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

[GoofGoof]

not dissolved, not dissolved, not dissolved, not dissolved

The rest of my post seems reasonable, if not, I apologize.

You said that RCID was a district that the state had every right to dissolve. That’s a true statement assuming it was done in compliance with state law and you ignore any 1st amendment issues related to motive. See first couple hundred pages of the thread on that debate when the original bill actually dissolved the district. No point rehashing that. What we have today is not that. We have a board controlled by political appointees intent on exacting revenge on a corporation. It’s no longer a hypothetical debate on whether the district will be used to harm Disney. The Governor made that crystal clear with his press tantrum the other day. It’s not possible to just call this the state removing a perk Disney had. It’s well beyond that. So a long winded way of saying….not exactly reasonable

 

[CaptainAmerica]

And gave him what exactly?

Replacing chapek? Returning to a dividend? Re-org'ing after being away? What? Which of these were compromises to Peltz?

The timing and magnitude of the cost cuts, combined with the way they were announced, juiced Disney's stock price in the short term.

Peltz made $150 million in 3 months.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

As to the comparisons between DeSantis and Christie, at least with Christie the event lasted a few days and the political fallout followed, and he went into cleanup mode (albeit not enough to save ‘20)…with DeSantis, everyday that goes by, he keeps digging himself deeper and deeper. In the very end, I really don’t know how much it will effect Disney (I’m sure there will be some negatives for the mouse), but on the national stage, this will NOT end well for Ron…if his handlers were smart, they would be trying to contain the fallout now to save his future political career beyond ‘24. I just don’t think his ego will allow it. For someone who really doesn’t have any national political experience, he’s running around the country like he’s got Disney by the little mouse b***z, the conservative pundits and news outlets are spinning it that way, but to someone who’s leanings are MOR or even a few ticks to the right, you can PLAINLY see he’s overstepped his bounds. I do tend to favor Fox’s coverage over the rest of the MSM, but the way they’re spinning it, he’s done no wrong and he’s sticking it to the big bad mouse. They are clearly in for a very rude awakening.

 

[mikejs78]

Ex post facto laws (i.e. retroactive laws) are constitutional as long as they do not worsen the punishment for a crime (i.e. increase the prison term or fine).

Federally yes, but is that how it's been interpreted in regards to the Florida Constitution?

It this is so clear cut and easy.

Is Disney… er I mean, (the former RCID) fighting this as unconstitutional?

Why isn’t Disney (on behalf of the former RCID ) fighting this as unconstitutional?

How do you know they won't?

The state always had the power to do it.

Then why did a study done by the state legislature around 2005 when it looked like Disney might be sold determine that the state did not have the power to dissolve or reconstitute the district?

The fact that the CFTOD board is hostile to Disney would certainly constitute injury, but I'm not sure it's illegal. I don't like when my town raises my property taxes, but they certainly CAN.

The raising of property taxes without representation is likely a violation of the state constitution. Removing an elected board and replacing it with a state appointed board is injury to Disney because it deprives some of their legal right to representation and local home rule under the Florida Constitution. That's the injury to Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

The timing and magnitude of the cost cuts, combined with the way they were announced, juiced Disney's stock price in the short term.

Peltz made $150 million in 3 months.

Peltz made money as an opportunist who helped fuel the flames. None of the outcomes were concessions to him - They were things they were going to do anyway. They didn't give him greenmail, they didn't give him any seats, they didn't replace anyone on his accord, they didn't change their strategy based on him. He was an annoying fly who used a big block of money to make more money by timing the market. WHEEEE

 

[GoofGoof]

I think your logic is doing some leap-frogging there.

I completely agree with you that the elimination of RCID and the creation of CFTOD was retaliatory, but I question whether that action alone constituted injury to Disney.

The fact that the CFTOD board is hostile to Disney would certainly constitute injury, but I'm not sure it's illegal. I don't like when my town raises my property taxes, but they certainly CAN.

That argument could have been made a week ago. The argument that maybe they will just provide proper oversight and eliminate Disney’s ability to self govern is no longer valid. Once the Governor announced his intent in his press tantrum and the board started formally proposing actions they will soon start officially voting on that ship sailed.

 

[mikejs78]

The timing and magnitude of the cost cuts, combined with the way they were announced, juiced Disney's stock price in the short term.

Peltz made $150 million in 3 months.

All of those things would have happened with or without Peltz. Iger handled that beautifully, given that Peltz was after a board seat in order to give Ike more power.

 

[Disstevefan1]

You said that RCID was a district that the state had every right to dissolve. That’s a true statement assuming it was done in compliance with state law and you ignore any 1st amendment issues related to motive. See first couple hundred pages of the thread on that debate when the original bill actually dissolved the district. No point rehashing that. What we have today is not that. We have a board controlled by political appointees intent on exacting revenge on a corporation. It’s no longer a hypothetical debate on whether the district will be used to harm Disney. The Governor made that crystal clear with his press tantrum the other day. It’s not possible to just call this the state removing a perk Disney had. It’s well beyond that. So a long winded way of saying….not exactly reasonable

I stand corrected then. The former RCID should fight it then.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That argument could have been made a week ago. The argument that maybe they will just provide proper oversight and eliminate Disney’s ability to self govern is no longer valid. Once the Governor announced his intent in his press tantrum and the board started formally proposing actions they will soon start officially voting on that ship sailed.

I understand. I'm raising a structural question.

The creation of the board was an act of the Florida state legislature and the governor. The actions taken by the board were actions taken by the board.

So I'm questioning who the defendant would be in any legal action. Can Disney sue the governor and the legislature for actions taken by the board? Do they sue the board itself? Do they sue the legislature and the board all together?

 

[mkt]

Ex post facto laws (i.e. retroactive laws) are constitutional as long as they do not worsen the punishment for a crime (i.e. increase the prison term or fine).

Federally yes, but is that how it's been interpreted in regards to the Florida Constitution?

Article 1, Section 10 of the Florida constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.

"Prohibited laws.—No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed."

Any law passed would immediately be unconstitutional.

 

[lewisc]

Again, the actions taken by the state legislature in creating the board are separate from the BOARD'S actions.

The actions of the state legislature allowed the appointment of hacks and prohibited a lot of qualified people. Look at the exclusions.

 

[mikejs78]

I understand. I'm raising a structural question.

The creation of the board was an act of the Florida state legislature and the governor. The actions taken by the board were actions taken by the board.

So I'm questioning who the defendant would be in any legal action. Can Disney sue the governor and the legislature for actions taken by the board? Do they sue the board itself? Do they sue the legislature and the board all together?

I stated it above. Disney is aggrieved by the legislative action because the reconstituted board removed their constitutional right to representation in regards to property taxes.

 

[flynnibus]

I understand. I'm raising a structural question.

The creation of the board was an act of the Florida state legislature and the governor. The actions taken by the board were actions taken by the board.

So I'm questioning who the defendant would be in any legal action. Can Disney sue the governor and the legislature for actions taken by the board? Do they sue the board itself? Do they sue the legislature and the board all together?

The answer to your question really depends on which vector you are talking about

1A topic? The board so far hasn't been trampling 1A topics. The state did. So obviously they go after the state for the passage of the law that restructured RCID.

But there are many other angles that would have impacted either Disney or the district in response to the state laws passed - some of which is why the state had to make try #2 and instead restructure the district's charter. In those cases the parties could have been completely different.

You're asking broad questions instead of sticking to specific scenarios. There isn't one answer for all of them, it depends on the specific complaint you are referring to.

 

[GoofGoof]

I understand. I'm raising a structural question.

The creation of the board was an act of the Florida state legislature and the governor. The actions taken by the board were actions taken by the board.

So I'm questioning who the defendant would be in any legal action. Can Disney sue the governor and the legislature for actions taken by the board? Do they sue the board itself? Do they sue the legislature and the board all together?

Just because the board was created and now modified as an act of the FL legislature doesn’t mean any and all actions of the board are permissible and legal.

Disney has a legally executed development agreement that protects them from the vast majority of the actions the Governor and board have threatened. If the board fails to honor that contract in any meaningful way it ends up in court as Disney vs the district. A simple contract dispute no different than any other corporation disputing a local government action. Mundane and common with years of legal precedent.

If the district attempts to enforce authority that it does not have (something not already covered under the development agreement) then again that ends up in court as Disney vs district. An example of that could be the unlawful restriction of Covid safety requirements. Since the district has no legally authorized police force it would be difficult to enforce that anyway so seems like more of a PR stunt and Disney as a private business in America will continue to operate as they see fit when it comes to guest and employee safety.

I suppose somewhere down the line this could end up in court where Disney sued the board and Governor together but that really would only be in relation to a 1st amendment case. The Governor is not supposed to have unilateral control of a local government like this (he legally doesn’t, but does in practice) so there’s not much Disney could sue him directly for. I guess maybe if he follows through on his threat to force Orange and Osceola Counties to change their assessments on Disney’s property there could be a lawsuit over that but it may be the counties suing the Governor for interference.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Just because the board was created and now modified as an act of the FL legislature doesn’t mean any and all actions of the board are permissible and legal.

No kidding. My point is that the board taking illegal action against Disney would not be cause for a lawsuit against the governor, as some here have claimed.

People were saying things like "Disney should sue the Govenor (or the State of Florida, or the Legislature) because the board seems poised to take hostile and possibly illegal action." No. You sue the governor for governor things, and you sue the board for board things. You don't get to sue the Governor for the actions of the board.

Disney has a legally executed development agreement that protects them from the vast majority of the actions the Governor and board have threatened. If the board fails to honor that contract in any meaningful way it ends up in court as Disney vs the district. A simple contract dispute no different than any other corporation disputing a local government action. Mundane and common with years of legal precedent.

If the district attempts to enforce authority that it does not have (something not already covered under the development agreement) then again that ends up in court as Disney vs district. An example of that could be the unlawful restriction of Covid safety requirements. Since the district has no legally authorized police force it would be difficult to enforce that anyway so seems like more of a PR stunt and Disney as a private business in America will continue to operate as they see fit when it comes to guest and employee safety.

I suppose somewhere down the line this could end up in court where Disney sued the board and Governor together but that really would only be in relation to a 1st amendment case. The Governor is not supposed to have unilateral control of a local government like this (he legally doesn’t, but does in practice) so there’s not much Disney could sue him directly for. I guess maybe if he follows through on his threat to force Orange and Osceola Counties to change their assessments on Disney’s property there could be a lawsuit over that but it may be the counties suing the Governor for interference.

My point is, the Governor isn't the one running the board. So the Governor blustering in a campaign speech followed by board action on a related topic does not create a course of action against the governor.

 

[mkt]

Sometimes you have to read more than just the Constitution.

In the case of ex post facto laws, I suggest you start with Calder v. Bull.

Which is why I'm referencing Florida's constitution, not the US Constitution.

This law would be a state issue, not a federal one.

 

[Chi84]

An example of that could be the unlawful restriction of Covid safety requirements. Since the district has no legally authorized police force it would be difficult to enforce that anyway so seems like more of a PR stunt and Disney as a private business in America will continue to operate as they see fit when it comes to guest and employee safety.

@castlecake2.0 This would be an excellent question for the board. If businesses impose COVID-type mitigation measures contrary to the board's "resolutions to make regulations" what would happen to them? What enforcement powers does the board have?

 

[Dranth]

Yes, I’m angry about what DeSantis did, but I’m also disappointed that despite their track record, people didn’t have more faith in Disney.

I think you have to remember where we were at the time to understand the lack of faith. Chapek had already set the tone and the company felt like it was losing it's way at a substantially accelerated pace. Keeping that in mind, I understand why people felt they had to do something.

I think every last person who has honestly participated in this thread believes that had anyone with a handful of active brain cells been running the company, this whole situation would have been handled much better.

However, the reaction by the state is next level ridiculous and disgusting. The fact that there is anyone who would support the governing body of Florida on this one shows just how blinded by partisan bickering and short sighted people can be.

 

[flynnibus]

People were saying things like "Disney should sue the Govenor (or the State of Florida, or the Legislature) because the board seems poised to take hostile and possibly illegal action." No. You sue the governor for governor things, and you sue the board for board things. You don't get to sue the Governor for the actions of the board.

Again you're blurring things instead of sticking to the points being made in their own context.

In case of the board taking actions - it solidifies the argument that redefining the district did lead to harm to disney and the collusion between the board and the governor strengthens the argument that the changes were part of a specific effort to target or punish Disney.

 

[peter11435]

I don't like when my town raises my property taxes, but they certainly CAN.

You have the ability to vote to decide who leads your town….