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

[lazyboy97o]

They can't. The law they passed could fairly easily be struct down on judicial review, if the state of Florida weren't so hyperpartisan.

And since Florida is so hyperpartisan in all 3 branches of state government, there's no checks and balances. Without checks and balances, those in Tallahassee do what they want and get away with it.

In short, Florida is not to be trusted to do business deals with. This is third world crap.

While there are cases of bizarre and egregious judicial action, recent history has shown a number of judges strike down the desires of their political associates. While this has happened mostly at the federal level it still shows that there some level of importance placed on precedent and rule of law.

I think the bigger concern, that is happening right now with little fanfare, is the possibility of the state just ignoring that legislation has been struck down and moving forward.

 

[mkt]

I think the bigger concern, that is happening right now with little fanfare, is the possibility of the state just ignoring that legislation has been struck down and moving forward.

I'd give the chances of this happening 100%.

 

[ParentsOf4]

They can't. The law they passed could fairly easily be struct down on judicial review, if the state of Florida weren't so hyperpartisan.

And since Florida is so hyperpartisan in all 3 branches of state government, there's no checks and balances. Without checks and balances, those in Tallahassee do what they want and get away with it.

In short, Florida is not to be trusted to do business deals with. This is third world crap.

The law that was passed to dissolve RCID appears to fit within the legal limits of the Florida state constitution. I don’t think Disney has much they can fight there.

However, it’s difficult to imagine how the state will pass a new law to create a new district without the approval of landowners or residents. Months ago, this was discussed in great detail on this thread.

In addition, Disney would seem to have an ironclad First Amendment case, if they want to go that route.

But Iger has said he wants the company to have a less politicized profile. Fighting this might only play into DeSantis’ hands, giving him something to run on for the next 22 months. (Most legal challenges probably will take longer than this to resolve.)

Like it or not, DeSantis won with a crushing 59% of the vote. Meanwhile, Disney’s popularity with Florida residents has plummeted due to much higher prices, limits on annual pass sales, and hardball tactics with local unions & businesses.

Many are not going to like this, but Disney’s best long-term play might be to keep a low profile. Once the governor moves on, Disney almost certainly will be able to get what it wants.

Long-term, Disney is going to win this, one way or another.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Doesn't matter in the long run as there are other competitors these days for those vacation dollars, such as the Comcast-owned properties up I-4.

Previously, I never thought Universal Orlando could put a dent in WDW’s business, but now I am beginning to re think that.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The law that was passed to dissolve RCID appears to fit within the legal limits of the Florida state constitution. I don’t think Disney has much they can fight there.

A variety of ways the dissolution law would not hold up have been discussed.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The law that was passed to dissolve RCID appears to fit within the legal limits of the Florida state constitution. I don’t think Disney has much they can fight there.

However, it’s difficult to imagine how the state will pass a new law to create a new district without the approval of landowners or residents. Months ago, this was discussed in great detail on this thread.

In addition, Disney would seem to have an ironclad First Amendment case, if they want to go that route.

But Iger has said he wants the company to have a less politicized profile. Fighting this might only play into DeSantis’ hands, giving him something to run on for the next 22 months. (Most legal challenges probably will take longer than this to resolve.)

Like it or not, DeSantis won with a crushing 59% of the vote. Meanwhile, Disney’s popularity with Florida residents has plummeted due to much higher prices, limits on annual pass sales, and hardball tactics with local unions & businesses.

Many are not going to like this, but Disney’s best long-term play might be to keep a low profile. Once the governor moves on, Disney almost certainly will be able to get what it wants.

Long-term, Disney is going to win this, one way or another.

I agree with this, dissolving Reedy Creek doesn’t benefit anyone, it’s 100% a political ploy so the quieter they fight it the better it’ll go.

The legislature has already indicated they want to reverse course, they know it’s a no win situation so let them fight the governor. He’s the one and only person who benefits from this and that benefit only continues if Disney fights publicly and keeps it in the spotlight.

 

[mikejs78]

Florida always had the power to do it

The legislature didn't seem to think so about two decades ago. They produced a full report saying that the district couldn't be dissolved in the face of a possibility of Disney being acquired and no longer owning WDW.

The law that was passed to dissolve RCID appears to fit within the legal limits of the Florida state constitution. I don’t think Disney has much they can fight there.

However, it’s difficult to imagine how the state will pass a new law to create a new district without the approval of landowners or residents. Months ago, this was discussed in great detail on this thread.

In addition, Disney would seem to have an ironclad First Amendment case, if they want to go that route.

But Iger has said he wants the company to have a less politicized profile. Fighting this might only play into DeSantis’ hands, giving him something to run on for the next 22 months. (Most legal challenges probably will take longer than this to resolve.)

Like it or not, DeSantis won with a crushing 59% of the vote. Meanwhile, Disney’s popularity with Florida residents has plummeted due to much higher prices, limits on annual pass sales, and hardball tactics with local unions & businesses.

Many are not going to like this, but Disney’s best long-term play might be to keep a low profile. Once the governor moves on, Disney almost certainly will be able to get what it wants.

Long-term, Disney is going to win this, one way or another.

DeSantis has also said that the legislation will transfer the district's debt to Disney. Even if Disney were going to not fight the state-controlled district, I have a hard time thinking that they will quietly allow a ton of debt to be transferred to their balance sheet.

 

[mkt]

'will pay for' doesn't necessarily mean transferred.

Hello new hotel tax for all lodging properties in the cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista?

/s

 

[flynnibus]

Hello new hotel tax for all lodging properties in the cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista?

/s

Joking aside, this starts to enter the area the state just can't unilaterally wave their hand over... the revenue bonds have a committed funding source that can't just be scratched out and replaced by the Gov's pen alone. Ergo the mess...

 

[lentesta]

Like it or not, DeSantis won with a crushing 59% of the vote. Meanwhile, Disney’s popularity with Florida residents has plummeted due to much higher prices, limits on annual pass sales, and hardball tactics with local unions & businesses.

Many are not going to like this, but Disney’s best long-term play might be to keep a low profile. Once the governor moves on, Disney almost certainly will be able to get what it wants.

A good point. Let's assume that Disney could win, eventually, through the courts.

The question they might be asking themselves is around the size of the financial impact of being the governor's punching bag for however many years that takes. What would it do to revenue to be villified in speeches now, and PAC-funded ads in the '24 and '26 election cycles?

I'm reasonably sure there's a contingent within the company who favors going along with RCID dissolution in the hopes it'll appease the governor. And I'm reasonably sure there's an opposing contingent within the company whose retort is "Neville Chamberlain had an agreement too."

Until recently, I thought there was zero chance of Disney just accepting dissolution. I'm much less certain of that now.

 

[sedati]

'will pay for' doesn't necessarily mean transferred.

He's probably using the same dictionary as Trump for his wall and Mexico paying for it. Suggesting the burden will flow from them in some way.

It's all still grandstanding at this point. He doesn't have unilateral power to makeup what he wants and it will be years in the courts to fight it.

And Disney could perhaps look at ways it contributes money to the local economy beyond taxes. Maybe they don't "buy local" for supplies and such. If they're treated like a California-based company, then send as much money that way as possible or at least out-of-state.

Imagine if the Flamingo casino in Vegas caught the ire of its governor so they decided to revoke the gambling license of any resort from 1946.

 

[ParentsOf4]

DeSantis has also said that the legislation will transfer the district's debt to Disney. Even if Disney were going to not fight the state-controlled district, I have a hard time thinking that they will quietly allow a ton of debt to be transferred to their balance sheet.

I think DeSantis poorly worded this, perhaps intentionally.

I believe the intention is to transfer the debt to whatever special district replaces RCID.

By the U.S. Constitution and numerous Supreme Court precedents, some government entity has to assume that debt.

The state of Florida does not have the legal authority to simply assign government debt (i.e. RCID’s debt) directly to a private entity (i.e. Disney).

Whatever replaces RCID can tax Disney, but the Florida Constitution places strict limits on this without the approval of landowners.

 

[JohnD]

The law that was passed to dissolve RCID appears to fit within the legal limits of the Florida state constitution. I don’t think Disney has much they can fight there.

However, it’s difficult to imagine how the state will pass a new law to create a new district without the approval of landowners or residents. Months ago, this was discussed in great detail on this thread.

In addition, Disney would seem to have an ironclad First Amendment case, if they want to go that route.

But Iger has said he wants the company to have a less politicized profile. Fighting this might only play into DeSantis’ hands, giving him something to run on for the next 22 months. (Most legal challenges probably will take longer than this to resolve.)

Like it or not, DeSantis won with a crushing 59% of the vote. Meanwhile, Disney’s popularity with Florida residents has plummeted due to much higher prices, limits on annual pass sales, and hardball tactics with local unions & businesses.

Many are not going to like this, but Disney’s best long-term play might be to keep a low profile. Once the governor moves on, Disney almost certainly will be able to get what it wants.

Long-term, Disney is going to win this, one way or another.

I'm sure all of that will come up in debate as the bills go through committees during the Florida Session. I would expect amendments from both parties on it. I certainly agree their best long-term play is low profile. Every CM in Disney is entitled to their own point of view on parental rights bill. That doesn't necessarily mean Disney had to weigh in on it when their interests are the theme parks, cruises, and Vero Beach resort.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm reasonably sure there's a contingent within the company who favors going along with RCID dissolution in the hopes it'll appease the governor. And I'm reasonably sure there's an opposing contingent within the company whose retort is "Neville Chamberlain had an agreement too."

Until recently, I thought there was zero chance of Disney just accepting dissolution. I'm much less certain of that now.

With so many parties involved, including immediate financial impacts, public services, etc.. There is no way such things happen without court stays to hold the status quo until the courts decide all the matters.

Disney doesn't have to settle for dissolution to appease the govenor. Unlike Disney, DeSantis is on a clock... Disney can wait him out with the courts holding the pause button.

 

[JohnD]

With so many parties involved, including immediate financial impacts, public services, etc.. There is no way such things happen without court stays to hold the status quo until the courts decide all the matters.

Disney doesn't have to settle for dissolution to appease the govenor. Unlike Disney, DeSantis is on a clock... Disney can wait him out with the courts holding the pause button.

Even if a bill is passed during session and signed by the Governor, I agree that a court stay is possible. You see that with multiple legislation passed around the country.

 

[UNCgolf]

Unlike Disney, DeSantis is on a clock... Disney can wait him out with the courts holding the pause button.

I think this is a potentially viable solution -- the issue goes to court and isn't resolved while DeSantis is governor, and the successor pulls back and stops defending it in court which would essentially revert everything back to the status quo.

That would be heavily dependent on who the next governor is, though. It could easily be someone who wants to keep the same DeSantis strategy going.

 

[mikejs78]

A good point. Let's assume that Disney could win, eventually, through the courts.

The question they might be asking themselves is around the size of the financial impact of being the governor's punching bag for however many years that takes. What would it do to revenue to be villified in speeches now, and PAC-funded ads in the '24 and '26 election cycles?

I'm reasonably sure there's a contingent within the company who favors going along with RCID dissolution in the hopes it'll appease the governor. And I'm reasonably sure there's an opposing contingent within the company whose retort is "Neville Chamberlain had an agreement too."

Until recently, I thought there was zero chance of Disney just accepting dissolution. I'm much less certain of that now.

The thing is, if Disney goes along with it, what's to stop the newly governor-controlled board from raising taxes in the district? What would stop them from doubling taxes and cutting services to Disney next time they do something the governor deems as being too "woke"? Or denying building permits?

That seems to me a more risky scenario for Disney than, say, if the district were dissolved and everything reverted to the counties. Then they'd have the constitutional limits on taxes and services in place, which don't apply to the district.

There's also the wildcard of the two municipalities. What powers can they reclaim from Reedy Creek to make this more palatable to Disney?

 

[flynnibus]

I think this is a potentially viable solution -- the issue goes to court and isn't resolved while DeSantis is governor, and the successor pulls back and stops defending it in court which would essentially revert everything back to the status quo.

That would be heavily dependent on who the next governor is, though. It could easily be someone who wants to keep the same DeSantis strategy going.

My point being is - time is on Disney's side, as well as court stays. There is no need to capitulate purely because DeSantis is hardline. Compromise should come in the form of a new way forward that gets wins for both sides.

There is going to be a long RCID fight on multiple angles... from the district itself, the bonds, the landholders, etc.. Then potentially whatever 'new' plan is presented could bring in other suits like from Orange and Oceleoa, etc.

And all of that is before Disney even enters the ring themselves.

The great thing about a successor to DeSantis is... they can claim closure as their own win as well as whatever concessions. It's not about who started the conversation.. it's about who gets to lay claim to the spoils. This actually is incentive for a successor to compromise and get closure.. they aren't the ones who had to backtrack, it's all spoils for them... just a question of what items you get.

This thing is going to be measured in YEARS not months if the state keeps going on this.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Even if Disney decided to do nothing it doesn’t necessarily mean that others don’t have standing and could chose to act. Just one of the other land owners in the District could decide it is worth fighting to maintain their status quo. Bond holders could also sue if there are concerns about the new arrangement or just the precedent.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Disney is battling a more immediate clock than DeSantis, the collapse of its reputation rating among consumers:

In a deeply divided United States, does a drawn-out legal battle help Disney repair their reputation?

Iger already stated:

To the extent that I can work to quiet things down, I’m going to do that. But I think it’s important to put in perspective what some of these subjects are and not just simply brand them political.​

Iger doesn't get to decide what gets branded as political; that's beyond his control. If Disney fights this, it will be framed as political. So then how does a drawn-out political battle align with Iger's desire to "quiet things down?"

DeSantis is going away in few years. A legal battle will take longer than that.

Disney's long-term interests might be best served by "quieting things down" for a year or two and instead focussing on improving their perception among consumers. Take this strategy and I predict that Disney will have control over the new RCID in 3 to 5 years. Fight it, and Disney risks damaging their reputation further in the short-term and, long-term, losing important legal battles in the conservative Florida Supreme Court, 11th Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court. It's risky going down this path, even if we feel Disney is in the right.