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

[mmascari]

So you are both saying that regardless of whether or not the district spends the $167 million, Disney has to pay for it anyway? How is that not fraud? So the district gets to just keep the money with no project to show for it?

We're saying Disney has to pay its district tax bill. That's how taxing by local governments works.

There is no direct connection between paying that tax bill and the district actually doing anything. The district spends its money how it wants within the spending the district is authorized to spend stuff on based on the district charter. The law just passed includes what the district is responsible for.

If Disney disagrees with how the district sets priorities, the level of service it delivers, or which projects the district spends money on or not, the only recourse is to change the board that makes those decisions. In the past, that would mean electing a new board. Currently it means convincing the governor to appoint someone else to the board.


Reporting, and when people talk about stuff like the World Drive project, like to say "Disney is paying for the World Drive work". That is technically true, and certainly true in the sense that all of the funds spent originated from Disney. However, it's very much false if you try to restate that as something like "Disney is paying the contractor to do the work on the World Drive project" which would imply that if the contractor isn't doing the work, Disney would not need to pay. The details and nuance that are glossed over matter very much here.

It's no different than if your town was building something, you could say that you are paying for that. Technically true, you paid your taxes and your taxes were used to pay for the something. But, you don't get to not pay your taxes if the something isn't built.

 

[JoeCamel]

So you are both saying that regardless of whether or not the district spends the $167 million, Disney has to pay for it anyway? How is that not fraud? So the district gets to just keep the money with no project to show for it?

Now, if the money is spent on a different project, even if Disney doesn't want it or ask for it, then sure, they have to pay for it.

The money from Disney along with grants etc goes to pay the bond debt that was issued to pay for the road project. They didn't start a 100M+ project saying we might find the money later. It is paid for by bonded debt.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

We're saying Disney has to pay its district tax bill. That's how taxing by local governments works.

There is no direct connection between paying that tax bill and the district actually doing anything. The district spends its money how it wants within the spending the district is authorized to spend stuff on based on the district charter. The law just passed includes what the district is responsible for.

If Disney disagrees with how the district sets priorities, the level of service it delivers, or which projects the district spends money on or not, the only recourse is to change the board that makes those decisions. In the past, that would mean electing a new board. Currently it means convincing the governor to appoint someone else to the board.


Reporting, and when people talk about stuff like the World Drive project, like to say "Disney is paying for the World Drive work". That is technically true, and certainly true in the sense that all of the funds spent originated from Disney. However, it's very much false if you try to restate that as something like "Disney is paying the contractor to do the work on the World Drive project" which would imply that if the contractor isn't doing the work, Disney would not need to pay. The details and nuance that are glossed over matter very much here.

It's no different than if your town was building something, you could say that you are paying for that. Technically true, you paid your taxes and your taxes were used to pay for the something. But, you don't get to not pay your taxes if the something isn't built.

OK, so you are saying that whether the district spends the money or not, Disney has to pay the same amount, so the district just gets to keep the money and not spend it on anything if they don't want to.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So basically there is no protected speech anymore. Any politician can say whatever they want and then just say it was a lie and they can actually follow through with action (in this case they said they would punish Disney for speaking out and then followed through) and then just say they lied about why they were doing it? I refuse to believe we are that far gone. There are plenty of conservative judges who would agree with me too. Not every judge is a political hack. Many actually believe in what they do. I don’t disagree that a lot of the more recent judicial appointments were questionable but that still is only a fraction of the overall pool of judges.

And it’s not just judges. You have to get the lawyers representing the state in on this too. It’s one thing to know your client’s illicit activity, but it is another thing to actively further those activities. If a lawyer knows about anything that contradicts the narrative they’re going to be hesitant to lie to the court because it doesn’t just put their client in jeopardy but it also puts them in jeopardy. As @LSLS noted, recent events show how forthright people can be amongst themselves and when having to speak under oath. One person willing to commit perjury is different than a team willing to commit perjury.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney can also do some projects themselves if the district says no. So for example if Disney wanted to add another parking garage to Disney Springs but the board decides to block that project Disney could just build it anyway and pay out of pocket for it.

The District can stop the garage from being built by not approving its construction.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

The District can stop the garage from being built by not approving its construction.

Can they stop it if it is on Disney owned property and not the district?

 

[lazyboy97o]

OK, so you are saying that whether the district spends the money or not, Disney has to pay the same amount, so the district just gets to keep the money and not spend it on anything if they don't want to.

Correct. Governments are allowed to collect and maintain a surplus of funds.

 

[peter11435]

Can they stop it if it is on Disney owned property and not the district?

Yes

 

[cranbiz]

Can they stop it if it is on Disney owned property and not the district?

Yes they can. All of Disney property is in the district. The district is the governing body and issues building permits. District property is property that was allocated a long time ago (or recent purchases and land swaps made by the district).

 

[GoofGoof]

OK, so you are saying that whether the district spends the money or not, Disney has to pay the same amount, so the district just gets to keep the money and not spend it on anything if they don't want to.

The tax rates are set, the money comes in based on the tax rates. The rate cannot change unless Disney approves it. So that covers the revenue side.

On the expense side the district has a budget. All the cash out the door is included. For a big project like the one we are talking about the project would be traditionally funded by municipal bonds. So the district borrows $167M up front and budgets $20M a year for 10 years in bond payments. If the extra $20M of bond payments puts RCID underwater (expenses now exceed revenues) they would need to ask Disney to increase the tax rate. So since this project was already approved I am assuming its funding is part of the long term plan so if they cancel the project then there will be an extra $20M a year not spent. The district could find other uses for that money (within their limited scope) or they just carry it as a surplus. If the surplus grows I think Disney would probably have a case to argue the tax rate should be lowered. In normal life this never happens as a local government always has more uses for money than money to spend. This situation ain’t normal.

 

[Overlordkitty]

Seriously, find some successful lawsuits against politicians for their campaign speech.

We have politicians today who say the most outrageous things, yet they continue to spew forth garbage with immunity.

Technically, he isn't running for anything yet, because he hasn't announced, and even though we all know it, legally, he is not running at this time. Everything he is doing and saying is in his capacity as governor.

 

[GoofGoof]

The District can stop the garage from being built by not approving its construction.

They need a valid reason though and Disney would have the opportunity to cure whatever issue they come up with. They cannot just say we won’t approve the construction because we don’t feel like it. If the project is on district land like a road they can literally just say we don’t feel like approving it.

 

[RunForestRun]

Good! Disney deserves what they get.

 

[GoofGoof]

Good! Disney deserves what they get.

Near record profits in their theme park segment? Ok I guess

 

[RunForestRun]

Near record profits in their theme park segment? Ok I guess

All because what was created like 50 years ago. Not these new things that breakdown every 2 seconds.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Can they stop it if it is on Disney owned property and not the district?

Yes. The District is who issues development and building approvals.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They need a valid reason though and Disney would have the opportunity to cure whatever issue they come up with. They cannot just say we won’t approve the construction because we don’t feel like it. If the project is on district land like a road they can literally just say we don’t feel like approving it.

Those reasons aren’t hard to find. Too much traffic. Storm water management concerns.

If Disney wants another pedestrian bridge going over a road then that’s really easy to not allow since the district is not required to allow crossing their property and right of way.

 

[Dranth]

Of course there’s protected speech.

But do you really believe that a judge who views this case like Associate Justice Thomas is going to view this the same way as a judge who views this like Associate Justice Sotomayor?

Well, Thomas, Alito and Roberts all voted for Disney to be able to do exactly what they did and also claim to support 1A rights so I would hope they have enough of a spine to stand up for what they claim to believe.

 

[mmascari]

They need a valid reason though and Disney would have the opportunity to cure whatever issue they come up with. They cannot just say we won’t approve the construction because we don’t feel like it. If the project is on district land like a road they can literally just say we don’t feel like approving it.

Use your imagination, it's not hard to come up with a perfectly plausible reason. Maybe they want to run a wildlife study to validate it doesn't impact the mating habits of some bird. A study that will require multiple years to understand how impacts would interact with migration patterns. I didn't even have to try hard for that one.

The District can stop the garage from being built by not approving its construction.

If we push this some absurd adversarial relationship, Disney could just ignore this, and build it anyway. Then ignore the stop work order. Then the fine for not stopping work, or pay the fine as an increased cost. They could force it all the way to not stopping until the sheriff shows up to enforce that they're breaking the law by ignoring the permitting process. As much as that type of spectacle would make for interesting PR for everyone, it probably stops long before that. Most likely, insurance requirements and risk exposure would stop the project first. Since insurance is going to have a problem with doing work without a valid permit or under a stop work order. Internal finance and risk management is going to stop the project and not want to self insure the risk of working under those conditions.

That insurance is probably the same thing that stops Disney from doing rogue pot hole repair on the roads too.

 

[mkt]

Good! Disney deserves what they get.

Parks at capacity, record profits, and overwhelming public support in their favor across the US?

I suppose so.