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

mmascari

Well-Known Member
RCID was set up to facilitate Disney's needs that the counties could not provide to support the goal of tourism. It was not for the public needs of the citizens of the state.
I would rephrase this slightly.

"RCID was set up to facilitate land owners within the district boundry needs that the counties could not provide to support the goal of tourism. It was not for the public needs of the citizens of the state."

This is super pedantic I realize. But, it avoids all the talk about some special thing for a corporation. It avoids having endless talk about how Disney isn't the only one impacted by the district. About how Disney shouldn't get to control a government entitity.

Simultanously, it makese clear two things. A government should be responsible to those within it's government control. The change created a government that is not accountable to those it governs which is a direct impact and loss to those subject to it's governance.

Once you remove "Disney" from the description, and whatever someone feels about how Disney is run, it sounds much much worse.
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
I would rephrase this slightly.

"RCID was set up to facilitate land owners within the district boundry needs that the counties could not provide to support the goal of tourism. It was not for the public needs of the citizens of the state."

This is super pedantic I realize. But, it avoids all the talk about some special thing for a corporation. It avoids having endless talk about how Disney isn't the only one impacted by the district. About how Disney shouldn't get to control a government entitity.

Simultanously, it makese clear two things. A government should be responsible to those within it's government control. The change created a government that is not accountable to those it governs which is a direct impact and loss to those subject to it's governance.

Once you remove "Disney" from the description, and whatever someone feels about how Disney is run, it sounds much much worse.
If RCID was setup and intended to support (for all intents and purposes) the Walt Disney Company...if that was RCID's charter, primary directive and goal? Then what leagal or ethical limitations did it have? If Florida intended Disney to have 100% power over RCID, it seems that the company was just given authority to do whatever it pleased?

Could Disney make RCID issue low tax public bonds and turn around and use that money to fund a roller coaster? Why not? RCID's reason for existing was to promote tourism and the land owner's (Disney's) goals?

Some call RCID the "Vatican" for Disney. Was Disney and it's Experimental, Prototype Community of Tomorrow... given somewhat unlimited power via RCID? Was that Florida's intention?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
If RCID was setup and intended to support (for all intents and purposes) the Walt Disney Company...if that was RCID's charter, primary directive and goal? Then what leagal or ethical limitations did it have? If Florida intended Disney to have 100% power over RCID, it seems that the company was just given authority to do whatever it pleased?

Could Disney make RCID issue low tax public bonds and turn around and use that money to fund a roller coaster? Why not? RCID's reason for existing was to promote tourism and the land owner's (Disney's) goals?

Some call RCID the "Vatican" for Disney. Was Disney and it's Experimental, Prototype Community of Tomorrow... given somewhat unlimited power via RCID? Was that Florida's intention?
Have you read the original charter, the state Supreme Court ruling and the legislative research report from 2004?
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
If RCID was setup and intended to support (for all intents and purposes) the Walt Disney Company...if that was RCID's charter, primary directive and goal? Then what leagal or ethical limitations did it have? If Florida intended Disney to have 100% power over RCID, it seems that the company was just given authority to do whatever it pleased?

Could Disney make RCID issue low tax public bonds and turn around and use that money to fund a roller coaster? Why not? RCID's reason for existing was to promote tourism and the land owner's (Disney's) goals?

Some call RCID the "Vatican" for Disney. Was Disney and it's Experimental, Prototype Community of Tomorrow... given somewhat unlimited power via RCID? Was that Florida's intention?
No, municipal bonds couldn't be issued to build a roller coaster. WDW has existed for over 50 years without that happening so why would you think it ever could or would?
 

Chi84

Premium Member
If RCID was setup and intended to support (for all intents and purposes) the Walt Disney Company...if that was RCID's charter, primary directive and goal? Then what leagal or ethical limitations did it have? If Florida intended Disney to have 100% power over RCID, it seems that the company was just given authority to do whatever it pleased?

Could Disney make RCID issue low tax public bonds and turn around and use that money to fund a roller coaster? Why not? RCID's reason for existing was to promote tourism and the land owner's (Disney's) goals?

Some call RCID the "Vatican" for Disney. Was Disney and it's Experimental, Prototype Community of Tomorrow... given somewhat unlimited power via RCID? Was that Florida's intention?
People are directing you to the documents, court decisions and legal analyses that answer your questions. Read them. These questions have been addressed and the legality of RCID upheld by the Florida Supreme Court.
 

mikejs78

Well-Known Member
Disney would then be admitting that RCID was just a "puppet government" of the company and the state actually "hurt" Disney by taking their "puppet" away.

No, they are saying that their representation was taken away from them AND that a board was appointed with the express goal of punishing them and making their life difficult because of their speech.

My guess is that the state will argue that RCID was created to support thousands of citizens like the Villiges does. WDW has virtually zero actual, real citizens.

Well, that would be contrary to what the original legislation that created RCID said.

I also do suspect that Florida's Investigator General is parcing through years of RCID/Disney documents to possibly trap Disney in a corruption accusation. We know the IG is currently digging. We dont know what they are finding

The AG was digging into one specific thing related to the developer agreement. They didn't find anything.

How many times in history have you 100% believed that some case was a CLEAR victory or loss in your opinion....only to find out that a court decided against your belief or understaning?

There's no certainty, and I stated earlier a few things in this case that were not in Disney's favor, but your claims are not based in reality.

Could Disney make RCID issue low tax public bonds and turn around and use that money to fund a roller coaster? Why not? RCID's reason for existing was to promote tourism and the land owner's (Disney's) goals?

No, because the RCID charter specifically stated the things that RCID could do. It placed limits on RCID's powers.
 

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
Another argument is this:

The state never did a thing to stop or hurt Disney's freedom speech. Absolutely nothing at all. In fact, Disney today is still 100% free to say anything they want. They back any poltical movement they choose and attack any politician they deem necessary. They can be an activist for any cause today.

The state only modified "their" RCID government. RCID is not a tool or advocate for the Walt Disney corporation. RCID's responsibility is to the general "public" and needs of the "citizens" of the state of "Florida"

The governor and legislature's actions toward Disney were retaliation. This is undeniable targeted governmental abuse of power. Anyone who denies that is choosing to ignore the public comments that have been made and cited in the case. They went even further with their legislation to void legally binding contracts. These are egregious actions by a government body that violate the protections for both people and business entities granted by the US Constitution.

• Representative Spencer Roach allegedly stated, “If Disney wants to
embrace woke ideology, it seems fitting that they should be regulated
by Orange County”
• Representative Randy Fine allegedly said to the Florida House State
Affairs Committee, “You kick the hornet’s nest, things come up. And
I will say this: You got me on one thing, this bill does target one
company. It targets The Walt Disney Company”
• In his memoir, Governor DeSantis allegedly narrated his legislative
campaign against Disney, writing, “Nobody saw it coming, and Disney
did not have enough time to put its army of high-powered lobbyists to
work to try to derail the bill. . . . Disney had clearly crossed a line in
its support of indoctrinating very young schoolchildren in woke gender
identity politics”
• Senator Joe Gruters, following the successful vote on Senate Bill 4C
dissolving RCID, allegedly proudly exclaimed, “Disney is learning
lessons and paying the political price of jumping out there on an issue”
• Warning corporations against expressing disfavored viewpoints,
Governor DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, allegedly
stated “Go woke, go broke.”

Specifically, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation that dissolved the Reedy Creek Improvement District and barred its successor from enforcing any agreements that had been agreed to before the dissolution. FAC ¶¶ 63, 162. Subsequently, the new district that replaced the RCID issued a declaration that also purported to void such contracts. Id. at ¶ 158. In addition to numerous statements by legislators acknowledging that these actions were meant to target Disney specifically, the Governor wrote in his memoirs that he only learned that other districts would be affected by the legislation after he worked with staff in the House to develop a plan to punish Disney.
While these actions didn't necessarily gag Disney from making additional statements, it is considered a violation of the Constitution and there have been many cases of it brought before the courts where they overturned the enacted laws. I would encourage you to go read Disney's original filing on this and the amicus brief from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, both cases cite numerous examples of similar situations of government retaliation.

The Supreme Court has explained that “as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions . . . for speaking out.” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006).

The Eleventh Circuit has expressly held that “[t]he Government may not retaliate against individuals or associations for their exercise of First Amendment rights by imposing sanctions for the expression of particular views it opposes.” Ga ’n of Educators v. Gwinnett Cnty. Sch. Dist., 856 F.2d 142, 145 (11th Cir. 1988)

You can make the argument about RCID not being Disney, as a few other Internet "lawyers" have, but Disney clarified the connection and damages these actions will have in the case. Also, it defies logic to say that changing RCID doesn't affect Disney. If that were true, then why did the state change the laws, when their stated purpose was to take away their self-governing powers?
Again, I encourage you to read the case or back thru the many pages here where it's been discussed.
 
Last edited:

DCBaker

Premium Member
Chairman of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District has penned a Letter to the Editor to the Orlando Sentinel.

-----

Last week, the new board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District proposed providing economic relief to residents by cutting property tax rates — an action that would have been possible because of the elimination of government waste and abuse. The following day, however, the city councils of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista surprisingly voted to raise property tax rates in order to continue paying the bills for security services used by Disney. The CFTOD board remains convinced that a multibillion-dollar corporation is more than able to cover this cost.

This peculiar, though not wholly unexpected, development makes it that much more apparent why the new CFTOD board is essential as an independent and honest broker. Until the new board was appointed, Disney enjoyed undue influence over many businesses in the district. It further unduly influences city council members, who rent their homes from Disney.

The CFTOD board recognizes that it is up against a corporate behemoth. But it will not be deterred from serving as a champion for all constituents in the district by finally bringing independence, fairness and transparency to the district.

Martin Garcia Tampa
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Maybe you guys can help me. Yesterday, I went to a Mexican restaurant in my neighborhood and told them they should start serving Italian food instead. They just ignored me. I can’t figure out why they continue to do what they want and not listen to me, someone who has never been involved in their business. Somehow they must be up to no good! Clearly the owners have too much sway over what is served in their restaurant!
 

Figgy1

Well-Known Member
Chairman of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District has penned a Letter to the Editor to the Orlando Sentinel.

-----

Last week, the new board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District proposed providing economic relief to residents by cutting property tax rates — an action that would have been possible because of the elimination of government waste and abuse. The following day, however, the city councils of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista surprisingly voted to raise property tax rates in order to continue paying the bills for security services used by Disney. The CFTOD board remains convinced that a multibillion-dollar corporation is more than able to cover this cost.

This peculiar, though not wholly unexpected, development makes it that much more apparent why the new CFTOD board is essential as an independent and honest broker. Until the new board was appointed, Disney enjoyed undue influence over many businesses in the district. It further unduly influences city council members, who rent their homes from Disney.

The CFTOD board recognizes that it is up against a corporate behemoth. But it will not be deterred from serving as a champion for all constituents in the district by finally bringing independence, fairness and transparency to the district.

Martin Garcia Tampa
I don't know if laughing or crying is the proper response to that
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
Maybe you guys can help me. Yesterday, I went to a Mexican restaurant in my neighborhood and told them they should start serving Italian food instead. They just ignored me. I can’t figure out why they continue to do what they want and not listen to me, someone who has never been involved in their business. Somehow they must be up to no good! Clearly the owners have too much sway over what is served in their restaurant!
If someone suggested to McDonalds back in the day to serve burritos for breakfast , the company would probably ignore you on your ridiculous idea. And then the Golden Arches woke up.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Two more amicus briefs have been filed in support of Disney’s federal lawsuit.

The first is from “former governors, senior government attorneys , and other officials.” Court Listener currently does not have the actual brief available. If anyone has a PACER account and is willing to share it would be much appreciated.

Second is from the Leadership Now Project opposing the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
 

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
Two more amicus briefs have been filed in support of Disney’s federal lawsuit.

The first is from “former governors, senior government attorneys , and other officials.” Court Listener currently does not have the actual brief available. If anyone has a PACER account and is willing to share it would be much appreciated.

Second is from the Leadership Now Project opposing the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
 

Attachments

  • 72-1.pdf
    439.4 KB · Views: 203

tissandtully

Well-Known Member
New press release from the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.

Today, District Administrator, Glenton Gilzean announced the abolition of all DEI programs at the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. The announcement comes after the Reedy Creek Improvement District implemented hiring and contracting programs that discriminated against Americans based on gender and race, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

The announcement comes after an internal investigation into the district’s policies. The district’s DEI committee will be dissolved and any DEI job duties will be eliminated. CFTOD staff will also no longer be permitted to use any staff time to pursue DEI initiatives.

“The so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives were advanced during the tenure of the previous board and they were illegal and simply unamerican,” said Administrator Gilzean. “Our district will no longer participate in any attempt to divide us by race or advance the notion that we are not created equal. As the former head of the Central Florida Urban League, a civil rights organization, I can say definitively that our community thrives only when we work together despite our differences.”

Under its Minority/ Women Business Enterprise and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise programs, the Reedy Creek Improvement District routinely awarded contracts based on racially and gender driven goals to businesses on the basis of their owners’ race and gender. Through the program, the Reedy Creek Improvement District instituted gender and racial quotas to ensure that contractors met a certain threshold of diversity. In order to meet these quotas, it is estimated that the district had to pay millions of dollars more in order to find businesses who could comply.

After entering into a contract, Reedy Creek employees aggressively monitored contractor’s racial and gender practices, wasting taxpayer dollars. Previous contracts threatened contractors who did not keep up with racial or gender quotes with nonpayment and disqualification from future bidding.

This seems like more evidence the new board is interfering with TWDC business.
 

Cliff

Well-Known Member
The governor and legislature's actions toward Disney were retaliation. This is undeniable targeted governmental abuse of power. Anyone who denies that is choosing to ignore the public comments that have been made and cited in the case. They went even further with their legislation to void legally binding contracts. These are egregious actions by a government body that violate the protections for both people and business entities granted by the US Constitution.

• Representative Spencer Roach allegedly stated, “If Disney wants to
embrace woke ideology, it seems fitting that they should be regulated
by Orange County”
• Representative Randy Fine allegedly said to the Florida House State
Affairs Committee, “You kick the hornet’s nest, things come up. And
I will say this: You got me on one thing, this bill does target one
company. It targets The Walt Disney Company”
• In his memoir, Governor DeSantis allegedly narrated his legislative
campaign against Disney, writing, “Nobody saw it coming, and Disney
did not have enough time to put its army of high-powered lobbyists to
work to try to derail the bill. . . . Disney had clearly crossed a line in
its support of indoctrinating very young schoolchildren in woke gender
identity politics”
• Senator Joe Gruters, following the successful vote on Senate Bill 4C
dissolving RCID, allegedly proudly exclaimed, “Disney is learning
lessons and paying the political price of jumping out there on an issue”
• Warning corporations against expressing disfavored viewpoints,
Governor DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, allegedly
stated “Go woke, go broke.”

Specifically, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation that dissolved the Reedy Creek Improvement District and barred its successor from enforcing any agreements that had been agreed to before the dissolution. FAC ¶¶ 63, 162. Subsequently, the new district that replaced the RCID issued a declaration that also purported to void such contracts. Id. at ¶ 158. In addition to numerous statements by legislators acknowledging that these actions were meant to target Disney specifically, the Governor wrote in his memoirs that he only learned that other districts would be affected by the legislation after he worked with staff in the House to develop a plan to punish Disney.
While these actions didn't necessarily gag Disney from making additional statements, it is considered a violation of the Constitution and there have been many cases of it brought before the courts where they overturned the enacted laws. I would encourage you to go read Disney's original filing on this and the amicus brief from The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, both cases cite numerous examples of similar situations of government retaliation.

The Supreme Court has explained that “as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions . . . for speaking out.” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006).

The Eleventh Circuit has expressly held that “[t]he Government may not retaliate against individuals or associations for their exercise of First Amendment rights by imposing sanctions for the expression of particular views it opposes.” Ga ’n of Educators v. Gwinnett Cnty. Sch. Dist., 856 F.2d 142, 145 (11th Cir. 1988)

You can make the argument about RCID not being Disney, as a few other Internet "lawyers" have, but Disney clarified the connection and damages these actions will have in the case. Also, it defies logic to say that changing RCID doesn't affect Disney. If that were true, then why did the state change the laws, when their stated purpose was to take away their self-governing powers?
Again, I encourage you to read the case or back thru the many pages here where it's been discussed.
I agree completely. For DeSantis and the legislator to join this RCID action with Disney's political activism was terribly stupid. All of these comments they made in public really threw a monkey wrench into this whole mess. They made the First Ammendment a legitimate issue in this thing.

There should have been a "gag order" on every proponant of this in the legislator to NOT merge these two issues and to always keep them away from each other. Yes,..everything you listed was a ridiculas PR mistake by the state.

Me?...I dont think that RCID should have "ever" existed in they way they wrote it from the beginning. I remember first hearing about RCID in the late 80's and even then, the idea of it didnt sit well with me. It seems the more I read about it, the more I dont like way it was assembled. It feels that Florida was just so happy to get Disney that they sold their soul in order to please them and that does not sit well with me....and this has nothing to do with Disney's poltical activism against Florida. I think RCID was flawed from day one.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I agree completely. For DeSantis and the legislator to join this RCID action with Disney's political activism was terribly stupid. All of these comments they made in public really threw a monkey wrench into this whole mess. They made the First Ammendment a legitimate issue in this thing.

There should have been a "gag order" on every proponant of this in the legislator to NOT merge these two issues and to always keep them away from each other. Yes,..everything you listed was a ridiculas PR mistake by the state.

Me?...I dont think that RCID should have "ever" existed in they way they wrote it from the beginning. I remember first hearing about RCID in the late 80's and even then, the idea of it didnt sit well with me. It seems the more I read about it, the more I dont like way it was assembled. It feels that Florida was just so happy to get Disney that they sold their soul in order to please them and that does not sit well with me....and this has nothing to do with Disney's poltical activism against Florida. I think RCID was flawed from day one.
So they should have engaged in a conspiracy?

Have you read any of the documents you’ve been provided?
 

scottieRoss

Well-Known Member
I agree completely. For DeSantis and the legislator to join this RCID action with Disney's political activism was terribly stupid. All of these comments they made in public really threw a monkey wrench into this whole mess. They made the First Ammendment a legitimate issue in this thing.

There should have been a "gag order" on every proponant of this in the legislator to NOT merge these two issues and to always keep them away from each other. Yes,..everything you listed was a ridiculas PR mistake by the state.

Me?...I dont think that RCID should have "ever" existed in they way they wrote it from the beginning. I remember first hearing about RCID in the late 80's and even then, the idea of it didnt sit well with me. It seems the more I read about it, the more I dont like way it was assembled. It feels that Florida was just so happy to get Disney that they sold their soul in order to please them and that does not sit well with me....and this has nothing to do with Disney's poltical activism against Florida. I think RCID was flawed from day one.
Cliff
Your post shows a complete misunderstanding of the District.
As has been shown in the multiple posts including both the charter for the district as well as the reviews of the District, the District was founded by the state, not to regulate Disney, but rather to support the company in the creation of their Vacation Kingdom.
The RCID was charged with providing services to the landowner(s), to be controlled by the landowner(s), and to give the landowner the unique powers that a municipality has, in order to keep that burden from the local counties.
Rather than waiting for the counties to create and manage the roadways that the company needed, they could be self-funded by the company thru RCID. Rather than forcing the counties to pay for emergency services, the company could self-fund them thru RCID. Rather than force the counties to pay for and provide vector control over the thousands of acres, the company could self-fund it through the RCID.
There is a pattern to this. Disney self-funded and provided the services that were needed by, in addition to the same taxes paid to the county to provide served, taxing itself and paying into the municipal corporation and then the district spent the money to provide the service to visitors of the company.
In the end, paid the same property taxes to the county as every other owner in the county but did not receive the services from the counties. This supported all of the other county residents by lowering their tax obligations while paying the additional per mil taxes to the district to actually provide the service. A win for the residents of the county and the state.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom