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

[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?

 

[peter11435]

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


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."

The legislature can’t simply just change the state constitution.

Still going with the lies I see… Disney was always charged the same as everyone in else. They paid the same taxes as everyone else in 1965 and they paid the same taxes as everyone else in 2022. Plus they paid additional taxes everyone else didn’t have to pay .

 

[Stripes]

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

The law states that any party to the agreement can challenge its compliance with the relevant statutes, not just aggrieved parties.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

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?

That's a pragmatic argument, not a principled one. It's an "ends justify the means" argument that is used to justify all sorts of corporate welfare. "We're going to bribe this company to move here because they're going to create jobs in our community."

 

[GhostHost1000]

Maybe not 'threaten', but he did mention it in his comments.

"DeSantis also again spoke about imposing higher taxes on Walt Disney World, recovering Reedy Creek debt from Disney more quickly, and even developing a state prison or other amusement park on Reedy Creek land."

Magic Kingdom - Straight ahead
EPCOT/Hollywood Studios - Next right
Disney's Animal Kingdom - Next left
Reedy Creek Correctional Facility - Second right

Question: do we have to book reservations to the Reedy Creek Correctional Facility like we do the parks and what LLs do they offer?

Who said Disney wouldn’t build a 5th gate lol

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Governments encourage economic development in their jurisdictions all the time.

Right. Corporate welfare. Bribes.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

My interpretation of that clause is that it’s meant to allow a development agreement to be modified or cancelled if something currently allowed in the agreement becomes illegal based on state or federal law. For example (real life, different state) if I owned land covered by a development agreement which allows me to build a water cooled power plant on the coast and the state passed a law making water cooling illegal then the development agreement could be amended to allow air cooling instead of water cooling or if that isn’t possible potentially the contract could be cancelled. Nothing in Disney’s development agreement is illegal based on existing Federal or State law. Could the legislation pass a new law banning new theme parks in the state or new hotels? I suppose so, but until then I don‘t think this is a back door out of the contract.

 

[Patcheslee]

I noticed DeSantis mentioned a few times about paying down debt, after mentioning the whole ordeal of desolving the district and tax liability issues. Makes me wonder if a long term goal is to pay all debt off to the point the district can be dissolved.

 

[Lilofan]

Question: do we have to book reservations to the Reedy Creek Correctional Facility like we do the parks and what LLs do they offer?

Who said Disney wouldn’t build a 5th gate lol

The food at the possibly future Disney prison can't be any better quality than the quick service food locations at the theme parks.

 

[JohnD]

Question: do we have to book reservations to the Reedy Creek Correctional Facility like we do the parks and what LLs do they offer?

Who said Disney wouldn’t build a 5th gate lol

Trained dogs will be posted outside the cells with the cell keys in its mouth. Just coax it over, grab the key, and you're released.

 

[LAKid53]

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

It's illegal under the Florida Constitution. The Legislature cannot "pass" anything to change that. The voters would have to approve an amended to the Constitution by 60% saying yes.

 

[mkt]

They are owned by RCID because they sit on land the District owns.

Yes, and whose land was that before DTD was turned into Disney Springs?

Listen, on the DeSantis v Disney argument, we're in agreement - but no one can argue that Disney/RCID move land back and forth when needed, and Disney has taken advantage of muni rates to finance some WDW upgrades as needed.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

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."

Which is it?

 

[lentesta]

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

It looks like Article 1 of Florida's Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws around contracts:

Article I, Florida Constitution

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[mkt]

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.

Not in the 1960s, when Florida was a deep south state with two large-ish cities and Central Florida was mostly a backwater.