Not per se, but the constitution doesn't shine the principle of home rule - That local government should not be interfered with by the state government.
I am not sure if that is how it would work. I suppose it may be possible to create a new special district with no taxing authority and then force that district and RCID to merge essentially forming 1 new district due to that combining that keeps the new combined district’s governance but the old RCID taxing authority. I believe there is a mechanism for the government to force a combining of local municipalities. I am unsure how the cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista play into that though. Can the Governor just unilaterally combine local cities? Seems like an extreme overreach of power.
Where is the governor granted authority to take control of local governments? We’ve come to take a backwards view of our constitutions. It’s not that the government is all powerful except things it agrees it won’t do in a bill of rights, and it can do anything and everything except those few listed items. It’s supposed to be that the constitution gives certain power to the government. This is the very first point made the Florida Constitution. The Florida Constitution is constructed around the idea of local governance, letting the governor just assume direct control of local government flies in the face of the entire system of governance established by the constitution.
Even then, where is the legislature given the power to hand a local government over to the governor? The Florida Constitution does not posit an all powerful state that can do anything it desires unless specifically restricted.
That power certainly has to have limits though. A court can still rule that a law violates the intent of the FL constitution even if the action is not explicitly spelled out there. This is very common at all levels of government. The constitution (State or Federal) is not intended to address every unique situation. I do not believe any rational person would think the intent of the clauses on local governance in the FL constitutions were intended to provide the Governor and/or legislature a loophole to just do whatever they want and crush the will of the people and local taxpayers. If that is the case why have a constitution at all? Just have one sentence that says the Governor can do whatever he wants as long as the legislature agrees with him.
Reedy Creek Improvement District is not legally linked to The Walt Disney Company. They are not one in the same. The de facto control is a situation that can be changed and does not change the District. The governor being able to take control of the District absolutely sets the precedent that the executive can take control of local governing bodies and exclude the local stakeholders from say in local governance.
What would stop Disney from changing the tax rate before the government took over?
Appointed does not mean exclusively appointed by the governor.
This is all just political spin. TWDC is a corporation headquartered in CA. If they were headquartered in FL would that make a difference? Legally, I can’t see how but its a political talking point. How much money they make certainly has no bearing legally. A land owner is a landowner and Walt Disney World is part of Florida and they pay plenty of taxes. This is not the case of a corporation stepping over the line. They are causing no harm to the state or the local taxpayers. They provide hundreds of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly to the state.
Two things can be true at once - the governor could have legitimate concerns about powerful and influential companies who push values which he feels are not aligned with those of his constituents, while at the same time being out of line in trying to exert government power by taking over a special district in an attempt to improve the situation.
I agree with this. Even though I don't agree with DeSantis on the legislation itself that triggered all of this, nor his concerns about Disney, it would have been perfectly within his rights for him to engage in a constant drum beat of criticism against Disney, organization against Disney in the private sector - organizing boycotts, etc.
I don’t disagree. The Governor is absolutely allowed to oppose Disney and oppose their political point of view. That’s the basis of our democracy, we all have a right to an opinion, even elected officials. As I said many pages ago, an appropriate response would have been public opposition and it would have even been fine to call for a boycott of their products and services if he felt that was necessary and it was done in the capacity of a concerned citizen and not using state employee time or resources. What’s completely inappropriate is using the power of the government (entrusted to you by the people) to attack a political adversary.
