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

[GoofGoof]

What is the long game? The current board really wanted to hurt Disney they would not allow any new bonds to be issued. At the same time increasing taxes to get the existing bonds to be paid off. Once that is done, Florida could do what they wanted to in the first place and abolish the old Reedy Creek District. Now if you have a warped sense of humor like I do, instead of being under the control of the Despicable Republican controlled state legislation, they would be under the control of the Democratic controlled Orange County government. Yikes, maybe that is why they are not fighting this change. What is the lesser of 2 evils.

The above is a HUMOROUS take on things, not a political statement

Except there is no mechanism to raise taxes (as @ParentsOf4 posted earlier) without the consent of the landowners. Pesky state constitution in the way again. So no way to pay the bonds off sooner without Disney consent and some of the bonds have a no early redemption clause so they would also need bond holder consent to pay them off early. They could decide not to issue new bonds going forward but then they also cannot do new projects unless the project can be covered by the current operating budget. Some of the projects are needed and can’t just be ignored. Others could be canceled. The reason bonds are issued is to spread the cost of larger capital projects over multiple years so it would be difficult to continue to do projects and also attempt to rid the district of debt. That would be possible if Disney worked with the state and the district on some sort of plan, but that seems unlikely.

Problem 2 of this plan….the services provided by the district would need to be absorbed by the local counties if the district is dissolved. It’s not just debt payments. So road maintenance, utilities and Emergency Services would all need to be covered. The extra cost for those services would be paid for by the county through their normal budgets and through real estate taxes. There is no mechanism for the county to charge Disney more taxes (higher real estate tax mileage rate) than any other landowner so the tax increase would be felt by all. The net result would be a large tax break for Disney since they would no longer have to pay their extra tax assessment to RCID at the expense of every other local taxpayer. Ironically the only way to have Disney pat extra taxes for services specific to their property would be to create a special tax district. That’s what they’re for. That’s what RCID was. Too many people bought into the political hype that it was some tax break for Disney and a benefit that allowed them to avoid paying as much in taxes. It is actually the opposite.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Lots of ongoing litigation to challenge multiple district actions wouldn’t be cheap.

Especially since Disney's tax dollars would be paying for the Board's attorneys.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Awesome! Maybe if attendance drops enough they will start selling Florida annual passes again and drop the park reservation system!

It’s time for Florida residents to pay their fair share of admission costs.

 

[mmascari]

Lots of ongoing litigation to challenge multiple district actions wouldn’t be cheap.

It quite literally just occurred to me, but there is a HUGE drawback to Disney suing the district for anything.

As part of the legal challenge:
Disney pays Disney's lawyers.
CFTOD pays CFTOD's lawyers.
Disney pays all of CFTOD's costs.

So, for every lawsuit between Disney and CFTOD, Disney is quite literally paying all the lawyers on both sides.

It's like a divorce where the couple pays their lawyers all the money they were trying to split up until there is nothing left to split.

Edit: And @peter11435 posted the same thing while I was typing. and so did @Chip Chipperson I must type super slow.

 

[CaptainMickey]

It’s time for Florida residents to pay their fair share of admission costs.

You sound like Christine McCarthy constantly reminding us how we are the least desirable customers.

 

[peter11435]

And by “mothers at my Bible study class” you mean nearly all mothers in every country on Earth who refused to take their small children to see that movie.

 

[lazyboy97o]

In addition there is a cost benefit analysis that needs to be performed for each individual suit that could be brought.

Bogging down the new district in litigation on every matter (even if at times tedious changes are requested or purposeful delays are imposed) could simply add fuel to the fire. And create a more adverse relationship with the board that would only worsen the relationship.

It’s best to take this on a case by case basis. In some cases remedies outside of court (even if more costly than the status quo) are likely preferred to protracted litigation. Time will also tell if individual members of the board may opt to make public statements that could either perjure themselves on certain matters or require them to recuse themselves as conflicts of interest become more apparent.

Just a few court cases easily becomes more expensive over doing it now and avoiding the whole thing. The fallacy of appeasement is that it makes things easier in the long run when it’s always cheaper and easier to act sooner than later.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

If the police stop you from voting because they don’t like who you will vote for, have you not been harmed until the elected official does something to more directly harm you? Or is just preventing your participation itself a harm?

Possibly but a judge might also rule that they still vote for the Gov and State Reps, who now appoint the district members, so they still have a vote, it’s just an indirect vote rather than a direct vote.

It’s a much higher standard to prove something in court, especially if the judge may already be biased against you.

Edited to add, I’m not saying what the state did is right, just saying an apparent slam dunk isn’t always a slam dunk, Disney could lose and then they have an even higher burden of proof in the future.

 

[ParentsOf4]

Too many people bought into the political hype that it was some tax break for Disney and a benefit that allowed them to avoid paying as much in taxes. It is actually the opposite.

People need to pay closer attention to what DeSantis is actually saying about this, because he's being particularly slimy when it comes to Disney and taxes.

DeSantis has issued statements such as this:

Disney is going to pay its fair share of taxes and Disney is going to honor the debt.​

And this:

ensures that Disney pays its debts and fair share of taxes.​

Note that there is no claim that Disney has not already been paying their "fair share of taxes", only that DeSantis is going to make sure that Disney does so going forward. DeSantis is using words to complain about a problem that does not exist.

DeSantis is playing with words to mislead the uninformed into thinking that Disney is not already paying their fair share of taxes in central Florida.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not to mention Disney would basically be paying for both sides of the litigation

Especially since Disney's tax dollars would be paying for the Board's attorneys.

It quite literally just occurred to me, but there is a HUGE drawback to Disney suing the district for anything.

As part of the legal challenge:
Disney pays Disney's lawyers.
CFTOD pays CFTOD's lawyers.
Disney pays all of CFTOD's costs.

So, for every lawsuit between Disney and CFTOD, Disney is quite literally paying all the lawyers on both sides.

It's like a divorce where the couple pays their lawyers all the money they were trying to split up until there is nothing left to split.

Edit: And @peter11435 posted the same thing while I was typing. and so did @Chip Chipperson I must type super slow.

All the more reason that this idea that it’s best to wait to challenge anything doesn’t actually add up. So a fight later is effectively double the cost. The only way it’s cheaper and easier to wait is to decide now to just accept decisions without pushing back.

 

[mmascari]

Possibly but a judge might also rule that they still vote for the Gov and State Reps, who now appoint the district members, so they still have a vote, it’s just an indirect vote rather than a direct vote.

That is clearly not the same thing though. Should be trivial to show that.

If there are 100 voters within the boundary, someone's vote is 1% of the voter block. With voters across the state of FL, that person's vote has been reduced to a minor fraction of a percent that's almost to small to calculate. Plus, it points out that why should voters outside the boundary get to vote for who is in charge?

I don't get to vote for FL governor. Should my vote be counted in the FL governor race? It's the same thing.

 

[drnilescrane]

Or, for no reason at all.

The just announced less than a month ago $176M World Drive project, that Orlando Business Journal says "Once started, the project will take two years to complete.".

Once confirmed, the new board could:

• Stop the project immediately with nothing done.
• Shortly after the project starts, stop the project.
• In the middle of the project, when everything is torn up with maximum disruption, temporary diversions, and traffic cones everywhere, stop the project.
• Let it go to completion.

They don't need any reason at all to pick any of those options. Just the whimsy that it wasn't a great idea to spend resources on the project and that they would prefer to do something else with the money.

I don't see them doing that, only because I think they want to present themselves as a "better" model of governernace.

No, they'll come up with some phony investigation that proves Reedy Creek was woke. That Disney was misappropriating money. Make a point of firing the district administrator for using the correct pronouns.

Make a show of changing permitting processes so applicants have to affirmatively prove that they don't have DEI programs. Redirect contracts to their friends and grift money off the top.

 

[DisneyCane]

If the police stop you from voting because they don’t like who you will vote for, have you not been harmed until the elected official does something to more directly harm you? Or is just preventing your participation itself a harm?

I don't think the analogy works.

I don't think there is any requirement in the Florida Constitution that the Government of a political subdivision necessarily needs to be elected by the residents within the subdivision vs. being appointed by a superseding subdivision.

The police stopping you from voting for an office that other citizens are allowed to vote for is disenfranchising you. If nobody votes for the office then it just isn't an elected office.

I don't get to vote for the Building Official in charge of the building department where I live but said official has power over permitting for my home. I can't sue over it because nobody gets to vote for who fills that position.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't think there is any requirement in the Florida Constitution that the Government of a political subdivision necessarily needs to be elected by the residents within the subdivision vs. being appointed by a superseding subdivision.

Home Rule?

 

[DisneyCane]

People need to pay closer attention to what DeSantis is actually saying about this, because he's being particularly slimy when it comes to Disney and taxes.

DeSantis has issued statements such as this:

Disney is going to pay its fair share of taxes and Disney is going to honor the debt.​

And this:

ensures that Disney pays its debts and fair share of taxes.​

Note that there is no claim that Disney has not already been paying their "fair share of taxes", only that DeSantis is going to make sure that Disney does so going forward. DeSantis is using words to complain about a problem that does not exist.

DeSantis is playing with words to mislead the uninformed into thinking that Disney is not already paying their fair share of taxes in central Florida.

The statements are about what is going to happen vs. the possibility of having the debts of RCID (which benefitted only Disney) being dumped on other entities which could have happened if the district was just dissolved.

What constitutes Disney's "fair share" of taxes is subjective just like when politicians rant about making billionaires pay their fair share. What's "fair" means something different to different people.

 

[mmascari]

All the more reason that this idea that it’s best to wait to challenge anything doesn’t actually add up. So a fight later is effectively double the cost. The only way it’s cheaper and easier to wait is to decide now to just accept decisions without pushing back.

It feels like there are one of two (three?) things going on. Especially since we can assume at a generic very stereotypical level Disney would prefer some amount of Republican government, at least in the past if not now or not this specific.

Either some profound delayed response that Disney is being very quiet about. They're not fighting back until they are. This could be after the board is signed in to fight the specific change then, as it's not real until there is actually a new board. It could just be all political, to fight Ron and they're timing it based on the presidential run for maximum impact. No need to bring the full media might out against Ron today if it could fail and be yesterday's news cycle, timing it for maximum impact. If any of these are the plan, we're not going to know until it happens. Just like Bob C was in charge and had full support right up until he didn't.

Alternatively, they're just accepting that Ron is in charge now. This one feels like a huge management screw up. I don't see any scenario where Ron being in charge generates more money than the prior structure. It's like a sword of Damocles hanging over every decision the company makes. No good can come from that path and it is not sustainable.

Possible third option, they're betting that the second scenario only lasts a year and then blows over on its own. That's quite an all in gamble the company move to make then.

I could probably click on any thread on the forum and find posts saying Disney is making management mistakes, so it's not like that is a new concept here.

 

[mkt]

However, the implication from these DeSantis statements, which some journalists are incorrectly reporting, is that Disney was not paying their fair share of taxes before.

Disney is paying plenty of taxes in central Florida. But you would not know this from DeSantis or some reporters.

They're the state's largest single taxpayer and second largest employer.

But DeSantis's supporters aren't interested in the truth. They're interested in "owning the libs".

 

[Tha Realest]

However, the implication from these DeSantis statements, which some journalists are incorrectly reporting, is that Disney was not paying their fair share of taxes before.

Disney is paying plenty of taxes in central Florida. But you would not know this from DeSantis or some reporters.

There’s been some suggestion on here Disney winded up paying more in taxes by virtue of its RCID issues, which leads back to the “harm” issue in terms of standing for a shareholder (if Disney being decoupled from RCID actually means they spend less money)

 

[lazyboy97o]

It feels like there are one of two (three?) things going on. Especially since we can assume at a generic very stereotypical level Disney would prefer some amount of Republican government, at least in the past if not now or not this specific.

Either some profound delayed response that Disney is being very quiet about. They're not fighting back until they are. This could be after the board is signed in to fight the specific change then, as it's not real until there is actually a new board. It could just be all political, to fight Ron and they're timing it based on the presidential run for maximum impact. No need to bring the full media might out against Ron today if it could fail and be yesterday's news cycle, timing it for maximum impact. If any of these are the plan, we're not going to know until it happens. Just like Bob C was in charge and had full support right up until he didn't.

Alternatively, they're just accepting that Ron is in charge now. This one feels like a huge management screw up. I don't see any scenario where Ron being in charge generates more money than the prior structure. It's like a sword of Damocles hanging over every decision the company makes. No good can come from that path and it is not sustainable.

Possible third option, they're betting that the second scenario only lasts a year and then blows over on its own. That's quite an all in gamble the company move to make then.

I could probably click on any thread on the forum and find posts saying Disney is making management mistakes, so it's not like that is a new concept here.

It’s the fallacy of appeasement. People accept the false grievances at face value and therefore wrongly assume if they just handle this it’ll all be over and go away. It’s this problem where as a general rule we’re a bit too trusting and assume others might as we would act. If we had an issue and it was addressed, that would be the end of it. Most of us don’t go around making things up to get concessions from others so we just don’t make the connection.

 

[hopemax]

Generally speaking, I agree with you. There has been much debate, however, about whether corporations possess the same free speech rights that individuals do. Many on the left -- the same people who are now screaming that Disney's free speech rights have been violated -- have argued that the Citizens United decision was one of the greatest threats to our democracy to come down the pike. So it seems a tad inconsistent to me.

Just because people disagree with what the law of the land should be doesn't mean they aren't obligated to follow it or expect others to follow it, especially once ruled upon by the Supreme Court. If the law of the land is that corporations have free speech rights, then people of both left and right persuasions are obligated to follow the law equally, and should expect the law of the land to be applied equally. The left "lost" that particular battle, it's not inconsistent that they should proceed to acceptance of the outcome, the expectation that it be followed and there should be consequences if violated.

Or are you suggesting that a losing side can take no interest in the law of the land actually being followed or violated? Only the winners get to make sure laws of the land are followed? Some entities, especially individuals, do engage in acts of civil disobedience, but it's not a requirement.