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

[Vacationeer]

The first of several, I'm sure.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/disney-lawsuit-1.pdf

^Here’s the complaint

 

[mikejs78]

If the Governor releases his plan which he claims he has and he claims does not result in any FL taxpayers other than Disney paying more I think the case gets thrown out.

I think that plan is a pipe dream.

 

[Brian]

Good info. I’m just curious why it matters how many taxpayers are suing. All it takes is 1. It’s not like they are suing for personal damage. The remedy they seek is to block the debt from going to the counties which will benefit every taxpayer in both counties regardless of whether they support the action or not.

I don't think it does matter. One person can sue in federal court and have an entire nation-wide policy struck down if they get a ruling in their favor (like the TSA mask mandate). I was just clarifying since another member asked how many taxpayers are suing.

 

[GoofGoof]

I don't think it does matter. One person can sue in federal court and have an entire nation-wide policy struck down if they get a ruling in their favor (like the TSA mask mandate). I was just clarifying since another member asked how many taxpayers are suing.

Agreed. My question was more to the original question, not your response.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think that plan is a pipe dream.

If it is not then releasing it is the easiest way to get this case thrown out and would ease the minds of a lot of people worried their taxes will go up significantly. If it is….then stop saying it and just give no comment.

 

[mikejs78]

If it is not then releasing it is the easiest way to get this case thrown out and would ease the minds of a lot of people worried their taxes will go up significantly. If it is….then stop saying it and just give no comment.

I don't think releasing it would be enough. They would have to pass it as law for it to make a difference in the court case.

 

[mikejs78]

Wow. Listening to the latest Disney Dish now, and wow. This is from the Reedy Creek Charter:

Section 2. Applicability of Certain Provisions of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, to the Reedy Creek Improvement District; Inconsistent Laws lnapplicable.-The provisions of chapter 298, Florida Statutes, and all amendments thereto, now existing or hereafter enacted, are hereby declared to be applicable to the Reedy Creek Improvement District insofar as not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or any subsequent special acts relating to the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Except as may be otherwise provided in this Act, the Reedy Creek Improvement District shall have all of the powers and authorities mentioned in or conferred by chapter 298, Florida Statutes, and acts amendatory thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of sections 298.07, 298.11, 298.12, 298.14, 298.15, 298.17, 298.18, 298.20, 298.23, 298.24, 298.25, 298.35, 298.37, 298.38, 298.39, 298.40, 298.401, 298.41, 298.42, 298.44, 298.45, 298.46, 298.48, 298.52, 298.56, Section 2. 17. NOTES REEDY CREEK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Section 3. 298.57, 298.61, 298.69, 298.70, 298.71, 298.72 298.73, 298.74, Florida Statutes, and amendments thereto, shall not be applicable to the Reedy Creek Improvement District. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any other law, now existing or hereafter enacted, the provisions of this Act shall control to the extent of any such conflict unless such enactment shall specifically repeal or amend the provisions of this Act.

So to me that means that the law would have to *specifically* repeal this section, otherwise it would not apply to RCID. So the law they passed likely applies to all districts created before 1967 **except** RCID.

This is great stuff @lentesta. I'm more convinced than ever that RCID isn't going anywhere.

 

[JoeCamel]

Wow. Listening to the latest Disney Dish now, and wow. This is from the Reedy Creek Charter:



So to me that means that the law would have to *specifically* repeal this section, otherwise it would not apply to RCID. So the law they passed likely applies to all districts created before 1967 **except** RCID.

This is great stuff @lentesta. I'm more convinced than ever that RCID isn't going anywhere.

I think they will rely on this bit to say RCID is done

In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any other law, now existing or hereafter enacted, the provisions of this Act shall control to the extent of any such conflict unless such enactment shall specifically repeal or amend the provisions of this Act.

 

[UNCgolf]

I think they will rely on this bit to say RCID is done

In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any other law, now existing or hereafter enacted, the provisions of this Act shall control to the extent of any such conflict unless such enactment shall specifically repeal or amend the provisions of this Act.

It didn't, though, at least if I remember the dissolution statute language correctly. I don't think there was anything specifically repealing or amending the RCID.

Of course it comes down to statutory interpretation and how a judge reads that language, but most judges/attorneys would read that as requiring language that specifically points to that section and specifically amends or repeals it, not general language that just has the effect of repealing it.

 

[JoeCamel]

It didn't, though, at least if I remember the dissolution statute language correctly. I don't think there was anything specifically repealing or amending the RCID.

That seems a bit thin but maybe, I'm certainly no judge of what seems to be certain.
I though Hillary was a shoe in.......

 

[castlecake2.0]

Saw this today in the Celebration magazine, found it interesting. The District probably reaches further than a lot of people realize.

 

[chrisvee]

Wow. Listening to the latest Disney Dish now, and wow. This is from the Reedy Creek Charter:



So to me that means that the law would have to *specifically* repeal this section, otherwise it would not apply to RCID. So the law they passed likely applies to all districts created before 1967 **except** RCID.

This is great stuff @lentesta. I'm more convinced than ever that RCID isn't going anywhere.

that episode is amazingly informative

 

[Magenta Panther]

There is also the CEO who does not support a large and vocal portion of their workforce, in this case the LGBTQ+ community, will risk the fallout from that including walkouts, strikes, and resignations. If Chapek showed support in the beginning and didn't try and give them some BS only to reverse course and then publicly oppose the Don't Say Gay bill he would have been in a much better position. Unfortunately what he did made him leak weak and not a true leader.

Since when does a CEO have to support his workforce in the matter you're indicating? All an employer is required to do for his employees is provide a salary, benefits, and decent working conditions. Period. He is not required to go on a political crusade on their behalf. That's where Chapek , and, as a result, the Disney company got nothing out of it except some painful retaliatory legislation and a lot of bad publicity. Hopefully, Disney and other corporations will learn from Chapek's debacle, although I'm not holding my breath.

 

[mikejs78]

This is a rebuttal?

It is. No company functions well with unhappy employees.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Since when does a CEO have to support his workforce in the matter you're indicating? All an employer is required to do for his employees is provide a salary, benefits, and decent working conditions. Period. He is not required to go on a political crusade on their behalf. That's where Chapek effed up, and, as a result, the Disney company got nothing out of it except some painful retaliatory legislation and a lot of bad publicity. Hopefully, Disney and other corporations will learn from Chapek's debacle, although I'm not holding my breath.

Morale makes a big difference in performance. That is where the phrase "Having your back" comes in. The boss is more then just the guy that passes out salary checks. (All direct deposit now) Benefits, working conditions, etc. is handled by HR. The big wheels just green light those things, but to get direct connection one must support the people he relies on to keep him in roses. It wasn't a debacle it was the right thing to do.

 

[mikejs78]

Then the unhappy employees can leave and find work elsewhere. AND they can be replaced. Plenty of talented people out there who'd be happy to take those jobs.

Not the way it works in the real world. Bad for overall morale.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Narrator: they are not losing the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

The Florida legislature abolished it. Whether that'll hold up is the question. We'll see.

 

[mikejs78]

The Florida legislature abolished it. Whether that'll hold up is the question. We'll see.

They actually may not have. I.e. the law that was passed actually may not apply to RCID.

 

[cloudboy]

Just because it seems to have been lost in the shuffle-

Remember that Disney is moving nearly all of their Imagineering to Florida. That already did not sit well with them. This is a group of creatives who thrive on a creative and diverse environment. Moving them to a suburb in a ultra-conservative state is not going down well. I know there are plenty of regular cast members in the parks who have no issues with the new bill. What is more troubling is that I think it IS affecting Disney's creative group - who like it or not is really at the root of why they succeed. I am not sure if Disney looses a big majority of their imagineers that they will stay number one. especially since other theme parks are starting to recognize the importance of strong world building. That is where I think Disney is most at risk.

 

[GoofGoof]

Since when does a CEO have to support his workforce in the matter you're indicating? All an employer is required to do for his employees is provide a salary, benefits, and decent working conditions. Period. He is not required to go on a political crusade on their behalf. That's where Chapek effed up, and, as a result, the Disney company got nothing out of it except some painful retaliatory legislation and a lot of bad publicity. Hopefully, Disney and other corporations will learn from Chapek's debacle, although I'm not holding my breath.

This is not right at all. A corporation has the right to advocate for their employees or not, they have the right to take a position on any issue or not. We have a free market economy so if a company chooses to take a political position all of their customers are free to choose not to be customers anymore and their workers are free to stay or quit over it. What’s wrong in this situation is the Government intervening to punish the company and using the power entrusted to them by the people to silence a critic. I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, if the bill sponsors came out with strongly worded response slamming Disney that would be fine. If they organized a boycott on their own time that would be fine too. It’s going way too far to use the power of the government as a weapon in a political battle.