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

[LAKid53]

The state can take it away….but there does not appear to be a legal path forward to require TWDC to pay for the services that are now provided by the special district. The real rub here is Disney was paying more than their fair share in taxes in exchange for a level of control over the quality of services provided. If you take away the control you also take away the payments. The debate is not whether the state can legally dissolve a special district.

The only way to do that is to create a special district. So if nothing happens, then TWDC will pay the same rate in property taxes I pay.

 

[LAKid53]

Which debate? Whether they can dissolve the district? That‘s already done. So far no lawsuit or legal challenge.

If you mean making Disney pay for the services without a special district that’s not going to be possible without an amendment to the state constitution. The legislature and Governor have no authority to assess additional taxes on an individual taxpayer. Without the special district the cost of the services falls to the local taxpayers in Orange and Osceola counties which would result in a massive tax increase on residents. Just saying that won’t happen is not a plan. So far we’ve seen no actual plan which could accomplish that goal.

Bingo. Thank you.

And as a property owner in Orange County, I am concerned that my property taxes will go up. However, as I'm registered to vote in another Florida County, I will have no say.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No - because rcid suing over how the new law was implemented or written (arguing against its application etc) does not include disney.

Disney filing against the law would be completely separate- and no need to open that can of worms until rcid’s angles have been defeated.

The intent is to harm the District’s constituents. Why would that not be part of an argument package for the District alone? If anything it could help Disney with public perception because it maintains that bit of separation versus Disney themselves fighting to keeping their special treatment, especially if it was after the District tried and failed.

 

[GoofGoof]

The commentary on amending the constitution was meant to suggest that in a general term, the state can effectively do what it likes so long as it follows through the legislative process. No one is suggesting that this is even in play for this issue. Regardless, while extremely unlikely, amending the state constitution is a legislative option that is could be on the table give the current political makeup of the Florida legislature.

I don’t disagree that amending the state constitution is an option and possible. I wasn’t questioning if it could be done but if it should be done.

So my question is should any taxpayer in the state have to pay all their normal local taxes to the county and then pay additional local taxes to a special district where they have no control? That makes no sense to me. In an extreme example what if the Governor appoints his cousin to the board and he hires his son’s company to pave the roads for 10X the current rate and does a terrible job. Now there are potholes everywhere and the taxes double next year to pay the extra cost. A taxpayer should have representation on the board that decides how their tax dollars are spent. Even with representation it’s hard to avoid corruption but without it there is no check at all.

Again, if you take that concept into a vacuum and ignore the politics I don’t think any rational person would say that this seems like something we should do. Do you disagree with that?

 

[flynnibus]

Which ones?
How many?
I'm not nitpicking, but without that information proving intent becomes exponentially more difficult.

No, trying to justify how this dropped out of the blue in a special session with no clear end game or vetting would be the exponentially difficult position to argue that this was not related to the events of the time or the leaders of the GOP or even the sponsors of the bill.

The defendent in the suit would be the dtate of Florida- no one needs to convict every congress person- their actions as a whole will be judged. And given the partyline… again hard to argue it’s not aligned.

 

[LAKid53]

This would be the Florida Constitution. It has nothing to do with the US Constitution.

No one is talking about amending the US Constitution. We are specifically referencing the process to be amend the state constitution. Which can be done in 3 ways - Legislature proposed amendments, citizens' initiatives and recommendations from the Constitutional Revision Commission.

 

[flynnibus]

The intent is to harm the District’s constituents. Why would that not be part of an argument package for the District alone?

I don’t think rcid has any standing in an argument of defending an individual’s rights simply because they are their special district the individual lives in….

They would have to make such arguments in the action that involves the district.

Disney can file suit completely separately and that’s what you’d expect… and to get pulled into federal court.

Tldr - disney’s rights are separate from rcid… and will file their own case if needed.

 

[Stripes]

Getting back to the topic, what exactly would the amendment to the state constitution be for? Allowing the Governor to create a special district where he can appoint the board and that district can then assess taxes on landowners in the district (in addition to the local taxes already paid to the local counties) without any vote or representation in the district? That is what would be needed to replace RCID with a new special district where Disney pays all the taxes and has no control.

For the people in favor of this, does this sound like something we should support? If you put aside political bias and the culture war struggle in this particular case and look at this from a pure government setup prospective nobody should be happy to support an amendment that does this. Would you be happy to pay extra taxes but then have no say in how the funds are spent? Seems like a real bad idea.

That’s what it sounds like they’re trying to do. If that’s the case I have no idea how it’s legal.

When it comes to special district representation, earlier you mentioned there were a few special districts that were controlled by the state but that the state funded the district in one way or another. How was this arranged? Did the landowner have to agree to this arrangement? Do they have voluntary dissolution power?

What power does Florida have to determine how a special district is represented?

 

[LAKid53]

The commentary on amending the constitution was meant to suggest that in a general term, the state can effectively do what it likes so long as it follows through the legislative process. No one is suggesting that this is even in play for this issue. Regardless, while extremely unlikely, amending the state constitution is a legislative option that is could be on the table give the current political makeup of the Florida legislature.

Which has to be approved by the state supreme court to ensure the amendment meets the single subject and clear language requirement before getting put on the 2024 ballot. And then must be approved by 60% of the voters.

 

[LAKid53]

I think we can agree that while the bill sunsets special districts created before the 1968 Florida Constitution, that isn't the real intent. It was aimed at the RCID and other special districts got caught up in the wash due to how the bill was written.

Because Disney would potentially have a case for targeted legislative action if the Legislature didn't abolish all special districts created prior to the 1968 constitution.

 

[LAKid53]

The fact that it was stated by the bill sponsor while in session as part of the debate about the bill, implies that all those who voted for it were aware of the goal. Even if they didn't specifically say it themselves. So, while it's true, nobody will find individual quotes from every single person who voted for this bill, that's a very misleading technicality. It was clearly part of the official debate on the bill. Not just something said on FOX News.

The focus of the special session in which the bill was passed was modified to include the dissolution of RCID.

 

[GoofGoof]

That’s what it sounds like they’re trying to do. If that’s the case I have no idea how it’s legal.

When it comes to special district representation, earlier you mentioned there were a few special districts that were controlled by the state but that the state funded the district in one way or another. How was this arranged? Did the landowner have to agree to this arrangement? Do they have voluntary dissolution power?

What power does Florida have to determine how a special district is represented?

I don’t believe it is legal right now under the current FL state constitution. That’s why the talk of amending the constitution to make that legal. .

 

[LAKid53]

I don’t believe it is legal right now under the current FL state constitution. That’s why the talk of amending the constitution to make that legal. .

Which MUST be put before Florida voters on the general election ballot in November 2024. And passed by 60% of those voting.

Meanwhile, RCID goes by by in June.

 

[GoofGoof]

That’s what it sounds like they’re trying to do. If that’s the case I have no idea how it’s legal.

When it comes to special district representation, earlier you mentioned there were a few special districts that were controlled by the state but that the state funded the district in one way or another. How was this arranged? Did the landowner have to agree to this arrangement? Do they have voluntary dissolution power?

What power does Florida have to determine how a special district is represented?

FYI. Here’s a quote back to the original discussion around districts:

From this link I filtered on districts with the governor appointing the board and then looked at special districts with a revenue source of ad valorem tax. The list is primarily either community hospitals or water and sewer authorities. Most but not all of these have further links to the district sites and some have a link to the piece of legislature that created the district and/or the district rules. For all of the ones I could find that had specific rules listed, all that had government appointed boards had clauses that said the board had to be selected from members of the district. I could not find a single example of a special district with taxing authority that allowed the Governor to appoint board members from outside the district. It is possible that some that don’t list their rules are setup that way, but I couldn’t find any.

http://specialdistrictreports.floridajobs.org/webreports/criteria.aspx

Here’s one example:

From the act that enabled the Halifax Hospital Medical Center:

(1) The governing body of the district shall be a Board of Commissioners which shall consist of seven members, each of whom shall be residents of the district and appointed by the possible

 

[GoofGoof]

Which MUST be put before Florida voters on the general election ballot in November 2024. And passed by 60% of those voting.

Meanwhile, RCID goes by by in June.

I think there’s a high likelihood this is not resolved by June and gets extended. Remember too that FL has term limits so many of the Politicians could just delay and run the clock out and let this be someone else’s mess to clean up. We know the Gov has other ambitions on his mind so he will likely be moving on from this before his 4 year term is up.

 

[LAKid53]

I think there’s a high likelihood this is not resolved by June and gets extended. Remember too that FL has term limits so many of the Politicians could just delay and run the clock out and let this be someone else’s mess to clean up. We know the Gov has other ambitions on his mind so he will likely be moving on from this before his 4 year term is up.

Except that term limits don't prevent a member of the FL House then running for the FL Senate once term limited in the House...or vice versa. Or going away for 2 years, then returning and starting all over again.

 

[Baloo62]

Yes, the market is free to determine their fate, the state is not.

And the handwriting of that determination, along with a myriad of other poor management choices concerning parks and brand, is clearly on the walls. Reedy Creek is the least of Mickey's problems going into 2023.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And the handwriting of that determination, along with a myriad of other poor management choices concerning parks and brand, is clearly on the walls. Reedy Creek is the least of Mickey's problems going into 2023.

This is completely irrelevant. Walt Disney World can go completely bust and the Reedy Creek Improvement District would still exist.

 

[Tonto]

Florida will be under water in 2-3 decades, so Disney needs to cut its losses now and move out of state.

 

[MisterPenguin]

And the free market will determine the wisdom of their decision to do so.

The governor and the legislature are not the free market. The guests at WDW are the free market, and they've been packing them in at the parks.

That Disney has the *right* to be involved in lobbying publicly was decided by the supreme court:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.​

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This means that if its found that the FL government was interfering with Disney's free speech with regard to politicking and campaigning and lobbying, then that will be found to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Disney can speak against and *spend against* any legislation it chooses as a Constitutional right of Free [from government interference] Speech.

You can thank Right-leaning Justices and politics for enshrining what Disney did as Constitutionally protected free speech. It wouldn't surprise me to see this in Federal Courts on these grounds.