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

[lentesta]

This is an important fact that challenges the very basis for the states reasoning for passing the current bill.

Here's the full text of the FL Supreme Court's decision in State vs Reedy Creek Improvement District (1968). The state lost, and pretty clearly, on every challenge.

 

[GoofGoof]

You assume no one had a problem with the special treatment until now. The reality is there were always people and politicians that had issues with it from the day it happened. However they were always in the minority with no chance of doing anything to change things. The stars finally lined up where change was finally possible, and changes were finally made... much like there have always been people that were for legalization of pot or allowing women to vote, it took decades of laws to start to change. They can make all sorts of arguments for why things happened now and one of their biggest problems will be that even if De Santis proclaimed he was changing the law because Disney said something he didn't like, he is only the governor and didn't change the law. He simply signed a bill that was created and passed by the legislator so it isn't as if he himself did it and that will be another problem with Disney claiming he did it as retribution for what Disney said.

This argument would have more of a chance of working if the Governor and multiple bill sponsors did not come out and tell anyone who would listen that this was being done to punish Disney for speaking out against them. It wasn’t just the Governor, multiple people took a victory lap on this. If this was really just part of “normal process” and being done for legitimate reasons then why do it in a special session? Why no debate? Why no experts brought in to testify and explain to lawmakers what the potential pitfalls were with the bonds and who absorbs the debt and how the counties will pay for the services without RCID and how much of tax increase will local taxpayers see? It’s a really tough sell to say the state was always planning to do this and it’s not being done to punish Disney.

Proving something in court is one thing, but for discussion sake do you as a rational human being really think this wasn’t done to retaliate against Disney for speaking out against the other bill? I think almost every person who knows anything about this situation would agree that it’s clearly a punishment. That being said, even if Disney failed to prove it in court should we be OK with the government doing this? Using the power of the government to quiet a a political foe? I’d have no problem with DeSantis or any other legislator coming out and denouncing Disney publicly. I would have no problem with them encouraging a boycott if they felt that was necessary. Where they crossed the line was when they used the power given to them by the people to attempt to hurt a company that spoke out against them.

 

[lentesta]

Here's the 2004 Florida Legislature research that determined RCID cannot be dissolved without RCID's help.

Pay attention to the footnote at the bottom of page 5:

In addition, subsequent statutory amendments would not apply to RCID if the amendment’s affect (sic) were to impair existing contractual agreements of the district, such as bond covenants.

That's the Florida Legislature saying they can't do what they're trying to do.

I'm told by lawyers that having to argue against your own research, which has gone unchallenged for almost 20 years, in front of a judge, is not great strategy.

 

[GoofGoof]

So, if I’m understanding many of the posts:
- The 1st amendment allows Disney to wade very publicly into state politics, while also protecting Disney from losing its very special RCID status as a consequence.
- The 1st amendment allows our leaders to declare “The Truth” and spread that message using tax payer money, giving cover to legacy and social media (and Disney?) while they shut down all remaining non-Truth speech.

The 1st amendment doesn’t protect Disney from losing their very special RCID status. It is perfectly legal for the state to dissolve RCID. It is unconstitutional for the state to dissolve RCID as an attempt to punish Disney for speaking out against a political foe. The why matters. I know I keep saying it, but its really the whole point. Nobody is arguing Disney has a constitutional right to a special district.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Here you go.

Thank you Len.. By the way, very interesting points on E ticket ride percentage of being down in the parks, being close to 20%. Just listened and found it incredible.

 

[GoofGoof]

This is all on DeSantis no matter what folks say. Disney was targeted no matter what folks say. The ironic thing is this will backfire; Disney will win big if this goes through Disney getting to dump 1 Billion, some say 2 Billion of debt on to the tax payers, now that’s a tax break for Disney!

This is just my opinion, but there‘s no way the end result of this can be that taxpayers in Orange and Osceola county have to eat the cost of this debt. That’s why I think a settlement is the most likely outcome that results in either RCID staying or a new district being formed to replace it. The other option is the state absorbs the debt, but that may not be legal under securities laws and may delay them from dissolving the district until 2029 at the earliest.

 

[lentesta]

This is just my opinion, but there‘s no way the end result of this can be that taxpayers in Orange and Osceola county have to eat the cost of this debt. That’s why I think a settlement is the most likely outcome that results in either RCID staying or a new district being formed to replace it. The other option is the state absorbs the debt, but that may not be legal under securities laws and may delay them from dissolving the district until 2029 at the earliest.

Some RCID bonds pay a higher interest rate than allowed by state law. And as you mention, it's an uphill battle for the state to unilaterally change the terms of a bond, such as the revenue source that's paying for them.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Some RCID bonds pay a higher interest rate than allowed by state law. And as you mention, it's an uphill battle for the state to unilaterally change the terms of a bond, such as the revenue source that's paying for them.

They have zero interest in doing any of that.

Here was the plan:
1. “Own” Disney…generating press and fundraising push (accomplished)
2. Do nothing to allow everyone to forget (starting now)
3. Change nothing (longterm)


The worst looking/most damage in this is Disney’s management…stock is way down and chapek is one disaster after another

 

[mmascari]

This is just my opinion, but there‘s no way the end result of this can be that taxpayers in Orange and Osceola county have to eat the cost of this debt. That’s why I think a settlement is the most likely outcome that results in either RCID staying or a new district being formed to replace it. The other option is the state absorbs the debt, but that may not be legal under securities laws and may delay them from dissolving the district until 2029 at the earliest.

I'm not sure how a new district that's exactly like the old one makes any sense as an outcome. There's a huge cost to do that, it's not clear that it's any better for the bonds than dissolution (since it is dissolution and then new creation on top of that), and it's not clear why Disney would be incentivized to work on that. Keeping the current district and modifying it in some way seems more likely, but even then it'll be questionable what the modification is, unless it's something totally benign.

We keep pretending that RCID is the same as Disney too. But, it's not really. It is it's own government entity, not so different from other government entities. Managed by the people voted on to control the district by those that live within the districts boundaries. They just happen to all be Disney people through the very careful residential planning that's been occurring for 50 years.

I think this still comes down to how much Disney management values that influence into RCID they have because of that resident control vs all the public roads (and other public services) within the WDW boundaries being managed. After all, those are still public services managed by a public governmental entity. While we may say Disney maintains the roads, that's not really true. RCID maintains the public roads. Disney maintains the private roads. I'm still guessing there's someone in Disney comparing the direct cost advantages of dissolving the district to the long term strategic cost implications of all that public infrastructure being part of a larger entity. The huge negative local PR of just walking away and leaving the counties holding the bag is in there too.

One assumes the long term benefits are more important here. But, how many times have we seen quarterly impacts cause companies to make bad long term decisions. Not having to pay extra RCID taxes could be a big short term balance sheet boost without the impact seen for years and until the next management team. We all know how this board feels about the current management team.

 

[mmascari]

Here was the plan:
1. “Own” Disney…generating press and fundraising push (accomplished)
2. Do nothing to allow everyone to forget (starting now)
3. Change nothing (longterm)

They screwed up #2. If they had just talked about it, even sent it to committee, but not actually voted on it, that plan would have been perfect. All the news cycles, none of the fallout questions and no bond questions.

But, they passed it. Then, they signed it into law.

They need a new #2B to undo what they did so that #3 will still happen. Without taking some additional action, #3 isn't possible anymore.

If I had to bet, the "super secret plan" that get's "Disney to pay it's fair share" is to find a way to quietly just undo what they did. In a way that it doesn't look like that's what they did. Then, crow about how they "dealt with woke Disney" as loudly and often as they can so nobody looks too closely.

Working in their favor is that the public doesn't understand how RCID works and what extra taxes Disney pays to RCID. The news sites are happy to repeat that RCID is a Disney tax break. They could just undo the dissolution, then make a gazillion statements about how Disney has to pay all this tax to RCID now. That they've made Disney responsible for $100+ Million a year of taxes that the counties were not collecting now.

It may even be technically correct from the right perspective. As of today, with no changes, future Disney would not have any tax bill to RCID (as it would not exist). So a new vote would create future taxes Disney has to pay to RCID where they would not currently have that future tax bill. (Just ignore that this is the same scenario that existed before the current change. You're not supposed to remember that far back.)

 

[flynnibus]

The state lost, and pretty clearly, on every challenge.

I think the point was to not win If you agree with Emerson's research - the whole thing was arranged to secure a court test of the Reedy Creek Act and ensure the credibility of RCID's bonds.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

They screwed up #2. If they had just talked about it, even sent it to committee, but not actually voted on it, that plan would have been perfect. All the news cycles, none of the fallout questions and no bond questions.

But, they passed it. Then, they signed it into law.

They need a new #2B to undo what they did so that #3 will still happen. Without taking some additional action, #3 isn't possible anymore.

If I had to bet, the "super secret plan" that get's "Disney to pay it's fair share" is to find a way to quietly just undo what they did. In a way that it doesn't look like that's what they did. Then, crow about how they "dealt with woke Disney" as loudly and often as they can so nobody looks too closely.

Working in their favor is that the public doesn't understand how RCID works and what extra taxes Disney pays to RCID. The news sites are happy to repeat that RCID is a Disney tax break. They could just undo the dissolution, then make a gazillion statements about how Disney has to pay all this tax to RCID now. That they've made Disney responsible for $100+ Million a year of taxes that the counties were not collecting now.

It may even be technically correct from the right perspective. As of today, with no changes, future Disney would not have any tax bill to RCID (as it would not exist). So a new vote would create future taxes Disney has to pay to RCID where they would not currently have that future tax bill. (Just ignore that this is the same scenario that existed before the current change. You're not supposed to remember that far back.)

I don't disagree…didn’t say any geniuses were involved here…

…they’re now relying on their voters/supporters being stupid.

 

[flynnibus]

This is an important fact that challenges the very basis for the states reasoning for passing the current bill.

Meh.. the prior lawsuit (as all suits do) have very specific scope and challenges. I don't think the challenges called in the 1968 lawsuit really have much to do with tearing down the dividing line this 2022c law used. The challenges in the lawsuit were more about the law as it stood in 1967, even tho it was 1968 for the lawsuit, and reaffirmed the act and RCID's bond powers. Really didn't address RCID vs new constitution.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Meh.. the prior lawsuit (as all suits do) have very specific scope and challenges. I don't think the challenges called in the 1968 lawsuit really have much to do with tearing down the dividing line this 2022c law used. The challenges in the lawsuit were more about the law as it stood in 1967, even tho it was 1968 for the lawsuit, and reaffirmed the act and RCID's bond powers. Really didn't address RCID vs new constitution.

Dude…it’s not happening. Can you not play the angry local, step back, and see which way the winds are blowing on this??

God…Portland is very soothing/calming I hear? So is Maine. I think that humidity is getting to you

 

[mikejs78]

Meh.. the prior lawsuit (as all suits do) have very specific scope and challenges. I don't think the challenges called in the 1968 lawsuit really have much to do with tearing down the dividing line this 2022c law used. The challenges in the lawsuit were more about the law as it stood in 1967, even tho it was 1968 for the lawsuit, and reaffirmed the act and RCID's bond powers. Really didn't address RCID vs new constitution.

There's really nothing in the new constitution that would impact RCID. It's a red herring.

 

[flynnibus]

The author of the paper has a whole book on the creation of the District, Project Future: The Inside Story Behind the Creation of Disney World. I’d love to read his current thoughts.

Now you made me go pull it off my shelf When you first mentioned it I knew the name, but wasn't sure if I read it. I just went over there and yup.. its there. But looks kinda untouched, guess I need to read it

 

[LittleBuford]

I urge anyone with access to a Netflix account to watch Heartstopper. It has nothing directly to do with the “Don’t say gay” debacle, but it might help some to understand why Disney’s opposition to the bill is so important.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The author of the paper has a whole book on the creation of the District, Project Future: The Inside Story Behind the Creation of Disney World. I’d love to read his current thoughts.

That is the best book ever written about wdw.

Married to the mouse is a close second

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I urge anyone with access to a Netflix account to watch Heartstopper. It has nothing directly to do with the “Don’t say gay” debacle, but it might help some to understand Disney’s opposition to the bill is so important.

Thanks…I’ll check it out.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Could you link a article on the legal action from the 80’s? Im generally interested but cant seem to find anything about it when i google. The way it sounds by your post is that they threatened Disney and Disney paid 13 million for roads. Im sure theres more to it and i want to understand what it was about. Thanks.

The Orlando Sentinel could provide a lot of flesh to the story.

"ORANGE COUNTY OKAYS ROAD DEAL WITH DISNEY​

By Michael Blumfield Of The Sentinel Staff
Orlando Sentinel
•
Jul 25, 1989 at 12:00 am"