I think you are applying information out of context. I believe this is the article you are referring to:
There’s been a lot of talk about whether Florida lawmakers can legally dissolve Disney’s Reedy Creek Improvement District, but there’s one basic reason why Florida can’t dissolve it—it promised bond purchasers that it wouldn’t, says Jacob Schumer of Shepard, Smith, Kohlmyer & Hand.
news.bloombergtax.com
The problem is you this article was written in the timeframe where the state had only passed the first round of bills which aimed to just dissolve RCID - which this article points out the contracts problems of the Bonds. It's not a question of which powers - but more that the state is flat out renegging on its own contract in the context of completely dissolving RCID outright. You shouldn't take these comments verbatim when talking about what the replacement legislation actually became, which was a modified RCID.
The article was created in a frame of reference that does not match the current situation. So trying to tear that argument down with the CFTOD legislation or what you think a modified RCID should be doesn't really make sense.