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

[LAKid53]

They could have once they gained Disney as a taxpayer.

If developing the resort infrastructure cost $X and RCID paid for it by taxing Disney $X, then Orange County could have built the exact same infrastructure, also by taxing Disney $X.

Which is illegal under Florida law. County governments cannot tax property owners differently than other property owners within the county, unless a special district is created.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

There’s no way the things DeSantis is calling for so far is going to come to fruition, are they?

 

[lentesta]

“(2)(a) Notice of intent to consider a development agreement shall be advertised approximately 7 days before each public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation and readership in the county where the local government is located. Notice of intent to consider a development agreement shall also be mailed to all affected property owners before the first public hearing. The day, time, and place at which the second public hearing will be held shall be announced at the first public hearing.”

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

It sounds like the lawyers for the board are alleging that the bolded portion was not done appropriately, if at all.

Later it seems to say there was a 30-day window for complaints: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...g=&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3215.html

 

[LAKid53]

One thing that stuck out to me was expedited payment of bonds. How much can the new district raise payments at a time? Would this fall under any statues in Florida? Would this now be considered taxation as the state is now running the board?

Part of the assessment Disney was paying went towards retirement of the bonds. You'd have to look at the bond documents to determine if the Board could legally change the rate at which the bonds are paid off. However, those who purchased the bonds might not be happy if the debt is retired earlier than stated.

 

[afterabme]

They are owned by RCID because they sit on land the District owns. Just as any municipal garage is owned, not solely because municipal bonds paid for the project.

And those saying Universal doesn't get the same benefits as WDW need to remember that Uni sits in the Orlando Community Redevelopment Agency. A portion of the property Universal pays goes towards infrastructure improvements near the park. SeaWorld also sits within a special district.

The CRA was recently used to help pay for the Kirkman Rd Extension.

Orange County commissioners vote to free up millions of restricted tax dollars

Orange County commissioners decided Tuesday to loosen the reins on millions of dollars generated by a special taxing district, which the board previously tapped for $125 million to help Universal Orlando build a road extension to its next theme park, “Epic Universe.”

www.orlandosentinel.com

https://www.orangecountyfl.net/Portals/0/Library/Traffic-Transportation/docs/Kirkman%20Road%20Extension%20Fact%20Sheet_ADA.pdf

 

[MagicHappens1971]

There’s no way the things DeSantis is calling for so far is going to come to fruition, are they?

A state prison? No. The Legislature trying to nullify Disneys contract with RCID? Yes.

 

[Figgy1]

Part of the assessment Disney was paying went towards retirement of the bonds. You'd have to look at the bond documents to determine if the Board could legally change the rate at which the bonds are paid off. However, those who purchased the bonds might not be happy if the debt is retired earlier than stated.

TY

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is a really good point. If the deals were illegally prepared and entered into, there is no need for legislative action because they would not be held up if challenged.

 

[JohnD]

What a statute!

163.3241 Modification or revocation of a development agreement to comply with subsequently enacted state and federal law.—If state or federal laws are enacted after the execution of a development agreement which are applicable to and preclude the parties’ compliance with the terms of a development agreement, such agreement shall be modified or revoked as is necessary to comply with the relevant state or federal laws.​

A development agreement is a contract. Per the Contract Clause, the state does not have the authority to modify or revoke a contract. From the U.S. Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.​

On the face of it, Florida statute 163.3241 would seem to be unconstitutional.

Interesting. Apparently, it's been on the books since 1986. Obviously, the Gov. and Legislature will attempt to enforce that Statute. But, as you indicate, it's likely to move forward in federal courts.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That is illegal without some sort of special district.

Everything we're talking about required legislative action anyways, so they could have made it not-illegal.

Regardless, it's not the special district per se that I have the biggest problem with, it's that Disney had control over it. If the board had been constituted of appointees from the local county governments, I'd be much more comfortable with it.

 

[LAKid53]

Later it seems to say there was a 30-day window for complaints: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...g=&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3215.html

Who's the "aggrieved party" in this instance? If the OGTOD didn't exist at the time, it has no standing.

All of this is going to end up in court. Ex post facto law is prohibited under Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. There's numerous SCOTUS rulings affirming this.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

You mean when they were spending boat loads of money to turn swamp land into a vacation destination and built state of the art infrastructure and utilities. Yeah. I know.

Okay so let's debate things on the merits.

You're not saying "Disney wasn't bribed by the state of Florida," you're saying "Disney was bribed by the state of Florida, and that was a good thing."

 

[peter11435]

Everything we're talking about required legislative action anyways, so they could have made it not-illegal.

Regardless, it's not the special district per se that I have the biggest problem with, it's that Disney had control over it. If the board had been constituted of appointees from the local county governments, I'd be much more comfortable with it.

Why should a special district or any municipal government not be controlled by its own constituents/electors?

 

[Chi84]

Where talking about the pre-development time period when it was all swamps.

And yes, they absolutely could have taxed commercial, residential, agro, etc. at different rates.

It seems RCID was created as a business deal between two parties that they agreed would be mutually beneficial.

Why is it that RCID is no longer beneficial to the state of Florida. I asked this earlier, but no one answered. What is the benefit to the state of having the current board instead of the old one?

 

[Stripes]

Later it seems to say there was a 30-day window for complaints: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...g=&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.3215.html

That’s for a development order. Not a development agreement.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Which is illegal under Florida law.

I'm literally talking about what legislation they could have passed, i.e. they could have changed Florida law.

County governments cannot tax property owners differently than other property owners within the county, unless a special district is created.

I don't want Disney charged more, I want Disney charged the same as everyone else. But we're not talking about 2023, we're talking about 1965 when there was no "everyone else."

 

[lazyboy97o]

Everything we're talking about required legislative action anyways, so they could have made it not-illegal.

Regardless, it's not the special district per se that I have the biggest problem with, it's that Disney had control over it. If the board had been constituted of appointees from the local county governments, I'd be much more comfortable with it.

No, this goes beyond just legislative action. There are constitutional issues at play.

Again, Reedy Creek Improvement District introduced a regulatory framework that did not exist. The local governments were not doing the sort of things the District was doing. The EPCOT Building Code predates Florida requiring local governments to adopt a building code, and one of the building codes they could chose to adopt was the EPCOT Building Code.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Why should a special district or any municipal government not be controlled by its own constituents/electors?

If there were bona fide residents of the district who were actual citizens with self-interest, then fine. But there weren't. The "residents" were corporate shills.

 

[peter11435]

Okay so let's debate things on the merits.

You're not saying "Disney wasn't bribed by the state of Florida," you're saying "Disney was bribed by the state of Florida, and that was a good thing."

You consider RCID a bribe? That’s honestly a ridiculous comparison.

Governments encourage economic development in their jurisdictions all the time. And yes, it often is a good thing.

 

[Chi84]

Okay so let's debate things on the merits.

You're not saying "Disney wasn't bribed by the state of Florida," you're saying "Disney was bribed by the state of Florida, and that was a good thing."

I'm not sure why you think it's bribery. It was a completely legal business deal between two competent parties. What aspect of it made it bribery in your mind. I mean, Disney is offering a discount if I book one of its crazy expensive hotels at a certain time. If I do so, have I been bribed?