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

[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.

 

[flynnibus]

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

That’s not how the logic works. Just because you do something via process ABC doesn’t not enable process XYZ. They do not have unlimited power to rewrite the laws unilaterally. The laws they do have the right to change must still abide by the constitution of the state.

You logic is like saying… they created counties… so by that act they are allowed to redefine the county to require you to work a certain job. No - the right to create a county, or change the county, does not empower -any- change they want. The things they can change and how are still bound by the state constitution.

That’s why the discussion is about the change — and how it stands — not a debate on “does the state have the power to change a special district”.

No matter how many times people try to dumb it down to arguments of “the state can change laws”.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Quoting from Lake Worth Utilities v. City of Lake Worth:

In ruling that Chapter 69-1215 did unconstitutionally transfer municipal powers to the Authority, the court focused on the last part of the first sentence of article VIII, section 2(b), Florida Constitution:​

​

(b) Powers. Municipalities shall have governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law. Each municipal legislative body shall be elective.​

​

The court held that the limiting prepositional phrase, "except as otherwise provided by law," modifies only the clause, "and may exercise any power for municipal purposes." To read the words of limitation otherwise, the court held, would nullify the change represented by the 1968 constitutional revision and return the municipalities to their pre-1968 dependence on the legislature for grants of power. "Each time municipal authority, or change in municipal authority, was sought, it would be necessary to approach the legislative *217 branch of government," the court reasoned.​

​

Such an interpretation misapprehends the import of the 1968 revision and unduly denigrates the supremacy of the legislature as a state policy-making body. Before the adoption of article VIII, section 2(b) in 1968, municipalities were creatures of legislative grace. Article VIII, section 8, Florida Constitution of 1885, provided, in pertinent part, "The Legislature shall have power to establish, and to abolish, municipalities to provide for their government, to prescribe their jurisdiction and powers, and to alter or amend the same at any time." Thus, the municipalities were inherently powerless, absent a specific grant of power from the legislature. The noblest municipal ordinance, enacted to serve the most compelling municipal purpose, was void, absent authorization found in some general or special law.​

​

The clear purpose of the 1968 revision embodied in article VIII, section 2 was to give the municipalities inherent power to meet municipal needs. But "inherent" is not to be confused with "absolute" or even with "supreme" in this context. The legislature's retained power is now one of limitation rather than one of grace, but it remains an all-pervasive power, nonetheless.​

​

Thus, the words "except as otherwise provided by law" must be read as modifying the entire sentence preceding it. Such a reading is supported by historical analysis, grammatical precepts, and common sense. It finds further support in the commentary to the 1968 Florida Constitution provided by the reporter for the Constitutional Revision Commission, Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte:​

​

The provisions in the subsection were new with the Revision Commission proposal, but the 1885 Constitution granted the power to the legislature to prescribe the jurisdiction and powers of municipalities by law in Article VIII, Section 8. The apparent difference is that under the new language, all municipalities have governmental, corporate and proprietary powers unless provided otherwise by law, whereas under the 1885 Constitution, municipalities had only those powers expressly granted by law.​

Per the 1968 FL constitution, a municipality is assumed to have the power to perform its functions "unless provided otherwise by law." Prior to that, a municipality only had the powers expressly granted to it by the legislature.

The city’s argument was that the state did not have the authority to another local subdivision, one whose board they appointed. The state being able to create its subdivisions is not the same as the state being able to give control of specific subdivisions to themselves.

 

[mmascari]

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

I agree. However it was at least more feasible. Most of those were more contractual. The representation impact is more about how governments are granted authority. Presumably, it would be easier to navigate contractual issues than governance ones.

This has me wondering. One possibility was that Disney was going to just ignore the dissolution as not applying to them. I wonder if they’ll just ignore the new board now. They could take the position that the law is invalid and just ignore it, business as usual. Instead of suing to stop the change, force the state to take measures to enforce it. The state could sue Disney for not complying. The could send in state police to enforce things. Issue arrest warrants for Disney management, or staff. Issue fines, that Disney could just not pay. Almost all of those would create interesting PR moments for everyone.

I’m not saying this is what is going to happen. Just that it’s a possibility. It could be quite the circus.

 

[Tha Realest]

That’s not how the logic works. Just because you do something via process ABC doesn’t not enable process XYZ. They do not have unlimited power to rewrite the laws unilaterally. The laws they do have the right to change must still abide by the constitution of the state.

You logic is like saying… they created counties… so by that act they are allowed to redefine the county to require you to work a certain job. No - the right to create a county, or change the county, does not empower -any- change they want. The things they can change and how are still bound by the state constitution.

That’s why the discussion is about the change — and how it stands — not a debate on “does the state have the power to change a special district”.

No matter how many times people try to dumb it down to arguments of “the state can change laws”.

But you’ve not explained how this is action violates the Florida constitution. Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable. And while you might not like the outcome, the legislature can change the laws - yes, even ones they’ve passed in a prior session.

Again, I get a lot of you had (have?) a lot invested in an outcome that was bad for Florida and Desantis and good for Disney. They’ve chosen not to even challenge this, and have been very clear in their statements. Nevertheless, many persist with these fanciful notions that this doesn’t really mean they’re relenting, or that they’re playing rope a dope, or the lobbying arm will suddenly overcome electoral and demographic trends to undo the GOP’s supermajority in the next election cycle or two. We’ll see! For now, until shown otherwise, it’s clear my initial read on this is shared somewhat by whoever’s advising Disney.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But you’ve not explained how this is action violates the Florida constitution. Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable. And while you might not like the outcome, the legislature can change the laws - yes, even ones they’ve passed in a prior session.

Multiple issues have been very clearly stated. You though have provided no evidence that Disney’s statement and assumed action are based entirely on legal analysis. You have also provided no explanation for why the legislature previously came to different conclusions.

 

[LSLS]

But you’ve not explained how this is action violates the Florida constitution. Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable. And while you might not like the outcome, the legislature can change the laws - yes, even ones they’ve passed in a prior session.

Again, I get a lot of you had (have?) a lot invested in an outcome that was bad for Florida and Desantis and good for Disney. They’ve chosen not to even challenge this, and have been very clear in their statements. Nevertheless, many persist with these fanciful notions that this doesn’t really mean they’re relenting, or that they’re playing rope a dope, or the lobbying arm will suddenly overcome electoral and demographic trends to undo the GOP’s supermajority in the next election cycle or two. We’ll see! For now, until shown otherwise, it’s clear my initial read on this is shared somewhat by whoever’s advising Disney.

You are making such leaps here. Your argument is the only reason to not challenge this is because they think it's correct? So when a company decides to settle instead of going to court, the only reason is because they are in the wrong? And the only reason the other side accepts is because they don't think they have a case? Or is it because when the company factor in the PR, the cost of the suits, etc., it makes more financial sense to settle quietly than drag it out for years? And the person suing, maybe they figure they don't have the financial means to carry on a 5 year lawsuit paying lawyers

 

[Andrew C]

Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable.

The response from disney is definitely interesting. Do they not see this as such a clear case that is easily winnable like a lot of people in here? Do they just think it’s not worth the effort? Are they playing the long game and holding their cards close to their chest? Or was there some type of compromise behind closed doors to resolve the situation without escalating further? My money would be on the last listed.

 

[Tha Realest]

Multiple issues have been very clearly stated. You though have provided no evidence that Disney’s statement and assumed action are based entirely on legal analysis. You have also provided no explanation for why the legislature previously came to different conclusions.

I’ve cited to the Variety article, which appears to be the most authoritative read on Disney’s decision making. If you have additional sources which provide insight into how this went down, I’d love to read them. Until then, we only have 1) Disney’s statement indicating they’re not challenging this, and 2) informative articles that give insight and context to this decision. Legislatures are also not bound by previous opinions or conclusions.

 

[Tha Realest]

You are making such leaps here. Your argument is the only reason to not challenge this is because they think it's correct? So when a company decides to settle instead of going to court, the only reason is because they are in the wrong? And the only reason the other side accepts is because they don't think they have a case? Or is it because when the company factor in the PR, the cost of the suits, etc., it makes more financial sense to settle quietly than drag it out for years? And the person suing, maybe they figure they don't have the financial means to carry on a 5 year lawsuit paying lawyers

Disney made $82.7 billion in revenue last year, which is comparable to the GDP of Sri Lanka.

They could afford the lawyers.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’ve cited to the Variety article, which appears to be the most authoritative read on Disney’s decision making. If you have additional sources which provide insight into how this went down, I’d love to read them. Until then, we only have 1) Disney’s statement indicating they’re not challenging this, and 2) informative articles that give insight and context to this decision. Legislatures are also not bound by previous opinions or conclusions.

As has been explained to you several times now, the Variety article is not a legal analysis nor does it cite one as being the overwhelming factor.

Nobody has said the legislature is bound by prior research. But it’s pretty compelling evidence that when actually dedicating time and resources they came to a very different conclusion. You have not provided any reasoning for how or why they erred in that prior research.

 

[Chi84]

But you’ve not explained how this is action violates the Florida constitution. Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable. And while you might not like the outcome, the legislature can change the laws - yes, even ones they’ve passed in a prior session.

Again, I get a lot of you had (have?) a lot invested in an outcome that was bad for Florida and Desantis and good for Disney. They’ve chosen not to even challenge this, and have been very clear in their statements. Nevertheless, many persist with these fanciful notions that this doesn’t really mean they’re relenting, or that they’re playing rope a dope, or the lobbying arm will suddenly overcome electoral and demographic trends to undo the GOP’s supermajority in the next election cycle or two. We’ll see! For now, until shown otherwise, it’s clear my initial read on this is shared somewhat by whoever’s advising Disney.

Sometimes it’s possible to violate the law even when you do something you have authority to do.

This isn’t a perfect example but in most states employment is “at will.” That means an employer can fire an employee for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all - unless doing so violates a legal protection extended to the employee.

So even though an employee has no right to continued employment, he may bring a claim for retaliatory discharge against an employer who fires him for advocating joining a union. That’s where issues of intent become relevant. Those issues are usually based on conflicting evidence and resolved by the trier of fact.

Again, this is not a perfect analogy. It’s just meant to show that someone can violate the law by doing what they have the legal authority to do if they violate someone else’s legal protection. Different considers come into play based on different circumstances.

 

[Tha Realest]

The response from disney is definitely interesting. Do they not see this as such a clear case that is easily winnable like a lot of people in here? Do they just think it’s not worth the effort? Are they playing the long game and holding their cards close to their chest? Or was there some type of compromise behind closed doors to resolve the situation without escalating further? My money would be on the last listed.

Its not just “telling,” it’s dispositive.

Really, the Reedy Creek Denialists that think Disney’s just lying in wait to mount a super secret legal challenge to this are no different than the people who think Splash Mountain is coming back or that Lucasfilm will erase the sequel trilogy.

 

[CAV]

Disney has given us no reason to think or hope otherwise. They've capitulated. And they've lost not only the district, but whatever respect they gained by speaking out (albeit belatedly) in support of their CMs. They'd have done better to stay silent if cowardice was the route they were going to take anyway.

They didn't, "speak out in support of their CMs." They spoke out in support of *some* CMs. And it stands to reason, if they did that, they spoke out AGAINST some CMs who agreed with the legislation. Some of those they spoke out against, identify in that community but still agreed with the legislation. And, your words again, they lost "respect" of those they spoke against.

I do agree with you though, they should haven stayed out of this fight. Rather than specifically support or oppose the legislation, they should have stayed neutral, encouraged their employees to to exercise their right to vote and remind their employees all they do, policy wise (benefits) to support them.

 

[CAV]

I disagree. They should have fought their CMs’ corner from the outset, and they should still be fighting now.

You assume all CMs agree with their "fight?"