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

Stripes

Stripes

Premium Member
Chi84 said:
As another poster pointed out, the governor was so eager to start a fight with Disney for political purposes that he was willing to make the retaliatory law broad enough to cause collateral damage.
Click to expand...
It’s not clear to me how the governor caused collateral damage. The fact of the matter is that although the bill stripped voting rights from all landowners in the district, practically speaking the only vote that was stripped was Disney’s. Disney had well over 51% of the voting power within the district, which effectively gave them total control over the vote and made everyone else’s vote meaningless. Hence, the only property owners to even show up for the annual landowner meetings were Disney and their subsidiaries. The other property owners were smart enough not to waste their time.

Disney had total control over the selection of the RCID board. For Winsor to argue that the law didn‘t pinpoint Disney boggles the mind and it defies simple logic.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Stripes said:
It’s not clear to me how the governor caused collateral damage.
Click to expand...
The collateral damage from the law isn't the other land owners in RCID, it is the other districts besides RCID also impacted by the law. Presumably, those districts had nothing to do with Disney or the governor, yet their structure was impacted just the same.

Stripes said:
Disney had total control over the selection of the RCID board. For Winsor to argue that the law didn‘t pinpoint Disney boggles the mind and it defies simple logic.
Click to expand...
The logic in the ruling was that the law didn't say it was specifically for one district, but that it impacted a bunch of districts. Since it impacted a bunch generically, it wasn't targeted.

The implication is that if you're willing to impact enough others beyond your target (collateral damage) you can get away with targeting them, since it would not technically be "targeted".

Possibly, if you can just state the law with enough generic conditions and not specifically name the target, that would also negate the targeting. Even if those conditions select one a specific entity.
 
Stripes

Stripes

Premium Member
mmascari said:
The collateral damage from the law isn't the other land owners in RCID, it is the other districts besides RCID also impacted by the law. Presumably, those districts had nothing to do with Disney or the governor, yet their structure was impacted just the same.
Click to expand...
That was the judge’s reasoning for Senate Bill 4C. And I think that reasoning is actually defensible. Of course, SB 4C didn’t actually dissolve any districts. It just said they would be dissolved if they weren’t reconstituted. Nonetheless, I don’t think any judge will decide in Disney’s favor on SB 4C. I also don’t think Disney cares. They wouldn’t mind being regulated by Bay Lake/Lake Buena Vista and Orange/Osceola counties. I mean they asked the judge to strip CFTOD of all of its powers, which would’ve been more or less the same as dissolving the district. Furthermore, the bond debt is still an issue.

I posted the judge’s reasoning for House Bill 9B which defies logic and sense, and that’s the reasoning Disney’s appeal will be focused on.
 
Last edited:
J

Just JBC

New Member
I agree. I don't think that the bill that would have dissolved the district is a problem. They did a blanket shot for all of the really old districts. Had they stopped there, the only problem they might have had would be if they then reconstituted every district except Disney. I worked for Government briefly. There was an employee that it would have been too much effort to fire for cause (she was bad, but she wasn't that bad). So they eliminated all people in her position, of which there was only her. The layoff then became a budget decision rather than a personnel action.

The problems became when they reconstituted the district into one that is actively adversarial to the major landowner. I haven't looked to see if any other districts were also reconstituted, but if they were, I'm guessing that their names weren't changed to "... oversight district." By not just letting the district dissolve (and having the state absorb Disney's debts), it sure seems that they went from a neutral law that affected Disney to a targeted bill that retaliated against Disney. Especially when one of the requirements to serve on the board is that they can't have recent theme park experience?

I had expected DeSantis to meet with Disney, mutually agree to get rid of the things that Disney wasn't using/probably would never use (i.e. their own airport, ability to have a nuclear power plant, etc), and then have his press conference declaring victory. I remain disappointed that the decision was made to opt for scorched earth instead.
 
GrumpyFan

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
Just JBC said:
I had expected DeSantis to meet with Disney, mutually agree to get rid of the things that Disney wasn't using/probably would never use (i.e. their own airport, ability to have a nuclear power plant, etc), and then have his press conference declaring victory. I remain disappointed that the decision was made to opt for scorched earth instead.
Click to expand...
There was a rumor that Disney tried to meet with the governor's staff before everything went to the legislature. Supposedly, the governor's people told Disney to "pound sand".
It is quite disappointing considering what Disney has done for the state for so many years.
 
D

DCBaker

Premium Member
flyakite said:
From Orlando Sentinel:

MEETING NOTICE
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 9:30 a.m., the Pollution Control Board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at the Environmental Sciences Building, 2191 South Service Lane, Lake Buena Vista, Florida 32830. At that time, the Board will discuss such business as may properly come before them.
By: Doreen Johnson
Click to expand...

Here's the full agenda packet for the Pollution Control Board meeting this Thursday.

 
flyakite

flyakite

Well-Known Member
From Orlando Sentinel:

YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at 1900 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. At that time and in addition to other business on the agenda, the Board of Supervisors will conduct readings and public hearings on and consider for adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 659 A RESOLUTION OF THE CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT ADOPTING A SEXUAL HARRASSMENT POLICY.
RESOLUTION NO. 660 A RESOLUTION OF THE CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Interested parties may appear at the public meeting and hearing to be heard with respect to the proposed resolutions. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of Supervisors with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
By: Alycia Mills, District Clerk Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CLOSED-DOOR MEETING
On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. or soon thereafter as the progression of the Board’s regular meeting permits, pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will commence a public meeting and then meet in an Attorney/Client Executive Closed Session to discuss strategy and settlement negotiations related to litigation expenditures in the following cases:
- Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, et. al., N.D. Fla. Case No. 4:23-cv-00163-MW-MJF (On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals)
- Central Florida Tourism Oversight District v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 2023-CA- 011818-O.
- Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 2023-CA-017887-O
The persons in attendance at the closed-door meeting will be Board of Supervisor members, Chair - Martin Garcia, Vice-Chair - Charbel Barakat, Brian Aungst, Jr., Ron Peri, and Bridget Ziegler; District Administrator Glenton Gilzean; Acting General Counsel Daniel Langley and/or A. Kurt Ardaman; and litigation counsel Paul Huck. The closed-door meeting will be held at 1900 Hotel Plaza Blvd, Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830
 
Last edited:
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
flyakite said:
From Orlando Sentinel:

then meet in an Attorney/Client Executive Closed Session to discuss strategy and settlement negotiations related to litigation expenditures in the following cases:
- Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, et. al., N.D. Fla. Case No. 4:23-cv-00163-MW-MJF (On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals)
- Central Florida Tourism Oversight District v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 2023-CA- 011818-O.
- Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, Orange County Circuit Court Case No. 2023-CA-017887-O
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Not sure how they can settle the federal case. The other two should be simple to settle if that's really a goal.
 
Figgy1

Figgy1

Premium Member
mmascari said:
Interesting.

Not sure how they can settle the federal case. The other two should be simple to settle if that's really a goal.
Click to expand...
1708193033806.png
 

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

Back
Top Bottom