district were distinct entities, not just in a technical sense but in practice. Now they have to argue that the dissolution of the district constitutes harm to Disney

They took away Disney's ability to vote for a board that has the power to tax them. That's harm.

Disney can sue the new board for actions taken against Disney by the new board.

Yes and they have.

Disney can sue the state for actions taken against Disney by the state

I'm not sure Disney can sue the state for actions taken against RCID by the state.

They can because the actions weren't taken against RCID. The actions restructured the governing body of Disney world with the express purpose of punishing Disney. They removed Disney's ability to have a vote on who led the district.

 

[LSLS]

Different issues.

- Disney can sue the new board for actions taken against Disney by the new board.

- Disney can sue the state for actions taken against Disney by the state.

- I'm not sure Disney can sue the state for actions taken against RCID by the state.

I think the big sexy First Amendment claim falls into that last bucket.

I can't imagine that last statement isn't true if it was done with an intent to harm the first individual. I mean, wouldn't that mean they could go "If you as an individual speak out against me, I will take your sisters house."

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I mean, wouldn't that mean they could go "If you as an individual speak out against me, I will take your sisters house."

I'm not saying it's okay, it's a question of who gets to sue.

In your example, of course that's illegal. But Sister is the one who was damaged so Sister is the one who files the lawsuit.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm not saying it's okay, it's a question of who gets to sue.

In your example, of course that's illegal. But Sister is the one who was damaged so Sister is the one who files the lawsuit.

But the sister then couldn’t claim an issue related to speech because it wasn’t her speech that was targeted. So the state has free rein to attack associates and that well within the bounds of the law.

 

[Trauma]

I’m don’t know the solution but something needs to change.

I know your political views are vastly different than mine.

I can also tell your a good person who is a passionate in their beliefs.

How do we start to see the good in one another at a large scale?

 

[Andrew C]

How do we start to see the good in one another at a large scale?

We stop viewing the other side as the enemy...

 

[Andrew C]

Everything and I mean EVERYTHING is set up to keep it that way.

It is the goal of politicians...and much of the media if we are honest...
It is much easier to achieve with the 24 hour news cycle combined with social media.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But the sister then couldn’t claim an issue related to speech because it wasn’t her speech that was targeted. So the state has free rein to attack associates and that well within the bounds of the law.

But for your logic to extend the analogy, you would have to argue that Disney and RCID are "associates," which is exactly the opposite of what Disney has claimed in the past.

I just think it's a stretch for Disney to spend decades saying "RCID is a neutral third party, they're not a puppet government controlled by our corporation" and then turn around and claim "woah woah woah, an attack on them is an attack on us."