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

[lentesta]

They would have done an analysis for this bill. Or should have. That one is 18 years old.

The most recent analysis on their website, for any legislation, dates back to January 31.

I don't think any analysis was done on this year's bill. I could be wrong.

 

[LAKid53]

The most recent analysis on their website, for any legislation, dates back to January 31.

I don't think any analysis was done on this year's bill. I could be wrong.

Which would be done for bills that came up during the regular session.

My guess, knowing how fond the Legislature is of their own research arm, is OPPAGA would have pointed out all the issues that we have commented on in the thread. And they wouldn't have wanted that.

 

[lentesta]

Which would be done for bills that came up during the regular session.

My guess, knowing how fond the Legislature is of their own research arm, is OPPAGA would have pointed out all the issues that we have commented on in the thread. And they wouldn't have wanted that.

The legislature probably knew they were going to get something along the lines of "AS PER MY PREVIOUS EMAIL..."

 

[LAKid53]

I agree with you that the legislation was rushed.

There was analysis of this legislation done by the professional staff of the Committee on Community Affairs, which discusses its impact. The analyst gives the legislation a rating of "favorable."

That's the staff of a Legislative committee. I've worked with such staff before. Many are pretty young, just out of college. That the response to the Tax/Fee Issue was "No", tells me these weren't "professionals" at all.

 

[LAKid53]

The legislature probably knew they were going to get something along the lines of "AS PER MY PREVIOUS EMAIL..."

OPPAGA is about as unbiased as you can get for a subunit of the Legislature. The other is the auditor general's office.

 

[LAKid53]

Laughable is correct indeed. I’ve been laughing since I read that post/doc. One of my favorite parts:

The bill will have an indeterminate fiscal impact on those local general purpose governments that will assume the assets and indebtedness of an independent special district dissolved by the bill.

Yet the response to Tax/Fee concerns was "No".

 

[LAKid53]

No ethics in a position that requires them? who hired this clown

The staff director of the committee. They serve at the whim of the Legislature and some staffers have connections.

And can be fired at a moment's notice.

 

[LAKid53]

Since this was written by the staff of a Senate committee, I'm not sure it was nonpartisan analysis.

I believe most legislative committee staff is hired by the leaders of the committee; it's not a long-term nonpartisan position. Or at least that's generally how it works in the US Congress, as far as I know. I doubt Florida is any different.

It's not. Staff are hired by the committee staff director, who is hired by the Committee chair. Some are there because of connections. Some are there because they are competent and have the necessary education and experience the Committee needs.

 

[JoeCamel]

The staff director of the committee. They serve at the whim of the Legislature and some staffers have connections.

And can be fired at a moment's notice.

Strange, when I need to make a decision on an important matter I try to get as much info without slant as I can. Getting told what you want to hear certainly isn't the process I would use or trust as a basis to enable me to make the best choices.

 

[peter11435]

Strange, when I need to make a decision on an important matter I try to get as much info without slant as I can. Getting told what you want to hear certainly isn't the process I would use or trust as a basis to enable me to make the best choices.

That’s the problem. They weren’t concerned with making the best choices. They rarely are

 

[flynnibus]

Strange, when I need to make a decision on an important matter I try to get as much info without slant as I can. Getting told what you want to hear certainly isn't the process I would use or trust as a basis to enable me to make the best choices.

That assumes you are trying to have independent thought in the first place

 

[lazyboy97o]

Which would be done for bills that came up during the regular session.

My guess, knowing how fond the Legislature is of their own research arm, is OPPAGA would have pointed out all the issues that we have commented on in the thread. And they wouldn't have wanted that.

This is why the prior research from 2004 is still relevant. It does touch on some of these issues, so just reading that would have presented challenges and debunked some of the claims (assuming they’re not knowingly lying about how the District operates). Depending on which cases move forward the State can find themselves having to justify ignoring previous work.

 

[LAKid53]

This is why the prior research from 2004 is still relevant. It does touch on some of these issues, so just reading that would have presented challenges and debunked some of the claims (assuming they’re not knowingly lying about how the District operates). Depending on which cases move forward the State can find themselves having to justify ignoring previous work.

The analysts at OPPAGA would certainly have used the 2004 report as a foundation. Part of the working papers to draft an analysis would be any charters, agreements, financial statements, bond covenants, operating procedures, etc., that RCID would be asked to provide.

And OPPAGA's 2004 report could be used by RCID's lawyers show the State's intent.

 

[GoofGoof]

The analysts at OPPAGA would certainly have used the 2004 report as a foundation. Part of the working papers to draft an analysis would be any charters, agreements, financial statements, bond covenants, operating procedures, etc., that RCID would be asked to provide.

And OPPAGA's 2004 report could be used by RCID's lawyers show the State's intent.

Especially considering 1 of the concerns addressed in the last report was having RCID board members replaced with inexperienced new members at the whim of a new land owners and losing years of experience running the district. Just sub in “new land owner” with Governor….same issue or maybe worse since the new land owner would at least still have an interest in the district being successful.

 

[lentesta]

Choice quotes from today's Orlando Business Journal article on the state and RCID:

• "Simply put, the Florida Constitution protects private businesses from big government intervention like this."
  
  
• "Both of these local municipal governments are protected under Florida law. There is no legal or regulatory path for the Florida state Legislature to accomplish what they are seeking to do"

 

[Lilofan]

It's not. Staff are hired by the committee staff director, who is hired by the Committee chair. Some are there because of connections. Some are there because they are competent and have the necessary education and experience the Committee needs.

Too bad there wasn't enough research on the recent top PR exec of Disney. Hired by Chapek , the PR chief was the fall guy and he parted ways with the company with less than 4 months on the job.

 

[mikejs78]

Technically, DeSantis isn’t doing an “intervention” on a “private business”. He’s doing an “intervention” on a special district.

I’ve previously posted quotes from the Florida Constitution (which trumps any Florida law) that allows the legislature to create, eliminate, or modify counties and municipalities by simple majority vote. (There are some Home Rule districts protected in the Florida Constitution, but RCID is not one of them.)

Florida statutes are not as powerful as the article suggests. Legislatures have the legal authority to alter their own statutes by majority votes. Existing Florida statutes protects RCID and Disney only to the extent that the legislature does not change them.

The article would have been much more informative if it included references to specific parts of the Florida Constitution (which the legislature cannot change by simple majority vote) that prevent DeSantis from doing what he’s trying to do.

I’ll emphasize this again - I do not think what DeSantis is trying to do is right. I think he has violated Disney’s First Amendment rights. I think Disney has an ironclad case for this.

There’s also some debate that he might have violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, I quoted a Supreme Court ruling that does allow the State to alter contracts, as long as those alterations are not “substantial”. This then leads into a subjective discussion of what is a “substantial” alteration.

These federal issues aside, the article focuses on Florida law. Exactly what Florida laws are the article referring to and what prevents the legislature from passing new laws to create exceptions to those existing laws?

To be clear, I am trying to understand, First Amendment aside (which Disney hasn’t even mentioned yet), where exactly is there something that he cannot simply change (with the concurrence of the majority of the legislature) based on Florida law.

Again, this does not mean I think DeSantis is right. But is it legal?

For one, there is the contracts clause in the FL constitution, which FL courts have interpreted a lot more strictly than the federal courts have. Basically, the legislature in FL has almost zero power to change contracts.

Regarding the reference to action against Disney, I think that here they are referring to taxes for bond debt. FL can't just tax Disney however it wants.

And you're reading the home rule clause wrong. Home rule applies to everyone, those specified were just to grandfather certain provisions from the old constitution.

 

[mikejs78]

Technically, DeSantis isn’t doing an “intervention” on a “private business”. He’s doing an “intervention” on a special district.

I’ve previously posted quotes from the Florida Constitution (which trumps any Florida law) that allows the legislature to create, eliminate, or modify counties and municipalities by simple majority vote. (There are some Home Rule districts protected in the Florida Constitution, but RCID is not one of them.)

Florida statutes are not as powerful as the article suggests. Legislatures have the legal authority to alter their own statutes by majority votes. Existing Florida statutes protects RCID and Disney only to the extent that the legislature does not change them.

The article would have been much more informative if it included references to specific parts of the Florida Constitution (which the legislature cannot change by simple majority vote) that prevent DeSantis from doing what he’s trying to do.

I’ll emphasize this again - I do not think what DeSantis is trying to do is right. I think he has violated Disney’s First Amendment rights. I think Disney has an ironclad case for this.

There’s also some debate that he might have violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, I quoted a Supreme Court ruling that does allow the State to alter contracts, as long as those alterations are not “substantial”. This then leads into a subjective discussion of what is a “substantial” alteration.

These federal issues aside, the article focuses on Florida law. Exactly what Florida laws are the article referring to and what prevents the legislature from passing new laws to create exceptions to those existing laws?

To be clear, I am trying to understand, First Amendment aside (which Disney hasn’t even mentioned yet), where exactly is there something that he cannot simply change (with the concurrence of the majority of the legislature) based on Florida law.

Again, this does not mean I think DeSantis is right. But is it legal?

Okay, some more stuff from the Florida Constitution.

Even If Reedy Creek could be dissolved, creating a state-run district or any other district that Disney doesn't approve of would be impossible. The Florida Constitution requires the transfer of government powers to be subject to a vote by the residents.

SECTION 4. Transfer of powers.—By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.

There is also the matter of taxes. Any new special district would no longer have The special tax rate that RCID has. Any increase in the tax rate that goes beyond what the Florida Constitution prescribes would require, You guessed it, a vote by the residents.

Ad valorem taxes, exclusive of taxes levied for the payment of bonds and taxes levied for periods not longer than two years when authorized by vote of the electors who are the owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation, shall not be levied in excess of the following millages upon the assessed value of real estate and tangible personal property: for all county purposes, ten mills; for all municipal purposes, ten mills; for all school purposes, ten mills; for water management purposes for the northwest portion of the state lying west of the line between ranges two and three east, 0.05 mill; for water management purposes for the remaining portions of the state, 1.0 mill; and for all other special districts a millage authorized by law approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation. A county furnishing municipal services may, to the extent authorized by law, levy additional taxes within the limits fixed for municipal purposes.

So that would make it very difficult for the state to enforce the paying off of RCID's debt by Disney. But that's just property taxes. What about some kind of new tax? Also not possible without a supermajority vote in the legislature, which the GOP does not have currently.

SECTION 19. Supermajority vote required to impose, authorize, or raise state taxes or fees.—
(a) SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE OR AUTHORIZE NEW STATE TAX OR FEE. No new state tax or fee may be imposed or authorized by the legislature except through legislation approved by two-thirds of the membership of each house of the legislature and presented to the Governor for approval pursuant to Article III, Section 8.
(b) SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO RAISE STATE TAXES OR FEES. No state tax or fee may be raised by the legislature except through legislation approved by two-thirds of the membership of each house of the legislature and presented to the Governor for approval pursuant to Article III, Section 8.

And it's probably more, this is just my first pass. The whole municipality thing complicate stuff even further, as they would have to undo LBV and BL in order to do anything approaching what they want - but this is going to be very difficult if not impossible for them to do.

 

[mikejs78]

My interpretation of Home Rule is that municipalities are allowed to govern themselves without needing to seek approval from the state.

However, the Florida Constitution also includes 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.​

Am I misinterpreting this?

Thanks!

Right but the transfer of government powers clause requires a vote.

 

[GoofGoof]

My interpretation of Home Rule is that municipalities are allowed to govern themselves without needing to seek approval from the state.

However, the Florida Constitution also includes 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.​

Am I misinterpreting this?

Thanks!

I hope so. That sounds like a terrible loophole that was certainly not intended to support this type of action.