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

[GoofGoof]

I wonder at this point if the Governor doesn’t pivot back to trying to permanently dissolve the district and/or dissolve and replace with a new district. Since all they did is rename the existing district and change its board the existing contracts remain in place and so far I‘ve only seen “hail marry“ arguments (unlikely to work) to invalidate that contract. If the district is dissolved, most of the contracts are dissolved with it. Then either a new district is created to replace it or the services go to the counties. That would also go back to getting a ”political win“ since the Governor has taken a lot of bad press for giving in and letting Disney keep its ”tax break”.

There is still an issue with the bonds and especially the ones that don’t allow early redemption, but I’m sure with the rise in interest rates the bond holders would be glad to voluntarily dump those bonds if paid full par for them. They have to be valued below 100% at this point. I would also assume the district could ramp up payments to pay off the bonds as soon as possible. It may still take several years but they could be gone before Ronnie leaves office so he can complete his punishment.

 

[mikejs78]

Serious legal question.

Since a Chapter 163 Development Agreement is based on a Florida statute, can't the Florida state legislature undo any agreement created by RCID by passing an ex post facto law?

For example, something along the lines of:

"Notwithstanding s. 163.3202, any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, shall not enter into a developer's agreement until reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968."

Although U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that this only applies to criminal matters.

I think it would fall under the prohibition against impairing the obligations of a contract.

 

[chrisvee]

when contract law falls the end is nigh

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The funny thing is they are basically doing the same thing on both coasts, Disneyland Forward doesn’t appear to be for an immediate construction project, it‘s to give Disney long term control over their land in CA while they have a Disney friendly council in Anaheim. Get approval now and they don’t need to worry about a hostile council later.

I dont recall anyone in FL complaining that Disney was trying to give themselves long term control over their land in CA.

Disney’s been dealing with gov bureaucracy as long as most people in those governments have been alive, when Anaheim said no to the eastern gateway Disney built the new Pixar garage based on old deals that didn’t need a hostile Anaheim council to approve them… that’s likely where the idea to preemptively get approval from friendly boards came from, open ended approval allows projects no matter who’s in power when you want to finally build them.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Soooo when is the Governors next press conference… curious to see what questions reporters ask him ….

Well his typical approach is to yell. I imagine he'll yell until the line of questioning stops. Anyone looking for a, "well they got me". Is going to be disappointed.

 

[RSoxNo1]

“President Trump wrote ‘Art of the Deal’ and brokered Middle East peace. Ron DeSantis got out-negotiated by Mickey Mouse,” said Taylor Budowich, the head of a pro-Trump super PAC, on Twitter.

He’s already being mocked and rightfully so.

Peace in the Middle East, I guess if you say you did it, you can will it into being true.

 

[mikejs78]

I'm going to start calling DeSantis Captain Ahab. Because I think that's where his obsession with Disney is going to take him.

 

[Prince-1]

Peace in the Middle East, I guess if you say you did it, you can will it into being true.

Just like he “wrote” The Art of the Deal.

 

[RSoxNo1]

Forgive my legal ineptitude. What has a 30 year lifespan and what exists in "perpetuity"?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Forgive my legal ineptitude. What has a 30 year lifespan and what exists in "perpetuity"?

These are simplified explanations that may or may not be missing a few details, it's what I've gleaned from the contracts and this thread over the past two days.

The development agreement between Disney & RCID has three 10 year lifespans. The current one is in place until 2033 (or 2032), and will be renewed two more times per the contract. This gives Disney permission to build x amount of parks, x amount of restaurant space, etc.

The other agreement which is in perpetuity gives Disney powers over RCID (now the CFTOD). I don't know all of the specifics, but it gives Disney approval power over maintenance and other projects that CFTOD would like to do.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

They are not being punished for exercising their first amendment rights. Both red states and blue states confer and take away privileges to/from companies they like or don't like. Happens all the time but you don't recognize that in this case because you either love Disney that much and/or agree with their far-left politics.

Disney can continue to advocate for whatever they want, but the state of Florida has decided that they don't want to give special deals to companies that advocate against the laws and values of their state, just like how CA is not going to give special deals to companies that are against their state's laws and values. If the voters or Florida were actually fooled and don't want this, they can elect a Democrat next election.

I’ll agree, in many cases, political retribution goes on often…it’s going on in my state right now with school funding…the problem is, DeSantis SAID publicly that this was in direct response to Disney. If he would’ve kept his mouth shut and just did it, accusations would’ve been flying, but there wouldn’t be any direct evidence.

 

[Prince-1]

Unfortunately I cannot effectively argue my position as the word filter/automod set up on this discussion forum is way too strict. I thought it would be different from Reddit but everywhere is pretty much the same now.



Take care, everyone. Sadly there are few places to really discuss issues on the Internet anymore.

Lol, there is no automod unless you are trying to say the naughty words. It just might be you.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

I wonder at this point if the Governor doesn’t pivot back to trying to permanently dissolve the district and/or dissolve and replace with a new district. Since all they did is rename the existing district and change its board the existing contracts remain in place and so far I‘ve only seen “hail marry“ arguments (unlikely to work) to invalidate that contract. If the district is dissolved, most of the contracts are dissolved with it. Then either a new district is created to replace it or the services go to the counties. That would also go back to getting a ”political win“ since the Governor has taken a lot of bad press for giving in and letting Disney keep its ”tax break”.

There is still an issue with the bonds and especially the ones that don’t allow early redemption, but I’m sure with the rise in interest rates the bond holders would be glad to voluntarily dump those bonds if paid full par for them. They have to be valued below 100% at this point. I would also assume the district could ramp up payments to pay off the bonds as soon as possible. It may still take several years but they could be gone before Ronnie leaves office so he can complete his punishment.

Not a lawyer, but the contract reads this

"The covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in this Declaration are intended by both parties to, and shall, run with title to the RCID Properties and all portions thereof and shall be binding on RCID, its Tenants, and any successor owner of the RCID Properties or portions thereof. "

The portions thereof part makes me believe that a new district was instituted they would be bound by this agreement, but again, I'm not a lawyer.

Not sure how that would play out in relation to what you mention the governor could do. There's also a provision that follows it for enforcement and states that Disney can files for damages, resolutions, etc against them if they are to violate anything from the contract.

Again not a lawyer so I don't know how that would play out if they were to just dissolve the district now.

 

[GladToBeHear]

Government retaliation against political speech is considered a violation of the first amendment. You don't know what you're talking about.

And Disney still has their freedom of speech and can publicly speak out about whatever state legislation they want. They're just not going to get to keep control of their special tax district (which the governor/state government considers special treatment) for it.

Again, I can't say I 100% agree with what the governor/state legislature is doing. But I don't think Disney's first amendment is being violated. Just like I don't think users banned from Twitter have had their first amendment rights violated.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

And Disney still has their freedom of speech and can publicly speak out about whatever state legislation they want. They're just not going to get to keep control of their special tax district (which the governor/state government considers special treatment) for it.

The government retaliating against you for speaking freely is a violation of the first amendment, plain as day.

From a Civil Right's Law Firm's website:
"For example, although not advisable, it is legal for anyone to call an officer names, demand to know why he is doing what he is doing, give him the finger, etc., so long as that person does not physically interfere with the officer’s duties. If the officer retaliates against such a person by pulling him over, arresting him, or using excessive force, he is guilty of First Amendment retaliation"

In this example:
"Although it is legal for the FL Gov. to pass a law regarding LGBTQ+ education in schools, it is not legal for that same Government to retaliate against a person by disbanding their special district because they didn't like what that person (in this case Company) had to say about it. He is guilty of First Amendment retaliation."

Again, I can't say I 100% agree with what the governor/state legislature is doing. But I don't think Disney's first amendment is being violated. Just like I don't think users banned from Twitter have had their first amendment rights violated.

So funny because a private company can't violate free speech, so Twitter did not. Unlike my example above, which the FL Gov. did violate free speech.

 

[peter11435]

And Disney still has their freedom of speech and can publicly speak out about whatever state legislation they want. They're just not going to get to keep control of their special tax district (which the governor/state government considers special treatment) for it.

Again, I can't say I 100% agree with what the governor/state legislature is doing. But I don't think Disney's first amendment is being violated. Just like I don't think users banned from Twitter have had their first amendment rights violated.

I'll leave it at that.

Twitter is not the government. Being banned from Twitter for violating their terms and conditions IS NOT a first amendment violation. The government retaliating/punishing a person/company for speaking out IS a violation of the first amendment.

Don’t you see how Disney might be reluctant to make future statements because of risk of retaliation/punishment. Or how other people/companies might be reluctant to speak due to fear of the same?

 

[lazyboy97o]

And Disney still has their freedom of speech and can publicly speak out about whatever state legislation they want. They're just not going to get to keep control of their special tax district (which the governor/state government considers special treatment) for it.

Again, I can't say I 100% agree with what the governor/state legislature is doing. But I don't think Disney's first amendment is being violated. Just like I don't think users banned from Twitter have had their first amendment rights violated.

I'll leave it at that.

Are you also going to tell us you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater?

 

[MandaM]

And Disney still has their freedom of speech and can publicly speak out about whatever state legislation they want. They're just not going to get to keep control of their special tax district (which the governor/state government considers special treatment) for it.

Again, I can't say I 100% agree with what the governor/state legislature is doing. But I don't think Disney's first amendment is being violated. Just like I don't think users banned from Twitter have had their first amendment rights violated.

I'll leave it at that.

You don't have to keep someone from speaking to violate their freedom of speech. Punishing them for exercising legally protected speech is unequivocally a 1st amendment violation. It's not even debatable.

Twitter is a private company that exercised their rights to conduct business as set forth in their terms and conditions. Twitter censoring you isn't a violation of your free speech. The government punishing you for free speech is.

It seems that you're the one who doesn't understand free speech.

 

[danlb_2000]

Are you also going to tell us you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater?

Is it legal to yell "Theater!" in a crowded fire?

 

[danlb_2000]

Twitter is not the government. Being banned from Twitter for violating their terms and conditions IS NOT a first amendment violation. The government retaliating/punishing a person/company for speaking out IS a violation of the first amendment.

Don’t you see how Disney might be reluctant to make future statements because of risk of retaliation/punishment. Or how other people/companies might be reluctant to speak due to fear of the same?

Because when you get right down to it a law cannot actually restrict speech, all it could do it penalize someone for what they say.