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

[networkpro]

They should absolutely pay more. But the impact on the state's economy cannot be overstated.

Its the same issue that Anaheim has with Disneyland.

 

[mkt]

Its the same issue that Anaheim has with Disneyland.

Except that if Disneyland were to shut down, while Anaheim might suffer, California would be fine

If WDW shuts down, all of Florida will suffer.

 

[mkt]

That’s ultimately why the state has little to no leverage

Exactly. Florida can huff and puff, but Disney can afford to wait.

Or are we pretending that “we have the money…so how about we do it our way?”
Isn’t a daily established legal doctrine in the US?

Yes, the precedent set by Golden v. Rule: "He who has the money sets the rules"

 

[GoofGoof]

You are right, my Bruce Willis ex isn’t a good one, I was trying to say free speech is complex and can have consequences. I opined about the wording being “flimsy” due to FL case law referencing singling out individual entities for retaliation, when the bill dissolves other districts beside Disney. The complaint more relies on the public statements you reference. Although we all know what the fight it’s really about, I was just questioning from a legal perspective.

Honestly, I think the state’s case is very flimsy if the judges actually follow the law as it is currently written and has been interpreted. Pretty much a slam dunk for Disney. The Governor is pushing this in the hope to have a court rule he can in fact retaliate against a woke company. If he wanted to punish Disney and not get called out he could have done it quietly without screaming his intent to anyone who will listen. So either (1) he’s the dumbest person alive (2) he doesn’t care about the outcome, just wants the publicity for political purposes or (3) he wants to blatantly chill a corporation’s free speech and then have a court rule it’s ok, maybe even the Supreme Court.

Many people here believe either 1 or 2 or a combination of both, but I’m starting to think #3 is his real motive. Look at his history of removing elected officials from office and removing local authority and local government powers. He’s generally trying to consolidate power for himself. If the courts rule that this action was not a first amendment violation after the piles and piles of evidence on his intent then that gives him the green light to silence anyone who speaks out against him. He’s also pushing legislation to curb the media from writing things critical of him. A win in this court case would embolden him on that goal. Listen to his speech. He claimed this week that whatever he does is the will of the people because they elected him. That’s so far from how it’s supposed to work. The Governor works for the people, all the people, and answers to us not the other way around. He exists to serve us.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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

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.

Because didn’t Disney didn’t want running a local government on their books.

They were a smallish movie studio until 1990…it’s been well documented. Took alot to get things built from bankers.

Reedy creek allowed for public bonds…which was advantageous for Disney AND the bond holders. It’s one of the more stable investments out there.
And Florida didn’t have to come up with more money to allow Disney to bring tons of money back into their economy.

This is really simple.

 

[scottieRoss]

Please refer to here:

List of court cases relevant to the nondelegation doctrine

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

In Carter v. Carter, “The court held in part that the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 violated the nondelegation doctrine because Congress delegated legislative power to a private industry group.”

That is Federal law, this was not raised in CFTOB lawsuit and has no bearing on that case. That being said, it prohibits the Congress from delegating the authority to regulate other businesses to the majority of businesses in the industry.
The Reedy Creek LDA does not delegate the right to regulate other businesses to Disney. So as a precedent, this case has no value. The facts are dissimillar.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Still, the trolls do seem obsessed with the mailing notice thing.

What is the official take on this from the Disney/RCID side of it?

RCID has like 30 official residents?

I bet they have that one sidestepped

This ain’t like Cayahoga County

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

That’s ultimately why the state has little to no leverage

Or are we pretending that “we have the money…so how about we do it our way?”
Isn’t a daily established legal doctrine in the US?

Normally I think I would agree with you. Though in the battle of money, the Government, who prints the money generally always wins.

Here WDW I think is a bit different. Sure they bring in tons of revenue to the state, taxes, tourism dollars, ect., Hell they in a big sense made Orlando what it is. But unlike most businesses, what's Disney's leverage against Florida? They aren't like a manufacturing company who could take a sweetheart tax deal and move their plant, or offices from one state to another. I guess they could move their administrative people back to CA, or to some better/cheaper state, but the main buisness, the one that is bringing in all the revenue and tax dollars is a fixed asset that I can't see any way leveraging against Florida.

Can you see any feasible way that WDW could move any operations out of Orlando? They aren't just packing up Space Mountain and moving it and the parks to GA or one of the Carolina's. Hell it's been talked to death why opening up a 5th gate doesn't make alot of finacial sense, multiple that times 100x for any attempt at moving the WDW operations from Florida.

I guess you could argue that WDW could hold back on future investment in Florida, take that 17B and put it....where? Open up a new stand alone destination in NC or Texas? Besides the insane start up and infrastructure costs of building an entirely new domestic destination, you will likely just end up cannibalizing domestic travel demand (in a time when investment rates are up and domestic discretionary spending are anything but certain.) Further investment in CA? Maybe, but is that a good return on investment for Disney, is there space there to expand efficiently? Disney still wants to make money, and right now the cash cow of the whole operation is parks. Is there any action Disney can take that would threaten to have an impact on the revenue they bring to Florida...without impacting the revenue they are bringing to themselves?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Normally I think I would agree with you. Though in the battle of money, the Government, who prints the money generally always wins.

Here WDW I think is a bit different. Sure they bring in tons of revenue to the state, taxes, tourism dollars, ect., Hell they in a big sense made Orlando what it is. But unlike most businesses, what's Disney's leverage against Florida? They aren't like a manufacturing company who could take a sweetheart tax deal and move their plant, or offices from one state to another. I guess they could move their administrative people back to CA, or to some better/cheaper state, but the main buisness, the one that is bringing in all the revenue and tax dollars is a fixed asset that I can't see any way leveraging against Florida.

Can you see any feasible way that WDW could move any operations out of Orlando? They aren't just packing up Space Mountain and moving it and the parks to GA or one of the Carolina's. Hell it's been talked to death why opening up a 5th gate doesn't make alot of finacial sense, multiple that times 100x for any attempt at moving the WDW operations from Florida.

I guess you could argue that WDW could hold back on future investment in Florida, take that 17B and put it....where? Open up a new stand alone destination in NC or Texas? Besides the insane start up and infrastructure costs of building an entirely new domestic destination, you will likely just end up cannibalizing domestic travel demand (in a time when investment rates are up and domestic discretionary spending are anything but certain.) Further investment in CA? Maybe, but is that a good return on investment for Disney, is there space there to expand efficiently? Disney still wants to make money, and right now the cash cow of the whole operation is parks. Is there any action Disney can take that would threaten to have an impact on the revenue they bring to Florida...without impacting the revenue they are bringing to themselves?

Florida doesn’t print money…the Feds do

Nobody was suggesting Disney was trying to win anything in state court. They’ll pay it no mind.

Their ultimate goal is for regime change and this to settle/go away…but winning in federal court is 1A

And the largest chunk of US money is backed by what happens in California with New York not far behind…so never doubt “market forces” at work either..


Disney can’t threaten to leave…but the counter to that is that Florida losing Disney’s tax money would cripple a poorly run state.
So all they need to do it lay it out in court how much they fund the joint…and then leak it to the public if that doesn’t do the trick.
The PR battle is easily won in the halls of power.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Still, the trolls do seem obsessed with the mailing notice thing.

What is the official take on this from the Disney/RCID side of it?

We’ll have to see how Disney responds to the state suit. Reedy Creek Improvement District had its own rules and nobody has pointed to a clause in Chapter 163 that amends those rules.

 

[lentesta]

If the district attempted to take more than the "land required", Disney would certainly fight them in court.

If the district refused to build this infrastructure, Disney would take them to court.

If the district, for example, tried to take control of the entrance into the Magic Kingdom by eminent domain, Disney most assuredly would fight it.

At least one of the lawyers I've spoken to said the agreement says Disney promises not to go to court for those things.

And that lawyer brought up your point: Could the CFTOB seize the MK entrance?

Before the taking was official, they'd have to figure out the fair market value of the entrance. I think that would be ... involved.

 

[RamblinWreck]

https://.com/2023/04/central-florid...ays-disneys-reedy-creek-agreement-is-illegal/

Central Florida attorney Jacob Schumer told Orlando Sentinel that voiding the development agreement would impair a contract, putting the state on shaky legal ground. But the new board could have a case if RCID didn’t provide notice to affected property owners.

“Significant case law out there basically says that if statutory notice requirements aren’t followed,” he said, “then the government action is void from the outset.”



Do we even know if Disney/RCID did or didn’t follow that requirement? The new board also claimed they didn’t provide notice in the newspaper, right? And they actually did do that.

 

[RamblinWreck]

If you have no way to win based on the facts, you try to win on a procedural argument.

But might they win on it?

What would the typical ruling/remedy be?

Do they even have standing to essentially say “please nullify this arrangement we entered into because we contend that we didn’t follow the rules”?

I know it’s not the current members of the board that would have screwed up, but it’s still the same board. It would be like Iger trying to get Disney out of something because Chapek did it wrong.

 

[mkt]

And good morning! Here's today's filings from pacer. Nothing really interesting, but keeping them all

Further good morning! Here's the all current docs from the CFTOD v Disney countersuit in Orange County. The actual complaint is too big of a file to upload, so here's the link to view it:

complaint.pdf

Filing # 172181658 E-Filed 05/01/2023 04:27:22 PM. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT. DISTRICT, Plaintiff, CASE NO.:. v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC.,. Defendant. COMPLAINT. FOR ...

www.docdroid.net

 

[mkt]

But might they win on it?

What would the typical ruling/remedy be?

Do they even have standing to essentially say “please nullify this arrangement we entered into because we contend that we didn’t follow the rules”?

I know it’s not the current members of the board that would have screwed up, but it’s still the same board. It would be like Iger trying to get Disney out of something because Chapek did it wrong.

They can get it tossed, and then they refile.

 

[mikejs78]

Still, the trolls do seem obsessed with the mailing notice thing.

What is the official take on this from the Disney/RCID side of it?

https://.com/2023/04/central-florid...ays-disneys-reedy-creek-agreement-is-illegal/

Central Florida attorney Jacob Schumer told Orlando Sentinel that voiding the development agreement would impair a contract, putting the state on shaky legal ground. But the new board could have a case if RCID didn’t provide notice to affected property owners.

“Significant case law out there basically says that if statutory notice requirements aren’t followed,” he said, “then the government action is void from the outset.”



Do we even know if Disney/RCID did or didn’t follow that requirement? The new board also claimed they didn’t provide notice in the newspaper, right? And they actually did do that.

They followed the process outlined in the Reedy Creek act. They provided notice in the newspaper, and the Reedy Creek act states that they only have to mail notice to parties who request mailed notice, and that failure to mail does not constitute a reason to void the contract.

 

[RamblinWreck]

I've seen him and maybe a couple of the people who he vlogs with make that argument, yet I've not heard anyone else credible say anything about it. The state has not mentioned it in their countersuit, nor has Desantis or the state Attorney General made any mention of it, which leads me to believe it's a stretch that these few are trying to leverage for click-bait and self-promotion. Also, with the extent to which Disney's attorney's have executed so far, I find it hard to believe they would miss this little detail. All that being said, it's possible, and it could be something the state will bring up later, but I just have to think it's a very minor issue at this point, if any at all.

Is it really not mentioned in the countersuit?

For some reason I thought this was one of their major contentions. At least it seemed to be coming out of last week’s meeting.

But maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention.

 

[RamblinWreck]

They followed the process outlined in the Reedy Creek act. They provided notice in the newspaper, and the Reedy Creek act states that they only have to mail notice to parties who request mailed notice, and that failure to mail does not constitute a reason to void the contract.

That’s good news.

Sorry that I’m probably asking for something that’s contained in the thread somewhere, but can you direct me to where that verbiage in the act is located?

 

[GrumpyFan]

Because didn’t Disney didn’t want running a local government on their books.

They were a smallish movie studio until 1990…it’s been well documented. Took alot to get things built from bankers.

Reedy creek allowed for public bonds…which was advantageous for Disney AND the bond holders. It’s one of the more stable investments out there.
And Florida didn’t have to come up with more money to allow Disney to bring tons of money back into their economy.

This is really simple.

Two additionals.
1) Walt wanted protections and enough buffer against what was built next door or within view at least so as not to re-create the chaos that happened in SoCal after they opened DisneyLand.
2) After the St Louis incident, where they (Augustus Busch) wanted him to include alcohol in his venues, which Walt was vehemently against (much has changed here), he decided they needed to control as much as possible within their domain to avoid such mandates.

 

[lentesta]

If, in the development agreement, Disney
did agree to not contest any land taken by eminent domain, then just wow.

Can you imagine what this hostile board could do with this?

This is why I doubt Disney waived all of its eminent domain rights.

Fingers crossed Disney did not!

It was definitely a "I'm mildly surprised by this at first reading" moment.