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

[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.

 

[scottieRoss]

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.

what are you talking about. Carter v. Carter had nothing to do with the delegation clause, it had to do with the interstate commerce clause. As Association of American Railroads v. Department of Transportation. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied

 

[BrianLo]

The numbers are meaningless to me. But if TWDC paid MORE TAXES under RCID than its obvious it was a HUGE MISTAKE to touch RCID.

That's why they didn't actually touch RCID in the end. They took it over. RCID is beneficial to the state for taxation. It's why their lawsuit actually begrudgingly acknowledges RCID was at one point beneficial. And why the lawsuit actually fails to bring up taxes. The comments from the governor et. al are unfortunately merely soundbite lies they peddled. Though in the past couple days they seem to have pivoted from the tax rhetoric.

Now Disney pays more taxes and has less control (or at least that's the stated goal by nullifying the development contract). Ironically, the person who now has a special district is technically the governor. The same one Disney had all along, with merely a new coat of paint.

 

[Heath]

I'll take your comments in good faith. To just respond to a few:



True. There are different levels that have been applied to different types of speech in the course of American history by the courts. However, one type of speech that has consistently been upheld with the highest form of protection is specifically political speech - that is, speech for or against a bill, an opinion on a specific issue, or support for or against a candidate. The courts have always held this to the highest scrutiny because it was particiularly political speech that the founders were concerned about when they wrote the first amendment.

Disney's current situation is a direct result of political speech - they advocated against an issue that had been passed by the legislature, and commented that they would work to change that law, which is their right.

The issue now is that various forms of retaliation have been made against Disney:

• First, they attempted to dissolve the district, which would have returned Disney to be under county jurisdiction.
• Then they figured out that that wouldn't work, because there were too many financial problems associated with doing that.
• So next they decided to create a state takeover of the district, keeping the same powers, but under the thumb of political appointees of Ron DeSantis, who have explicitly stated that they wanted to use the power of the board (i.e. the power of government) to get Disney to modify its content and produce movies/TV shows/rides that were acceptable to the governor.
• When they realized that Disney had entered into a legal contract to lock in zoning for 30 years, and lock in other covenants on what could be built on their property until the death of the last surviving member of King Charles, the state and board decided to punish Disney - by adding new inspections that no other theme park has to have, voiding a legal contract (which is also unconstitutional), and institute regulations to make Disney's life difficult - just because they had an opinion that differed from the governors.

So yes, while speech has consequences, and not all speech is at the same level, political speech is most certainly protected. The only question for Disney is can they prove retaliation, and based on the comments made by the governor and numerous state legislators, Disney's case looks pretty good.



If not punishing free speech, what would you call it? Again, it's not just dissolving the district - it's putting a new oversight board that applies only to Disney, and using that board to place burdens on Disney that no one else has.



As I said before, and to expound on it, numerous entities within FL have self-governing special districts. The Villages (a private development) was mentioned before. Unviersal Studios has part of its properties in a special district, and they are in the process of expanding and adding a new special district so they can build more infrastructure. The Daytona Beach racecourse is within a special district. Special districts in FL are generally used as a way of providing economic or community development, allowing private organizations flexibility and a degree of control over the buildout of infrastructure and services. In exchange, the private companies/developers fund the projects through additional taxes to the district. It's not a special priviledge, but something readily available as part of Florida law for any developer who wants it and can present a good case for having one.

Thank you for the polite response.
The allegation of seemed legally flimsy to me due to that SB 4-C aims to dissolve all special districts in the state established before the ratification of the Florida state constitution in 1968, therefore Desantis would be punishing other districts due to Disney. Conceivably, other districts should also sue Desantis for dissolving their districts due to campaign retaliation, and for punishing Disney, and them too, for free speech. I did read Disney’s complaint, and understand the public statements made by Desantis and other officials that will be used against them. We all know what this is, I’m opining from a legal perspective. While I understand FL has over 1800 special districts, is there anything remotely close to the powers bestowed to Disney? While I understand your point that special districts aren’t privileges, but readily available tools under Florida law, many recent articles reference Disney’s half century of “special privileges,” because they have such supreme legal powers that dwarf other various types of districts. They are the Uber-District so to speak, because they have virtually every power any district could possibly have. That said, I think this is silly government overreach and grandstanding, and the only winners are lawyers and accountants. Desantis and Iger could be turning lemons into lemonade at a table together.
I typically post after reading the article, not browsing threads, and there are some regular ombudsmen that assume commenters read ALL previous threads, or should. I can’t follow threads easily as they jump around, so I might rehash something that’s already been explained or countered many times. So I do appreciate your time and taking my comments in good faith.

 

[LAKid53]

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

They should be finalizing it today. A record $117 billion budget. $7 billion more than the budget for this fiscal year that ends next month.

Wow

 

[ohioguy]

How I wish it were possible for Disney just to pull out of the state and take up shop elsewhere. It would cripple Florida's economy and show the legislature who really calls the shots. Punishing a company for political purposes is a horrendous precedent and needs to be challenged, called-out, and end with a public flogging of the perpetrator.

 

[Figgy1]

They should be finalizing it today. A record $117 billion budget. $7 billion more than the budget for this fiscal year that ends next month.

Wow

but at least they got that whole insurance thing figured out