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

[lentesta]

Universal’s proposed community development district would also be controlled by Universal and any other landowners who decide to join the district. While the focus is on transportation, a community development district could take control of things like roads and emergency services, including fire code review of buildings.

Awesome. I don't think the "it's self-dealing" argument makes any sense. It might play well with people who don't know about Florida's special districts. But in a debate with someone who knows about it, I'm not sure what "Step 2" is in that plan.

 

[GoofGoof]

If you have a better explanation for why they didn't fight it, by all means...

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.

 

[mmascari]

A district controlled by elected board members, or appointees of elected officeholders, or some other bona fide representatives of the citizens of the relevant counties, that would be fine.

Why should counties get to appoint district governance instead of only those within the district boundary? The vast majority of the county is not within the district boundary and is not impacted by any district governance or taxing at all.

In the north east, where there are pretty much towns everywhere and nothing that is unincorporated land. Should the county get to appoint part of the local town governance? A town with say, 5 selectmen, or a mayor, or a board of governors. Should the county get to appoint a percentage of those people? Even though the county includes lots of stuff that is "not the town".

In this case, the district definition was that it is controlled by the land owners. Presumably because it taxes bases on property. If it taxed based on something else, then based on whatever that something else was. Before the change all of the land owners were represented and able to impact the governance direction. That this meant it was all Disney because they own all the property in the district isn't a reason to impose outside control.

Disney is not the District, they are not the same thing no matter how people refer them as the same. That the district only includes Disney and hence Disney has all the influence is simply representation. A structure created by design. Anything that would have lead to other people being impacted by district was eliminated by changing the district boundary to no include them prior to the sale. Hence, they pay no district taxes and are not governed by the district.


* "All" being close enough for this. The few land owners that are not Disney knew the arrangement prior to purchase and purchased anyway, their comparatively small amount.

 

[el_super]

When they saw DeSantis load up the board with ideologues who then said things like how they would use their power now to try to leverage Disney for more conservative content, they acted.

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?

 

[Surferboy567]

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 hope your right, I just don’t see why he would make the big threats yesterday if that was his plan.

The legislature has been more than willing to be his puppet up until now, not sure if that would stop.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

Doesn’t that happen all the time though? Corporations add jobs that people need too. Why did we lower the corporate tax rate in the country in 2017? To make our corporations more competitive in the world but also to encourages corporate growth that results in jobs. Do you think we should raise corporate taxes back up and use the money to build low income housing? That’s certainly a valid opinion to have, just curious if you believe that across the board or just for Disney.

 

[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.