Chi84
Premium Member
This was discussed extensively earlier in the thread, with all kinds of supporting and explanatory documents as to the nature of RCID and how/why it was set up as it was. I'm assuming you haven't read any of that.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
I dont think that the state of Florida is reading this forum...or it's attournys...or the courts are either...
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
Of course Disney was hurt.
They entered into a deal in which they shoulder a heavier burden in terms of paying for things like roads. In exchange, they got to control the decision making process.
The deal Disney had was changed, to their disadvantage, as punishment for speech.
It couldn't be simpler or more clear.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
No, but they should be reading the amicus brief and their own state laws and regulations. Hint, being a puppet government is irrelevant.
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. I think Disney has placed 8 people in mobile homes to "act" as legal citizens of RCID? I dunno.
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 but I'm "GUESSING" this will be a future plan of the state against Disney.
Again....non of us knows what both sides are planning behind closed doors. Like all of us here...we are just spit-balling in the dark. I suspect that this fight will get WAY uglier in the future.
What "we" all say on this forum does not matter. It's how the "courts" define and judge the problems that matter. Many of us thought thid was a "slam dunk" for Disney but Im guessing that it's not that easy anymore.
Wrong. 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.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Again, irrelevant. The information has been provided to you.
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?
I bet a hundred times in your life.
Every lawyer believes "their" understanding of a law is correct. Half of them win, the other half loses.
Even the smartest, sharpest, brightest Harvard-trained lawyers lose...because the courts do not agree with them
Last edited:
Chi84
Premium Member
That could be the most inaccurate statement I’ve seen on this site, and that’s saying something
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
This has nothing to do with certainty. Recognizing uncertainty does not require indulging you once again bringing up debunked claims. Reedy Creek Improvement District was not predicated on having a bunch of residents. Special districts that vote by landownership are expected to serve the land owners.
Chi84
Premium Member
I was responding to your argument - not the state of Florida’s. You seemed to be under the impression that you were bringing up something new. This may help.
Chi84
Premium Member
Just for a start, lawyers represent their clients by arguing the wording of laws, how they were interpreted in the past, etc., not their “beliefs.” Also, very rarely are cases decided entirely in one party’s favor.
To validate your point, how many residents does the West Orange Airport Authority (an independent special district) have? Probably fewer than RCID.
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
Have you read the original charter, the state Supreme Court ruling and the legislative research report from 2004?
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
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
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
Premium Member
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.
Well, that would be contrary to what the original legislation that created RCID said.
The AG was digging into one specific thing related to the developer agreement. They didn't find anything.
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.
No, because the RCID charter specifically stated the things that RCID could do. It placed limits on RCID's powers.