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

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Presumably they can't just accept this as they'd be handing a very hostile Florida government a huge amount of power over their operations in the state. Even if DeSantis now promises to play nice in return for a political victory, who's to say how future governments would use this power over them?

All rather insane; the sovereign risk of investing in Florida seems to heading into Venezuela territory.
That state was also just recently gerrymandered into oblivion too…which is not something “small” Disney will have to deal with either

The logical move is to cancel lake Nona…
I would…I bet they can get Sacramento to jump into the game
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
A few years to re-do existing code...

3089 (3) REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING RESOLUTIONS, CODES,
3090 AND REGULATIONS.—On or before July 1, 2026, the district must
3091 undertake a comprehensive review and evaluation of its
3092 comprehensive plan, zoning regulations, land development
3093 regulations, environmental protection regulations, building and
3094 safety codes and regulations, platting and subdivision
3095 regulations, and fire prevention regulations and adopt revisions
3096 to such as the district determines are necessary for health,
3097 safety, and welfare and for consistency with this act.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
2201 Section 4. Board of supervisors; appointments;
2202 organization; term of office; quorum; annual meetings, report,
2203 and minutes.—
2204 (1) The Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida
2205 Tourism Oversight District shall be the governing body of the
2206 district, shall have controlling authority over the district,
2207 and shall exercise the powers granted to the district under this
2208 act and under chapters 189 and 298, Florida Statutes. The board
2209 of supervisors shall consist of five members appointed by the
2210 Governor and confirmed by the Senate, with one member designated
2211 as chair of the board of supervisors and one member designated
2212 as vice chair.

So, what stops or allows, the state to use this same process to simply replace the governing entity of every village/town/city/county in the state of FL?

Assuming a "friendly" legislature and Senate, using this same process, can the Governor and Senate simply take control of all local governments everywhere in the state? Just do away with local elections?

If that's not the correct way to read this, what prevents those that doesn't prevent this one too?
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
But wait, is my understanding correct?

Can they make sweeping changes to the parks WITHOUT Disney’s consent? (Tearing down Dumbo if the state deems it not in line with their vision).
I talked about gerrymandering…which is an ambiguous term usually that is directly applicable here

They can ram it through, Sign it, and have their elected courts rubber stamp it.

It’s why these things matter…actions over ideology. Just the act…not the speeches.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
But wait, is my understanding correct?

Can they make sweeping changes to the parks WITHOUT Disney’s consent? (Tearing down Dumbo if the state deems it not in line with their vision).

I don’t think the district has that type of power over private land use, they are in charge of permits, roads, sewer, etc just like a normal municipality, just like my city can deny me a permit to build a new shed but they dont have the power to tell me to tear down my permitted house.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
Pretty sure this part is unconstitutional under the FL constitution.

Section 24. Ad valorem taxes.—The board of supervisors
3396 shall have the power to levy and assess an ad valorem tax on all
3397 the taxable real and tangible personal property in the district
3398 to pay the principal of and interest on any general obligation
3399 bonds of the district, to provide for any sinking or other funds
3400 established in connection with any such bonds, and to finance
and defray the cost of any of the projects or activities of the
3402 district authorized by the provisions of this act or under law,
3403 provided that the district's ad valorem taxing authority shall
3404 be limited to serving or benefitting the property owners of the
3405 district. The total amount of such ad valorem taxes levied in
3406 any year shall not be in excess of 30 mills on the dollar per
3407 annum on the assessed value of the taxable property within the
3408 district. The ad valorem tax provided for herein shall be in
3409 addition to county and municipal ad valorem taxes provided for
3410 by law.
 

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
Surprised they haven’t cancelled Lake Nona the minute the state got hostile.
Politically at least, they don't have much to gain from announcing a cancellation of Lake Nona.

Those who support this move will just hail it as another victory in the fight to drive wokeness out of the state and it helps that camp to imply some kind of hostility on Disney's part toward Florida. Even if they're rethinking it, they'd be best to keep quiet and (slowly) proceed for now.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
I don’t think the district has that type of power over private land use, they are in charge of permits, roads, sewer, etc just like a normal municipality, just like my city can deny me a permit to build a new shed but they dont have the power to tell me to tear down my permitted house.
The act seems to give them this power. It also gives the district power of eminent domain.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
The act seems to give them this power. It also gives the district power of eminent domain.
If so it’s an easy win for Disney, no court in the land would allow a state to take eminent domain of a private business.

(Without a very justified reason like temporarily taking over a manufacturing facility during war for example.)
 

ctrlaltdel

Well-Known Member
The most obvious issue is the state taking away landowner's voting power for the district while keeping said district in place. This is extremely likely headed to court (assuming it will be settled by the federal courts at some point). This is way thornier and legally dubious than the state just dissolving the district.
 

mightynine

Well-Known Member
The most obvious issue in the State's is taking away landowner's voting power for the district while keeping said district in place. This is extremely likely headed to court (assuming it will be settled by the federal courts at some point). This is way thornier and legally dubious than the state just dissolving the district.
Guessing they think by keeping the district in place but adding another layer of red tape over it, that would keep Reedy Creek's liabilities from being dumped on the local counties. Something they might've considered before dragging out the big ol' rubber stamp before!
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
A few years to re-do existing code...

3089 (3) REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING RESOLUTIONS, CODES,
3090 AND REGULATIONS.—On or before July 1, 2026, the district must
3091 undertake a comprehensive review and evaluation of its
3092 comprehensive plan, zoning regulations, land development
3093 regulations, environmental protection regulations, building and
3094 safety codes and regulations, platting and subdivision
3095 regulations, and fire prevention regulations and adopt revisions
3096 to such as the district determines are necessary for health,
3097 safety, and welfare and for consistency with this act.
So they’re going to investigate the use of the state’s own fire prevention regulations. This totally isn’t being done on a whim.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom