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

[LAKid53]

Query - Are Disney and Desantis friends?

 

[afterabme]

Does anyone remember the number of the bill that came out of the 1st special session that abolished RCID effective June 2023.

Could be wrong, I thought it was Senate Bill 4-C from 2022.

 

[LAKid53]

Could be wrong, I thought it was Senate Bill 4-C from 2022.

Yes, I think that's it.

 

[Brian]

Does anyone remember the number of the bill that came out of the 1st special session that abolished RCID effective June 2023.

SB 4-C (2022) - Independent Special Districts | Florida House of Representatives

www.myfloridahouse.gov

 

[MrPromey]

Hey @wdwmagic, do you have any server space? I've got pacer access and will cover the cost of downloads.

I'm sure he does but if he doesn't, I do and he can hotlink 'em.

 

[mkt]

I'm sure he does but if he doesn't, I do and he can hotlink 'em.

Already uploaded and attached.

 

[LAKid53]

SB 4C had two analyses done by staff of the Community Affairs committee. One before the committee meeting and one after that would review amendments adopted by the committee.

Financial impacts:

(1) Private Sector

"The bill will have an indeterminate fiscal impact on residents and businesses currently served by a special district dissolved by the bill. Such residents and businesses may experience a change in services previously provided by the special district and related assessments and taxes imposed."

(2) Government Sector

"The bill will have an indeterminate fiscal impact on those local general purpose governments that will assume the assets and indebtedness of an independent special district dissolved by the bill."

Both analyses have the same statement of fiscal impact. I frankly find the "indeterminate fiscal impact" phrase rather puzzling as the Tax Collector for Orange County was very specific about the impact on property owners in the county.
And "may experience a change in services"? Talk about hedging your bets...

 

[scottieRoss]

@Stripes caught this earlier. The legislature can pass three different types laws: general, local and special. Local refers to acts impacts a specific, local area, not one’s created by a local government. The District was created by special act, not local act.

So in your opinion, does that mean that the Act would be toothless as far as Disney is concerned? Or at least until they revise it.

 

[scottieRoss]

Local act refers to which governmental entity passed it.

That is what I thought. So it would look like they wanted to single out Reedy Creek and missed?

 

[scottieRoss]

I guarantee you that Disney has more Republican employees, conservative employees, and employees who are parents than they have LGBT employees.

They didn't "stick up for their employees," they stuck up for a vocal minority of their employees that were behaving like children having a temper tantrum.

years ago, when I went through Traditions. I guess in 1993, they told us on Day 1 there were approximately 40,000 local castmembers and they were roughly 50% male and 50% female. And about 50% gay vs. straight. Therefore we each had about 10,000 potential dates!

 

[GrumpyFan]

Interesting Article from Puck: https://puck.news/iger-vs-desantis-the-next-steps/?_cio_id=f6c6060ec7a601e8f71a&utm_campaign=The+Daily+Courant+-+SUBSCRIBERS+(5/2/23)&utm_content=The+Daily+Courant+-+SUBSCRIBERS+(5/2/23)&utm_medium=email_action&utm_source=customer.io

And for those that don't have a subscription:

Iger vs. DeSantis: The Next Steps​

Last week, Disney sued Ron DeSantis over control of some very valuable swampland. The decision to go to court was predictable, of course: C.E.O. Bob Iger wants wide discretion on land use around Disney World, which covers some 43 square miles of Central Florida. And DeSantis, who says he doesn’t believe in “old-guard corporate Republicanism,” won’t stop yapping about “woke ideology.” Now comes a case over the voiding of Disney’s developmental contracts—a reflection, the company claims, of how DeSantis is waging a “relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain State officials.” (Here’s the complaint.)

One thing about Disney’s legal action that has escaped commentary—even though it’s likely to become the center of attention—is how O’Melveny litigation superstar Daniel Petrocelli has managed to file this case in federal court. Disney’s move makes tactical sense. The company, after all, surely wanted to bypass DeSantis-appointed judges, eventually at Florida’s Supreme Court. But can it?

Here’s where the 11th Amendment may come up. This constitutional addendum restricts the ability of citizens to bring suits against states in federal court. This bar, enacted at a time when states had debt problems and sovereignty was a paramount concern, can be puzzling. Four years ago, for instance, the Supreme Court wrestled with the hard-to-fathom yet evidently correct notion that states have immunity for their intellectual property thievery. “One might think that Walt Disney Pictures could sue a state for hosting an unlicensed screening of the studio’s blockbuster film Pirates of the Caribbean (or any of its many sequels),” wrote now retired Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer, marveling at the unanimous ruling by his colleagues. “Yet the court holds otherwise.”

IANAL, but I've read quite a bit on this. Also, I trust Disney's lawyers know what they're doing in this case. I believe several of them have been involved with other big profile cases for major corporations.

A similar case from 1996, O'Hare Truck Service v. City of Northlake, is worth looking at for reference.

In 1993, John Gratzianna, the owner of O’Hare Truck Service, declined to support the campaign of the incumbent mayor of Northlake, backing his opponent instead. The mayor then removed Gratzianna’s company from the towing list, and Gratzianna sued.

The case was one of many to raise the constitutional question of when the government is allowed to take away benefits it was never obligated to provide.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 7-2 majority, quoted case law and reaffirmed a clear constitutional principle: “If the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited.”

“Such interference with constitutional rights,” he added, “is impermissible.”

Read the full story here:

Disney v. DeSantis: How strong is the company’s lawsuit?

<p>To understand why Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida should lose in his quest to punish The Walt Disney Co. for the high crime of publicly disagreeing with Ron DeSantis, it is first necessary to talk about tow trucks. Specifically, it’s necessary to discuss a case about tow trucks and the First...

www.hawaiitribune-herald.com

 

[lazyboy97o]

Whether we agree or disagree with the governor's actions, Disney's statement, HB 1557 or anything else on the topic isn't really the important thing.

It's that the state's actions are prohibited by both the US and state constitutions. And there's sufficient case law, especially with regards to the Contracts Clause - which language also exists in the state constitution - to support that prohibition.

My person opinion? The state errored filing in state court. Now Florida Supreme Court decisions on contracts come into play. And they don't favor the government. Furthermore, the state sued in the 9th judicial district. The jury pool will be drawn from Orange and Osceola counties.

The state has not yet sued, the District has. They also are not demanding a jury trial.

 

[mkt]

The state has not yet sued, the District has. They also are not demanding a jury trial.

And they also drew a Rick Scott appointed federalist society member.

This will go straight to appeal, where they're all DeSantis appointees and federalist society members.

It's gonna be fun times.

 

[Figgy1]

And they also drew a Rick Scott appointed federalist society member.

This will go straight to appeal, where they're all DeSantis appointees and federalist society members.

It's gonna be fun times.

Not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Notypeo]

Which COULD be a violation, depending on who Person C is.

My sense is that the scenario I described is presumably a violation. But I’m sure there are exceptions and nuances.

 

[disneylandtour]

And he was out of the country most of last week. As Session moves toward the end. Can't remember any governor going off on trade missions during the last two weeks of session.

Part of the stage play for many politicians: do as many things as you can to look presidential (such as negotiating with foreign governments) in the lead up to the primary. But what is South Korea thinking: Thank god, Florida is finally here to negotiate issues relating to trade...maybe Idaho will come next week.

 

[GoofGoof]

Fundamentally speaking, anytime you alienate even a small portion of your customers, it is bad for the bottom line. I do not reside in Florida, so I have absolutely no skin in the game and I don't get a vote. But I am a Disney shareholder. I have no ability to exert any pressure on DeSantis as he doesn't represent me.
For instance, if Disney had come out and said they were banning anyone over the age of 60 from the parks or state that homosexuals were wrong, I'd be just as irritated with the company.

Whether this decision was good or bad for the bottom line is up for debate. In reference to the fiduciary duty of the board I don’t believe anything they did is a violation even if it resulted in a negative impact to the bottom line. The board is obligated to act in a manner that they believe is in the best interest of the corporation. Directors have a duty to be loyal to the corporation over themselves (no self dealing) and they are required to make decisions for the benefit of the corporation and the stockholders. I see no evidence that Chapek or anyone on the board acted in their own self interest and no evidence that they acted in a way that they didn’t feel was in the best interest of the corporation and the shareholders. Whether the decision ultimately is good or bad for business isn’t the point. Many would say Disney should not have bought Fox. That doesn’t mean the board failed to meet their fiduciary duties when considering that acquisition.

Corporations take many different political positions all the time. It’s impossible not to. Disney was one of 100s of company who publicly opposed this bill including Comcast/Universal, most major airlines and hotel chains, big tech companies, other streaming competitors, etc, etc. Just about every one of Disney’s competitors. It was not a unique action but it was uniquely singled out by a politician looking to score political gain and donations.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Im gonna guess the stocks are affected more by the fact that Disney+ is losing money and the latest Disney Animation and Pixar theatrical releases lost money. That’s what I would be concerned about.

Disney has lost a grand total of $0 due to “ideological protests”

…now crappy product in recent years?

Yeah…they’re actually on a 5 year downswing…quietly.

 

[wendysue]

What if they bought you dinner?

Nope. Wouldn't matter.

 

[mkt]