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

kong1802

Well-Known Member
And what unfair corporate advantage does Reedy Creek give Disney? Please enlighten us.

You already know....

They haven't paid any taxes ever. They are the only special district in the entire universe. They have never inspected anything ever. They get to write all of their own laws. They can do anything they want whenever they want and its JUsT NOt FaIR
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
I thought that project was a joint venture with a 3rd party who maintains the facility. So they’d have to override that contract too….but why stop now.
Are they following rules now? Is that suddenly a restriction? ;)

Assuming they still own the land (which it looks like), the could buy out any partner contracts for the facility. Unless (and this is very possible) the partner is actually Disney and they refuse to renegotiate the contract or let them buy their way out.

I mean, it would be incredibly wasteful and expensive to dismantle the solar field and turn it into housing or a prison. But, when you're trying to show it the "woke" man, is any expense to much?


PS: I knew a mall that closed and they were bulldozing the entire mall. However, Lord and Taylor owned their anchor store and didn't want to close or sell. They bulldozed the rest of the mall around them and it was a very sad stand along poor performing Lord and Taylor for a long time. Holding up all other development. Lack of a buy out clause and a stubborn contract partner can create strange outcomes.
 

lentesta

Premium Member
The same language was in the original Reedy Creek Act, which was the governing act of the District, and by the language in the act, superceded existing FL law on the matter.

This section of the original RCID Act? Note the timeline and venue for disputes.

Screenshot from 2023-04-17 15-45-36.png
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
You already know....

They haven't paid any taxes ever. They are the only special district in the entire universe. They have never inspected anything ever. They get to write all of their own laws. They can do anything they want whenever they want and its JUsT NOt FaIR
What I don't get is why from 1967 until DeSantis came into power did none of the other FL governors had an issue about Reedy Creek?
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Pretty sure Duke Energy runs it
yes, according to this Duke operates the facility and sells the power to RCID through a power purchase agreement.

 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Interesting to see that 'Disney' is the #2 trending topic on Twitter in the USA right now, and it's mainly people laughing at DeSantis for threatening to build a prison at Walt Disney World and talking about the general insanity of the whole situation.
Oh for the love of Pete he didn't threaten to build a prison.
 

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
This is nothing new. Insurance companies commonly drop folks for making claims.
This isn't what's happening in Florida.

Insurers are leaving the state altogether and dropping EVERY insured in the state. Citizens, the state run insurer of LAST RESORT is now the only option for a shockingly large number of residents.
 

tissandtully

Well-Known Member
This isn't what's happening in Florida.

Insurers are leaving the state altogether and dropping EVERY insured in the state. Citizens, the state run insurer of LAST RESORT is now the only option for a shockingly large number of residents.
I have Citizens because I'm on the gulf coast in St. Pete and they are doing mandatory inspections of every policy to try to find reasons to remove previous discounts and to drop coverage.
 

Stripes

Premium Member
It's awfully specific, though. What's your rationale behind why Disney would have the upper hand?
The court will consider the context of the statute, which is to clarify that subsequent state and federal laws and regulations can override the development agreement. Now it’s not directly stated in the statute but it’s implied that those laws must have a legitimate public purpose. For example, let’s say a city entered into a development agreement which permitted a developer to construct a daycare facility next to a public dump. The state later passes a law banning daycare facilities from being built within a half mile of a dump. That is the purpose of the statute. It is essentially there to solidify the contracts clause test.

Further, if the legislature specifically target this development agreement, Disney could also allege a class-of-one Equal Protection violation.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom