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

[drnilescrane]

It May Be Time for Disney to Sue Florida​

Sure, there would be political fallout, and at this point Disney is winning the battle of public opinion, with DeSantis increasingly coming across as a bully without the brains to back up his threats. So why escalate? The Oversight District can still do things like raise taxes and muck up the company’s plans for a long time, and who knows how desperate and vindictive DeSantis will get. Plus, while DeSantis won’t be around forever, Disney will always be an easy punching bag because its politics take root in Burbank, not central Florida. The only thing that may extricate Disney long term is if the company decides to fight the whole Oversight District takeover, and Iger, with his credibility and stature, might be uniquely positioned to do it while he’s C.E.O. “Disney could sue to say this takeover was retaliatory because, I mean, it definitely was,” Schumer noted. “The governor and legislators have basically said so, and then that becomes a free speech question.” And a great way for Iger, with ice in his veins and the clock ticking on his Disney tenure, to go in for the kill.

https://puck.news/it-may-be-time-for-disney-to-sue-florida/

I usually trust Matt Belloni (a lawyer and the former editor of the Hollywood Reporter)

 

[Surferboy567]

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.

The board has made multiple threats specifically targeted at Disney (to my knowledge) they have said:

1. Disney doesn’t want to work with the board.

2. Disney doesn’t pay taxes.

3. Disney is a untrustworthy self dealing company.

4. Disney has been using the exception from state mandated inspections to slack on maintenance and not do in-house inspections rigorously enough. They basically said here that they don’t believe the rides are safe.

5. Disney inserts California based politics into Florida and should be punished.

6. Disney breaks inspections rules on pools and it should be controlled by the state.

All of these comments/agendas said by the board almost definitely constitute hostility to Disney.

I don’t believe anything listed above, but the board has said things to the above effect in official meetings. This constitutes hostility to me.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It May Be Time for Disney to Sue Florida​

https://puck.news/it-may-be-time-for-disney-to-sue-florida/

I usually trust Matt Belloni (a lawyer and the former editor of the Hollywood Reporter)

The first paragraph really calls into question the author's credibility.

Nelson Peltz got exactly what he wanted out of Disney, Iger essentially caved to him. Victoria Alonso just got a multimillion dollar payoff. Yet both of these are cited as examples of how Iger is "ice cold" like Michael Corleone.

 

[Patcheslee]

I didn't realize analysis of bills were also published (mich easier read for me) The updated analysis from yesterday even shows some constitutional issues with SB1604 and don't know the effects.

 

[flynnibus]

Nelson Peltz got exactly what he wanted out of Disney, Iger essentially caved to him

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?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The board has made multiple threats specifically targeted at Disney (to my knowledge) they have said:

1. Disney doesn’t want to work with the board.

2. Disney doesn’t pay taxes.

3. Disney is a untrustworthy self dealing company.

4. Disney has been using the exception from state mandated inspections to slack on maintenance and not do in-house inspections rigorously enough. They basically said here that they don’t believe the rides are safe.

5. Disney inserts California based politics into Florida and should be punished.

6. Disney breaks inspections rules on pools and it should be controlled by the state.

All of these comments/agendas said by the board almost definitely constitute hostility to Disney.

I don’t believe anything listed above, but the board has said things to the above point in official meetings.

Some of those they never said, some of them are objectively true, some of them they said and it's perfectly fine that they said, and some of them they implied without actually saying.

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

 

[drnilescrane]

Nelson Peltz got exactly what he wanted out of Disney, Iger essentially caved to him. Victoria Alonso just got a multimillion dollar payoff. Yet both of these are cited as examples of how Iger is "ice cold" like Michael Corleone.

I agree the Nelson Peltz issue is outwardly muddy. Considering the fact Nelson was working with Ike Perlmutter, there's an argument that Nelson wanted a bit more than just the dividend, and the whole endeavor was a tad embarrassing.

On the Victoria Alonso issue, yes she got paid off. But it was about sending a message and having a lot of friends in Frank G Wells, it was received clear as day. Chapek was so weak the executive team got accustomed to doing whatever they wanted and acting solely in personal interest (which is sort of the root of this thread). That needed to stop, and stop quickly.

 

[ParentsOf4]

In Universal’s defense the parent company Comcast was a signer of the petition opposing the same bill along with a boat load of other Fortune 500 companies. If Disney never spoke out at all and if the Governor still wanted a crusade to benefit his political goals we could very well be having this same discussion about Universal right now. He could have taken the signing of that petition and blown it up into a battle against a woke FL corporation. Disney was a much more juicy target and they also had the RCID play to improve the attack against them.

Disney’s only “mistake” was not signing the original petition, like most corporations did.

It was a toothless petition and most companies signed it knowing there was little downside.

Instead, Disney was pretty much the only company that tried to do something of substance, in this case use their powerful lobbyists to try to make meaningful changes to the bill.

Then Disney got pushed into making a very public condemnation by the exact group they were trying to help.

More than any other company, Disney tried to help and got screwed over because of it.

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.

 

[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.