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

[Chip Chipperson]

The increased tax revenue will be consumed by the infrastructure the district was required to build, and the land the district the was required to purchase.

The district nets nothing out of this. Per the district's charter, they can't:

Section 24. Ad valorem taxes.—The board of supervisors shall have the power to levy and assess an ad valorem tax on all the taxable real and tangible personal property in the district to pay the principal of and interest on any general obligation bonds of the district, to provide for any sinking or other funds established in connection with any such bonds, and to finance and defray the cost of any of the projects or activities of the district authorized by the provisions of this act or under law, provided that the district's ad valorem taxing authority shall be limited to serving or benefitting the property owners of the district.​

Any ad valorem taxes collected by the district has to be poured back into the district to "benefit the property owners of the district", i.e. Disney.

The District isn't set up to benefit in any way other than for the benefit of the landowners and to promote tourism. Disney building a new hotel, park, shopping, etc. serves that purpose. There's no profit to be made by the District.

 

[GoofGoof]

As described in the complaint, the agreement delegates to Disney regulatory authority that is reserved to the government.

The concept of the nondelegation doctrine is that government regulatory authority cannot be delegated to private entities.

It's one thing to say, "You build but I reserve the right to inspect and approve." This development agreement is not like a typical development agreement. It takes those government powers away from the district.

I haven’t seen enough development agreements to know if that is unique. How does the Universal one work?

 

[Figgy1]

@LAKid53 has there been any movement on the budget yet?

 

[mikejs78]

This is a violation of the Nondelegation Doctrine and is outlined in Count VI of the CFTOD complaint.

The FL supreme court ruled otherwise in 1968.

And besides, if what you say is true, every development agreement in the state will be thrown out.

 

[scottieRoss]

A special district is supposed to oversee land development, not the other way around. The way this development contract is written, the district is now subservient to Disney. Regulatory powers have been granted to Disney. This is a violation of the Nondelegation Doctrine and is outlined in Count VI of the CFTOD complaint.

no, the way the contract was written, the District already did their land planning and agreed to it with Disney. That is the point of the Agreement and any other LDA.
And as for consideration, we just have to look to the contract. "In consideration of the mutual terms, covenants, and conditions contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration"

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Think of it this way, how did RCID work two years ago, before this embarrassing saga started?

Disney did not do inspections; RCID did.

I could be wrong here, but I believe Disney, along with its competitors do their own ride inspections as they are so unique.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I was simply responding to a comment that:

In the end, Disney would be "demanding" to pay more taxes in such a scenario. Hardly a negative for the District.​

This comment specified the district. Ad valorem tax collected by the district benefits landowners of the district, i.e. Disney.

The important point to remember is that the state and county should benefit from increased sales tax revenue.

I was never suggesting that the additional property taxes paid by Disney were a benefit to the District's bottom line. I'm simply saying that there's no negative for the District there. The District was set up so Disney could build theme parks, hotels, etc. Why would any reasonable Board member think they are serving the purpose of the District by attempting to prevent such development? It's not like they're going to use that agreement to finally build that nuclear power plant DeSantis likes to mention as a possibility.

 

[mikejs78]

Think of it this way, how did RCID work two years ago, before this embarrassing saga started?

Disney did not do inspections; RCID did.

Why did Florida bother to create RCID? Why not simply grant these powers directly to Disney in 1967?

Because to do so would violate the private nondelegation doctrine. Most of the powers granted to RCID were governmental powers that had to remain within the government. So, the district was created but the charter was written in such a way to give Disney complete control over who served on the RCID board.

Technically, these governmental powers resided in the district but, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, everyone who paid attention knew that Disney really held these powers.

All this worked when the State of Florida and The Walt Disney Company were best buddies with each other.

That all unraveled last year.

The development agreement doesn't remove inspections. It's about zoning and what Disney *can* build. Your premise is wrong.

 

[mikejs78]

Disney (a private entity) authority that is exclusively reserved for the government.

Such as...?

 

[mikejs78]

The issue is that this particular development agreement might have delegated to Disney (a private entity) authority that is exclusively reserved for the government.

My understanding of the non-delegation doctrine is it primarily refers to *legislatures* not being able to delegate their powers to the executive or a private entity, not other aspects of government. Admittedly my understanding may be incorrect, but can you refer me to where non-delegation applies to a municipalities or local government?

 

[Tha Realest]

My understanding of the non-delegation doctrine is it primarily refers to *legislatures* not being able to delegate their powers to the executive or a private entity, not other aspects of government. Admittedly my understanding may be incorrect, but can you refer me to where non-delegation applies to a municipalities or local government?

I appreciate @ParentsOf4 ’s input here, and like their viewpoints, but this is what my understanding is as well. Unless the theory is that legislature confers power to a subordinate entity / local government (or the equivalent of an agency) and said entity then confers power impermissibly to a private entity.

 

[mikejs78]

Zoning is a regulatory authority.

But that's the whole purpose of these development agreements. Same goes for Universal - they have development agreements that specify what they can build over a period of time, and they are fixed for that period. The Villages has a similar one. This isn't out of the ordinary.

 

[maxairmike]

I think the first thing that needs to be figured out is how the development agreement compares to what Universal’s and other similar agreements look like. I did do some searching last week to find Universal’s agreement(s) but didn’t have any luck. I suspect that the argument against @ParentsOf4's points would be that this agreement was primarily designed with the District being dissolved in short order instead of a new board, so that expected service levels, visual continuity, and development processes would be maintained with control from the interested and “experienced” party for ease of all involved (possibly a part of consideration on the part of the county by streamlining things for them so reducing time and payroll spent on the former District land?). Obviously the agreement and covenants work in Disney’s favor under the redone Board as well, and I would lean towards them still being just as valid, along with the other points raised since I started writing this post a little bit ago. My inclination is that wherever they differ more than "normal" is around areas where the county or another provider is taking over things like utilities and water management control that wouldn't be something necessary for development agreements with the other parks to consider.

 

[mikejs78]

Each branch of government has its own nondelegation clause in the Constitution. Per the text in the Constitution, one branch of government is not supposed to delegate its power to another branch.

However, the Supreme Court has allowed powers to be delegated between branches or to government agencies so often that any restriction on public delegation is meaningless.

This is different than delegation to private (i.e. non-government) entities. Carter v. Carter Coal Company generally is the case cited.

The Supreme Court most recently addressed this in Association of American Railroads v. Department of Transportation. To get around the private nondelegation doctrine, the Supreme Court held that "for purposes of determining the validity of the metrics and standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity."

As I repeatedly have emphasized on this thread, the Constitititon sometimes does not mean what its plain text says. Really, it's the Supreme Court that decides what the Constitution means.

But that's all federal. The nondelegation doctrine in the constitution doesn't apply to the states.

 

[OrlandoRising]

I could be wrong here, but I believe Disney, along with its competitors do their own ride inspections as they are so unique.

You're correct and the OP is wrong. Any theme park in Florida with more than 1,000 employees and full-time, in-house inspectors are not subject to state safety inspections, and are only required to report injuries involving guests that result in a 24-hour+ hospital stay or death. That exempts all the major operators -- Disney, Universal, SeaWorld/Busch, even Legoland.

Smaller attractions -- like the Orlando Free Fall where a teenager died last year -- ARE subject to state safety inspections.

 

[flynnibus]

Disney gets to build whatever projects it wants without input from the district

Within the land development plan that was already established….

 

[flynnibus]

A special district is supposed to oversee land development, not the other way around

The special district was setup to facilitate the development- not oversee and try to restrain it.

 

[flynnibus]

Why did Florida bother to create RCID? Why not simply grant these powers directly to Disney in 1967?

Because that would not have isolated disney from other local governments- while creating a special district would.

You’re beating a horse that was dead before you found it. Disney isn’t setting the planning - it was already done and the agreement is to stick to it

 

[flynnibus]

You are missing the point. In 1967, why not simply grant Disney (the company) the powers directly.

No i am not. Using a special district ensured independence- that’s why it was the vehicle of choice to control those powers… not why they didn’t grant the powers to disney.

You’re asking a hypothetical that you already know to be impossible (just giving it to a private entity). And even if they could have, it would not have given them the independence from the counties. That’s why they went the path of creating a new gov entity that was an established way to create that separation. They went with the independent district over just a city too.

Your argument is in hindsight trying to leverage a path they didn’t even pursue… it’s non sensical and doesn’t support your point at all

They didn’t do your thing because it didn’t meet the objective- not because they were avoiding what the district now claims happened

 

[flynnibus]

The State of Florida was extremely excited to have Disney coming to the state and wanted to grant Disney government powers. However, because they could not legally grant these powers directly to Disney (the company) due to the private nondelegation doctrine, the state had to first create a local government for Disney. The State of Florida could then grant RCID government powers.

You have it all backwards- state didn’t want it… disney did, conceived the model to meet their objectives, and pushed the legislation.

Your premise is predetermined and trying to work backwards to try to prove something that never happened. Your plan ‘A’ never existed.