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

[UNCgolf]

Of course they could. They created RCID. As it’s creator, they could change up the composition as they see fit.

Look, Disney’s impressive cadre of lawyers and lobbyists appear to agree with this view. You, lazyboy97o, and others can wish-cast all you want about what should have been done/should be done, but clearly Disney’s been advised - by again, their high paid roster of lawyers and lobbyists - that this is not a fight they’ll win.

That's a big assumption. Just because Disney isn't fighting it (if they aren't, we don't really know for sure yet) doesn't mean their attorneys have told them they wouldn't win.

Businesses don't make decisions solely on if they think they'd win a lawsuit.

 

[Tha Realest]

Wait, so in FL it’s completely normal for the legislature to carve out an area of land, add a special taxing district to it, and appoint the governor in control with no input from those that own the land in that area?

That would seem like a huge negative to retiring or moving business to FL.

On the flip side, I think we just found a way for FL to raise some cash. New Special Districts incoming, let the tax revenue flow. It’s not like the owners of land in them can vote to disapprove. They can just suck it up and pay.

Why all the fuss to get support for new districts when they can just be imposed.

Legislative acts can be undone by legislative acts. I’m sorry this is a difficult concept for many of you to grasp. But keep making up facts or alternative theories of separation of powers if that makes you feel better.

 

[Brian]

That's a big assumption. Just because Disney isn't fighting it (if they aren't, we don't really know for sure yet) doesn't mean their attorneys have told them they wouldn't win.

Businesses don't make decisions solely on if they think they'd win a lawsuit.

Agreed. As I understand it, Disney's conciliatory tone is more a function of PR/damage control than the legal merits of a hypothetical lawsuit.

 

[Tha Realest]

That's a big assumption. Just because Disney isn't fighting it (if they aren't, we don't really know for sure yet) doesn't mean their attorneys have told them they wouldn't win.

Businesses don't make decisions solely on if they think they'd win a lawsuit.

But all these armchair Imagineers-come-armchair lawyers and lobbyists have assured us over the last year this was a slam dunk lawsuit to reverse this. We have a large industry publication quoting those in the know offering the unlikely legal outcome as a major reason why they aren’t fighting this.

Variety should have gotten a legal opinion from the premium members on here!

 

[UNCgolf]

But all these armchair Imagineers-come-armchair lawyers and lobbyists have assured us over the last year this was a slam dunk lawsuit to reverse this. We have a large industry publication quoting those in the know offering the unlikely legal outcome as a major reason why they aren’t fighting this.

Variety should have gotten a legal opinion from the premium members on here!

I think you're reading a lot into the Variety article that isn't there. It doesn't suggest that a legal victory was unlikely. It merely says there was no guarantee of success -- which, speaking as an attorney, is true 99% of the time when it comes to a lawsuit. If an attorney is guaranteeing victory, you should probably find a different attorney.

 

[mmascari]

Legislative acts can be undone by legislative acts. I’m sorry this is a difficult concept for many of you to grasp. But keep making up facts or alternative theories of separation of powers if that makes you feel better.

Nothing is being undone here. That was the old plan. That was probably just fine, it didn’t impose any new local government requirements on anyone without their say. It had lots of negative impacts, but that’s not the same thing.

This is replacement of a locally elected government by an appointed one. With no say from the governed. If that’s correct if FL, then all unincorporated land could become state “towns”, all local governments replaced by appointed officials, and just eliminate all local elections.

Clearly I have not read where that’s not possible. But it seems fairly bedrock. Otherwise, why all the fuss when creating new districts, towns, cities, or changing from town to city government structures. If it could all just be done at the state level with no local input, that’s a lot of wasted time over the years.

 

[GoofGoof]

But all these armchair Imagineers-come-armchair lawyers and lobbyists have assured us over the last year this was a slam dunk lawsuit to reverse this. We have a large industry publication quoting those in the know offering the unlikely legal outcome as a major reason why they aren’t fighting this.

Variety should have gotten a legal opinion from the premium members on here!

On its face there is a strong 1st amendment case here, still is. Disney choosing not pursue that case is a business decision. Even if they felt there was a 95% chance of winning the lawsuit they could have still elected not to pursue it because of the bad press and potential of additional attacks. You are concluding that because Disney isn’t pursuing a lawsuit that means they decided they wouldn’t win. It’s possible they determined that winning the lawsuit could actually still be a loss for them overall.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Legislative acts can be undone by legislative acts. I’m sorry this is a difficult concept for many of you to grasp. But keep making up facts or alternative theories of separation of powers if that makes you feel better.

Why didn’t the legislature come to this conclusion when they studied the matter in the past?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Nothing is being undone here. That was the old plan. That was probably just fine, it didn’t impose any new local government requirements on anyone without their say. It had lots of negative impacts, but that’s not the same thing.

Even that wasn’t entirely the case. The legislature can’t enter into agreements and then just unilaterally end them.

 

[Stripes]

Is it possible that the cities of Lake Buena Vista and, in particular, Bay Lake will reclaim various responsibilities from RCID such as permit approvals? Disney will still have full control of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake, as the only residents in the cities are Disney employees that Disney allows to reside there. My understanding was that much of RCID’s power was actually given to them by Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, therefore it stands to reason that the cities could reclaim that power.

If someone more knowledgeable could provide more insight into this possibility and/or correct any misunderstandings, it would be greatly appreciated!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Is it possible that the cities of Lake Buena Vista and, in particular, Bay Lake will reclaim various responsibilities from RCID such as permit approvals? Disney will still have full control of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake, as the only residents in the cities are Disney employees that Disney allows to reside there. My understanding was that much of RCID’s power was actually given to them by Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, therefore it stands to reason that the cities could reclaim that power.

If someone more knowledgeable could provide more insight into this possibility and/or correct any misunderstandings, it would be greatly appreciated!

No. The legislation gives the district primacy over the municipalities which is part of why it is so problematic. Under this model the state could now create a Central Florida Municipal Oversight District that encompasses Orlando and Winter Park and make those cities subordinate to that new district on most municipal matters.

 

[peter11435]

Of course they could. They created RCID. As its creator, they could change up the composition as they see fit.

Look, Disney’s impressive cadre of lawyers and lobbyists appear to agree with this view. You, lazyboy97o, and others can wish-cast all you want about what should have been done/should be done, but clearly Disney’s been advised - by again, their high paid roster of lawyers and lobbyists - that this is not a fight they’ll win.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the entire process that led to the eventual creation of the RCID and its full assortment of powers.

You still don’t actually know that Disney won’t fight this. And even if they don’t, that doesn’t mean they think they can’t win… or that the legislature is correct in their actions.

Let me ask you this. Let’s say you live in Florida. You own a house on a small quarter acre. The state decides for whatever reason they are going to create a special district that encompass only your quarter acre. They are then going to appoint people you have no control over to oversee the district that encompasses your quarter acre and only your quarter acre. They will have full municipal oversight over your home/property and will levy an additional tax on you…. In addition to the taxes you already pay. And that tax will be above the legal limit set in the Florida constitution. Does that sound to you like something they should be able to do. Would you be ok with that?

 

[Dranth]

Yeah, but then they can’t gloat, which is what’s really important here.

That is all some people have, might as well let them enjoy it. They will promptly forget that they supported something like this when their "team" ends up on the other side now that this has been established is a viable punishment for disagreeing with the ruling party. People like to think their side will stay in power forever but it doesn't work that way and then the retribution cycle kicks in.

I'm disappointed that what I thought was such an important characteristic of American values and doctrine turns out to only be a joke in a case like this and that there are people so far gone they would actually celebrate a blatent misuse of power but honestly, it isn't going to impact most of us in any real way.

I expect the district to be more wasteful and run more poorly but Disney itself will be fine and if not, there are plenty of other places to go visit.

 

[Stripes]

No. The legislation gives the district primacy over the municipalities.

So, basically, if a lawsuit were to be filed, it would have to be from the residents of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista alleging disenfranchisement given that the creation of RCID had to be approved by a referendum of BL and LBV residents, and therefore stripping the landowners of voting power constituted a fundamental change that required a new referendum.

Again, correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[peter11435]

But all these armchair Imagineers-come-armchair lawyers and lobbyists have assured us over the last year this was a slam dunk lawsuit to reverse this. We have a large industry publication quoting those in the know offering the unlikely legal outcome as a major reason why they aren’t fighting this.

Variety should have gotten a legal opinion from the premium members on here!

You’re still ignoring multiple things. First we don’t know they won’t fight it. And just because they don’t… does not mean they feel they couldn’t win. There are other reasons not to fight this beyond being certain of a loss. And the article you are citing is not saying they don’t have a case. Just that a win is not a certainty… it never is.

 

[Stripes]

You’re still ignoring multiple things. First we don’t know they won’t fight it. And just because they don’t… does not mean they feel they couldn’t win. There are other reasons not to fight this beyond being certain of a loss. And the article you are citing is not saying they don’t have a case. Just that a win is not a certainty… it never is.

I mean Disney wouldn’t be the plaintiff anyway, right? It would have to be the residents of BL and LBV who, of course, Disney hand picks.

From what I understand, Disney itself doesn’t have a case (unless they were to file alleging a 1st amendment violation, but I don’t think that argument would hold up in court), therefore it makes sense that they are publishing statements that accept the new terms. Behind the scenes though, they may be pulling the strings of their hand picked residents who will be the ones to file suit. Disney distances itself from the politics while still fighting the legislation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I mean Disney itself wouldn’t be the plaintiff anyway, right? It would have to be the residents of BL and LBV who, of course, Disney hand picks.

Disney could be the plaintiff because they are a landowner in the district and votes in the district are by land holdings.

The municipalities could potentially also be plaintiffs because they’re no longer delegating their authority.

The residents could be plaintiffs because their governments have been rendering meaningless.

The District itself could probably be the plaintiff as representing their constituents.

There are a bunch of different way this could be challenged.

 

[Stripes]

Disney could be the plaintiff because they are a landowner in the district and votes in the district are by land holdings.

But the structure of landowners receiving the voting power was only due to the original RCID legislation and subsequent referendum of BL and LBV (then city of Reedy Creek) residents. It’s the residents‘ approval Florida would need to make changes, not the landowners, so the residents would be considered the injured party.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But the structure of landowners receiving the voting power was only due to the original RCID legislation and subsequent referendum of BL and LBV (then city of Reedy Creek) residents. It’s the residents‘ approval Florida would need to make changes, not the landowners, so the residents would be considered the injured party.

I think this gets into the unique way the Reedy Creek Improvement District was constituted. There are special districts that are entirely based around land ownership. This is what Universal is working to get created to support the convention center train station. Reedy Creek Improvement District has additional powers delegated by the cities. I don’t think that delegation would negate all standing since some of the powers pre-date the cities and are based on land.

 

[mikejs78]

Disney could be the plaintiff because they are a landowner in the district and votes in the district are by land holdings.

The municipalities could potentially also be plaintiffs because they’re no longer delegating their authority.

The residents could be plaintiffs because their governments have been rendering meaningless.

The District itself could probably be the plaintiff as representing their constituents.

There are a bunch of different way this could be challenged.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Reedy Creek board members are all landowners in the district. And although they have a close affiliation with Disney (they may have once even been Disney employees) they aren't part of Disney in an official capacity now. So, theoretically, the board could sue as landowners and Disney could just say that they aren't involved in the suit.