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

[GoofGoof]

meh... This would not hold up to even the most simple twitter headline win.

Even a child would point out that Disney controls who the residents are.. so it's a simple charade. The Gov would never claim victory for something known to be the company holding the line over him. Nah... he can't claim victory picking company men.

I don’t know if he will have a choice. It seems unlikely that it will be deemed legal for the Governor to appoint a board and not have the board selected from landowners in the district. There are currently no examples of special districts in FL that have taxing authority where the board is Government appointed without a clause that says the board members must be from the district. I think that is his goal but it seems like a big hurdle to overcome.

 

[GrumpyFan]

The latest round of posts here is discussing:

1. Whether the Florida or US constitutions (FLC/USC) prohibit this style of takeover from happening
2. Whether allowing it to happen would generate conflicts within the FL or USC such that the courts would be unable to resolve without kicking back to the legislature for another re-do.

Are either of these even viable without further legislation?

I would be curious to know if there's anything in the recently passed legislation that Disney could challenge in Florida's state supreme court? On the surface, this new law seems to violate the original act.

I think we all agree that Disney has a 1st Amendment case to fall back on, if it comes to that, and that Disney doesn't want that to be their main strategy. I think Disney would prefer not to play that card until all other options have been explored.

If it comes to that, it would be a big case, and would likely take a few years to work its way through the courts.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Some interesting comments to add to all of this.

Reedy Creek âsets the stageâ for the Disney experience

As the former City Manager of Kissimmee, Florida, and a member of the Reedy Creek Pollution Control Board, I was surprised by Governor DeSantis and the Florida legislature when they enacted a law in April to dissolve the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID). Was this action by the State good publ

www.linkedin.com

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think we all agree that Disney has a 1st Amendment case to fall back on, if it comes to that, and that Disney doesn't want that to be their main strategy. I think Disney would prefer not to play that card until all other options have been explored.

I believe @UNCgolf mentioned that courts don’t like repeated attempts at having something dealt with. State and federal jurisdictions allow for some separation of cases, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a big package case that lays out all of the issues.

Are either of these even viable without further legislation?

I would be curious to know if there's anything in the recently passed legislation that Disney could challenge in Florida's state supreme court? On the surface, this new law seems to violate the original act.

It is not possible with the current law and almost immediately after signing it the governor and his office started claiming to have a plan that would involve additional legislation.

A number of issues with the current law that would be decided at the state level have been discussed. Everything from whether or not it actually applies to Reedy Creek Improvement District to it being a violation of the bond pledge and contracts.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Up to this point, Disney hasn't said a word. (All we've seen so far is a statement from RCID concerning its bond obligations.) I suspect there will be thousands of hours of legal work invested before Disney comes out with a public statement.

If they want to, Disney's next statement could eviscerate the state's actions. It certainly would make for an interesting read!

Still, a more amicable solution probably is in Disney's (and Florida's) best interests. Presumably, Disney's lobbyists (and others) are working back channels. There's a real possibility this never makes it to court.

The legislature either has to pass new laws that undo what they have done, or the courts get involved. I don’t understand this broad desire on this and other issues to make concessions to those that abuse power and provide them a means of saving face. Nothing good comes from that sort of appeasement accept encouraging more abuse. More than anything I hope Disney does not seek a “compromise” with a flagrant violation of the rule of law.

Neither Disney nor the District have to respond immediately. Staying silent now serves to keep the situation quiet. It robs the governor and his supports of fuel to show how they are still fighting Disney. They can wait until November to file. In the meantime we could also see more serious steps taken by others. We could see other agencies negatively report on Florida’s credit and/or see a serious bond holder challenge to the dissolution.

 

[GoofGoof]

Even tho they rely on half-truths and distortion... they still try to avoid things like stepping in poo. It doesn't take much of a gotcha to expose you as a fool to parade the idea that 'its your people' when it's clearly not. I don't think this one is on the table. Appointing only from Disney's hand picks doesn't market well enough in the media. He'll avoid that one.

If he avoids hand picking the board then that is already a lie considering he has publicly stated that his intent is to take control away from Disney and have the Government pick the board. I agree that a board hand picked by the Governor is not a likely outcome. There are many examples of special districts in FL where the government picks the board (not elected), the vast majority of those district do not have taxing authority. Of the special districts in FL that have taxing authority and the government picks the board all have clauses that state the appointed board members must be members of the district. No taxation without representation.

So the Governor’s stated goals are:

1. Take control away from Disney. He said he didn’t think control should go to the local level either that the state would appoint the board of a new district created
2. Make Disney pay their fair share in taxes. He said they will not see a tax break from this as some are suggesting and that they would be paying more in taxes going forward
3. There will not be a tax increase for local or state taxpayers. He said the cost of the services and the debt payments will not go to the local counties or the state. He will make Disney pay back the debt

Based on that list if he wants to achieve #1 (the goal that matters since that is the punishment) then he will have almost no path to achieve #2 and/or #3. If his focus remains on #2 and #3 and not hurting citizens and other businesses in FL then he’s going to have to give up #1. The only way to spin that as a win is to replace RCID with a new district that operates nearly exactly the same. It would be easy to claim #2 and #3 are accomplished then. If the Governor gets to “appoint the board” but it has to be from landowners in the district then we all know that Disney still retains most of the control but he can try to spin that as “less control” since he has the right to reject board candidates he deems unfit. It’s basically a shift from Disney has total control to Disney has almost total control. There are landowners in RCID that are not Disney and not Disney appointees. In the current setup Disney has the overwhelming majority of votes since voting rights are based on acres owned. I believe most of not all of the additional landowners are businesses but it’s not just Disney who pays taxes to RCID. It’s also possible the Governor expands the district and the appoints from the new area.

 

[mikejs78]

Even tho they rely on half-truths and distortion... they still try to avoid things like stepping in poo. It doesn't take much of a gotcha to expose you as a fool to parade the idea that 'its your people' when it's clearly not. I don't think this one is on the table. Appointing only from Disney's hand picks doesn't market well enough in the media. He'll avoid that one.

Not if he doesn't have any other credible path forward....

I believe @UNCgolf mentioned that courts don’t like repeated attempts at having something dealt with. State and federal jurisdictions allow for some separation of cases, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a big package case that lays out all of the issues.

That's true - but Disney could focus all its efforts on the state court issues first, and should that fail, go after the first amendment issue in federal court.

Section legislature either has to pass new laws that undo what they have done, or the courts get involved.

Eh, maybe not. It can be argued that if they do nothing from here on out, Reedy Creek continues to exist because:
* This law conflicts with the Reedy Creek Act, and section 2 of the Reedy Creek Act says that any future laws that conflict with the Reedy Creek Act don't apply to Reedy Creek, unless Section 2 of the act is explicitly repealed or amended.
* even if the above weren't true, it could be argued that Reedy Creek had been recertified since 1968 based on other legislation that referenced Reedy Creek published after 1968.

 

[GoofGoof]

I understand your anger but what does Disney gain by launching an all-out assault on a sitting governor who likely will easily win re-election later this year?

Whether you like it or not (and regardless of whether it’s legal and eventually will be overturned by the courts) DeSantis’ actions are popular with many Florida voters. A lot of Floridians approve of what DeSantis has done.

As Michael Jordan famously said, “Republicans buy sneakers too.” Disney understands public relations better than anyone. Winning in court is important, but winning in the court of public opinion is important too.

We are in this current mess because people reacted with their emotions, rather than with their heads.

An eye for an eye just leaves the whole world blind.

Rather than seek retribution for being wronged, it might very well be in Disney’s best interests to de-escalate and resolve this in an agreeable manner.

Corporate attorneys often advise to settle on reasonable grounds if at all possible. Disney’s attorneys might be advising Chapek that very thing.

I mostly agree with this. Disney has little to gain from a public dispute, especially the goat rodeo which would result if this turned into a 1st amendment case going all the way to the Supreme Court. Imagine the spectacle that would be. Disney just wants a solution that puts them in the same or possibly a little better position financially. Despite the desires from some on both sides for this to be a drawn out battle Disney and FL need each other and both benefit greatly from each other. Disney doesn’t need to say boo at this point because nothing the Governor has suggested is likely to succeed or even legal. What has actually happened is state passed a bill which if left untouched results in the local taxpayers eating the cost of the debt and continuing services of RCID and Disney gets a major tax break.

 

[Vacationeer]

Mosquitos like the prospect of Reedy Creek being disrupted.

 

[mikejs78]

In case anyone thinks it is not risky for Disney to pursue this through the Florida Supreme Court:

Florida Supreme Court lets DeSantis-backed congressional map stand​

As noted in this article:

The groups have also argued that the map violates state constitutional provisions intended to prevent partisan gerrymandering, in which district lines are manipulated to benefit a political party.​

This is an example of why it's risky for Disney to pursue the RCID dissolution through the courts. You and I might be convinced of a certain interpretation, but there's no guarantee that justices will rule that way.

Just worth pointing out that the Florida Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the Congressional map case, but merely declined to issue an injunction.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I understand your anger but what does Disney gain by launching an all-out assault on a sitting governor who likely will easily win re-election later this year?

Whether you like it or not (and regardless of whether it’s legal and eventually will be overturned by the courts) DeSantis’ actions are popular with many Florida voters. A lot of Floridians approve of what DeSantis has done.

As Michael Jordan famously said, “Republicans buy sneakers too.” Disney understands public relations better than anyone. Winning in court is important, but winning in the court of public opinion is important too.

We are in this current mess because people reacted with their emotions, rather than with their heads.

An eye for an eye just leaves the whole world blind.

Rather than seek retribution for being wronged, it might very well be in Disney’s best interests to de-escalate and resolve this in an agreeable manner.

Corporate attorneys often advise to settle on reasonable grounds if at all possible. Disney’s attorneys might be advising Chapek that very thing.

Defending one’s rights and the rule of law is not retribution. Stopping someone from poking you in the eye is not “an eye for an eye”. Working on a “compromise” that lets DeSantis and state Republicans claim a victory is not de-escalation, it is capitulation and appeasement. The lesson will be that they can use the power of the state to violate the political rights of their opponents and do so with not just impunity but also a degree of financial and political support. Multiple state politicians have made it clear that this isn’t just about one late opposition to one piece of legislation, it is about Disney’s “woke ideology”. The lieutenant governor pretty much said state Republicans want editorial control over Disney’s content. Giving them a win means they can just do it again when they desire. They can concoct another “problem” and go after Disney to get more concessions, or even just to pump the donation machine. They will be emboldened to try it with others. That is the constant pattern of appeasement.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I mostly agree with this. Disney has little to gain from a public dispute, especially the goat rodeo which would result if this turned into a 1st amendment case going all the way to the Supreme Court. Imagine the spectacle that would be. Disney just wants a solution that puts them in the same or possibly a little better position financially. Despite the desires from some on both sides for this to be a drawn out battle Disney and FL need each other and both benefit greatly from each other. Disney doesn’t need to say boo at this point because nothing the Governor has suggested is likely to succeed or even legal. What has actually happened is state passed a bill which if left untouched results in the local taxpayers eating the cost of the debt and continuing services of RCID and Disney gets a major tax break.

There is nothing good financially for Disney to agree to the position that they can be periodically extorted by the state.

 

[lentesta]

Are either of these even viable without further legislation?

I would be curious to know if there's anything in the recently passed legislation that Disney could challenge in Florida's state supreme court? On the surface, this new law seems to violate the original act.

If it comes to that, it would be a big case, and would likely take a few years to work its way through the courts.

I think the majority here (including me) thinks the first bit of legislation will fall apart when challenged. We're beyond that question, and we're trying to figure out what further legislation would look like.

 

[lentesta]

Of the special districts in FL that have taxing authority and the government picks the board all have clauses that state the appointed board members must be members of the district. No taxation without representation.

I didn't know this. Can I get a source? It would help my previously-stated bad legal take.

It’s also possible the Governor expands the district and the appoints from the new area.

Eminent domain land seizure would be the cherry on top here.

 

[Tonto]

I was just writing @ParentsOf4 saying that what this whole thing really needs is an eminent domain land seizure.

I think if push came to shove, De Santis would consider that.
It's kind of his style.

 

[mikejs78]

The Florida Constitution states:

SECTION 20. Standards for establishing congressional district boundaries.—In establishing congressional district boundaries:​

(a) No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent; and districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice; and districts shall consist of contiguous territory.​

IMO, the map drawn by the governor obviously violated this. DeSantis did what he did in order to create more Republican Congressional seats. As noted in the article:

The new map gives Republicans the advantage in 20 of the state's 28 congressional districts, four more seats than the party currently occupies.​

The State of Florida is not 71% Republican (20/28). Therefore, I assumed the Florida Supreme Court was going to throw out the governor's map, similar to what happened in New York.

The fact that the FSC did not do so does not bode well for future cases that Disney might bring before them.

The FL Supreme court hasn't issued a ruling on the Congressional maps. They just said they didn't have jurisdiction to rule on the case until the Appeals court did.

 

[CntrlFlPete]

The FL Supreme court hasn't issued a ruling on the Congressional maps. They just said they didn't have jurisdiction to rule on the case until the Appeals court did.

and the end result is that the GOV's map will be used since time is running out to start the primaries -- I feel DeSantis was counting on the courts to eat out the clock.

Anyway, these maps are what else was done during the special session that eliminated RCID. The GOV decided he wanted to draw the district maps. They also made Disney a tech social media company so they could ban them from moderating their social media (a FL law the courts recently shot down).

 

[GoofGoof]

I didn't know this. Can I get a source? It would help my previously-stated bad legal take.



Eminent domain land seizure would be the cherry on top here.

From this link I filtered on districts with the governor appointing the board and then looked at special districts with a revenue source of ad valorem tax. The list is primarily either community hospitals or water and sewer authorities. Most but not all of these have further links to the district sites and some have a link to the piece of legislature that created the district and/or the district rules. For all of the ones I could find that had specific rules listed, all that had government appointed boards had clauses that said the board had to be selected from members of the district. I could not find a single example of a special district with taxing authority that allowed the Governor to appoint board members from outside the district. It is possible that some that don’t list their rules are setup that way, but I couldn’t find any.

http://specialdistrictreports.floridajobs.org/webreports/criteria.aspx

Here’s one example:

From the act that enabled the Halifax Hospital Medical Center:

(1) The governing body of the district shall be a Board of Commissioners which shall consist of seven members, each of whom shall be residents of the district and appointed by the possible

 

[GoofGoof]

There is nothing good financially for Disney to agree to the position that they can be periodically extorted by the state.

That depends. With the creation of the new district Disney could negotiate some further financial guarantees that prevent that from happening. Something equivalent to a breakup fee in the corporate world. A clause that gives Disney some sort of tax credit or locked in lower tax rate or some other financial benefit that gets triggered if the state dissolves the special district again.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That depends. With the creation of the new district Disney could negotiate some further financial guarantees that prevent that from happening. Something equivalent to a breakup fee in the corporate world. A clause that gives Disney some sort of tax credit or locked in lower tax rate or some other financial benefit that gets triggered if the state dissolves the special district again.

What good is a new law promising not to mess with the District when they are already to undo existing law that promises not to mess with the District? The State made guarantees and is now reneging on them. New guarantees are meaningless. Even if they had value, there are other ways the State could abuse its power and Disney would have shown a willingness to capitulate.