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

[lazyboy97o]

What law was violated?

Contract Clause.
Reedy Creek Improvement District Act.

 

[UNCgolf]

It just seems like it would get tied up in court for years, with Disney ultimately winning on First Amendment grounds if it came to that.

There's also no guarantee that a new Governor/AG would even continue to defend the law in court. If DeSantis loses to a Democrat in November (which is very unlikely, but for the sake of argument), the new Attorney General could simply decline to defend the law which would almost certainly result in a win for Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

In what way would a company, not even based within the state of Florida, have the upper hand over the Florida legislature and government?

1 - being based in florida is meaningless to operating in florida or the applicability of florida law.. so why even bring that up?

2 - They have the upper hand because they, like the rest of Florida and US Citizens have constitutions that bound what the government can do... and
3 - Disney already has the thing in place to defend.

This was not some edict from a despot dictator, the duly elected legislature pass a law dissolving all special tax districts created before the adoption of the current Florida constitution.
The duly elected Governor signed it.

The duly elected folks are also constrained by the duly appointed judical branch and the constitution accepted by their voters. So while you like to highlight they are 'duly elected' and not a despot dictator, it doesn't mean they get to act like one.

Unless they specifically targeted Disney directly, there is little recourse Disney has from a lawsuit standpoint.

Yeah, he's not target Disney at all... just naming them every chance he gets because it's the first name that comes to mind?

This 'oh it's not targeting Disney' talking point is so weak I can't believe people are still naive enough to believe it.

 

[JoeCamel]

It just seems like it would get tied up in court for years, with Disney ultimately winning on First Amendment grounds if it came to that.

What a mess.

And that last line is all that matters to them. Get past the election and let it die in the courts. Just a bunch of not their money spent.

 

[LAKid53]

With support from both chambers of the legislature, DeSantis can alter statutes pretty much anyway he wants.

What DeSantis cannot alter is the Florida Constitution. IMO, we have to look for ways that violate the Florida Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court cannot ignore that.

My kneejerk reaction is that what DeSantis proposes (taking direct control over RCID) violates the Floridia Constitution.

However...

(a) POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS. The state shall be divided by law into political subdivisions called counties. Counties may be created, abolished or changed by law, with provision for payment or apportionment of the public debt.​

OK, so the state can create, abolish, or change counties by simple majority law.

Counties have officers and commissioners elected by the residents/landowners (for RCID, this is effectively Disney):

(d) COUNTY OFFICERS. There shall be elected by the electors of each county, for terms of four years, a sheriff, a tax collector, a property appraiser, a supervisor of elections, and a clerk of the circuit court.​

(e) COMMISSIONERS. Except when otherwise provided by county charter, the governing body of each county shall be a board of county commissioners composed of five or seven members serving staggered terms of four years. After each decennial census the board of county commissioners shall divide the county into districts of contiguous territory as nearly equal in population as practicable. One commissioner residing in each district shall be elected as provided by law.​

But there's an exception:

(f) NON-CHARTER GOVERNMENT. Counties not operating under county charters shall have such power of self-government as is provided by general or special law. The board of county commissioners of a county not operating under a charter may enact, in a manner prescribed by general law, county ordinances not inconsistent with general or special law, but an ordinance in conflict with a municipal ordinance shall not be effective within the municipality to the extent of such conflict.​

Does this mean that DeSantis can turn RCID into its own non-charter county, and then enact in "general or special law" whatever provisions he wants?

Still, he runs into the issue of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake, which are incorporated cities. Maybe he gets around those with this:

(a) ESTABLISHMENT. Municipalities may be established or abolished and their charters amended pursuant to general or special law. When any municipality is abolished, provision shall be made for the protection of its creditors.​

The Floridia Constitution is complex. Presumably, someone is advising DeSantis that there are ways to accomplish what he (says) he wants to do.

It just seems like it would get tied up in court for years, with Disney ultimately winning on First Amendment grounds if it came to that.

What a mess.

There would be serious consequences if either DeSantis or the Florida Legislature decided to abolish a charted, incorporated city or county in the state. Without specific, justifiable reasons that aren't related to governance.

 

[lentesta]

The Home Rule Powers Act of the Florida Constitution, for one.

I've readd the HRPA. Which part is violated by what DeSantis said today about the state taking control of the RCID? I'm not doubting you - I just don't understand the HRPA all that well.

 

[lentesta]

I take that statement as a plan to leave RCID intact as-is, but change the governing structure so that it's controlled by the State of Florida. That could potentially allow them to sidestep the bond issue, since the district would remain.

I'd argue the bond issue still remains. It's quite a different situation between "the bond issuer controls the revenue source" and "the bond issuer does not control the revenue source".

 

[peter11435]

This is attention due to Disney putting their foot in their mouth.

You spelled “this is retaliation for Disney exercising their constitutionly protected rights” wrong.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Regardless of what happens, this could have all been prevented if Disney didn’t completely botch PR. They need a major change in management starting from the top and this is just another example (of many since chapek has taken over) as to why

 

[UNCgolf]

I'd argue the bond issue still remains. It's quite a different situation between "the bond issuer controls the revenue source" and "the bond issuer does not control the revenue source".

Oh sure, there's still a potential argument there -- that's why I only said it potentially sidesteps the issue.

It's just not as blatant as completely eliminating the issuing municipality.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Regardless of what happens, this could have all been prevented if Disney didn’t completely botch PR. They need a major change in management starting from the top and this is just another example (of many since chapek has taken over) as to why

No, just no. It doesn’t matter how bad Disney handles their public positions. Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies a government seeking to suppress speech. All you are doing is excusing authoritarian practices.

 

[GhostHost1000]

No, just no. It doesn’t matter how bad Disney handles their public positions. Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies a government seeking to suppress speech. All you are doing is excusing authoritarian practices.

whether it’s justified or not…this could have all been avoided if Disney wasn’t so dumb in how they handle things. More companies need to run their business instead of their mouths outside of their business objectives regardless of anyones beliefs. Just my opinion

 

[lentesta]

I'd argue the bond issue still remains. It's quite a different situation between "the bond issuer controls the revenue source" and "the bond issuer does not control the revenue source".

Is it this? Section 166.021(4) (emphasis mine):

(4) The provisions of this section shall be so construed as to secure for municipalities the broad exercise of home rule powers granted by the constitution. It is the further intent of the Legislature to extend to municipalities the exercise of powers for municipal governmental, corporate, or proprietary purposes not expressly prohibited by the constitution, general or special law, or county charter and to remove any limitations, judicially imposed or otherwise, on the exercise of home rule powers other than those so expressly prohibited. However, nothing in this act shall be construed to permit any changes in a special law or municipal charter which affect the exercise of extraterritorial powers or which affect an area which includes lands within and without a municipality or any changes in a special law or municipal charter which affect the creation or existence of a municipality, the terms of elected officers and the manner of their election except for the selection of election dates and qualifying periods for candidates and for changes in terms of office necessitated by such changes in election dates, the distribution of powers among elected officers, matters prescribed by the charter relating to appointive boards, any change in the form of government, or any rights of municipal employees, without approval by referendum of the electors as provided in s. 166.031. Any other limitation of power upon any municipality contained in any municipal charter enacted or adopted prior to July 1, 1973, is hereby nullified and repealed.

That seems to me to say that the RCID electors (that is, Disney) would have to vote in favor of DeSantis' plan to allow the state to take over the RCID in order to change the RCID's powers.

 

[LAKid53]

My interpretation of the Home Rule Act referenced in the Floridia Constitution is that it applies to specific counties:

(e) CONSOLIDATION AND HOME RULE. Article VIII, Sections 9, 10, 11 and 24, of the Constitution of 1885, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect as to each county affected, as if this article had not been adopted, until that county shall expressly adopt a charter or home rule plan pursuant to this article. All provisions of the Metropolitan Dade County Home Rule Charter, heretofore or hereafter adopted by the electors of Dade County pursuant to Article VIII, Section 11, of the Constitution of 1885, as amended, shall be valid, and any amendments to such charter shall be valid; provided that the said provisions of such charter and the said amendments thereto are authorized under said Article VIII, Section 11, of the Constitution of 1885, as amended.​

Section 9 applies to Jacksonville and Duval County.

Section 10 applies to Key West and Monroe County.

Section 11 applies to Dade County.

Section 24 applies to Hillsborough County.

Am I misunderstanding something?

The charters existing under the 1885 were "grandfathered" into the 1968 Constitution. However provisions were made for the voters to amend those charters.

 

[flynnibus]

Still, he runs into the issue of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake, which are incorporated cities. Maybe he gets around those with this:

(a) ESTABLISHMENT. Municipalities may be established or abolished and their charters amended pursuant to general or special law. When any municipality is abolished, provision shall be made for the protection of its creditors.
The Floridia Constitution is complex. Presumably, someone is advising DeSantis that there are ways to accomplish what he (says) he wants to do.

'...pursuant to general or special law' -- Which is why LAKid53 keeps referencing Ch 166 - because that is the relevant general law already in place. They can change that existing statue of course.. but it has much wider impacts.

Ch 165 also defines the process of creating the municipalities, so to your question about creating a new county, etc.. you can look there. You can see the basic timelines do not support the govenor's timeline..

At least the existing general law of chapters 165 and 166 are more well thoughtout then their special session law of just 'strike it down'

"
(3) The dissolution of a municipality must meet the following conditions:
(a) The municipality to be dissolved must not be substantially surrounded by other municipalities.
(b) The county or another municipality must be demonstrably able to provide necessary services to the municipal area proposed for dissolution.
(c) An equitable arrangement must be made in relation to bonded indebtedness and vested rights of employees of the municipality to be dissolved."

 

[mikejs78]

whether it’s justified or not…this could have all been avoided if Disney wasn’t so dumb in how they handle things. More companies need to run their business instead of their mouths outside of their business objectives regardless of anyones beliefs. Just my opinion

Maybe your governor should seize your house because you expressed an opinion.

 

[LAKid53]

I've readd the HRPA. Which part is violated by what DeSantis said today about the state taking control of the RCID? I'm not doubting you - I just don't understand the HRPA all that well.

Because the HRPA grants specific governance powers to county and local governments that the state cannot arbitrarily revoke. Only the electors of those local governments can do so.

 

[LAKid53]

'...pursuant to general or special law' -- Which is why LAKid53 keeps referencing Ch 166 - because that is the relevant general law already in place. They can change that existing statue of course.. but it has much wider impacts.

Ch 165 also defines the process of creating the municipalities, so to your question about creating a new county, etc.. you can look there. You can see the basic timelines do not support the govenor's timeline..

At least the existing general law of chapters 165 and 166 are more well thoughtout then their special session law of just 'strike it down'

"
(3) The dissolution of a municipality must meet the following conditions:
(a) The municipality to be dissolved must not be substantially surrounded by other municipalities.
(b) The county or another municipality must be demonstrably able to provide necessary services to the municipal area proposed for dissolution.
(c) An equitable arrangement must be made in relation to bonded indebtedness and vested rights of employees of the municipality to be dissolved."

Don't forget Chapter 163.

 

[seascape]

I expect one of two possible outcomes from this stupid law. First and best for Florida is that the courts rule the lawkml is unconstitutional. The second outcome would actually be better for Disney and the RCID and actually not only restore the RCID but expand it to all the additional land Disney has purchased outside of the RCID.

 

[flynnibus]

Maybe your governor should seize your house because you expressed an opinion.

but what if he was duly elected?