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

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, Disney was absolutely granted special privileges with the creation of the RCID. To say otherwise is disinformation. You can literally read what all Disney is capable doing by being the largest landowner within RCID. None of Disney's competitors, and in general, few to no businesses across the entire country enjoy as much power as Disney has because of the creation of the RCID.

Furthermore, what you and I call "retaliation" in everyday speech is not the same as the legal definition/interpretation of "retaliation." I'm not at all arguing that what Florida has done has nothing to do with recent actions by Disney; what I am saying is that it will be extremely difficult in a court of law to say what has been done here is illegal. When the government gives a benefit or privilege not available to others, it is well within that government's rights to remove said benefit or privilege (pursuant to any contract or initial creation law).

The powers are not tied to Disney. They are tied to the land. Disney is not alone in the District and if they sold Walt Disney World the power would transfer to the new landowner.

Why would a court reject statements made during the legislative session?

 

[MandaM]

Yes, Disney was absolutely granted special privileges with the creation of the RCID. To say otherwise is disinformation. You can literally read what all Disney is capable doing by being the largest landowner within RCID. None of Disney's competitors, and in general, few to no businesses across the entire country enjoy as much power as Disney has because of the creation of the RCID.

Furthermore, what you and I call "retaliation" in everyday speech is not the same as the legal definition/interpretation of "retaliation." I'm not at all arguing that what Florida has done has nothing to do with recent actions by Disney; what I am saying is that it will be extremely difficult in a court of law to say what has been done here is illegal. When the government gives a benefit or privilege not available to others, it is well within that government's rights to remove said benefit or privilege (pursuant to any contract or initial creation law).

Florida currently has 1844 special districts in the state, including neighborhoods like the Villages. The special district isn’t a benefit that’s only available to Disney and not others, so your point is moot.

 

[lazyboy97o]

In your professional opinion?

Because you are making hundreds of posts here, just today, declaring you know the ins and outs of every inch of this, and have the answers to everything - I'm trying to figure out what makes you an authority on this situation? Are we just supposed to accept that you are a world renowned expert on this topic?

The state has already sued the District once before on the premise that it is unconstitutional. If that was truly the determination then they could do it again.

What specifics of my statements do you take issue with? You keep complaining about others commenting but refuse to actually discuss specifics.

 

[Lilofan]

Yes, Disney was absolutely granted special privileges with the creation of the RCID. To say otherwise is disinformation. You can literally read what all Disney is capable doing by being the largest landowner within RCID. None of Disney's competitors, and in general, few to no businesses across the entire country enjoy as much power as Disney has because of the creation of the RCID.

Furthermore, what you and I call "retaliation" in everyday speech is not the same as the legal definition/interpretation of "retaliation." I'm not at all arguing that what Florida has done has nothing to do with recent actions by Disney; what I am saying is that it will be extremely difficult in a court of law to say what has been done here is illegal. When the government gives a benefit or privilege not available to others, it is well within that government's rights to remove said benefit or privilege (pursuant to any contract or initial creation law).

Incredible the ones who ran FL from 1967-2019 didn’t have an issue

 

[Jrb1979]

Outside of the so called revenge tactic, what's so bad about dissolving RCID? From my view the past year the fire just keeps getting bigger for what was once a leader.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

This is from Gov. DeSantis' press secretary:

So did the governor's office just admit that their plan is to cause financial challenges harm to Disney by somehow increasing the company's tax burden? That takes it from a "mere" case of "removing a benefit" to actively harming the company's finances. Speak out against the governor and watch him raise your (and only your) taxes! Nope, not retaliation at all.

 

[peter11435]

Yes, Disney was absolutely granted special privileges with the creation of the RCID. To say otherwise is disinformation. You can literally read what all Disney is capable doing by being the largest landowner within RCID. None of Disney's competitors, and in general, few to no businesses across the entire country enjoy as much power as Disney has because of the creation of the RCID.

Furthermore, what you and I call "retaliation" in everyday speech is not the same as the legal definition/interpretation of "retaliation." I'm not at all arguing that what Florida has done has nothing to do with recent actions by Disney; what I am saying is that it will be extremely difficult in a court of law to say what has been done here is illegal. When the government gives a benefit or privilege not available to others, it is well within that government's rights to remove said benefit or privilege (pursuant to any contract or initial creation law).

The reedy creek charter is 92 pages and does not contain the word Disney a single time. No rights were granted to Disney. The rights were granted to an area of land designated as the district.

 

[Disney Analyst]

So did the governor's office just admit that their plan is to cause financial challenges harm to Disney by somehow increasing the company's tax burden? That takes it from a "mere" case of "removing a benefit" to actively harming the company's finances. Speak out against the governor and watch him raise your (and only your) taxes! Nope, not retaliation at all.

They should keep speaking publicly... Making the case for Disney stronger and easier.

 

[peter11435]

The state has already sued the District once before on the premise that it is unconstitutional. If that was truly the determination then they could do it again.

What specifics of my statements do you take issue with? You keep complaining about others commenting but refuse to actually discuss specifics.

And in that case the court ruled unanimously in favor of the district. And interestingly that ruling came after the ratification of the new Florida constitution.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If he truly had everything thought out then he'd say exactly what the plan is today - and why not propose and vote on that plan now, too, instead of waiting?

Exactly. If there was a plan it would have been part of the legislation. It would have been shown to the leaders of the affected counties beforehand so they knew the intended process. It would be public information. Any plan introduced before March will require the tax payers to foot the bill for yet another special session.

 

[flynnibus]

Since some people are confused about what retaliation means in a Freedom of Speech case.. Here's the legal criteria that is required to be proven:

1) They engaged in constitutionally protected activity
2) as a result, they were subjected to adverse action by the defendant that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity
3) there was a substantial causal relationship between the constitutionally protected activity and the adverse action


1) Speaking out against laws is protected politcal free speech - There is no question about this. The prior Supreme Court case Citizens United makes it absolutely clear that TWDC is treated the same protections as an individual
2) Obviously having the state pass new laws to deprive you of something they had granted you for 50+ years is something that would 'chill a person of ordinary firmness' from continuing that
3) The fact this was done with this timing, speed, place, and all the cited testimony FROM THE AUTHORS clearly establishes more than the standard of a substantial casual relationship between #1 and #2.

 

[Andrew C]

So did the governor's office just admit that their plan is to cause financial challenges harm to Disney by somehow increasing the company's tax burden? That takes it from a "mere" case of "removing a benefit" to actively harming the company's finances. Speak out against the governor and watch him raise your (and only your) taxes! Nope, not retaliation at all.

They should have just said they want Disney to pay their fair share...

 

[AdventureHasAName]

So did the governor's office just admit that their plan is to cause financial challenges harm to Disney by somehow increasing the company's tax burden? That takes it from a "mere" case of "removing a benefit" to actively harming the company's finances. Speak out against the governor and watch him raise your (and only your) taxes! Nope, not retaliation at all.

Of course, there is a difference between (a) doing something because you want it to harm a specific entity and (b) doing something and acknowledging that it will harm a specific entity.

1. We removed Disney's ability to self-govern because it would make their taxes go up.

2. We removed Disney's ability to self-govern and it will cause their taxes to go up.

 

[AEfx]

What specifics of my statements do you take issue with? You keep complaining about others commenting but refuse to actually discuss specifics.

I'm just trying to figure out where all of your information is coming from. You reply to post after post making declarations about what is and isn't fact, beating drum after drum about every single legal aspect here, all the rules of taxation, the ins and out of local, state, and national government - and heck, even the US Constitution. You seem to see everything so cut and dry, are correcting and contradicting people left and right - so yes - I'm curious as to what your position is that you are an expert on all of these matters.

 

[marni1971]

Well, its made all the major news outlets in the U.K.

The only ones smiling are those working in Glendale who didn’t want to move. Maybe.

 

[GoofGoof]

Well, they’ve made all the major news outlets in the U.K.

The only ones smiling are those working in Glendale who didn’t want to move. Maybe.

I was thinking the same thing

 

[lazyboy97o]

And in that case the court ruled unanimously in favor of the district. And interestingly that ruling came after the ratification of the new Florida constitution.

Do you have the dates handy? My recollection is that it occurred somewhere in between voters approving the new constitution and it going into effect.

The decision is worth a read for anyone interested.

 

[zakattack99]

Another thought who now owns the parking garages at Disney Springs? My understanding is that they are RCID property? And what is the over under that the new owners start charging parking fees.

 

[danlb_2000]

Guess this means we will never see the next iteration of the RCID 2020 Master Plan.

 

[flynnibus]

They should have just said they want Disney to pay their fair share...

They pay the same 'shares' in form of state and local taxes as everyone else
Where RCID provides services instead of the state and local gov they pay the overwhelming majority of the share of the burden

Where were they not paying their fair share?