peter11435
Well-Known Member
And that’s the only reason I can see not to fight this. They could almost certainly win and stop the states current efforts. But that wouldn’t be the end.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Once again, you are taking a phrase and slathering it around well beyond its context and intent. The Federal Elections Act didn’t prohibit all corporate speech related to politics. Disney would have been allowed to issue a statement just as they did.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
Yes, but undoing the district would take a very long time and/or be very expensive for the state because of the bond issues. That is why we are here to begin with. The states original idea was so dumb they had to have a second special session to ditch the original plan and do a complete 180 on everything they said previously.
That extra time/money would give the state a moment to reconsider and act with some actual thought. If they still wanted to go through with it, that's fine, dissolve it in an orderly manner. If not, they can work with Disney on a new structure that benefits both in a way that doesn't include wiping their backside with the constitution.
How much continuous land should we limit companies to buying?
Do we let them buy whatever, but then limit what they build on it?
Would that apply to something like a rancher in Montana too?
Is that really what we have? I thought we had a local government, with rights over a specific area of land that is (currently) elected by those that they govern over? Is that not right?
This is much like the special tax district description.
RCID is a special tax district that covers the land Walt Disney World is on.
- People hear - Disney isn't paying taxes because of their special district.
- Reality - Disney pays extra taxes to the special district on top of other taxes.
- People hear - Disney runs a company town. There are people subject to all the bad things that are part of a company town.
- Reality - Walt Disney World could have been one huge private property with no public roads. However, they transferred land to a local governing body to maintain and support as public through that governing body's taxing authority.
- People hear - Disney runs a government that others are controlled by and have no say. This excludes them from other governments and it's the company town problem again.
- Reality - There is an extra local government on top of both county governments that Disney is subjected too. For the extra special government, all the people governed by it (currently) get to vote on it's elected officials.
Instead of "here's this special thing Disney controls that gives them super powers", I'm sure someone could write and entire description of RCID and how it works as "here's this extra additional government controlling what happens to all things around Walt Disney World that Disney is subjected to".
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Straight out of Yellowstone AND Clarkson's Farm?
Dranth
Well-Known Member
I agree different courts will rule differently, what I don't agree with is that the state or federal courts would automatically side with the State in this case just because they are on their "team". Conservative courts have gone against conservative laws more than once of late. Sure, as you said, there is a chance they wouldn’t but I don’t think a court coming out saying Florida can mess with your business if you exercise your right to free speech would help the state much in the long run so from my point of view, why not? Force the state to look like a totalitarian regime, you are already losing control of RCID.
Now, to be fair, that is easy for me to say as I have nothing on the line but other than the cost of the legal proceedings, what does Disney really have to lose? The people that don’t like them aren’t going to change their minds anytime soon because there will still be underrepresented groups in the upcoming movies and shows. There is still going to be a new, sustainably sourced, co-op salt mountain coming to the Magic Kingdom. None of the things that make that group upset is going to change.
Finally, I believe Disney still does have a strong 1A case but I don’t think they even need it. There is more than one way to attack this if they choose. Why they don’t, only they know but there is a huge difference between having a good case and wanting to go through with it.
Edited to add:
I see the first part of my reply was removed but the part I was commenting on remain so I am operating under the assumption it's okay to respond but to be more general. Not sure so here goes... I would say the answer depends on the law we are talking about. It is hard to say if something is overreach without knowing the specifics. I would hope that if it was an egregious case of Government retaliation that the courts would act appropriately.
Last edited:
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
Montanans and public/private land use. The only thing more complicated than the relationship between RCID and Disney.
I’ll admit, I picked Montana on the assumption there could be a ranch there with the same acreage as WDW. Obviously with less city infrastructure on it. Something that certainly doesn’t exist for say a dairy farm in Vermont, or anything in Pennsylvania.
I forgot about the entire use of public land in some of that math.
Maybe agriculture fields in Kansas or one of the Dakotas matches the size of WDW.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Ted Turner has ranches bigger than RCID in Montana, Kansas and the Dakotas.
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
I don’t know the total acreage of the Stillwater mine, or the whole of the JDM platinum vein, but the infrastructure is mind boggling for those sites. And the relationships between private, federal, and state are all kinds of convoluted in such areas. The Great Northern Railroad was instrumental in the creation of Glacier National Park, and was privately operated and owned at the time.
Alaska’s frontiers are probably similar.
And, like the current mess with RCID, it’s not always pretty. But I don’t think it’s ever been so overtly hostile over political speech. This entire situation is frightening in its precedent and potential for abuse, honestly.
What happens to Reedy Creek Energy Services? It’s fully owned by TWDC isn’t it? Also is there anything saying Reedy Creek Emergency Services needs to change its name?
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
It is fully owned by TWDC. I’m unsure of what would happen post RCID dissolution. The governor can’t force them to change the name of the company. The district contracts RCES to supply power and the like
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I guess that means the new district can choose to use RCES or stop using it and then Disney would dissolve the company? That seems pointless as they have their solar farms
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
When the contract ends, the District could chose to contract with other companies or provide the utility services directly themselves.
Given that the emergency services tend to be named have their jurisdiction I think most would take it as a given that the department name would change.
Post RCID dissolution not by Disney choice, the new companies taking over shouldn't get the perks Reedy Creek cast have such as free passes to the theme parks. They should pay a full price ticket like a regular guest.
JohnD
Well-Known Member
Or RCFD for that matter.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Reedy Creek Energy Services employees are Disney employees.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
For those wondering, two other special districts intended to be dissolved were maintained during the special session. HB 11B maintains the Sunshine Water Control District in Broward County and HB 12B maintains the Eastpoint Water and Sewer District in Franklin County. As of now, all three bills related to special district have been enrolled but have not yet been signed by the officers of the state houses and presented to the governor.
Is there a list some place of all the organizations with "Reedy Creek" in the name?
Something that includes which ones are actually owned by "Reedy Creek Improvement District" vs which ones are independent and their own thing or owned by some other organization.
From the example in the last few posts, "Reedy Creek Energy Services" (RCES) is clearly an independent organization from "Reedy Creek Improvement District" (RCID). That while RCID contracts with RCES, RCES is NOT part of RCID. I'm sure someone here knows, something like solar power sites, the land, the panels, all the capital investment physical parts, are those owned by RCID or RCES? Is it just services that RCES is providing to RCID (maintenance, running the equipment)? Some mix of both? Even ownership of physical power lines would be a question. They could be privately owned, district owned, combination of both. Towns all over the US use different models for this.
The new law impacts RCID and any entity completely owned by RCID. Any entity partial owned by RCID is clearly impacted in some way, depending on how that ownership is split. Any entity with "Reedy Creek" in the name that's already completely independent isn't impacted at all. They will be impacted later if the changes impact how RCID contracts with them, but that's an independent factor.
All these different splits, different ownership, different entities, different responsibilities, all having similar names makes sense in the corporate structures for whatever reasons. But, it certainly makes it confusing when someone from the outside tries to understand what is actually included in RCID vs just a contractual agreement.
Something that includes which ones are actually owned by "Reedy Creek Improvement District" vs which ones are independent and their own thing or owned by some other organization.
From the example in the last few posts, "Reedy Creek Energy Services" (RCES) is clearly an independent organization from "Reedy Creek Improvement District" (RCID). That while RCID contracts with RCES, RCES is NOT part of RCID. I'm sure someone here knows, something like solar power sites, the land, the panels, all the capital investment physical parts, are those owned by RCID or RCES? Is it just services that RCES is providing to RCID (maintenance, running the equipment)? Some mix of both? Even ownership of physical power lines would be a question. They could be privately owned, district owned, combination of both. Towns all over the US use different models for this.
The new law impacts RCID and any entity completely owned by RCID. Any entity partial owned by RCID is clearly impacted in some way, depending on how that ownership is split. Any entity with "Reedy Creek" in the name that's already completely independent isn't impacted at all. They will be impacted later if the changes impact how RCID contracts with them, but that's an independent factor.
All these different splits, different ownership, different entities, different responsibilities, all having similar names makes sense in the corporate structures for whatever reasons. But, it certainly makes it confusing when someone from the outside tries to understand what is actually included in RCID vs just a contractual agreement.
Do you know if there were any others impacted? Is anyone else still blowing in the wind caught up in this?