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

castlecake2.0

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
MisterPenguin said:
Now... this is... interesting.

If the budget does indeed have to be balanced, then the New District only have access to cash-on-hand to pay for lawyers.

So, can they divert money earmarked for an infrastructure project to pay for lawyers?

No, as per the surprise contract, the District has to do what Disney says. And if Disney wants that project, then the District must provide.

Can they raise money to afford lawyers?

No, as per the surprise contract, Disney has final say on floating bonds.

Unless there's some loophole in the surprise contract, it seems Disney can tie up all of the District's cash in the projects they name.
Click to expand...
114C918A-A7EE-4AF9-8E86-A58CD3199C4E.jpeg
 
Brian

Brian

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
Now... this is... interesting.

If the budget does indeed have to be balanced, then the New District only have access to cash-on-hand to pay for lawyers.

So, can they divert money earmarked for an infrastructure project to pay for lawyers?

No, as per the surprise contract, the District has to do what Disney says. And if Disney wants that project, then the District must provide.

Can they raise money to afford lawyers?

No, as per the surprise contract, Disney has final say on floating bonds.

Unless there's some loophole in the surprise contract, it seems Disney can tie up all of the District's cash in the projects they name.
Click to expand...
Now that sounds like a sweetheart deal that no corporation should have, regardless of the antecedent. Even worse than the original RCID scheme. In other words, they're only proving DeSantis' point.

Before everyone comes and jumps down my throat, two things can be true at once; Disney could be in the wrong for having such extraordinary quasi-governmental powers, while the state could have also been wrong for ostensibly retaliating against Disney for speech the elected officials didn't like.
 
MagicHappens1971

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
Brian said:
Now that sounds like a sweetheart deal that no corporation should have, regardless of the antecedent. Even worse than the original RCID scheme. In other words, they're only proving DeSantis' point.
Click to expand...
It isn’t really worse than the previous agreement. RCID benefits Disney as well as the state because Disneys taxes are solely responsible for their own municipal services.
Brian said:
Before everyone comes and jumps down my throat, two things can be true at once; Disney could be in the wrong for having such extraordinary quasi-governmental powers, while the state could have also been wrong for ostensibly retaliating against Disney for speech the elected officials didn't like.
Click to expand...
I’m not jumping down your throat but there’s no in the wrong for Disney here. The powers are still delegated to RCID, but Disney has final say over certain things. You play stupid games you get stupid prizes, is a lesson for the Governor. The AG / Legislature/ Team of lawyers can try and find something wrong with the agreement or a loophole but what Disneys lawyers & RCID did is perfectly legal.
 
Brian

Brian

Well-Known Member
MagicHappens1971 said:
I’m not jumping down your throat but there’s no in the wrong for Disney here. The powers are still delegated to RCID, but Disney has final say over certain things. You play stupid games you get stupid prizes, is a lesson for the Governor. The AG / Legislature/ Team of lawyers can try and find something wrong with the agreement or a loophole but what Disneys lawyers & RCID did is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that what they did is legal (though there may be some obscure provisions in the special district statutes that can scuttle parts of the deal), but I do think that if Disney is trying to fight the argument that DeSantis is making (notwithstanding the free speech issues), which is that one corporation has too much power, they're doing a really poor job at that by expanding the power they have.
 
MagicHappens1971

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
Brian said:
I don't doubt that what they did is legal, but I do think that if Disney is trying to fight the argument that DeSantis is making (notwithstanding the free speech issues), which is that one corporation has too much power, they're doing a really poor job at that by expanding the power they have.
Click to expand...
I think you have a fair point here, but the fact that RCID as it was, has existed for 50 years, and DeSantis was in office for 3 years before he even knew what it was. His argument isn’t really that Disney has too much power, quite frankly he probably couldn’t care less about it. He’s playing partisan politics and rebelling against Disney for their use of free speech. All the while crafting lies about RCID and how it works, as well as further lies about Disney and the “tax breaks” that he claims they are receiving.

Disney wanted to shove this back in his face and they did. Sucks to be DeSantis right now. Disney will win this, no matter the course of litigation forward.
 
P

Polkadotdress

Well-Known Member
MisterPenguin said:
Now... this is... interesting.

If the budget does indeed have to be balanced, then the New District only have access to cash-on-hand to pay for lawyers.

So, can they divert money earmarked for an infrastructure project to pay for lawyers?

No, as per the surprise contract, the District has to do what Disney says. And if Disney wants that project, then the District must provide.

Can they raise money to afford lawyers?

No, as per the surprise contract, Disney has final say on floating bonds.

Unless there's some loophole in the surprise contract, it seems Disney can tie up all of the District's cash in the projects they name.
Click to expand...
But...what happens when it comes time to pay the bills for these 4 high-priced litigating teams they've already assembled, and are likely already "billing hours"? If they are paid out of RCID coffers, then can the district sue to get the $ back? Who would pay then? The 5-member board?
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Premium Member
Brian said:
Now that sounds like a sweetheart deal that no corporation should have, regardless of the antecedent. Even worse than the original RCID scheme. In other words, they're only proving DeSantis' point.

Before everyone comes and jumps down my throat, two things can be true at once; Disney could be in the wrong for having such extraordinary quasi-governmental powers, while the state could have also been wrong for ostensibly retaliating against Disney for speech the elected officials didn't like.
Click to expand...

Why is it a sweetheart deal to say that the taxpayers of a certain geographical area have a say over the projects of a geographical area? Isn't that....democracy?

Also - I remember a time, not that long ago, where the default Republican / conservative position was that Government was the problem, not the solution (to quote the 40th President) - that most government functions should be privatized because business could do a better job.

Reedy Creek actually was used as an example in those arguments - a highly efficient municipal structure that was efficient. How times have changed.
 
Last edited:
Disney Glimpses

Disney Glimpses

Well-Known Member
Has anyone seen the opinion of a prominent right-winged lawyer on YouTube that this statute applies to the DA and is grounds for throwing the whole thing out? From what I have heard, this is referring to things that occur years later (things like population change, water conditions, etc) that materially change the ability develop the land in question; not tumultuous conditions at the time of the DA being entered into agreement.

The local government demonstrates that substantial changes have occurred in pertinent conditions existing at the time of approval of the development agreement; or

 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
Brian said:
Before everyone comes and jumps down my throat, two things can be true at once; Disney could be in the wrong for having such extraordinary quasi-governmental powers
Click to expand...
Could be... but such an idea forgets that Disney didn't give the power to themselves... they negotiated it with the state. And how many administrations since then were ok with it? And why was DeSantis ok with it until a completely different subject brought Disney isn't his cross hairs?

Your postulate is Disney was wrong for having a deal that everyone involved has demonstrated they were ok with. That says the parties involved disagree with you.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Disney Glimpses said:
Has anyone seen the opinion of a prominent right-winged lawyer on YouTube that this statute applies to the DA and is grounds for throwing the whole thing out? From what I have heard, this is referring to things that occur years later (things like population change, water conditions, etc) that materially change the ability develop the land in question; not tumultuous conditions at the time of the DA being entered into agreement.

The local government demonstrates that substantial changes have occurred in pertinent conditions existing at the time of approval of the development agreement; or

Click to expand...
There’d be no point to development agreements if that section meant a change in government, something that happens every few of years.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Vegas Disney Fan said:
It’s not CNN that says they’re less biased, it’s the experts. Media bias studies typically place CNN as skews/leans left while the other two will show in the partisan left partisan right columns.

They aren’t unbiased, just closer to the center by comparison.
Click to expand...
CNN still has some actual news and some real journalists. The talking heads on the opinion shows are just as biased as FOX news and MSNBC. The difference is Fox and MSNBC are mostly just taking heads now with very little if any actual news or reporting.
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Disney Glimpses said:
Has anyone seen the opinion of a prominent right-winged lawyer on YouTube that this statute applies to the DA and is grounds for throwing the whole thing out? From what I have heard, this is referring to things that occur years later (things like population change, water conditions, etc) that materially change the ability develop the land in question; not tumultuous conditions at the time of the DA being entered into agreement.

The local government demonstrates that substantial changes have occurred in pertinent conditions existing at the time of approval of the development agreement; or

Click to expand...
In a year $18 an hour is going to an unlivable wage for most in the Bay Lake area, and the restrictive covenants preclude the passage of laws or policies requiring large employers within the former RCID to build and provide sufficient affordable housing.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Brian said:
Now that sounds like a sweetheart deal that no corporation should have, regardless of the antecedent. Even worse than the original RCID scheme. In other words, they're only proving DeSantis' point.

Before everyone comes and jumps down my throat, two things can be true at once; Disney could be in the wrong for having such extraordinary quasi-governmental powers, while the state could have also been wrong for ostensibly retaliating against Disney for speech the elected officials didn't like.
Click to expand...
If you look at what is actually happening Disney is paying almost 100% of the tax revenues into a “special district” with limited scope and then being condemned for wanting to control how those funds are spent. What are the actual extraordinary powers they have with the district? I know that’s the buzz that they shouldn’t have “self government”, but they really never did. RCID controlled really mundane stuff like trash pickup, road paving and supplying utility services. There was never anything harmful to any other citizen of FL as a result.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom