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

[GoofGoof]

That is really easy. Disney hasn't been prevented from saying anything, they're still allowed to protest the Parent Rights bill if they so choose. Disney has not lost a single right that is given to every other corporation is Florida over any of their speech, they still have every right every other corporation has in this state, and DeSantis has committed to keeping it that way.

This is factually not accurate. Whether RCID was a benefit other corporations don‘t have is irrelevant. If members of the Government use the power of the government to punish a person or corporation in any way in reaction to speech that’s still a violation of the 1st amendment. The government does not have to physically or literally stop the person from speaking. If taking away RCID is detrimental to Disney and if that action was done to punish them for speaking out then it’s a violation. That has to be proven in court, but the fact that RCID was a benefit others didn’t have is not relevant.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Disney shareholders?

Very possible. Another possibility is that the residents of RCID sue. They certainly have standing since their right to elect board members was revoked. In that scenario, I would say it's likely that Disney pays the legal expenses for them but isn't the "face" of the battle.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What game? What escalation? So far we’ve talk about a lot of ”what ifs” and a lot of possibilities but none of those things has actually happened yet. The new board has done literally nothing so far. When it takes over officially we have no way of knowing what they will actually do. I don’t disagree with you and others that the potential for improper behavior is certainly there and the whole way this went down is still not right, but I’m not sure how the situation is escalating. It certainly could.

It escalated from some board members being appointed by the governor to all board members. Legislative activity around woke issues has escalated. Bashing Disney has escalated. This has not gone away because Disney did nothing. The exact opposite has occurred.

They might not really do it is what you’ve been saying all along. They keep doing it and are being more open about doing it.

 

[GoofGoof]

Disney shareholders?

Possibly, but they would have to show damages in the form of a drop in stock price. DIS is down since the time this all started but I’m not sure how successful someone would be in proving this is due to this action in FL. Given the very healthy profits in the parks segment and specifically at WDW it would be hard to prove this action caused damages to shareholders.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Iger has stated:

“To the extent that I can work to quiet things down, I’m going to do that."

Oh look, this is what Chapek was trying to do before he was forced out.

 

[LAKid53]

Only Disney can sue DeSantis for violating its constitutional rights. Nobody else would have standing, so your point is moot.

Can you explain how on earth DeSantis’ actions aren’t a first amendment violation? So far, not a single person who has agreed with his action has been able to.

Also, on at least two occasions, DeSantis has been found in court to have violated the constitution. It isn’t stopping him from continuing to do it.

Incorrect. Those damaged by the actions of the government can sue. And that would include the owners of the corporation, i.e., shareholders.

 

[GoofGoof]

It escalated from some board members being appointed by the governor to all board members. Legislative activity around woke issues has escalated. Bashing Disney has escalated. This has not gone away because Disney did nothing. The exact opposite has occurred.

They might not really do it is what you’ve been saying all along. They keep doing it and are being more open about doing it.

I mean technically 3 weeks ago the entire district was to be legally dissolved as of June. Now the district stays with largely the same structure and a government appointed board. Outside of the board structure the situation actually de-escalated. For the taxpayers of Orange and Osceola counties who may have seen debt dumped on them and large tax increases the situation has certainly de-escalated. The RCID firefighters have some closure on their uncertain work situation at least for now. I get you don’t like the outcome (I don’t either) and I get you think Disney should have fought this but they so far are not. That’s not my decision so trying to point out where “I was wrong” as some gotcha moment is really irrelevant. I have nothing to do with this outcome or the decision not to fight in court. I’m just a spectator.

I’m not sure this law has anything to do with encouraging the anti-woke agenda. Do you really think if Disney sued in court and won that would stop the Governor from his anti-woke agenda? You think that would all end? I don’t. As far as “doing it“ I’m not sure what you mean. Has this new board done any of the bad stuff that has been suggested here?

 

[mkt]

Possibly, but they would have to show damages in the form of a drop in stock price. DIS is down since the time this all started but I’m not sure how successful someone would be in proving this is due to this action in FL. Given the very healthy profits in the parks segment and specifically at WDW it would be hard to prove this action caused damages to shareholders.

There's no rush. Statute of limitations has a while before it runs out.

 

[mmascari]

Disney shareholders?

I doubt they have standing. They neither made any speech or were retaliated against. They also have no connection to RCID.

If we ignore the speech and retaliation issues completely, there are still other problems that can be looked at.

The easy group with a clear standing are the constituents who previously voted to elect the board. Putting blinders on and ignoring everything else, that group has clearly been impacted. One could argue home rule and FL constitutional problems with the change.

In prior years, the tax rate paid to RCID must have changed as the district needed more or less funds. At least for amounts not financed through bonds. When they made those changes in the tax rate, would the board make that decision or did they put that specific change to a vote of all the constituents?

If the board can jus set the tax rate, and they're no longer voted for, that certainly sounds like a straight forward impact and issue open to litigation.

If the board just recommends a new number and then it is put to a general vote, then it is more nuanced. I can imagine arguments around exactly which things are subject to home rule and which are not. That someone would try and split them up using an argument that constituents still get to vote on all those things and the board is only directly impacting other things that do not disenfranchise constituents. I don't agree with this, but it is an argument I could imagine being presented.

As with all things, the nuance and the specific details all matter and are important.

 

[GoofGoof]

There's no rush. Statute of limitations has a while before it runs out.

Yeah you never know. I just think it’s going to be really tough to show definitive losses for shareholders as a direct result of this action. I suppose if the board goes all in and shuts down parks or rides to punish Disney and WDW directly suffers financially then it would be more feasible.

 

[GoofGoof]

I doubt they have standing. They neither made any speech or were retaliated against. They also have no connection to RCID.

If we ignore the speech and retaliation issues completely, there are still other problems that can be looked at.

The easy group with a clear standing are the constituents who previously voted to elect the board. Putting blinders on and ignoring everything else, that group has clearly been impacted. One could argue home rule and FL constitutional problems with the change.

In prior years, the tax rate paid to RCID must have changed as the district needed more or less funds. At least for amounts not financed through bonds. When they made those changes in the tax rate, would the board make that decision or did they put that specific change to a vote of all the constituents?

If the board can jus set the tax rate, and they're no longer voted for, that certainly sounds like a straight forward impact and issue open to litigation.

If the board just recommends a new number and then it is put to a general vote, then it is more nuanced. I can imagine arguments around exactly which things are subject to home rule and which are not. That someone would try and split them up using an argument that constituents still get to vote on all those things and the board is only directly impacting other things that do not disenfranchise constituents. I don't agree with this, but it is an argument I could imagine being presented.

As with all things, the nuance and the specific details all matter and are important.

Not sure it really matters but technically about a quarter of RCID taxes are paid out of DVC maintenance fees so technically any DVC owner at a WDW resort is an indirect taxpayer. Should I file a lawsuit? I need @ParentsOf4 or @lazyboy97o as my council pro bono. I’m not paying for a lawyer and I know only enough about this stuff to be dangerous

 

[GoofGoof]

FYI, the Florida constitution requires that any increase in the mileage must be “approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation”.

This is a very important distinction. So the board cannot raise taxes without Disney consent which is good but Disney and the other landowners have no control over how the dollars that are collected are spent. I still believe the district has limited authority mostly centered around municipal services so they cannot just spend the money on political donations or projects outside of the district. The biggest risk I see is selecting unqualified vendors and contractors as political favors or as a punishment to hurt Disney.

 

[danlb_2000]

On a practical matter, all South Florida Water Management District permits are filed under "Reedy Creek Improvement District". I wonder when I will need to start searching under the new name?

 

[mkt]

The biggest risk I see is selecting unqualified vendors and contractors as political favors or as a punishment to hurt Disney.

Without a doubt.

 

[mkt]

Doesn't matter. If Disney continues to make content that he does not like, he will make it very painful for them to do business in Florida.

And Disney's statute of limitations for first amendment violations can keep on ticking. Let the damages pile.

 

[mmascari]

I mean technically 3 weeks ago the entire district was to be legally dissolved as of June. Now the district stays with largely the same structure and a government appointed board. Outside of the board structure the situation actually de-escalated.

I'm not sure I would describe that change as de-escalated. At least not from Disney's perspective.

Dissolution of the district would have been a distinct impact to Disney. The current situation is an ongoing threat to operations.

For the taxpayers of Orange and Osceola counties who may have seen debt dumped on them and large tax increases the situation has certainly de-escalated.

That's definitely true. They came out as the status quo with the changes.

 

[mmascari]

Not sure it really matters but technically about a quarter of RCID taxes are paid out of DVC maintenance fees so technically any DVC owner at a WDW resort is an indirect taxpayer. Should I file a lawsuit?

Do you get to vote, making you a constituent?

Proxy votes? Something else?

I'm assuming you didn't actually have any voting for the board in the past. Meaning you also were not just disenfranchised. You didn't lose the right to vote for board members setting a tax rate. So, you're out as far as that specific argument goes.

You would need to find a different one.

 

[Notypeo]

I doubt [shareholders] have standing. They neither made any speech or were retaliated against. They also have no connection to RCID.

Speaking very generally, shareholders can sue on a “derivative” basis on behalf of a corporation that declines to pursue a valid cause of action. The shareholders effectively step into the corporation’s shoes to pursue the claim, even if they weren’t personally involved or directly injured.

 

[mmascari]

If the board can jus set the tax rate, and they're no longer voted for, that certainly sounds like a straight forward impact and issue open to litigation.

FYI, the Florida constitution requires that any increase in the mileage must be “approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation”.

That's why I asked how they did it last time. Not what the constitution or district law says, but what did they actually do last time. How were those things interpreted and actually implemented the last time it was done.

What they did last time doesn't require any interpreting, just knowing what was actually done.

 

[mmascari]

Yeah... his power ends at the state line. Disney's content is made in California.

While true, Disney has a significant exposure within the state, and all of it can be held hostage to create impacts anywhere Disney operates.

As I said earlier:

Don't like merchandise on the shelves, oops surprise inspection close the store while we check the fire codes.
Don't like the theming of a new attraction, oops that building permit is going to take a little longer, you'll get on the second Tuesday next week.
Don't like an episode of a Disney+ show, oops we're doing power maintenance they will be some rolling black outs next week.
Don't like an entire feature movie being released, oops we just cancelled the entire World Drive project, half way through construction. Just live with the temporary roads for a few years, it'll be fine, no operations or quality impact at all.

I'm sure none of those would impact revenue at all.....

I would say, he seems to be saying this is exactly the plan.