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

[BaconPancakes]

Well when you spend months lying to your voters they may not fully understand what they are voting for.

There's a reason they are destroying the dept of education.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Nah. Football no. Old school soap opera yeah. Stand by for the next episode as the now brilliant move unravels and plot twist. It is entertaining.

Like sands through the hourglass…

 

[Prince-1]

You should start back at page 1. You have a few things wrong here.

Hey he’s new here to these parts. Takes time to catch up.

 

[Riviera Rita]

Explains so much.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

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]

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]

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.

 

[danlb_2000]

That tweet is a disgrace, it gives away the agenda of DeSantis and his cronies.

"give away" implies that they were trying to hide it.

 

[mightynine]

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?

 

[Disney Glimpses]

 

[kong1802]

Someone is throwing a temper tantrum

 

[LittleBuford]

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.

 

[MisterPenguin]

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.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Can the attorney general even ask for these documents? Disney only made a deal with Reedy Creek, and now the CFTOD.

 

[kong1802]

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.

 

[DCBaker]

Can the attorney general even ask for these documents? Disney only made a deal with Reedy Creek, and now the CFTOD.

It's a Public Records request -

 

[GladToBeHear]

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.

 

[kong1802]

It's a Public Records request -

Perhaps they want to find out how it came about so they can learn how to do their jobs better.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Can the attorney general even ask for these documents? Disney only made a deal with Reedy Creek, and now the CFTOD.

Disney:

If you're going to accuse us of a crime, then as part of defending ourselves with *discovery*, please have the executive and legislative branch hand over all documents concerning attacking Disney and abolishing the RCID.​

 

[DLR92]

Bravo Disney, show DeSantis how stupid he is!