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

[flynnibus]

I thought the sheriff deputies were all located outside the parks? Couldn't Disney simply not allow them into the parks if they suspect something like this will happen?

When we get into specifics it's not that cut and dry.

Both Orange and Osceola counties use sheriff departments... which means they are ran by an elected sheriff, not other politicians. They owe no loyalty to the district board. The board can't simply order them around. Nor can the counties, but they aren't on the district's side anyways.

The two cities today do not have police departments themselves, and the district doesn't control them to do one way or the other.

The district today doesn't have their own force, but if they were to call onto others... they have to convince the others to do their bidding, which is a delicate topic.

When you are a big needy entity like the district or Disney... your relationship with law enforcement is essential and a balancing act. They aren't just mindless mercenaries... so it's a delicate thing to manage in terms of what you ask of them, what limits you put on them, how much you cooperate, how much you put them in difficult situations, etc.

 

[lentesta]

3) He seems to just be voiding the contract whether it’s legal or not. Which seems to me like Disney could just sue if it’s illegal to void a legally binding contract.

3) The doors that this would open would stop it from happening.
4) This is the outcome thats most likely, actually. Theres a lot written that says the legislature thinks DeSantis went too far and they are only doing this to support him, but don't actually want it or care.

I have all kinds of questions about Florida's ability to change a contract to which it's not a party (Statute 163.3241). The case law I've looked at all involve instances where the state was a party in the contract. (For example, the state gives a license to a company to dump trash in location X, then later prohibits the dumping of radioactive waste in location X, thus changing the scope of the original contract.)

Has 162.3241 ever been tested in court? I'm guessing that in this case, too, the targeted use of this statute is going to raise other issues.

 

[jinx8402]

You're referring to the legal mechanism by which it was created. In practice, how did it operate? Who controlled the board?

The landowners of the municipality, which just so happens to be Disney. Just as if any other municipality was largely owned by one person/entity. I would expect that they have a very large say in who is elected and represents their needs.

 

[Chi84]

They acted by releasing a statement that said, "We are focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework."

They could have sued to prevent the new board from taking over, and maintain their control over the government but they didn't. They transferred the most essential controls over and abandoned ship. Why would they do that?

Probably to avoid giving DeSantis any more publicity at the time. Stripping the new board of power instead gave Disney the upper hand. And I’m sure they didn’t mind seeing all the news about how they outsmarted the guy.

 

[mkt]

I thought the sheriff deputies were all located outside the parks? Couldn't Disney simply not allow them into the parks if they suspect something like this will happen?

This is going back YEARS ago.

In late 2001 or 2002, I was injured while performing in Tapestry of Dreams and was taken to the hospital by ambulance. My uncle, an Orange County Deputy, picked me up from the hospital after I was discharged and I spent the night at his house recovering. The following day, he drove me back to Epcot before work because my street clothes, wallet, cellphone, and car keys were there. (the relevant part): He was in uniform, and we rode in his unmarked, but yellow plated take-home OCSO car to Epcot, and he flashed his badge and ID at the security gate, where he was waved through, and drove me straight through the backstage security entrance to the Epcot Entertainment Building (aka PICO), behind China and Norway, to get my belongings.

He could have easily parked and walked onstage if he wanted to.

On top of this, as an EXTREMELY regular park guest, I see OCSO deputies in the park all the time.

So can Disney restrict their access? Yes.

But based off of my one anecdotal experience, plus years of seeing them onstage at the park, I don't think they do.

 

[Surferboy567]

I have all kinds of questions about Florida's ability to change a contract to which it's not a party (Statute 163.3241). The case law I've looked at all involve instances where the state was a party in the contract. (For example, the state gives a license to a company to dump trash in location X, then later prohibits the dumping of radioactive waste in location X, thus changing the scope of the original contract.)

Has 162.3241 ever been tested in court? I'm guessing that in this case, too, the targeted use of this statute is going to raise other issues.

As @Kamikaze has said, if this was brought up in court I can see this setting a new precedent.

 

[GoofGoof]

They acted by releasing a statement that said, "We are focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework."

They could have sued to prevent the new board from taking over, and maintain their control over the government but they didn't. They transferred the most essential controls over and abandoned ship. Why would they do that?

The new framework they referenced also included a publicly approved development agreement that Disney clearly knew they secured even if we didn’t at the time. Even with that agreement in place Disney is still losing a level of control they had before. They are accepting that rather than opting for a long drawn out public fight. Because they don’t fight this out publicly or in court doesn’t mean they don’t think they could win. Sometimes winning isn’t worth the collateral damage. As Jordan famously said “Republicans buy sneakers too”. A drawn out public fight isn’t in Disney’s best interest, not when they can get most of what they want without It….which is right where we are.

 

[flynnibus]

You're confused on this issue. Let's get some clarity...

Thank you... I wasn't going to bother explaining to him why Disney is buying property outside WDW boundaries to be wetlands because I didn't want to pop his balloon that his preconceived notion that water management and wetlands in florida was all a big disney conceived scam.

 

[MisterPenguin]

There's no self-dealing going on.

Self-dealing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mkt]

3) He seems to just be voiding the contract whether it’s legal or not. Which seems to me like Disney could just sue if it’s illegal to void a legally binding contract.

Forget just illegal. It's flat out unconstitutional: both state and US constitutions.

 

[GBAB1973]

Take yourself out of defensive mode for a second and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense that a state, as a whole, should not have the ability to say that low income housing is a more important priority than additional resort expansion for a corporation.

They had the ability. But they were the ones that created the law/process that allowed Disney to get those bonds before other government agencies. If they wanted certain projects to have priorty, they should have set the rules to reflect that. They didn't, RCID followed the rules and that's just reality.

 

[Mr. Stay Puft]

Forget just illegal. It's flat out unconstitutional: both state and US constitutions.

Hasn't stopped this administration and state legislature before. Unfortunately.

 

[GBAB1973]

Do you think that wil continue under the new board?

Based on what they have said thus far, no, I wouldn't expect it to. Because the board members have other goals beyond just making sure the district runs efficiently.

 

[drnilescrane]

IANAL but… good luck with that in court.

 

[Kamikaze]

Forget just illegal. It's flat out unconstitutional: both state and US constitutions.

Forget that, it would mean that all contracts - everywhere - were essentially worthless.

 

[GBAB1973]

Disney didn’t fight the take over publicly because they had a legally executed development agreement protecting what they valued most, their ability to use land that they have legally owned for 50+ years to build more theme parks and hotels.

Yes and, and maybe they were lying at the time, they seemed to be open to seeing what the state legislature/DeSantis would propose. When DeSantis started floating his plans that's when Disney and the RCID went through the process they did in January/February.

 

[hopemax]

Time to dust-off those old plans for a Disney ski resort.

(Hey Disney, there's two resorts here in Vermont under receivership after a developmental deal went bad...).

I did think about the skiing. However, the state already is dealing with inadequate transportation infrastructure to get to the ski areas. So unless Disney wants to help finance that, I don't see ski resort coming.

The 2 things that are fun to roll around in the brain...

1. As part of the build-up for WDW, Disney operated the Celebrity Sports Center in Denver as a management training ground. It was sold off in 1979, sold again at a later point to a Trammell Crow subsidiary (mentioning for current relevancy) and closed in 1995, and now the site is a Home Depot. But every time they have one of those nostalgia surveys it's always near or at the top of the things long time Colorado residents wish still existed. It can't be just a recreation of what it was, but if it was used as a starting point to capture that nostalgia vibe, and developed into something bigger... The South Park guys bought the nostalgia restaurant (Casa Bonita, inspired by Blue Bayou, inspiration for San Angel Cantina...) and the city is all a twitter with it's reopening, next month.

2. C.V. Wood... Disneyland developer, was contracted by Denver area business men in the late 50s to build a small theme park in Golden, CO hoping to copy Disneyland's success. The original concept failed, was sold off, but did operate between 1971-2018 as Heritage Square. According to Wikipedia, Martin Marrietta currently owns the property (there is a quarry next door, and the property is being used as a buffer). Googling, it looks like in 2019 there was some discussion about doing a land swap with the county to take over not only the park site but the quarry, and turn it into recreation space. It doesn't appear to have been revisited, I assume because the timeline ran smack into the beginning of Covid. But it seems like an opportunity to work with someone like Disney wouldn't be a hard, and immediate "no."

 

[lazyboy97o]

Take yourself out of defensive mode for a second and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense that a state, as a whole, should not have the ability to say that low income housing is a more important priority than additional resort expansion for a corporation.

I have never once thought a first come, first served system is a good one when it comes to government financing. That’s the state’s fault for making decisions that way. It has nothing to do with the District. There’s nothing to say that Orange County Utilities would not have been first in line which would have had the same result.

 

[CentralFLlife]

Take yourself out of defensive mode for a second and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense that a state, as a whole, should not have the ability to say that low income housing is a more important priority than additional resort expansion for a corporation.

Why dont you stop being defensive and ask yourself if the state should have the ability to dictate what landowners can & can’t do with their land. All because of a political statement that the landowner made.

 

[flynnibus]

You're referring to the legal mechanism by which it was created. In practice, how did it operate? Who controlled the board?

Ok, let's note your complaint there is no diversity on the district board - because at the time of creation the state didn't mandate independent directors.

You are against this philosophically. Ok.. noted.

Do you have any real examples of why this model has failed in the case of RCID? Or is it purely a philosophical difference?

Do you have any other valid concerns? Because everything else you've thrown out to try to vilify the setup has been misinformation or just plain ignorance of what things really are or why.

And ironically now that the board does get outside directors, we can see just how sane that has gone... where they are talking about overreaching their authority with COVID crap and trashing models that have been effective to date.

The thing about outside directors who have no accountability is... it's really easy to make decisions based on things not representative of the constituents needs. Like the current board... let's lawyer up 5x different ways... who cares what the cost is, we'll just raise taxes to pay for it all. Who cares about the tax burden... we don't pay it and those that do can't do anything to us.