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

[Vacationeer]

It’s all fine when it’s happening to the other guys!

People are very short sighted.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

As someone said, they are laying the groundwork on making claims that DeSantis wasn't the entity that actually made the changes. First, they will go on a media blitz. Watch other DeSantis minions make similar claims on right wing outlets. You'll possibly see some op-eds in the WSJ, etc. also try to make similar claims. Then they will show up in court and try to make a legal argument that he's not party to the suit.

They have to do this because DeSantis was an arrogant fool by continually bragging that he took on Disney himself. I mean he wasn't even vague about it, he was pretty clear he did this.

Also going to be quite the campaign issue............. he's going to want to run on him being the guy that took it to Disney but his legal team is going to be arguing that he can't be a defendant because he had nothing to do with the legislature reshaping the district via legislation.

He can't take this tack because he's staked so much of his political persona as being the tough guy who beat "woke" Disney. There's a whole chapter in his book about it. The amount he seems to have staked on this fight was clear in his response when people started making fun of him for seemingly being outsmarted by Disney and he started making weird comments about building prisons next to the parks or putting tolls on the roads into the resort.

The line seems to be that the state was merely taking away Disney's "special privileges" and that it was in the public interest. You can already see that in DeSantis' comments from Israel (he must be loving that this is overshadowing his big oversees trip designed to prove how presidential he can be). I suspect the AG's comments will be a bit of an outlier because I can't imagine DeSantis would be able to stomach backing away now, whatever legal advice he receives.

A good lesson in thinking through your actions rather than reacting impulsively driven by pride and ego. It's hard to imagine he would be politically worse off now if he had of just brushed off Disney's initial statement.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It's reasonable to assume that those people see the retaliation as a positive.

I’m not sure what the proper term is…but the talking heads have taken to calling it “identity politics”

I prefer “hate harnessing”

Whatever it…it’s the most divisive political development in the US since the small scale, media disconnected movements of the late 1800s and early 1900s

We had relative national stability in our public forum for the last 75 years.

This stuff is really inherently evil…and has an unregulated rapid delivery system.

What’s happening in Florida is a symptom of a really dangerous problem.

We best get our heads out it it and fast. All great houses fall.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

He can't take this tack because he's staked so much of his political persona as being the tough guy who beat "woke" Disney. There's a whole chapter in his book about it. The amount he seems to have staked on this fight was clear in his response when people started making fun of him for seemingly being outsmarted by Disney and he started making weird comments about building prisons next to the parks or putting tolls on the roads into the resort.

The line seems to be that the state was merely taking away Disney's "special privileges" and that it was in the public interest. You can already see that in DeSantis' comments from Israel (he must be loving that this is overshadowing his big oversees trip designed to prove how presidential he can be). I suspect the AG's comments will be a bit of an outlier because I can't imagine DeSantis would be able to stomach backing away now, whatever legal advice he receives.

A good lesson in thinking through your actions rather than reacting impulsively driven by pride and ego. It's hard to imagine he would be politically worse off now if he had of just brushed off Disney's initial statement.

Excellent.

That is exactly what he’s doing…it wasn’t gonna succeed…but it’s gone off the rails faster than anyone thought.

He was never gonna win anything. I have made reference to another former governor of about 10 years ago that went nowhere and he was MORE skilled at this.

This is simply a grift now. Trying to gain money through attention. That’s never a good idea for the public. We’ve seen this one.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board of Supervisors have scheduled a special meeting for this Monday, May 1.

Here's the only item currently listed for new business -

4.1 Board discussion and direction to litigation counsel and authorization to defend District officials sued in official capacities.

https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/05-01-23-BOS-Agenda-FINAL.pdf

This Board doesn’t seem to be doing a whole lot of “Tourism Oversight.”

 

[OvertheHorizon]

A couple of observations:

If the state deemed that the Reedy Creek Improvement District wasn't doing a good job (a debatable point), they could have replaced it. To create a new Central Florida Tourism Oversight District seems a misnomer when it only involves Disney and neglects all of the other MAJOR and lessor tourist attractions in Central Florida.

Again, if a change had to be made (not saying it did), it would have been more even handed to allow a variety of sources to choose the new District's Board Members, with say 1 appointment each from the Governor, Orange County, Osceola County, the State House Speaker, etc. For the Governor to make all five appointments (and considering the appointments he made) underscores the "retribution" aspect cited in Disney's lawsuit.

 

[Heppenheimer]

MGM always in our house.

Disney Springs is still the Lake Buena Vista Village to my mom.

 

[Heppenheimer]

From my completely unprofessional (not a lawyer) view, I agree. The actions by Desantis and the legislature seem egregious and quite clearly targeted retaliation to censor speech. I sincerely hope one or more judges will see it that way.

I just wish more people would see it this way as well. Many seem to want to take the other view and punish Disney and their “woke agenda”, and fail to see the danger of a government body being allowed to go after a private business or entity in this way.

An argument I've made that seems get some traction among those who relish in these kinds of "own the libs" policies...

What if the shoe was on the other foot? Suppose a left-leaning governor went after your church's tax-exempt status because they opposed one or more of his policies? And beyond that, what if the governor then declared all parochial schools of that particular church must now be governed by state-installed appointees?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Probably the biggest keystone in the defense using legitimate purposes to ignore the motive argument would be the change of the makeup of the district’s board. To goto the extreme they did… including some of the qualifiers on eligibility…. Are some of the strongest retorts to the facility valid arguments.

But I don’t know what it would mean for ghe court to see some of the law’s changes valid, and others not.

I still think this will be a defense the state side plays

And in a federal venue, how much will Disney be allowed to argue that these changes violate state law and the state constitution?

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is an interesting point.

I read an article not long ago about “The Villages”. I’m not actually familiar with this other special district beyond what I read in that one article.

It centered around drama regarding the board running it, and how residents banded together to get on it due to being taxed extra to help them develop something new, or something. I clearly wasn’t posting that close of attention at the time.

But I wonder, if this “Villages” place had to allow residents an opportunity to hold power, just as RCID clearly did (and that’s why Disney kept tight controls over its land), is RCID now the only one of these districts that does NOT operate that way?

The Villages is composed of about a dozen special districts known as community development districts (CDD). CDDs are open to anyone with 1,000 contiguous acres of land (individually or collectively as it requires unanimous consent) and Universal is currently seeking to have one created at Epic Universe. They do not offer the full set of powers that were held by the Reedy Creek Improvement District but several of them are available including drainage, water service, mosquito control, roads and transit services and emergency services. They don’t by default have zoning control but are often paired with master planned development zoning and land development agreements that give the developer effective zoning control. They don‘t control building permits (there was no state requirement for enforcing a building code when RCID was created, there is now the state wide Florida Building Code), but if they have a fire department they would control the fire code reviews that are part of getting a permit.

The issue with The Villages is how they have used land purchases and multiple districts. CDDs start off by voting based on land ownership, but starts switching to include residents once residents own a certain percentage of the district. If Universal’s proposed Shingle Creek Transit Improvement District is created it would remain controlled by land ownership so long as residents were not added. RCID is not the only district that operates based on land ownership.

 

[Touchdown]

And in a federal venue, how much will Disney be allowed to argue that these changes violate state law and the state constitution?

None, they will be arguing the changes violate federal law. State law doesn’t matter if it violates federal law due to the supremacy clause.

 

[RamblinWreck]

The Villages is composed of about a dozen special districts known as community development districts (CDD). CDDs are open to anyone with 1,000 contiguous acres of land (individually or collectively as it requires unanimous consent) and Universal is currently seeking to have one created at Epic Universe. They do not offer the full set of powers that were held by the Reedy Creek Improvement District but several of them are available including drainage, water service, mosquito control, roads and transit services and emergency services. They don’t by default have zoning control but are often paired with master planned development zoning and land development agreements that give the developer effective zoning control. They don‘t control building permits (there was no state requirement for enforcing a building code when RCID was created, there is now the state wide Florida Building Code), but if they have a fire department they would control the fire code reviews that are part of getting a permit.

The issue with The Villages is how they have used land purchases and multiple districts. CDDs start off by voting based on land ownership, but starts switching to include residents once residents own a certain percentage of the district. If Universal’s proposed Shingle Creek Transit Improvement District is created it would remain controlled by land ownership so long as residents were not added. RCID is not the only district that operates based on land ownership.

My question wasn’t about if RCID is the only one that operates by land ownership.

My question was whether or not it’s now the only one where land owners or residents have absolutely no vote in the leadership which has the power to levy taxes on the district.

 

[ToTBellHop]

Disney Springs is still the Lake Buena Vista Village to my mom.

Magic Kingdom is always “the swamp” in my house.

 

[lazyboy97o]

None, they will be arguing the changes violate federal law. State law doesn’t matter if it violates federal law due to the supremacy clause.

It has to do with facially valid test. What really hinders any claimed validity of the laws isn’t federal law, but state law.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My question wasn’t about if RCID is the only one that operates by land ownership.

My question was whether or not it’s now the only one where land owners or residents have absolutely no vote in the leadership which has the power to levy taxes on the district.

It is unique in having its level of taxing authority and having a state appointed board.

 

[Dranth]

An argument I've made that seems get some traction among tjose who relish in these kinds of "own the libs" policies...

What if the shoe was on the other foot? Suppose a left-leaning governor went after your church's tax-exempt status because they opposed one or more of his policies? And beyond that, what if the governor then declared all parochial schools of that particular must now be governed by state-installed appointees?

The problem is the people that support this type of thing don't ever connect the two. They will scream their brains out if the shoe is on the other foot while making endless, trivial, often far-fetched excuses on why when their "team" did the same thing it was okay or different somehow.

 

[LAKid53]

I’m not a lawyer so could be way off base but it’s direct vs indirect. In O’Brien the government passed a law that was being challenged as directly limiting free speech (a symbolic action not actual words coming from someone). In the Disney case the law itself is not directly limiting Disney’s free speech, but it was a retaliation against them for speaking out. So I don’t think they are the same thing. The Gwinnett County case seems more similar to me in that the action of the government itself did not directly limit the union’s speech (and was otherwise legal outside of motive) but the court ruled that it was retaliatory and that the government entity could not revoke a benefit as a sanction for expressing a view.

Good analyses. It's not that government passed a law that the law itself restricts or prohibits speech (O'Brien) but that the government uses law to retaliate for prior speech it doesn't like. And that, as prior courts have ruled, is unconstitutional.

 

[LAKid53]

From my completely unprofessional (not a lawyer) view, I agree. The actions by Desantis and the legislature seem egregious and quite clearly targeted retaliation to censor speech. I sincerely hope one or more judges will see it that way.

I just wish more people would see it this way as well. Many seem to want to take the other view and punish Disney and their “woke agenda”, and fail to see the danger of a government body being allowed to go after a private business or entity in this way.

Government has historically passed law that either prohibits or punishes speech it doesn't like.

Look at the controversy over the burning of the flag. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), SCOTUS overturned the conviction of Mr. Johnson who had burned the US flag in protest during a party's convention. The ruling invalidated flag desecration laws in 48 states [I've always found it ironic that the method recommended in the US Flag Code for disposing of a tattered and worn flag is to destroy it by burning it]. In response, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989. SCOTUS again confirmed in United States v. Eichman (1990) that flag burning was a protected form of free speech, and overruled the Flag Protection Act as unconstitutional.

My point here is that the courts have confirmed that speech many would not only find objectionable but unpatriotic is protected. And in doing so, struck down not only existing laws prohibiting said speech, but any further attempts by government to do so.

 

[lentesta]

CNN reporting House Speaker McCarthy (R) says DeSantis should sit down w/Disney and end feud, threat to build prison next to WDW "not a good idea."

 

[GoofGoof]

Good analyses. It's not that government passed a law that the law itself restricts or prohibits speech (O'Brien) but that the government uses law to retaliate for prior speech it doesn't like. And that, as prior courts have ruled, is unconstitutional.

Exactly. I think the precedent should fall to cases where a government took action to punish a person (or in this case a corporation) for speaking out against the government. The punishment itself is not relevant it’s the motivation for it. In O’Brien and other cases like flag burning the action itself which was blocked by government action was an expression of free speech. In this case there is no question that there is no constitutionally protected right to a special district, but the Government cannot take action (even if the action is legal) that singles out an individual for punishment.