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

GoofGoof

Premium Member
How long could this be reasonably blocked, if it did go to the courts? Would it still “go into effect” or effectively be blocked for months?

EDIT: Of course, this is only if Disney takes action. After this “plan” is released. I hadn’t even noticed the timing with the earnings call.
I don’t think whatever they pass will “go into effect” immediately. There are a lot of logistics that need to take place depending on what the plan is. If the district is dissolved and replaced with a new district that will take the longest. Every contract the district has will need to be redone since the legal entity that entered into the contract will be gone. That takes a lot of time. So if that’s the plan I think it would be a stretch to get it done before June.

If the plan ends up being keeping the existing district and amending the way it functions then the logistics may be a lot easier. Possibly just a name change which likely requires nothing more than a communication to the other parties. I think that could be implemented much faster, however is much less likely to be legal.

As far as courts go, it all depends on what the structure is. The courts can effectively block any action the legislature takes if it violates the state constitution. So that would be a permanent block. They could also temporarily block whatever this action is while they wait to hear arguments and then end up allowing it to go through. Disney does not need to take cation in court itself. It could be another party.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
How long could this be reasonably blocked, if it did go to the courts? Would it still “go into effect” or effectively be blocked for months?

EDIT: Of course, this is only if Disney takes action. After this “plan” is released. I hadn’t even noticed the timing with the earnings call.
Courts can issue preliminary injunctions that prohibit actions while a matter is adjudicated. Whether they are granted depends on specifics that are not known. The base criteria are typically time and the ability to remedy any harms created by the action going forward. If they push through something where all is said and done by March then a preliminary injunction is more likely than a plan that is executed over years.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
If the plan ends up being keeping the existing district and amending the way it functions then the logistics may be a lot easier. Possibly just a name change which likely requires nothing more than a communication to the other parties. I think that could be implemented much faster, however is much less likely to be legal.
How about if it is just a name change, and nothing else.

The existing RCID charter as-is with no changes to any functions at all. Only the name changes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sedati

Well-Known Member
Or the plan is to have it go to the courts and then they’ll suddenly remind everyone how expensive that is for the State and again pinning Disney as the bad guy in this scenario.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
From the FL Constitution:

SECTION 4. Transfer of powers.—By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.

What if Disney's power move here is, once the legislation is passed, before the new law goes into effect, holds a vote to transfer all powers from Reedy Creek to Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake?
 

mkt

Disney's Favorite Scumbag™
Premium Member
What if Disney's power move here is, once the legislation is passed, before the new law goes into effect, holds a vote to transfer all powers from Reedy Creek to Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake?


Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mikejs78

Premium Member
Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.

If they transfer them to the counties though, then they end up with the whole debt situation all over again. Which is what the governor really wants to avoid. Because then the debt will be paid for by the citizens of the counties, not Disney.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

flynnibus

Premium Member
I don't see how Disney could roll things to the cities on their own.

The areas they have agreed to play or not are just operating policy - they are not the legal definitions. They don't change the charter/etc. They on their own can't just arbitrarly redefine their own authorities. Plus, you have the same issues with debt servicing and the same revenue bond issues.

The taxing isn't the same and then you'd be dealing with all kinds of inter-municipality agreements to try to shift money around, etc. I don't see how any of this helps Disney... it doesn't actually change RCID.. it doesn't change the room, it just tries to move where people are standing.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.
I mean…it would be a brilliant move.

It circumvents Tallahassee…while at the same time resetting the scenario where any counter move would expose that it’s not about the special district/taxes at all…but rather to get at the company. Public “policy” that targets one specific private business.

That wouldn’t play too well in the circuits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
I’m surprised they didn’t threaten to eliminate Florida resident benefits.

What are those, again?

Oh, you mean seasonal discount pricing to entice locals to come during times of year when travel is light?

... Or I guess it could be the discount pricing on annual passes that can't be purchased, anyway.

Whether you're a local, staying on site, or have Disney in your last name, they already don't seem to care much about you already these days so it would be kind of a hollow gesture of spite but why not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.
And then the power move for local government would be to start charging $25 bucks a car to park in those nice garages in Disney Springs.

Hey, they gotta' pay that debt off somehow, right? 🤣
 
Last edited:

mkt

Disney's Favorite Scumbag™
Premium Member
And then the power move for local would be to start charging $25 bucks a car to park in those nice garages in Disney Springs.

Hey, they gotta' pay that debt off somehow, right? 🤣

The ultra power move would be to charge $100 parking for any car with a Yellow STATE Florida License plate.
 

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
How long could this be reasonably blocked, if it did go to the courts? Would it still “go into effect” or effectively be blocked for months?

EDIT: Of course, this is only if Disney takes action. After this “plan” is released. I hadn’t even noticed the timing with the earnings call.
Years. Many of them.
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
How long could this be reasonably blocked, if it did go to the courts? Would it still “go into effect” or effectively be blocked for months?
Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.
Disagree on the Supreme Court.

This reeks of “interfering with private business”

You know that’s not gonna sell well. The government is supposed to ensure that billion dollar companies are protected from losing a dime…as long as they’re never given rules/told what to do…

It’s like “Article 17” or something 😎🤔
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.
Disenfranchisement is usually considered an injury.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom