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

ToTBellHop

Well-Known Member
Lilibet probably will live longer if she never goes to Walt Disney World, so I’m a hard ‘no’ on giving her Genie+ for life. :)
I understand Christine McCarthy decreased serving sizes at WDW specifically so Lilibet will stay healthy and live well into her 90s.

Now it all makes sense.
1680211165699.gif
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
States provide and remove privileges, benefits and incentives from companies because they agree/disagree with them all the time. Government, after all, picks winners and losers, and Disney receiving a benefit is a de facto punishment against its competitors. This benefit/privilege may have been wise when the land was undeveloped, but today it's a lot harder to justify.

I previously tried to provide some examples of CA removing benefits and privileges from companies/people they disagree with, but I seemed to have run into a word filter and the post was filtered.

Regardless, Florida is perfectly within its right to elect representatives and leaders that will remove privileges from companies when the voters don't like what they are doing. It's no different from government creating a benefit for solar panel makers or punishing an oil company. They did not try to place Disney below any other company, only remove some privileges they no longer want to offer a company that goes against the values of their voters.
You should start back at page 1. You have a few things wrong here.
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
With Disney now directly the subject of these legal attacks (and no longer RCID), it makes me wonder if they can now unleash first amendment/retaliatory type arguments. Tweets like this make it pretty easy. They can't help themselves.


I’m just so frustrated by their rhetoric. Disney didn’t circumvent any taxpayers. The dissolution/take over of RCID did circumvent the rights of one tax payer, Disney.

Their base doesn’t read well so they have to use buzz words and rhetoric anyway
 

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member
and Disney receiving a benefit is a de facto punishment against its competitors
That benefit comes from paying twice the taxes because the county taxes -- that WDW does indeed pay -- does not come back to them in services and infrastructure provided by the county. WDW pays a second tax on top of that to the RCID in order to get the services and infrastructure they need.

All started because when WDW began, the counties were mostly swamps with a few tiny towns. So, WDW had to pay for their own 'county services.'

Now, is paying extra money to get the services you want fair? Ask Universal. They paid the county extra to expand the roads to their new Epic Universe site.

The ignoramuses in the executive and legislative branch didn't even know this when they decided to seek revenge on a corporate's First Amendment rights being exercised. They touted that WDW had special tax privileges implying that Disney gets a tax break, which it doesn't.

If they understood exactly what it was they were attacking -- you know, doing due diligence that lawmakers should do -- they wouldn't have initially voted to simply disband the RCID. They had no clue as to the catastrophe that would create with regard to RCID's bonds and county taxes. And so, they had to pivot to taking over the RCID instead of banishing it.

This is making their very own constituents angry that they didn't do away with RCID (because they still believe the lie it gives Disney big tax breaks).

And if they did it right the first time, it wouldn't have given WDW and RCID time to make these contracts cementing in WDW's control of... THE. LAND. THEY. OWN.
 

kong1802

Well-Known Member
Serious legal question.

Since a Chapter 163 Development Agreement is based on a Florida statute, can't the Florida state legislature undo any agreement created by RCID by passing an ex post facto law?

For example, something along the lines of:

"Notwithstanding s. 163.3202, any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, shall not enter into a developer's agreement until reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968."

Although U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that this only applies to criminal matters.

They are in a corner and will try everything.
 

mightynine

Well-Known Member
Serious legal question.

Since a Chapter 163 Development Agreement is based on a Florida statute, can't the Florida state legislature undo any agreement created by RCID by passing an ex post facto law?

For example, something along the lines of:

"Notwithstanding s. 163.3202, any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, shall not enter into a developer's agreement until reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968."

Although U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that this only applies to criminal matters.
But RCID technically still exists, right? The Per Diem Posse is just a layer of red tape over it, correct?
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
LOL, I'm not wading into the dumpster fire this thread is any deeper, but you know as well as I do that if the new board had signed an agreement that included this clause, and used an innocent, multi-racial child who has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation as a legal object like Disney did, there would be widespread moral outrage accusing it of being a virulently racist, imperialist, white supremacist fantasy affront to society that could incite violence against marginalized groups, taking advantage of our antiquated legal system and held up as an example of systemic racism.
You claim you're not wading further into the dumpster fire, yet you're perfectly happy to add fuel to it with this far-fetched nonsense. It's rather ironic that you're accusing Disney of exploiting "an innocent, multi-racial child" when you're the one using her to make your partisan point.
 

kong1802

Well-Known Member
That's like asking for records proving that someone is trying to find out what deductions to take on one's taxes before April 15th rolls around so they can legally pay less taxes.

It's not illegal to avoid negative consequences of new laws. This isn't conspiracy to commit a crime.

Plus you know this move was already anticipated by what now must be recognized as the superior legal team.
 

GladToBeHear

Well-Known Member
Serious legal question.

Since a Chapter 163 Development Agreement is based on a Florida statute, can't the Florida state legislature undo any agreement created by RCID by passing an ex post facto law?

For example, something along the lines of:

"Notwithstanding s. 163.3202, any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, shall not enter into a developer's agreement until reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968."

Although U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that this only applies to criminal matters.
Not a lawyer. But this is what I assume is going to happen.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom