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

[Sir_Cliff]

He is a rather novice politician looking for fame…and at the end of the day - donations for campaigns and PACs…lucrative “consulting” jobs for the rest of his days.

Florida is not going to “stick it” to their biggest tax generator.

And again…it was done for cover of a gerrymander district map that’s going to get struck down in court anyway…

I wouldn't be so sure the economic logic would win out over the political one in this case. DeSantis was just saying the other day he is worried about companies moving from liberal states and bringing their employees who vote for left-wing policies to Florida. You can see the narrative being formed should Disney cancel Lake Nona or see its business impacted by an intransigent state government determined to punish them: less California liberals is good for Florida and a warning to other companies that if you go woke, you go broke. WDW 'going broke' is a win, in other words.

The communities most impacted don't lean Republican anyway and Disney isn't so financially important to these politicians that the political cost of losing them is necessarily greater than the benefit of using Disney to rile up their base and get donations from elsewhere.

The courts are another issue and I think that's where we're likely to see all of this struck down... eventually. Perhaps the threat of imminent legal challenges will be enough to lead to negotiations. Even there, the courts are becoming so politicised that who the hell knows and I certainly wouldn't hold out much faith that cooler heads will prevail among those who pushed this bill in the first place.

In short, I wouldn't bet too much on "it'll never happen" as any logic beyond the political one has gone out the window in this case.

 

[Goofyernmost]

In the 60s in FL there were no roads. There was no infrastructure. There was no electrical grid to support Disney's theme park. It just didn't exist. All the municipal services that would be needed to build something the scale of WDW would have had to be funded by the taxpayer - of which there weren't many.

Not True, I-4 existed and so did Rte 192 both connecting with I-75 and was a key factor in the location decision. Walt himself stated that when he saw where those highways intersected he knew that was the place.

Granted the infrastructure was nothing like it is today and Orlando and Kissimmee were just farming communities, but the backbone was there.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Nope it's the precise reason that Steve axed the politics section. Every side believes it has some special insight or moral imperative that places it's position above all others. That's between them and their makers to be judged on.

I really don’t believe “their makers” , whatever maker they happen to believe in, cares one iota about this. Just a feeling.

 

[networkpro]

I really don’t believe “their makers” , whatever maker they happen to believe in, cares one iota about this. Just a feeling.

Much nicer than Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I wouldn't be so sure the economic logic would win out over the political one in this case. DeSantis was just saying the other day he is worried about companies moving from liberal states and bringing their employees who vote for left-wing policies to Florida. You can see the narrative being formed should Disney cancel Lake Nona or see its business impacted by an intransigent state government determined to punish them: less California liberals is good for Florida and a warning to other companies that if you go woke, you go broke. WDW 'going broke' is a win, in other words.

The communities most impacted don't lean Republican anyway and Disney isn't so financially important to these politicians that the political cost of losing them is necessarily greater than the benefit of using Disney to rile up their base and get donations from elsewhere.

The courts are another issue and I think that's where we're likely to see all of this struck down... eventually. Perhaps the threat of imminent legal challenges will be enough to lead to negotiations. Even there, the courts are becoming so politicised that who the hell knows and I certainly wouldn't hold out much faith that cooler heads will prevail among those who pushed this bill in the first place.

In short, I wouldn't bet too much on "it'll never happen" as any logic beyond the political one has gone out the window in this case.

Again…that’s a “novice” move. You don’t spout on camera. Amateurs.

 

[wdwmagic]

Please everyone, remember this thread is specifically about RCID, not a general politics thread. Please remain on-topic and respects other's differing opinions. Thanks.

 

[ParentsOf4]

So…

What does everyone think about Disney’s opening salvo?

In case you missed it, RCID issued a statement that when the Reedy Creek Act was passed in 1967, the State of Florida promised that it would not interfere with RCID’s bonds. (At Disney, bonds typically are used to pay for capital investments like road improvements, and there have been several of these at WDW in recent years.)

RCID states that the bill to terminate RCID breaks this promise.

Is this a good opening salvo?

Any other thoughts?

 

[GoofGoof]

So…

What does everyone think about Disney’s opening salvo?

In case you missed it, RCID issued a statement that when the Reedy Creek Act was passed in 1967, the State of Florida promised that it would not interfere with RCID’s bonds. (At Disney, bonds typically are used to pay for capital investments like road improvements, and there have been several of this at WDW in recent years.)

RCID states that the bill to terminate RCID breaks this promise.

Is this a good opening salvo?

Any other thoughts?

Simple, easy to follow and not really disputable. That was brought up earlier in the thread.

Municipal bonds are exempt from Federal Securities registration with the SEC (unlike equities and corporate debt), but they are still subject to anti-fraud and other Federal Securities laws so it is not possible for the FL legislature to just pass a law to reverse this clause in the contracts. So far their response about the debt is that it won’t go to the counties and they will make Disney pay for it, but there’s no legal way to actually make that happen.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Simple, easy to follow and not really disputable. That was brought up earlier in the thread.

Municipal bonds are exempt from Federal Securities registration with the SEC (unlike equities and corporate debt), but they are still subject to anti-fraud and other Federal Securities laws so it is not possible for the FL legislature to just pass a law to reverse this clause in the contracts. So far their response about the debt is that it won’t go to the counties and they will make Disney pay for it, but there’s no legal way to actually make that happen.

I agree…they are also correct.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

So…

What does everyone think about Disney’s opening salvo?

In case you missed it, RCID issued a statement that when the Reedy Creek Act was passed in 1967, the State of Florida promised that it would not interfere with RCID’s bonds. (At Disney, bonds typically are used to pay for capital investments like road improvements, and there have been several of these at WDW in recent years.)

RCID states that the bill to terminate RCID breaks this promise.

Is this a good opening salvo?

Any other thoughts?

I think it's a very sound argument and - based on the Bloomberg article that was posted here yesterday by another user - is indisputable based on FL and federal law. The government can't break a contract just because they feel like it. So it seems like the options just from that are:

1. Leave RCID as it is.
2. Leave RCID in place until the last bond is paid off.
3. Try to end RCID before the bonds are paid off, but that can't happen until 2029 at the earliest because there's a bond maturing that year that has a clause preventing early payoff. This option would also end up angering people across the country who own RCID bonds since paying off the other bonds early takes away a source of tax-free earnings for the bondholders. It would also dump a huge lump sum burden on the counties as they would have to pay off the remaining balances on all outstanding bonds in 2029 upon dissolution of RCID.

And even if options 2 & 3 are possible under the law as it applies to the bonds, that still ignores the other legal arguments for preventing the dissolution such as the requirement that the RCID voters approve the dissolution and the obvious 1st Amendment argument.

 

[ctrlaltdel]

I think it's a very sound argument and - based on the Bloomberg article that was posted here yesterday by another user - is indisputable based on FL and federal law. The government can't break a contract just because they feel like it. So it seems like the options just from that are:

1. Leave RCID as it is.
2. Leave RCID in place until the last bond is paid off.
3. Try to end RCID before the bonds are paid off, but that can't happen until 2029 at the earliest because there's a bond maturing that year that has a clause preventing early payoff. This option would also end up angering people across the country who own RCID bonds since paying off the other bonds early takes away a source of tax-free earnings for the bondholders. It would also dump a huge lump sum burden on the counties as they would have to pay off the remaining balances on all outstanding bonds in 2029 upon dissolution of RCID.

And even if options 2 & 3 are possible under the law as it applies to the bonds, that still ignores the other legal arguments for preventing the dissolution such as the requirement that the RCID voters approve the dissolution and the obvious 1st Amendment argument.

Couldn't RCID continue taking out new debt to legally continue existing? I am certain that even without the dissolution law, they would always have significant bond debt because that is just how governments (really any large organization) operate.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I think it's a very sound argument and - based on the Bloomberg article that was posted here yesterday by another user - is indisputable based on FL and federal law. The government can't break a contract just because they feel like it. So it seems like the options just from that are:

1. Leave RCID as it is.
2. Leave RCID in place until the last bond is paid off.
3. Try to end RCID before the bonds are paid off, but that can't happen until 2029 at the earliest because there's a bond maturing that year that has a clause preventing early payoff. This option would also end up angering people across the country who own RCID bonds since paying off the other bonds early takes away a source of tax-free earnings for the bondholders. It would also dump a huge lump sum burden on the counties as they would have to pay off the remaining balances on all outstanding bonds in 2029 upon dissolution of RCID.

And even if options 2 & 3 are possible under the law as it applies to the bonds, that still ignores the other legal arguments for preventing the dissolution such as the requirement that the RCID voters approve the dissolution and the obvious 1st Amendment argument.

It seems to me the bonds will be the issue. I am hopeful it can be stopped or delayed till the bonds are paid off.

Somebody correct me, but the law to dissolve RCID has a notwithstanding clause about RCID voters having to approve, so that’s out.

If they could have used the vote to stop it, that would have been easy.

 

[Prince-1]

So…

What does everyone think about Disney’s opening salvo?

In case you missed it, RCID issued a statement that when the Reedy Creek Act was passed in 1967, the State of Florida promised that it would not interfere with RCID’s bonds. (At Disney, bonds typically are used to pay for capital investments like road improvements, and there have been several of these at WDW in recent years.)

RCID states that the bill to terminate RCID breaks this promise.

Is this a good opening salvo?

Any other thoughts?

Well I hope that they have more than that than complaining about broken promises. Either way I expect that at the end of all of this nothing will have changed. DeSantis will think he earned some presidential brownie points for fighting against a "Woke" company and Disney will think they won because the RCID will remain the same. It is the people in Orange/Osceola Counties who will be the losers. They are like the children in a messy divorce battle.

 

[niro]

I think it's a very sound argument and - based on the Bloomberg article that was posted here yesterday by another user - is indisputable based on FL and federal law. The government can't break a contract just because they feel like it. So it seems like the options just from that are:

1. Leave RCID as it is.
2. Leave RCID in place until the last bond is paid off.
3. Try to end RCID before the bonds are paid off, but that can't happen until 2029 at the earliest because there's a bond maturing that year that has a clause preventing early payoff. This option would also end up angering people across the country who own RCID bonds since paying off the other bonds early takes away a source of tax-free earnings for the bondholders. It would also dump a huge lump sum burden on the counties as they would have to pay off the remaining balances on all outstanding bonds in 2029 upon dissolution of RCID.

And even if options 2 & 3 are possible under the law as it applies to the bonds, that still ignores the other legal arguments for preventing the dissolution such as the requirement that the RCID voters approve the dissolution and the obvious 1st Amendment argument.

So this simply amounts to a paltry for the optics temper tantrum thrown by a group of individuals who are upset because another group of individuals don't agree on a said subject.

 

[Ayla]

Here we go again with the condescending attitude that stupid hicks don't know what's good for them. They're getting conned by right-wingers and tent revivalists until they believe all the lies that've made them so wrong. They don't know any better. That's why they're voting against their own self-interest. While the enlightened are the educated, coastal, and professional democrats.

Good for you for finally recognizing it.

 

[Polkadotdress]

So…

What does everyone think about Disney’s opening salvo?

In case you missed it, RCID issued a statement that when the Reedy Creek Act was passed in 1967, the State of Florida promised that it would not interfere with RCID’s bonds. (At Disney, bonds typically are used to pay for capital investments like road improvements, and there have been several of these at WDW in recent years.)

RCID states that the bill to terminate RCID breaks this promise.

Is this a good opening salvo?

Any other thoughts?

I LOVE that this is the ultimate example of the bill sponsors "not doing their homework."

Can I ask for a refund of the $ spent during the special legislative session to pass the bill?

 

[mgf]

Is this a good opening salvo?

IMO - Yes, and it is likely the only salvo needed. This is pretty cut and dry. It could nullify the whole issue and/or keep the thing tied up in courts for years and years. Additionally, Disney likely won't be the lead plaintiff (or perhaps a named plaintiff at all) on lawsuits so it will be harder and harder to keep the media circus whipped up. People won't care as much about municipalities and random investors making legal headlines. Finally, any specific action taken to counteract these existing provisions will have the second order effect of significantly bolstering the 1A claim if Disney ever needed to make it (IMO - they don't want to touch that with 1,000 ft pole). We move from legislation conveniently hitting 6 special districts to very specific and targeted action against 1 out of 6 special districts that made public statements opposing a law.

 

[mgf]

The Florida state constitution includes a clause that allows the legislature to remove a special district’s powers to issue new bonds. Like the bill to eliminate RCID, this requires a simple majority vote.

This would really mess up RCID’s ability to support capital projects at WDW, as they would no longer be able to issue bonds.

My opinion is that if RCID tried to fight this in state court, they would lose because the Florida constitution should trump the Reedy Creek Act.

Yes, but then you are specifically asking lawmakers to shift future debt burdens from a private company to taxpayers. Now that the issue is widely understood and publicized I suspect that majority won't be quite as easy to find.

 

[KevinYee]

Man, where have you been? The biggest bomb in Disney news since Eisner announced MGM studios and you've been silent? What's going on?

When I pulled back on blogging and writing a few years ago, I stopped even commenting on boards. I did lurk, however, but I've been allowing myself to not obsess over every detail. Life simply got busy! That said, certainly I was tracking this story (predicted this RCID outcome, even, to a couple of friends, seconds after Chapek issued the goal of rescinding the law). But I've always preferred my online theme park analysis to avoid direct partisan politics. As a (onetime) blogger, that's simple math - half the population, more of less, is not going to like any given partisan position.

And THIS topic is about as partisan as you can get. As others have noted in earlier pages, it's almost impossible to discuss without revealing your political bent. The mods here have been incredible, as has the majority of the posting public. It's really impressive how mature the conversation, by and large, has been.

I haven't ruled out a return to blogging at some point, and words you type are forever, so I'm going to continue to not weigh in on this particular topic. I'd make some crack about wanting to instead debate costs of marathons and festival drinks, but the reality is that while I still visit the parks, I don't buy the food or drinks. I'm priced out.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So…

What does everyone think about Disney’s opening salvo?

In case you missed it, RCID issued a statement that when the Reedy Creek Act was passed in 1967, the State of Florida promised that it would not interfere with RCID’s bonds. (At Disney, bonds typically are used to pay for capital investments like road improvements, and there have been several of these at WDW in recent years.)

RCID states that the bill to terminate RCID breaks this promise.

Is this a good opening salvo?

Any other thoughts?

It’s a rather simple, matter of fact pro for a statement. Since this is all about posturing it takes the wind out of the sails. There’s no way to attack the statement. Saying bond holders are going to harmed would be political suicide, and the more you go up the ladder the more it would be a serious problem for the state. There’s a reason we so instantly got talk of a plan to deal with the debt and costs.

I think Disney’s best course might just be to wait until after the election. They avoid the publicity fight by doing that. Supporters can float about winning while opponents point to all of the unknowns, including costs. Then the flood gates can be opened after it’s no longer a campaign issue. Worst case your fighting a DeSantis led state just as you would be now, best case there is a change to someone who isn’t going to push the state’s case hard.

What does surprise is that we haven’t seen anything from anyone in the courts. Disney is not the only party with standing and a court order delaying the dissolution of the districts seems almost certain.

Couldn't RCID continue taking out new debt to legally continue existing? I am certain that even without the dissolution law, they would always have significant bond debt because that is just how governments (really any large organization) operate.

I made a comment before this actually happened about how they should go on a bond issuing spree. Keeping the bonds going for the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority is really what made Robert Moses so power in mid-century New York. He ensured the bonds would never be paid off in full while he was around. He would invest surplus toll revenue into other projects that would get them tied up into the web of investments and revenues.