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

mikejs78

Premium Member
Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.

If they transfer them to the counties though, then they end up with the whole debt situation all over again. Which is what the governor really wants to avoid. Because then the debt will be paid for by the citizens of the counties, not Disney.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

flynnibus

Premium Member
I don't see how Disney could roll things to the cities on their own.

The areas they have agreed to play or not are just operating policy - they are not the legal definitions. They don't change the charter/etc. They on their own can't just arbitrarly redefine their own authorities. Plus, you have the same issues with debt servicing and the same revenue bond issues.

The taxing isn't the same and then you'd be dealing with all kinds of inter-municipality agreements to try to shift money around, etc. I don't see how any of this helps Disney... it doesn't actually change RCID.. it doesn't change the room, it just tries to move where people are standing.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.
I mean…it would be a brilliant move.

It circumvents Tallahassee…while at the same time resetting the scenario where any counter move would expose that it’s not about the special district/taxes at all…but rather to get at the company. Public “policy” that targets one specific private business.

That wouldn’t play too well in the circuits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
I’m surprised they didn’t threaten to eliminate Florida resident benefits.

What are those, again?

Oh, you mean seasonal discount pricing to entice locals to come during times of year when travel is light?

... Or I guess it could be the discount pricing on annual passes that can't be purchased, anyway.

Whether you're a local, staying on site, or have Disney in your last name, they already don't seem to care much about you already these days so it would be kind of a hollow gesture of spite but why not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.
And then the power move for local government would be to start charging $25 bucks a car to park in those nice garages in Disney Springs.

Hey, they gotta' pay that debt off somehow, right? 🤣
 
Last edited:

mkt

Disney's Favorite Scumbag™
Premium Member
And then the power move for local would be to start charging $25 bucks a car to park in those nice garages in Disney Springs.

Hey, they gotta' pay that debt off somehow, right? 🤣

The ultra power move would be to charge $100 parking for any car with a Yellow STATE Florida License plate.
 

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
How long could this be reasonably blocked, if it did go to the courts? Would it still “go into effect” or effectively be blocked for months?

EDIT: Of course, this is only if Disney takes action. After this “plan” is released. I hadn’t even noticed the timing with the earnings call.
Years. Many of them.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.
Disagree on the Supreme Court.

This reeks of “interfering with private business”

You know that’s not gonna sell well. The government is supposed to ensure that billion dollar companies are protected from losing a dime…as long as they’re never given rules/told what to do…

It’s like “Article 17” or something 😎🤔
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.
Disenfranchisement is usually considered an injury.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.
There are exceptions, but most judges, both liberal and conservative, tend to be above politics. Sure, they have their biases and views that color their decisions, but it is less about who scores political points vs the underlying ideology. Case in point - numerous conservative judges have already ruled against various laws proposed and signed by DeSantis. Very few judges, including the supreme court, have any cover for the former President's lawsuits regarding the 2020 election.

I think pointing out the conservative judiciary overstates things by quite a bit. Even under Lujan, harm can be claimed by the fact that a board with the power to levy taxes without any kind of representation will have been created.

It actually doesn't have to even be TWDC doing the suing. One of the other (Disney affiliated) landowners can.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
You have more faith than I do that justices like Thomas and Altito will rule in Disney’s favor.

My gut tells me they fully support the Parental Rights in Education Act and this will strongly influence their rulings. They are not going to give Disney a win and will figure out a way to get there. The question then becomes, how many other justices will join them, if it gets that far.

This is the battle that Disney faces in the conservative Florida Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit. Like it or not, a judge’s personal views often bleed over into their decisions.

This is why we have liberal and conservative justices. They both are looking at the same law but often reach polar opposite decisions.
I think they would be hesitant to go against an iconic private business…because the halls of power won’t like it at all.

And (prepare edit…try to keep it “non-local)…but if you look at the landscape/numbers…a certain state official will be off the front page in 3 years. And they all know it…which is why complete distractions like this are being pushed so hard now…it’s a desperation move.

This also could take years…Clarence Thomas might need ponce de Leon to be around that long
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
You have more faith than I do that justices like Thomas and Altito will rule in Disney’s favor.

Ok. Let's talk supreme court. I highly suspect you're right about Thomas and Alito. That's two against Disney. I also think that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson are a shoe-in to side with Disney. I also think Roberts is in that camp, as he has become a more moderating force over the years. So that's 4-2 for Disney. That means they would need one of the remaining three justices to side with them, and I think the odds are in their favor.

Gorsuch is the most conservative of the remaining three, and generally the most likely to side with Alito and Thomas. But - he wrote the opinion that applied the civil rights act to LGBTQ individuals. He is as pure a textualist as they come.

Kavanaugh - another right-center jurist is known for his pro-business approach and for having a very expansive view of the first amendment.

Barrett - wildcard; very pro-business record. Record on speech is unclear.

If I had to handicap a Supreme court case, I'd say 6-3 in favor of Disney.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
There are exceptions, but most judges, both liberal and conservative, tend to be above politics. Sure, they have their biases and views that color their decisions, but it is less about who scores political points vs the underlying ideology. Case in point - numerous conservative judges have already ruled against various laws proposed and signed by DeSantis. Very few judges, including the supreme court, have any cover for the former President's lawsuits regarding the 2020 election.
And it is not just more senior conservative judges making these rulings. It's even more recent appointees who owe their jobs to the people whom they are ruling against. The special master review of the items collected in the search of Mar-A-Lago was ended by conservative judges on the Eleventh Circuit, a majority of whom were appointed by Trump, because Justice Thomas decided the matter didn't need further review. And while there are examples of judges who do very much seem to craft an argument out of their desired outcome, its not usually based on their views of completely different issues regarding completely different legislation because they want to give a win to a particular person.

These cases are also assigned at random. There is no guarantee that the case ends up before a particular judge or panel of judges. Even if the case can eventually be elevated to a full panel where the majority is known, those bodies will not just take the case without lower court rulings. The state has no injury for which it can claim a need to more immediately escalate to the higher bodies.
 
Last edited:

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
There are exceptions, but most judges, both liberal and conservative, tend to be above politics. Sure, they have their biases and views that color their decisions, but it is less about who scores political points vs the underlying ideology. Case in point - numerous conservative judges have already ruled against various laws proposed and signed by DeSantis. Very few judges, including the supreme court, have any cover for the former President's lawsuits regarding the 2020 election.

I think pointing out the conservative judiciary overstates things by quite a bit. Even under Lujan, harm can be claimed by the fact that a board with the power to levy taxes without any kind of representation will have been created.

It actually doesn't have to even be TWDC doing the suing. One of the other (Disney affiliated) landowners can.
I think you have a very “textbook” view of what judges are now. I admire your optimism…but a lot of recent rulings are junta level appalling/in the tank.

What’s on “the street” is different.

But I agree that there is little chance this would go against Disney. There are some things that have a different status/level.

I’ve always argued that Disney is one of them.

What are we talking about here? Some low level carpetbagger trying to raise cash off attacking an American legend company that runs one of the very select most known/popular/visited places in the country?

Does that scan in the District of Columbia?

Easy question.
 
Last edited:

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
My read of the Florida Constitution is that the legislature is within its legal authority to dissolve the district.

Similarly, the Florida Constitution allows the legislature to create a new district, and to transfer the powers of that district:

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.

A friendly court (as the Florida Supreme Court is likely to be), could very well decide that this allows the legislature to pass a law to transfer the powers of RCID to the newly created special district.

Again, I'm not saying that the case will turn on this particular section of the Florida Constitution. Instead, I am saying that Disney is going to have to fight a complex legal battle and likely will experience setbacks along the way.

When it comes to the Florida Constitution, federal courts might stay out of this, meaning Disney has to win battles concerning special districts in state court. Ultimately, Florda judges are politicians.
You're conflating different things. There are plenty of cases where an injunction ended with the decision to allow the enjoined action to proceed. The bar for an injunction is lower than that for a ruling.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
My read of the Florida Constitution is that the legislature is within its legal authority to dissolve the district.

Similarly, the Florida Constitution allows the legislature to create a new district, and to transfer the powers of that district:

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.​

A friendly court (as the Florida Supreme Court is likely to be) could decide that this allows the legislature to pass a law to transfer the powers of RCID to the newly created special district.

Again, I'm not saying that the case will turn on this particular section of the Florida Constitution. Instead, I am saying that Disney is going to have to fight a complex legal battle and likely will experience setbacks along the way.

When it comes to the Florida Constitution, federal courts might stay out of this, meaning Disney has to win battles concerning special districts in state court. Ultimately, Florda judges are politicians.
I think they would have to change the constitution first?

My understanding is that the municipalities affect have to vote to approve a dissolution?
Which is EXACTLY why Disney had it written that way.
Much smarter men in 1965…even without iPhones 😎

Also…Disney has said nothing…they could unleash the PR hounds and flood the Airwaves with just how much money and how many lives are financed by port orleans. It’s more shocking that anyone really wants to admit.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
My read of the Florida Constitution is that the legislature is within its legal authority to dissolve the district.

Similarly, the Florida Constitution allows the legislature to create a new district, and to transfer the powers of that district:

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.​

A friendly court (as the Florida Supreme Court is likely to be) could decide that this allows the legislature to pass a law to transfer the powers of RCID to the newly created special district.

Again, I'm not saying that the case will turn on this particular section of the Florida Constitution. Instead, I am saying that Disney is going to have to fight a complex legal battle and likely will experience setbacks along the way.

When it comes to the Florida Constitution, federal courts might stay out of this, meaning Disney has to win battles concerning special districts in state court. Ultimately, Florda judges are politicians.
If a court looks at what you quoted above and then rules that the legislature can still do this then they are basically saying throw out the constitution and the judicial branch of government while you are at it and everything happens with a simple majority vote in the legislature. No guaranteed rights for anyone. Seems like a brilliant idea.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
The Florida legislature has the power to change the law. This is why when the wording to dissolve the district was worded this way:

Notwithstanding s. 189.072(2), any independent special 23 district established by a special act prior to the date of 24 ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, 25 and which was not reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise 26 reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968, is dissolved effective June 1, 2023.​

The "notwithstanding" means they can ignore previous laws, including the original charter. This is within their legislative power to do so.

However, the state legislature cannot violate the state constitution. Therefore, any challenge at the state level is going to have to hinge on the Florida Constitution.

This is why I highlighted this section of the state constitution:

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.​

Depending on one's interpretation, this could suggest that the state legislature has the power ("provided by law") to transfer the "function or power of a" "special district" to another special district "by law". The legislative passes laws. The legislature has the power.
Well…That is horrifically conceived and written…

Which is why I’m not surprised at all.

This is intellectually stupid and defies all logic. Which is my contention since day 1 and there’s been nothing to disprove it.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
There are lots of things done with a simple majority vote in the legislature that I don't like.

Our power is in electing officials who won't do things that we don't like.

And in a Constitution that is supposed to protect us against those elected officials.
Yeah it’s the last sentence that is the issue. There is a constitution. It clearly spells out how the transfer of power occurs. If a judge decides to “interpret“ that the legislature can just do what they want because the judge is a politician and he sides with the majority in the legislature than what’s the point of a constitution or a judicial branch. Throughout the history of this country judges were either elected or appointed by politicians but that never stopped them from doing their duties.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom