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

[mikejs78]

Disney has already approved the millage under the existing RCID.

Disney's loophole is to have a referendum before the transfer of power happens, and approve a reduction in the milage.

 

[mikejs78]

They require both houses of legislature to pass the approve the bill, and the governor to sign it into law. This is not a whim. This is the well-defined process to change state law

I've said it before and I'll say it again. As it stands right now, the legislature cannot transfer powers without the consent of the electors in the district, because no other process has been established by law to do so. In fact, FL law reiterates the constitutional requirement for a referendum.

 

[GoofGoof]

What makes a law in Florida constitutional? Presumably, it's constitutional if it's passed by both houses of legislation and signed by the governor.

There are over 1000 special districts in Florida. I suspect many required their own legislation. The Florida constitution references general laws and special laws, and includes the following definition:

(g) “Special law” means a special or local law.​

It's been a while since I last looked but as I recall, a charter typically is written when the legislature creates a special district. (I believe this was the case for the original RCID charter.) The special district's charter specifies how the board of supervisors are elected/appointed.

One special district's charter does not need to be the same as another special district's charter. Presumably, the Florida legislature is drafting a special law that is specific to the district that is replacing RCID.

As I mentioned before, I think the Florida constitution allows laws to be passed to create special districts, and to transfer the powers of one special district to another. I'm hoping someone else finds a section in the Florida constitution that limits this power. If not, then I think this aspect of what's happening is legal from the perspective of the Florida constitution.

I think Disney's better play is to seek redress on Freedom of Speech grounds. Legal precedent is complex but the core argument is simple. Disney said something the governor didn't like. The governor retaliated in an attempt to "chill" Disney's protected free speech rights. ("Chill" is a word frequently found in a lot of free speech Supreme Court rulings.) The governor violated Disney's free speech rights.

I am sure there are many examples of the FL legislature passing a law that is then struck down on grounds it’s unconstitutional. That’s the whole point of a constitution. I think we are too liberally interpreting a throw away sentence in a statute that says or by law to mean that any act of law will automatically be constitutional. The law they passed to dissolve RCID has not been challenged as unconstitutional but that’s different than arbitrarily overtaking the board of an existing district. I know this is a special district and unique but I don’t see how allowing this would then not allow the governor to take over any local municipality any time he wants as long as the legislature passes a bill. Surely that cannot be the intent of the constitution.

All I’m saying here is put any political bias aside and look at the action being attempted. The system of checks and balances exists to prevent this kind of overreach. Imagine if POTUS decided FL was being governed poorly so he replaced the elected legislature with a hand pick group. People on both sides of the aisle would not stand for it. Just because it’s a special district and Disney is the primary land owner shouldn’t make this any more palatable.

 

[GoofGoof]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. As it stands right now, the legislature cannot transfer powers without the consent of the electors in the district, because no other process has been established by law to do so. In fact, FL law reiterates the constitutional requirement for a referendum.

This is true. They will have to pass a new law granting the Governor the power to overthrow an elected board. I suppose they can try to carve it out to apply to just special districts but still leaves a huge opening for the 1,800 other districts to be tampered with.

 

[Drdcm]

This thread is really spinning in circles…

 

[GoofGoof]

The consent of the "governing bodies" and the "electors" is one mechanism allowed by the Florida constitution that allows for a transfer of powers.

IMO, a plain-language reading of the Florida constitution suggests that a law can be passed (involving both houses and the governor) that also allows powers to be transferred:

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.​

The devil is in the details but I don’t believe they can or will be able to pass a law that singles out Disney or RCID directly. That will be easy to challenge. So the only way to use the by law loophole is to pass a broader law that will have sweeping ramifications and could be challenged on multiple fronts. I assume there will be people on both sides of the aisle that would be appalled by that level of overreach.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. As it stands right now, the legislature cannot transfer powers without the consent of the electors in the district, because no other process has been established by law to do so. In fact, FL law reiterated the constitutional requirement for a referendum.

The process for community development district would probably be a good example of an alternative means of transferring power provided by law. They’re typically created by developers, so you can’t really have a referendum when there are no residents to vote. The alternative is that you have unanimous consent from the landowners who will finance the district, a high bar that meets the intent of engaging those affected.

Heck, why do cities keep bothering with annexation referendums if they could just have the legislature force it through for them?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I am sure there are many examples of the FL legislature passing a law that is then struck down on grounds it’s unconstitutional. That’s the whole point of a constitution. I think we are too liberally interpreting a throw away sentence in a statute that says or by law to mean that any act of law will automatically be constitutional. The law they passed to dissolve RCID has not been challenged as unconstitutional but that’s different than arbitrarily overtaking the board of an existing district. I know this is a special district and unique but I don’t see how allowing this would then not allow the governor to take over any local municipality any time he wants as long as the legislature passes a bill. Surely that cannot be the intent of the constitution.

All I’m saying here is put any political bias aside and look at the action being attempted. The system of checks and balances exists to prevent this kind of overreach. Imagine if POTUS decided FL was being governed poorly so he replaced the elected legislature with a hand pick group. People on both sides of the aisle would not stand for it. Just because it’s a special district and Disney is the primary land owner shouldn’t make this any more palatable.

I still say this would be overturned by the supremes in a heartbeat no matter who’s on it. Maybe Diana Ross may even write the majority opinion

The bull$heet reasons they said “had” to do this were so buffoon that they backtracked and tried to say they never said it on camera…which they did.

This is bad optics/precedent in the US…who are we kidding? Reasons why?

1. It’s anti free enterprise…always a hit.
2. Political vendetta - while employed everyday - cannot be publicly supported by the courts.
3. When you you boil it down…this is straight outta Freidrich Engels: “the state needs to exert “more control” over private business to protect the people”
4. Let #3 sink in for a second
5. …da hell?!?

 

[mikejs78]

The consent of the "governing bodies" and the "electors" is one mechanism allowed by the Florida constitution that allows for a transfer of powers.

IMO, a plain-language reading of the Florida constitution suggests that a law can be passed (involving both houses and the governor) that also allows powers to be transferred:

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.​

You're reading it wrong. The clause gives two means of transferring power:

1. By law (passed by the legislature)
2. By resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected

One of those two is required to transfer powers. However, that transfer then has to be approved by either:

1. Vote of the electors
2. Another means provided by law.

That last clause means that the other means of approving transfers has to be perscribed in law - i.e. the law has to contemplate a process for doing so. The legislature *could* create a bill that says that any transfer could be approved by the governor. But they haven't done that. There is no such law that gives an alternative to the voter approval as defined in the FL Constitution.

Oh, and they can't just add that to the bill they are about to pass, because

Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith

 

[mikejs78]

Found this in my reading of the FL constitution -

Each law shall take effect on the sixtieth day after adjournment sine die of the session of the legislature in which enacted or as otherwise provided therein.

So the law is passed, the governor signs it. The Reedy Creek board then transfers all powers to Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake, and the voters approve it, before the new act takes effect.

Problem solved for Disney.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Found this in my reading of the FL constitution -

So the law is passed, the governor signs it. The Reedy Creek board then transfers all powers to Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake, and the voters approve it, before the new act takes effect.

Problem solved for Disney.

Clearly they can just provide for the change to have immediate effect.

 

[GoofGoof]

Found this in my reading of the FL constitution -



So the law is passed, the governor signs it. The Reedy Creek board then transfers all powers to Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake, and the voters approve it, before the new act takes effect.

Problem solved for Disney.

I wonder if that was considered. The state could then just go back and transfer all the powers of those cities to the state too, but it would be interesting to watch play out. Not sure it ends any differently.

 

[mikejs78]

I wonder if that was considered. The state could then just go back and transfer all the powers of those cities to the state too, but it would be interesting to watch play out. Not sure it ends any differently.

That would be harder. They could potentially change the provision on transferring powers to special districts without a referendum (it's dubious but possible). Can you imagine if they passed a law around municipalities? That's a whole other level and violates the FL principle of home rule.

They could also, in the intervening time, pass a resolution lowering the district's ad valorem taxes. And for that there is absolutely nothing the state could do.

 

[JohnD]

The special session will reportedly begin Monday -

"The Florida Legislature will convene a special session Monday to consider a state takeover of Disney World’s Reedy Creek Improvement District."

"The bill hasn’t been filed as of Friday, but DeSantis has said he wants the state to take over control of the district and ensure that taxpayers are protected from paying the district’s debts.

The Reedy Creek reorganization will be filed as a local bill in the House and presented in Senate committees by Sen. Travis Hutson, R-Palm Coast."

Disney Reedy Creek special session is set for Monday

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Legislature will convene a special session Monday to consider a state takeover of Disney World’s Reedy Creek Improvement District, migrant relocation, election…

www.orlandosentinel.com

Thanks

 

[GoofGoof]

That would be harder. They could potentially change the provision on transferring powers to special districts without a referendum (it's dubious but possible). Can you imagine if they passed a law around municipalities? That's a whole other level and violates the FL principle of home rule.

They could also, in the intervening time, pass a resolution lowering the district's ad valorem taxes. And for that there is absolutely nothing the state could do.

….maybe thats the point. If this happened it would open the potential for the Governor to consolidate power even more and remove the roadblock the local governments create. Even if it turns out that’s a violation of the state constitution there’s an easy work around. They can propose a constitutional amendment which would have to be approved by vote of the people but if he guises this in needed to stop “woke Disney” many people will likely blindly follow without seeing the bigger picture.

Here is the section of the FL constitution that talks about home rule:
Article VIII, Section 2(b) for municipalities:
“Municipalities shall have governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law.”

So there we go again with the “otherwise provided by law” clause. Again, I think there is more than one way to interpret this, but some here have suggested that it’s a loophole that allows the legislature to do whatever it wants. I don’t agree with that interpretation but if a judge did you wouldn’t even need an amendment just a law passed stripping municipalities of their right to govern.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That would be harder. They could potentially change the provision on transferring powers to special districts without a referendum (it's dubious but possible). Can you imagine if they passed a law around municipalities? That's a whole other level and violates the FL principle of home rule.

They could also, in the intervening time, pass a resolution lowering the district's ad valorem taxes. And for that there is absolutely nothing the state could do.

I think a good argument could be made that the home rule of municipalities also applies to the Reedy Creek Improvement District because some of its powers are derived from its constituent municipalities. Taking over the District is depriving those cities from conducting their business as they have decided.

 

[TehPuddingMan]

 

[mightynine]

“Hey, did you finish that homework we had due today? Some district thing?”
“Oh man, that was due TODAY?”

 

[mikejs78]

So they call the special session without a plan? They've had a year to figure this out.

This is going to end well.

 

[EvilChameleon]

“Hey, did you finish that homework we had due today? Some district thing?”
“Oh man, that was due TODAY?”

Then you start scrambling to finish it at your desk before the teacher calls on you to hand it in.