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

[CaptainMickey]

Too bad DeSantis can't appoint Chapek to the CFTOD board. That would definitely be more entertaining then any of Disney's new movies lately.

 

[mkt]

just lock it once and for all.

 

[Brian]

Too bad DeSantis can't appoint Chapek to the CFTOD board. That would definitely be more entertaining then any of Disney's new movies lately.

They can make at least one feature length film and a mini-series on Disney+ out of that.

 

[mightynine]

Today, things happened. I do not mean to imply things happened for one reason or another. But I hope we are able to discuss the happening of things by acknowledging the fact that things happened.

Please discuss as one does on a discussion forum.

 

[castlecake2.0]

Section 2, Section 13 gives the district power to exercise its authority within any other existing or future state subdivision that exists within its boundaries. It specifically says this power in incorporated areas (the cities) is the same as it would be in unincorporated areas. It then goes on to state that if there is a conflict between the district’s powers and other political subdivision’s powers, the district’s authority takes precedence.

Section 2, Section 23 (2) then says the district “must exercise its authority […] including within the city limits of any municipality within the district.”

The end of Section 3 says “board members, officers, and employees of the district may not sell, dispose of, encumber, transfer, or expend the assets of the district as such assets existed on the effective date of this act, other than in the ordinary course of business.”

But can the two cities just remove themselves from the district and be their own municipalities?

 

[scottieRoss]

I searched through the legislation myself and I could not find anything about the district having increased authority over BL and LBV, and nothing regarding the transferring of assets or responsibilities back to the cities.

Chad Emerson, the author of a book on the creation of WDW and a former law professor, was quoted by the Orlando Sentinel following the release of the legislation:

I said that the other day. I think that is the backup plan. And as home rule cities, they can issue and compete for tax free municipal bonds. Would love to see the irony of the cities standing up, taking advantage of their inherrant rights and even opening their own Fire and PD departments and leave CFTOD with a bunch of not-needed equipment and firefighers then begging for jobs at BLFD and LBVFD.
Let CFTOD providing flood control

 

[lazyboy97o]

But can the two cities just remove themselves from the district and be their own municipalities?

No, they cannot. The boundaries of the district were set by the state. The district is designed to prevent Bay Lake, Lake Buena Vista, another city like Orlando or the counties from trying to come in and claim authority.

I said that the other day. I think that is the backup plan. And as home rule cities, they can issue and compete for tax free municipal bonds. Would love to see the irony of the cities standing up, taking advantage of their inherrant rights and even opening their own Fire and PD departments and leave CFTOD with a bunch of not-needed equipment and firefighers then begging for jobs at BLFD and LBVFD.
Let CFTOD providing flood control

They can’t. The authority of the district supersedes that of the cities. That’s what makes this unconstitutional. It’s an end run around the cities’ right to home rule and it is a horrible precedent that Disney is allowing to be set. This really is a blueprint for the state to take control of any city or county it dislikes.

 

[Stripes]

Section 2, Section 13 gives the district power to exercise its authority within any other existing or future state subdivision that exists within its boundaries. It specifically says this power in incorporated areas (the cities) is the same as it would be in unincorporated areas. It then goes on to state that if there is a conflict between the district’s powers and other political subdivision’s powers, the district’s authority takes precedence.

Section 2, Section 23 (2) then says the district “must exercise its authority […] including within the city limits of any municipality within the district.”

The end of Section 3 says “board members, officers, and employees of the district may not sell, dispose of, encumber, transfer, or expend the assets of the district as such assets existed on the effective date of this act, other than in the ordinary course of business.”

Yes. I’m afraid you are correct. For anyone curious, here’s the relevant text.

 

[Stripes]

I don’t think Disney will have a much of a problem with the new board. One thing we did learn today is that most of the board does not like attention, with a few even saying they want the district out of the headlines.

Boy, this company could be their worst nightmare if it wants to be.

 

[TP2000]

Comments from Josh D'Amaro in a new article at the Orlando Business Journal.

"D'Amaro was careful to not discuss politics too much, choosing instead to speak on the theme park segment he oversees. He said he can't control how state leaders feel about the company, so he will stick to the things he can control — Walt Disney World and its sister parks.

"We will stay focused on what we have always done," he said. "Look at how we run our business. Look at the investments we are making in our business. As long as I can keep providing that, take care of our cast members, the Central Florida community [and] take care of these guests ... I'm in good shape. I can only control what I can control.""

----

"D'Amaro declined to get into the politics of the Reedy Creek district dispute, possible future political contributions or if there would be any legal challenge to the law. He said he is just making sure the parks and the cast members who keep it operating are in good hands — including the new district board's hands.

"The reality is we work with different people around the world at our different theme parks. So we know how to work with different people. For all those reasons, I have to look at the situation of where we are going — I believe in where we are going — and I hope the board sees the same." It's why he said he's optimistic about the park's future, and his message to the new board is that he hopes they understand the value the district and Disney create for the region and what's needed to keep that going.

"If that new board understands the value that gets created here and how it positively impacts the Central Florida community, I think they will be aligned with our vision and will carry on the Reedy Creek soul that's been in place," he said.

As for the guests visiting the local theme parks daily, D'Amaro said Walt Disney World still embraces the differences in the world and welcomes all kinds of visitors, regardless of their political backgrounds or other beliefs. That flag is something he is holding onto tightly as Disney embarks with the new district board and that board's reported closely tied political viewpoints.

"Will there be noise on the outside? Will there be different points of view that we may not like? Sure," he said, noting the company still will find success continuing to serve all types of people even if their beliefs may be different. "I really believe that, so we are not going to get distracted."

The new board for the Reedy Creek district will meet for the first time on March 8. The new board likely will address compensation of the district's first responders, DeSantis previously said.

Officials with DeSantis' office and Reedy Creek district were not available for comment."

The full article can be found at the link below.

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2023/03/07/florida-disney-josh-damaro-reedy-creek-desantis.html

This is all very good news! Sanity has returned to Disney's senior executive ranks.

This interview with Mr. D'Amaro is exactly the type of language and tone and relatively non-political statements that should have been made on this topic from the very beginning. And if they had handled it this way from the beginning, the original 1966 RCID structure would still be in place. If Disney's execs wanted to let the California employees be mad at the senior execs in private in employee town halls at the Studios campuses then that would have been fine, and kept in private 3,000 miles away.

But Disney's senior execs never should have been as public as Chapek and a few others were allowed to be in '22 over this.

Mr. D'Amaro and his Communications and Government Relations teams obviously now all understand the mistakes they made and are taking a new strategy and tone, like in this interview above. Bravo!

 

[kong1802]

This is all very good news! Sanity has returned to Disney's senior executive ranks.

This interview with Mr. D'Amaro is exactly the type of language and tone and relatively non-political statements that should have been made on this topic from the very beginning. And if they had handled it this way from the beginning, the original 1966 RCID structure would still be in place. If Disney's execs wanted to let the California employees be mad at the senior execs in private in employee town halls at the Studios campuses then that would have been fine, and kept in private 3,000 miles away.

But Disney's senior execs never should have been as public as Chapek and a few others were allowed to be in '22 over this.

Mr. D'Amaro and his Communications and Government Relations teams obviously now all understand the mistakes they made and are taking a new strategy and tone, like in this interview above. Bravo!

There’s never a valid reason for government to retaliate over free speech.

Let’s hope sanity returns to the FL government one day and it realizes this!

 

[lazyboy97o]

DeSantis' new Disney World board holds first meeting, hints at big changes including eliminating cities

The first meeting of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, Walt Disney World's new governing board, included discussion of COVID-19 measures by its conservative members.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[lazyboy97o]

What caught my eye was the apparent discussion regarding dissolving the cities. It shows an awareness that the cities could pose a threat to the District and that they’ve been rendered useless by the new structure.

Stating that they will not be focused on the landowners is just more explicit statements that this isn’t being calmed down.

The special counsel is definitely a nice bit of patronage as well.

 

[Stripes]

From the article

Assuming that is the goal, it could easily be restated as "goal is to represent those outside the district and impose their views on those inside the district instead of the views of those actually being governed inside the district".

That same reasoning could be used to replace the government of any city or county with outsiders with the goal of "representing those from outside instead of the governed".

It feels very explicitly anti-Disney, since it's Disney that is the only governed here.

I would’ve expected a much greater focus (at least rhetorically) on the interests of taxpayers by the board members given their politics.

Obviously the vast, vast majority of RCID’s tax revenue is from WDW.

 

[Nubs70]

There’s never a valid reason for government to retaliate over free speech.

Let’s hope sanity returns to the FL government one day and it realizes this!

Government can also change laws by established procedures.

 

[mkt]

Government can also change laws by established procedures.

They can't restrict free speech

 

[Riviera Rita]

They can't restrict free speech

But, they can try.

 

[mkt]

But, they can try.

And they are definitely trying.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Until Bellotti in 1978, most states had laws restricting the First Amendment rights of corporations. There were many reasons behind this.

Until the DeSantis/Disney fiasco, progressives regularly railed against the power of corporations. For example, the four liberal justices of the Supreme Court (including Sotomayor) wrote in their dissenting opinion in Citizens United:

Postratification practice bolsters the conclusion that the First Amendment, “as originally understood,” … did not give corporations political speech rights on a par with the rights of individuals. Well into the modern era of general incorporation statutes, “[t]he common law was generally interpreted as prohibiting corporate political participation,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 819 (1978) (White, J., dissenting), and this Court did not recognize any First Amendment protections for corporations until the middle part of the 20th century.​

Note that this Citizens United minority opinion harks back to the minority opinion in Bellotti.

Bellotti was a 5-4 decision.

The more recent Citizens United also was a 5-4 decision.

The Supreme Court has overruled many previous decisions within the last 10 years. Now it looks like they are preparing to overrule affirmative action. It would not be surprising if the conservative majority revisited the 5-4 decisions in Bellotti and Citizens United to find some way to rule against Disney, if a case came before them.

If you think that Sotomayor would reverse her opinion in Citizens United to rule for Disney, then you also have to accept that Thomas and Alito also might reverse themselves to rule against Disney.

The three newest conservative justices were not on the Court for Citizens United. Given how many Supreme Court rulings have been overruled in recent years, there's little reason to believe these three newest conservative justices would feel bound by Bellotti or Citizens United.

 

[mmascari]

Until Bellotti in 1978, most states had laws restricting the First Amendment rights of corporations. There were many reasons behind this.

What were the penalties for breaking those laws?
What was the substance of what was actually being regulated?

Until the DeSantis/Disney fiasco, progressives regularly railed against the power of corporations.

This is gross simplification removing all nuance and substance breaking the positions down to one team vs the other. That's not how things actually work (normally, at least outside the media). There's a world of difference between companies shouldn't be allowed to spend untold amounts of money to influence politics bordering on direct payment for special treatment and companies shouldn't have any representation in the government that controls where they are located, including that employees that live in that jurisdiction should also have no representation.

The structure of the district, it's boarders, the land owners within, the actual people that live within it. All of that isn't some glossed over thing or some type of hack. All of it is fundamental to how the district was constructed, how and why it works, how it functions within the defined system of city/district/county/state governance.

If you think that Sotomayor would reverse her opinion in Citizens United to rule for Disney, then you also have to accept that Thomas and Alito also might reverse themselves to rule against Disney.

I think they'll all look at how the law apply based on the situation at hand. Including all the details that are different.

The three newest conservative justices were not on the Court for Citizens United. Given how many Supreme Court rulings have been overruled in recent years, there's no reason to believe these three newest conservative justices would feel bound by Bellotti or Citizens United.

If we assume that the court has become a team sport of one side vs the other with no consideration of the law. That it's only about one team's position vs the other and how to back into some decision that supports that, while ignoring the details, then the court is lost already and a third of our government structure is gone. That's pretty dark. Darker than the darkest dark ride.