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

[JoeCamel]

Because of Citizens United, there's just no way Disney is going to lose this.

Ironic isn't it

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not without curtailing the powers of all other uncharted districts.

Also one is forgetting that if they make RCID a county, then they are no longer part of the current counties, and therefore Disney won't pay any taxes to Orange and Osceola counties. Also counties are limited in property tax that they can collect.

There seems to be some confusion that an uncharted government is somehow specifically controlled by the state, when it just means the local government is following the base template provided by the state. For example, state law says you need to have someone who runs the county and that person is appointed by the county commission. Orange County has a charter and decided instead to elect a county mayor to fill that role. It doesn’t mean that the state is writing a law that this county does this, and that county does that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Per the Florida Constitution, contracts transfer to whatever replaces RCID. I don’t think simply transferring these contracts is necessarily a substantial impairment. However, it might be based on what happens next. We just won't know until we see something out of the Florida legislature.

Most (all?) of what I'm writing will not actually happen. This is just an intellectual exercise because it's Friday and I bored.

I'll go off in some other direction when RCID, Disney, DeSantis, or the Florida legislature give us something else to chew on.

Ultimately, what everyone should take away from this is that RCID (or something very close to it) will exist when all of this is over. Because of Citizens United, there's just no way Disney is going to lose this.

Contracts for different services differ. If Orange County has an agreement to pay X amount uniformly they have a problem if Reedy Creek agreed to pay Y amount.

If you accept that RCID is completely separate from Disney, then the legal argument that ending RCID somehow violates Disney's First Amendment rights becomes weaker.

DeSantis clearly has made multiple statements that he's ending RCID is response to Disney's actions. DeSantis has irrevocably linked the two. I'm pretty sure any court that handles this case will do the same.

No, it does not. The whole point was still to influence Disney’s behavior. Let’s say you run a restaurant. You adult children are in a political fight with the official who issues liquor licenses and now you are faced with losing your liquor license. There is no way it would fly for even a second that this was permissible if the official kept going on TV talking about how he is working to revoke your license because he doesn’t like what your kids are doing. The whole point is clearly to influence the behavior of your kids, to chill their protected activity.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Not without curtailing the powers of all other uncharted districts.

Also one is forgetting that if they make RCID a county, then they are no longer part of the current counties, and therefore Disney won't pay any taxes to Orange and Osceola counties. Also counties are limited in property tax that they can collect.

I don’t know if it has come up in the 3000 pages here…but orange and Osceola have - I believe - still a 6% county tax on all hotel rooms…

Not a small consideration if some fool is suggesting that reedy creek goes “poof” out of those counties

 

[mikejs78]

I don’t think simply transferring these contracts is necessarily a substantial impairment.

You keep using that term but it doesn't apply.. Substantial impairment is the federal standard. The state standard is stricter. The state doesn't allow any impairment unless there is a significant public purpose.

 

[Vacationeer]

“… I'm worried that they would use that as a pretext to raise taxes on people when that's what they would want to do anyways, and then try to blame Reedy Creek. We’re not going to give them that opportunity," DeSantis said, during an event at Seminole State College while making an announcement regarding nursing education.

Wow. Sounds very emotional. I’m worried things aren’t going well for the governor if he’s using a situation he created as pretext to raise suspicion on Disney that they’re looking for ways to dump RCID’s taxes on the citizens of Florida.

 

[mikejs78]

I'm worried that they would use that as a pretext to raise taxes on people when that's what they would want to do anyways, and then try to blame Reedy Creek. We’re not going to give them that opportunity," DeSantis said, during an event at Seminole State College while making an announcement regarding nursing education.

And this is why the whole new county thing wouldn't work. Creating a new county would remove all of the tax revenue collected from Disney by Orange and Osacola counties. They would have to raise taxes to make up that shortfall.

 

[Nubs70]

If you accept that RCID is completely separate from Disney, then the legal argument that ending RCID somehow violates Disney's First Amendment rights becomes weaker.

DeSantis clearly has made multiple statements that he's ending RCID is response to Disney's actions. DeSantis has irrevocably linked the two. I'm pretty sure any court that handles this case will do the same.

If RCID is an absolute seperate entity of DIS, how would DIS have standing in a 1sr Amendment claim?

 

[lazyboy97o]

If RCID is an absolute seperate entity of DIS, how would DIS have standing in a 1sr Amendment claim?

Because the intent was to punish Disney and influence future behavior. It’s shocking that people keep thinking this simple, oft used authoritarian tactic is perfectly acceptable and legitimate behavior.

 

[mikejs78]

If RCID is an absolute seperate entity of DIS, how would DIS have standing in a 1sr Amendment claim?

This has been said over and over again. Removing RCID whole cloth removes Disney's elected representatives, solely because Disney engaged in 1st amendment protected speech.

 

[lazyboy97o]

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy:

It is competent for the States to change the form of the remedy, or to modify it otherwise, as they may see fit, provided no substantial right secured by the contract is thereby impaired.​

They were not using this definition of substantial:

of considerable importance, size, or worth​

Instead, they were referring to this definition of substantial:

real and tangible rather than imaginary​

In other words, something "of substance", not something that is big.

Sears v. Palm Beach Gardens tells us what the Florida Supreme Court means by an impairment:

impairment is defined as “to make worse; to diminish in quantity, value, excellency or strength; to lessen in power; to weaken.”​

Essentially, this is the same standard used by federal courts before Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell.

What the Florida Supreme Court did was reject Blaisdell and all later rulings that are based on it. The Florida Supreme Court said you cannot "weaken" a contract, just like what federal courts used to do.

Why do you keep ignoring the public purpose aspect? You keep claiming the opposite of what the court claims, that Florida can do whatever it wants as long as they make it up somehow.

 

[mikejs78]

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy:

It is competent for the States to change the form of the remedy, or to modify it otherwise, as they may see fit, provided no substantial right secured by the contract is thereby impaired.​

They were not using this definition of substantial:

of considerable importance, size, or worth​

Instead, they were referring to this definition of substantial:

real and tangible rather than imaginary​

In other words, something "of substance", not something that is big.

Sears v. Palm Beach Gardens tells us what the Florida Supreme Court means by an impairment:

impairment is defined as “to make worse; to diminish in quantity, value, excellency or strength; to lessen in power; to weaken.”​

Essentially, this is the same standard used by federal courts before Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell.

What the Florida Supreme Court did was reject Blaisdell and all later rulings that are based on it. The Florida Supreme Court said you cannot "weaken" a contract, just like what federal courts used to do.

This isn't quite how it works. The FL Supreme court didn't reject Blaisdell, it just doesn't apply.

Federal courts interpret federal law and the U.S. Constitution. State courts interpret state law and the state's constitution. They don't (generally) mingle.

The Federal Court established the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's contract clause in Blaisdell. The FL constitution has its own contract law and precident around it. They are two distinct laws that have a similar scope (contracts). In the Sears case, the FL Supreme Court established the precident that exists for FL contracts. They weren't rejecting Blaisdell because it didn't apply to their jurisdiction.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am not ignoring this. In fact, I have already responded to your question in this post:

In summary, this is what is in Sears v. Palm Beach Gardens:

The conclusion, however, that “‘virtually’ no impairment is tolerable necessarily implies that some impairment is tolerable,” though not as much impairment as would be “acceptable under traditional federal contract clause analysis.” Pomponio, 378 So. 2d at 780. “ome impairment” may be “tolerable” where the governmental actor can demonstrate a “significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation.” Searcy, 209 So. 3d at 1192 (quoting Energy Reserves Grp., Inc. v. Kan. Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411 (1983)).​

This is clearly saying that "some impairment" might be acceptable if a "significant and legitimate public purpose" can be shown.

This is an even lower standard than saying that "no impairment" is acceptable. This is saying, "I'll let you do a little impairment if you can show me that it serves a significant purpose to the public."

Since we have not even seen what law might next be proposed by the Florida legislature, we cannot possibly know if it will result in an impairment.

You quote it and then just turn right back around to federal precedent. How is what you describe in any way a stricter standard? How is that not the opposite of “virtually no impairment is tolerable”?

We do know the pledge the State made to bond holders which is part of the contract. It’s fairly explicit. The whole purpose of taking over the Board of Supervisors is to change how the District is managing its work and that work includes its projects. It’s rights have changed because it has gone from a local government to a state agency. The current uncertainty is also having an impact.

 

[peter11435]

If RCID is an absolute seperate entity of DIS, how would DIS have standing in a 1sr Amendment claim?

Because the state has been very clear that the intent of dissolving RCID was to harm and punish Disney as a result of their statement. It is quite clear that this was meant to retaliate against them based on their statement and silence further opposition.

It would be like if I said something the government disliked and their response was to shut down my employer. My employer and I are separate entities. But that doesn’t give the government a free pass here.

 

[mikejs78]

By the way, if some are wondering why there is so much discussion of contract law, it's because RCID issued the following statement about 2 weeks ago:

In light of the State of Florida’s pledge to the District’s bondholders, Reedy Creek expects to explore its options while continuing its present operations, including levying and collecting its ad valorem taxes and collecting its utility revenues, paying debt service on its ad valorem tax bonds and utility revenue bonds, complying with its bond covenants and operating and maintaining its properties.​

The bonds issued by RCID are protected by contract law.

The question then becomes, has what DeSantis done violated contract law?

The still not understanding how jurisdiction works. . state court will not apply federal law or standards.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Florida didn't have its own contract clause in its constitution. If a person brought a suit in state court regarding the legislature changing a contract, it would likely be dismissed.

But you're right that the federal standard exists - in federal court. In this scenario, someone who wanted to sue based on a contracts clause violation would have to do so in federal court and use federal standings.

But FL does have its own contracts clause. And that contract clause has been interpreted, in state court, to be more stringent than the federal contracts clause. So a suit in federal court would still rely on federal precident, but a suit in state court would only rely on state precident.

They are completely independent from each other.

The question you ask above is better framed as two questions. Has what DeSantis done violated federal contract law? Has what DeSantis done violated state contract law?

They are two completely independent questions.

 

[flynnibus]

If RCID is an absolute seperate entity of DIS, how would DIS have standing in a 1sr Amendment claim?

If the government arrests your parents on trumped up charges to quell your speach… do you think you would be saying ‘well your parents are not you’?

This standard of ‘its not them’ is completely made up… yet people keep repeating it over and over

 

[GoofGoof]

By the way, if some are wondering why there is so much discussion of contract law, it's because RCID issued the following statement about 2 weeks ago:

In light of the State of Florida’s pledge to the District’s bondholders, Reedy Creek expects to explore its options while continuing its present operations, including levying and collecting its ad valorem taxes and collecting its utility revenues, paying debt service on its ad valorem tax bonds and utility revenue bonds, complying with its bond covenants and operating and maintaining its properties.​

The bonds issued by RCID are protected by contract law.

The question then becomes, has what DeSantis done violated contract law?

….It has probably violated contract law
….it will have violated state law and the state constitution, especially if he attempts to take control of the district
….it has almost certainly violated federal law and the US constitution
….it has violated the moral and ethical code that all public servants should follow - elected officials should never use the power given to them by the people to punish political opponents.

 

[GoofGoof]

If RCID is an absolute seperate entity of DIS, how would DIS have standing in a 1sr Amendment claim?

If there were protests in Miami in the streets over this issue or any other issue the Governor supports and he came out and used some supposed loophole in state law to revoke state funding to the city/county and came out publicly and said he was doing this to punish the citizens of Miami for speaking out against him it would also be a slam dunk 1st Amendment lawsuit too even though the city of Miami is an absolute separate entity from the citizens protesting. This would be even worse if he repeatedly claimed he was doing this to punish those protesters and fund raised off of it and had members of the legislature even suggest the action could be reversed if the protestors went home and stopped speaking out publicly.

 

[Brian]

DeSantis promises legislation to prevent Disney debt from falling to taxpayers

Gov. Ron DeSantis reiterated his promise that Florida's taxpayers will not take on Walt Disney World's debt when and if the Reedy Creek Improvement District dissolves in 2023, teasing that he may have some legislative measures in place to prevent that from happening.

www.clickorlando.com

 

[Figgy1]

DeSantis promises legislation to prevent Disney debt from falling to taxpayers

Gov. Ron DeSantis reiterated his promise that Florida's taxpayers will not take on Walt Disney World's debt when and if the Reedy Creek Improvement District dissolves in 2023, teasing that he may have some legislative measures in place to prevent that from happening.

www.clickorlando.com

I thought the taxpayers within the district were already paying taxes to RC to pay for everything