Florida Files New Bill to Replace Disney World’s Reedy Creek Improvement District
Florida lawmakers kicked off a two-week special legislative session today (February 6, 2023) aimed at introducing a variety of bills, including one that details how Governor Ron DeSantis and the State of Florida plan to take control of Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID), which gives Walt Disney World its own government.
Today’s bill is simply the latest development in an ongoing saga. If you want to be quickly brought up to speed on the saga from this spring, please read our prior post: Florida Passes Bills to Dissolve Reedy Creek Improvement District. That covers what led to this bill, when the dissolution would take effect, and how it would impact Walt Disney World guests.
Since then, there have been more developments with the firing of former CEO Bob Chapek, who instigated the RCID dissolution in the first place. The return of CEO Bob Iger led some, including lawmakers who had introduced the original dissolution bill, to assert that it was unlikely the Reedy Creek Improvement District would actually go away. As before, I’ll attempt to break this down in a straightforward manner, free of hyperbole and sensationalism…
For starters, you can read House Bill 9B – Reedy Creek Improvement District, Orange and Osceola Counties for yourself. Fair warning: the full text of HB 9B is 189 pages long; like many pieces of legislation, it uses many words to say very little.
The official purpose of this legislation is stated as reenacting, amending & repealing chapter 67-764, Laws of Florida, relating to district; provides for continuation of authority for revenue collection & powers to meet outstanding obligations; renames district; provides boundaries; revises manner of selection of board of supervisors; provides term limits; revises board member compensation; revises powers of board; revises powers of district; provides for transition; provides for continued effect of stipulation between district & Orange County; provides exception to general law.
I’m not going to parse every sentence in the entire 189 page bill for a number of reasons, one of the biggest being that this is not the final resolution. The Reedy Creek Improvement District saga will remain ongoing, with the most likely outcome still being a negotiated compromise between Disney and the State of Florida.
As far as this bill goes, one of the most pertinent parts is the last sentence: “…the Reedy Creek Improvement District is not dissolved as of June 1, 2023, but continues in full force and effect under its new name.” That new name is the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.
One of the reasons for renaming rather than dissolving and replacing RCID is likely to avoid invalidating the current district’s debts. Tax officials and lawmakers have warned that dissolving the Reedy Creek Improvement District threatens to shift an enormous financial burden to taxpayers and potentially transfer a $1 billion debt load to the state.
The bill also states that it’s the intent of the Legislature to “preserve the authority necessary to generate revenue and pay outstanding indebtedness…No bond or other instrument of indebtedness previously issued by the district or any district project financed by bonds or other instruments of indebtedness shall be affected by this act.”
The bill also addresses another point of contention: control over the Reedy Creek Improvement District’s board. Pursuant to this legislation, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District shall consist of five members appointed by Florida’s Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
Each member shall hold office for a term of 4 years and are required to be Florida residents, from a range of different fields and backgrounds. However, anyone who has had a direct or indirect relationship to a theme park or entertainment business (including subcontractors and subsidiaries) in the last 3 years is ineligible. It’s not just Disney employees–it’s more broadly written to encompass a larger swath of Floridian’s population. Under this, the secretary of a lighting company that did work for Chuck E. Cheese would be ineligible.
Currently, the Reedy Creek Improvement District’s landowners elect its board. Because Walt Disney World owns almost all of the land in the district, it has been able to hand select board members for RCID. Which is the whole point. Reedy Creek removes red tape, as Disney is not subject to seeking (outside) local planning commissions for approval to build new structures. Walt Disney World can build parks, attractions, hotels, and other projects within Reedy Creek with little-to-no (outside) governmental oversight. That means Walt Disney World can avoid the logistical hurdles of local government. That’s a double-edged sword, and one that also means Florida taxpayers are not footing the bill for infrastructure at Walt Disney World.
Another area of contention has been the expansive powers of the Reedy Creek Improvement District. As best I can tell, this is more or less left intact by the bill (see Section 8); the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District retains most, if not all, of the same authority to own or improve property; construct or alter water management and flood control; build parking, roads, or recreation facilities; operate fire control facilities; operate, build, and maintain transportation networks; and much more.
Notable on this front is subsection 15, regarding public utilities. The district shall have the authority “to own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, equip, operate, maintain, extend, and improve electric power plants, solar energy generating systems, transmission lines and related facilities, gas mains and facilities of any nature…”
The verbiage here is probably aimed at obtaining a political win in preventing Walt Disney World from building a nuclear power plant, a right granted to the Reedy Creek Improvement District by Florida in 1967 that it is unlikely to use. It also appears that the new district would not have the authority to build an airport.
Other than that, there’s not much here that’s materially different from the current incarnation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District. If this comes as a surprise, you haven’t been paying attention.
From my perspective, the biggest deal about this bill is that the Governor of Florida appoints all 5 members of the Board of Supervisors. There were rumors of a compromise late last year in which the governor would appoint 2 members of the board, which seemed a lot more plausible–and probably palatable to Disney. It’s unlikely that the same will be true if that’s all members. Either a compromise is still to be reached, or this could be challenged in court once passed.
One thing to keep in mind here is that Governor DeSantis almost certainly has presidential aspirations, meaning that he probably will not be the person making those appointments. So, an assessment of whether the governor controlling the Board of Supervisors is “good” or “bad” should have absolutely nothing to do with partisan politics.
Beyond that, my commentary is largely unchanged on topic of RCID’s potential dissolution. For those wondering how this will impact Walt Disney World, I’ll point to a section from our original post discussing the dissolution of Reedy Creek Improvement District: “In short, I don’t think this will have any material impact on the guest experience at Walt Disney World. That’s because I don’t think Reedy Creek Improvement District will actually be dissolved when all is said and done.”
A lot more commentary follows, and then this: “One could argue that this is because no legislator on either side of the aisle actually believes Reedy Creek Improvement District is going to be dissolved. Perhaps they’re cynical, thinking that it’s more about theater, a way to score a quick ‘win’ in today’s era of ‘politics as team sports’ and the ongoing culture wars. Maybe it’s a means of grabbing headlines, dominating the news cycle, and fundraising for midterms before moving on to the next outrage du jour that fuels each side’s base long before next summer.”
With that said, it’ll be interesting to see how CEO Bob Iger reacts. My guess–and hope–is that he does not take the bait and make a public comment. He should understand the political landscape in Florida for the next couple of years, and be cognizant of the consequences of being embroiled in this and other controversies.
Already, Walt Disney World President Jeff Vahle has issued a statement. Or rather, non-statement: “We are monitoring the progression of the draft legislation, which is complex given the long history of the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Disney works under a number of different models and jurisdictions around the world, and regardless of the outcome, we remain committed to providing the highest quality experience for the millions of guests who visit each year.”
This is perfect. It suggests cooperation and deference, while committing to absolutely nothing. Part of Chapek’s miscalculation was approaching this with a conventional understanding of politics and power dynamics, as informed by decades of doing business in Florida. Chapek’s whole approach to the controversy was comedy of errors, remedying mistakes with even more mistakes, and managing to alienate literally everyone on the political spectrum in the process.
Chapek’s dragging out of the controversy worked to Disney’s detriment, and to the benefit of politicians and commentators who have turned culture wars into their whole brand. Iger has much better political instincts and a defter touch, so this shouldn’t be a problem. If there is going to be litigation, Iger does not need to comment–and Disney does not need to be a party to it. (Just as the word “Disney” does not appear once in this 189 page bill.)
Ultimately, my expectation remains that the Walt Disney Company and State of Florida reach a compromise that enables everyone to “win” in before the clock strikes midnight on June 1, 2023. It’ll be an outcome that allows state legislators and Governor DeSantis to claim victory, both in the ouster of Chapek and in modifying the RCID to reduce its power and increase oversight of the district.
The current bill is one step closer to that, but it’s probably not quite there from Disney’s perspective. The governor having the authority to make all appointments–and excluding those with even indirect relationships to theme parks–probably won’t be well-received by the company. It’s also possible that Disney does not care and will not fight further, cognizant of the fact that the state’s interests in promoting the tourism industry and development is aligned with the companies interests. Everything else is more or less what was expected: Reedy Creek Improvement District by a new name, with most of the same powers, minus a few limitations that were viewed as red flags (but that don’t much matter, anyway).
Planning a Walt Disney World trip? Learn about hotels on our Walt Disney World Hotels Reviews page. For where to eat, read our Walt Disney World Restaurant Reviews. To save money on tickets or determine which type to buy, read our Tips for Saving Money on Walt Disney World Tickets post. Our What to Pack for Disney Trips post takes a unique look at clever items to take. For what to do and when to do it, our Walt Disney World Ride Guides will help. For comprehensive advice, the best place to start is our Walt Disney World Trip Planning Guide for everything you need to know!
YOUR THOUGHTS
Any thoughts on the replacement of Reedy Creek Improvement District with the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District? What about changes to appointments or the powers of the district? Keep the comments civil, as this is not the place for politically-charged arguing, antagonism, personal attacks, or perpetuating pointless culture wars. While this topic is inherently political, we will be heavy-handed in deleting comments that amount to little more than vapid political cheerleading. Respectfully debating the pros & cons and implications of RCID being dissolved (or whether it’ll actually happen) is totally fine, but don’t step outside the bounds of this narrow topic. If you wish to shout your opinions about Ron DeSantis, The Bobs, or other politicians/executives into the internet abyss, that’s why Facebook was invented. 😉
So is Florida!
Aeryn, my friend, you are not wrong, I agree with you wholeheartedly that our freedom of speech is under attack. Look around you. Cancel culture, the main stream media and big tech deciding what we can and can’t hear/see and big gov’t trying to control our thoughts.
However in this case Freedom of speech took place. It worked the way free speech does. Currently neither Disney or Florida have broken any laws.They are both within their constitutional rights to do what they have done and are doing. Freedom of speech is great. You can tell your boss he needs to bathe more often and your significant other that their sibling is really sexy but don’t expect to get that raise or a hot Valentines evening as a result of your honesty.
You’re right when you say this is not Russia. If it were, Chapek would not be counting his $20 million., he’d be freezing at the front line in Ukraine right now. And if it were China he’d be on the next spy balloon heading to a Uyghurs “re-education camp”.
To put it more succinctly: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
That’s not apt here, though. In reality, this is a perversion of the political process. Even then, it’s hard to feel sorry for anyone. Disney spends millions lobbying to gain favorable treatment and advantages that others do not receive, and politicians use their power to punish or reward accordingly. I assume we can all agree that these are not desirable aspects of our system…but they are aspects of it. It is what it is. Can’t play the game and then cry when you lose.
I will admit that I am biased as a Disney fan. My views here are colored by that, and not unencumbered political theory or philosophy. I want RCID to exist because it’s advantageous for Disney (although now much less so than in the 1970s and 80s since Disney has become its own bloated bureaucracy). I want Disney to spend millions lobbying; I don’t care if they buy off the Anaheim City Council, Florida and California state politicians, and others–even politicians with whom I do not share beliefs–because it serves their interests, and by extension, mine as a Disney fan.
However, if you replace Disney with a company like Monsanto, ExxonMobile, or Spirit Airlines (kidding on that last one…partially), I would not want that. Checks and balances are important within government, and between government and the private sector. I am well aware that my Disney bias and outcome-oriented perspective makes me a hypocrite, but, I guess, at least I’m a self-aware one.
From my perspective, one of the biggest issues with our system is politics as a team sport. Very few people have coherent principles that they apply with a ‘veil of ignorance’ without regard for the specific circumstances. Instead, everything is conditional–dependent upon whether their team wins or loses in the specific circumstance. That’s no knock at anyone here–I’m clearly part of the problem, too (see above).
Great points, Tom. I see the problem as that far too many people are all or nothing for one ‘side’ or the other when the truth is that far too often it’s really the career politicians versus the rest of us. We all have more in common than we do differences, even those who hate Disney for whatever foolish misguided reasons.
“To put it more succinctly: Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences”
Tom, you and I are both attorneys and know —- freedom of speech means freedom from government consequences. There are exceptions (perjury, defamation, etc). But apart from narrow exceptions, government may not impose consequences for protected speech.
@Adam – The first sentence was summarizing Mickey’s point made via examples over the course of multiple comments. The paragraph that followed is why I didn’t agree with it.
For what it’s worth, I’m also skeptical of a straightforward First Amendment analysis, for essentially the same reason articulated there. You could make the case that this is the government retaliating against a corporate representative for their speech. You could also make the case that this is political consequences for a quasi-public or political entity, which happens all the time.
I’d certainly agree that this has a chilling effect and is at odds with the spirit of freedom of speech, which should be particularly concerning for individuals of a certain political persuasion–but see my rambling rant about politics as a team sport on that one.
Telling your wife you like her sister or your boss that he needs to shower are not freedom of speech issues. Freedom of speech means freedom from government retaliation for what you say, with exceptions, as Adam mentioned — perjury, defamation, threats, hate speech, incitement etc.
Consequences for rudeness from your wife or from your boss at your job are not freedom of speech issues. Neither is having a post that goes against social media terms and services removed a freedom of speech issue since they are private companies and not government entities. The public not wanting to buy the music of a singer who’s spread some sort of bigotry is not a freedom of speech issue.
Free speech is between you and the government. It’s a term that’s been co-opted colloquially to mean any of the above examples, but that is not what the legal definition of free speech is. Free speech is your freedom to voice your opinion without retaliation from the state. People in China, Russia, places like that, don’t have freedom of speech. If you criticize Putin or Xi Jinping the government makes you disappear overnight.
In the United States of America, the first amendment to the US constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” You are allowed to have an opinion in opposition to the government, and you are allowed to voice that opinion without the government punishing you for it. That is literally exactly what Desantis is doing, and it’s unconstitutional.
Telling your wife you like her sister and her getting upset with you is not unconstitutional. Telling the government you don’t like a law so they try to mess with your business is unconstitutional. It should not go without saying or be assumed that if you voice an opposing opinion from your governor that he will use the levers of government to try to destroy your company. That’s how things work in dictatorships. Did you like…read….1984 or Animal Farm or anything like that in school growing up?
WOW! Everyone. Good discussion. Tom summed up things nicely. None of us are free from consequences whether those be just or unjust. That’s all I’ve been saying. I’m not taking sides but being realistic. Personally I love Disney and dislike politicians. To my new Disney friend Aeryn I used examples of speaking truth (not rudeness) to boss and “significant other”(not wife) to lighten things up. Also my use of Chapek in Russia and China were also meant to exemplify in a humorous way that this is still America. Chapek was partly responsible for Disney’s downward turn and walked away with $20 million. Not bad for a job poorly done. Meanwhile Disney has enjoyed special privilege’s originally given to Walt because of the great human being he was. Since then Disney has been buying favorite status through donations to both political parties. Yet it is Universal that is opening a new gate while my beloved Disney takes four years to get a train to run in a circle. Realistically what we have here are two very arrogant petulant children who need each other trying to find a face saving way out of a stupid mess of their own creation. This is much more about biting the hand that feeds you than freedom of speech. BTW both children are biters.
@Mickey1928 great points! People are trying to greatly oversimplify this whole mess.
Tom… I certainly agree. There is a line of cases where the Court essentially refuses to peek behind the curtain at the motive behind a law. If the law is facially proper, the Court won’t strike it down because the intent might be a constitutional violation.
For example — if you Tom Bricker pissed off the government with your free speech, and in response the govt passed a law “all theme park bloggers with monthly readership averaging 50,000-70,000, shall pay a $20,000 domain registration tax monthly” — and assume they nailed the readership number so you were the sole blogger in the world that it applied to, and even assume lawmakers went on tv and proudly proclaimed, “we are teaching Tom Bricker a lesson for bashing Dino Land!”
The Courts might still uphold the law since on its face, the law is just about taxing domain registration, not about speech. (Imperfect example… as a court might say it’s about speech since it’s applying to only to the topic of theme parks ).
So that’s why a purely 1st Amendment attack on the law would be an uphill battle. Florida govt can regulate Special Districts. Their reasons aren’t necessarily something a court would be willing to look at.
But it’s certainly inconsistent with the 1st Amendment. And Disney actually has stronger legal arguments they can make. (Rights, once given, cannot be arbitrarily taken away)
Adam it is a well known fact that the courts have been packed with Country Bear devotees. Any attempt by the government to silence Tom would be futile.
@Mickey1928
I’m leaving the comments open for now, but please make an effort to be constructive. To the extent that this topic prompts debate, make sure it’s of ideas and not people, and done in good faith–as if you’re trying to engage with someone, not dunk on them.
Comments proclaiming the awesomeness or awfulness of DeSantis are not that. You’re not changing anyone’s mind about the dude at this point–those comments will be deleted as unproductive.
But to be clear, we can still debate the awesomeness of Country Bears and the awfulness of Dinoland?
Sure, I guess. You’re also welcome to debate whether water is wet, even though that issue is equally well-settled. 😉
Hey, there’s no denying that that bathroom by the gift shop was pretty nice when you needed one…
I think Tom’s assumption is that in the end Disney will appoint a majority (not an entirety) of the board that controls the district. From that perspective, this is the state of Florida’s “second bid” on the issue and not the final compromise.
Ok,
If your a Disney lover I get it… I now identify myself as a “VINTAGE” Disney Fan. I do not like the new Disney. Disney built the road they are on now. They interferred in government where the should not have. The Reedy Creek Disrrict has show a remarkable operation but the should not have RIGHTS “OVER” other businesses. I am hope mid ground will be reach as I do hope Reedy Creek can still oversee its operations.
It sure sounds like this means DeSantis now has the power (through his appointees to the board) to cancel or approve any work to upgrade, modify or expand the parks. So in theory, he could cancel the Splash Mountain revamp. I’m sure he won’t in this case, because the optics would be terrible, but it does hand him (or whoever succeeds him as governor) that power. In no other local government district does the governor get to appoint the entire board. It’s very dangerous ground they’re treading here.
Not exactly, as I understand it. The Special District performs the functions normally performed by local town government. Disney is essentially a property owner within this town.
So much like your own home — You can paint your kitchen without any involvement from the town. But if you’re building an extension on your home — It doesn’t go to the Mayor or the Town Board, but it does go to the Building Department for approval of a building permit.
So much like a Town, Reedy Creek has a building department — With inspectors that issue building permits, etc.
So the Board, appointed by DeSantis, has “big picture” involvement in the sense that they can hire the building department inspectors. But they wouldn’t typically get involved in the minutia of whether to approve a building permit. And they couldn’t just deny a building permit for no reason. It would still have to be, “that overhang appears unsafe… move it back 5 feet to get the permit approved”
Where the Board could really interfere with Disney is refusing to fund high quality road upkeep, cutting back on fire services, etc.
Not exactly. The big issue here is that currently RCID files and approves its own building permits. As we have seen this week in Turkey (yes, a good friend is there and lives on the 8th floor of an apartment building and sent some crazy pics of their place) some building codes are there for a reason even though many govt entities place too much literal interpretation on them. But Disney will build what they need to for theming of a building and we know it will be safe. They just cannot afford to and will not deal with the hassles of having to go to an outside regulatory entity for a permit, then call for inspections, then wait, then deal with some inspector who thinks they know more than an engineer, etc, etc. For Disney, this really is the big deal for parks and resort construction. Yeah, the bond financing tax hedge is useful too.
Now I kinda wish Disney had announced at D23 that they would be replacing Primeval Whirl with an airport and a nuclear plant.
An airport and nuclear power plant would be an upgrade from Dino-Rama.
Come on, Tom, tell us how you really feel! I agree, that area seemed like a last-minute tack-on and was too canivalesque, the opposite of what Walt was aiming for at DL.
DeSantis is a Republican. Isn’t *less* government oversight their whole mandate?
Thanks Tom for doing the homework we would choose not to do (reading the bill) and giving us the cliff notes. Your assessment sounds right. First step in negotiations so let’s wait for the final act. This is a good opening round for face saving. As for free speech there’s always a bill to pay afterwards. A good friend of mine lost a high paying job with Afflack for telling a few jokes that were unfortunately too soon. He was surprised but with some reflection understood. It also ended up hurting him with other companies and he had a small set back for awhile which he overcame. The problem today is people expect to say/do whatever they want and then are indignant over any repercussions.
Afflack isn’t the government. This isn’t Russia. This is America, and you’re supposed to be allowed to have an opinion without government retaliation on your business.
Well, Chapek should kept his trap shut, because it’s in reality a non-issue. But he fell for the trap. His response to a mistake with more mistakes is a sad comedy of errors that could be compared to things on a national scale. A few very vocal cast members expressing complaints was not grounds for such a broad-scale response and he should’ve known better.
Aeryn, my fellow Disney fan friend, you may have missed my point. We’re not talking about right or wrong or fairness. When a person says something they need to understand that it will result in a positive or negative result. Just as what I wrote brought a remark from you. I’m neither surprised or offended. Disney had the right to speak out and the government had the right to say they would rethink the special powers given to Walt Disney himself in the late 1960’s because of who he was. Neither party has technically broken the law and people need to understand that when you say anything, such as say, give me liberty or give me death, you just may end up getting your wish.
A good moto is think before you speak (which I too often forget to do) and if you feel strong enough about what you’re saying then say it. Have the courage of your convictions but don’t think it entitles you to a free pass from unfavorable reactions.
PS I misspelt Aflac but I guess everyone understood I meant the insurance company.
An acceptable reaction from a government official who disagrees, would be a public statement saying they don’t agree with Chapek. Attempting to destroy or take control of a private business because you dont like an executive’s opinion is not an acceptable reaction.
Your friend getting fired by a private business for breaking their code of conduct is not the same thing as a governor using the levers of government to attack a private company for an executive’s opinion on an issue.
And telling an off-colour joke in the workplace isn’t the same as an executive saying “I disagree with this government policy.” That is something you are supposed to be safe to do without punishment from the government, based on the first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America.
Also, for the record, you are also my Disney fan friend and there’s no lack of love in this exchange, I just think people are getting too soft on some really scary things going on.
I hope that RCID and/or its renamed replacement ends up keeping the power to *dismantle* an airport, because I personally believe the old STOL airport is in too good a location to stay a storage site forever. That’s a waste of continuous, already constructed-upon land in my opinion.
(Ironically, the first small modular reactor design for a nuclear power plant was just certified for use in the United States last month.)
It’s really too bad Disney wasn’t already on the front edge of that. New reactor designs are more efficient and intrinsically safe as compared to the dinosaurs we have operational across the country. Different fuels, and/or reprocessing of both new and existing spent fuel in different type reactors will reduce the problem of storing high-level rad waste for centuries to a tiny fraction of what is currently generated. A new SMR owned and operated by RCID would be a huge step towards total clean power use by the entire WDW property.
IF high speed rail across the state actually comes to fruition, I would have expected Disney to build a spur going into their property for direct transfer to the TTC vs a largely useless station near Disney Springs. Direct high-speed route from MCO to the TTC would obviate any need or desire for a return of Magical Express (although I agree that one or more transfers with luggage and tired kids would frustrate many families) or any realistic thoughts of Disney’s own airport..
Well, this all this saddens me. I always thought that it was the job of government to support business, large or small, and basically get out of the way. This is not the case though here.
Desantis is also planning to hereby decree that Disney must reinstitute the Magical Express, Dining Plan and Fast Passes.
The RCID was one of the most impressive achievements by man in cooperation with a local, sensible government of our time. Furthermore, the success of the RCID from the 60’s thru the 90’s was impressive. The State of Florida did Walt (almost individually) a favor by approving this district because he was a good person with good intentions (and of course a huge positive impact for the state). Ever since the “Company” has become a one-man operation after the fall of Frank Wells, that has no longer been the case. Universal has nearly built a 3rd gate in the time it takes the Company to build a garden in EPCOT. Chapek may be the whipping boy for Iger’s folly, but the former Bob is the one to blame by planting seeds of his philosophy and weakness. This is not political retaliation but exhaustion from a state that can no longer extend their tolerance of disrespect from a Company to Floridians themselves. My hope is to see this second storm pass, two people placed at the helm of the great “Walt Disney” Company and happiness restored to the Kingdom.
Disney may seem to just swallow it to avoid a divisive public fight.
If they do choose to fight, they have some very strong arguments:
– if you are changing the fundamental composition, then you are dissolving it. Why should Disney have to honor debts that are now under political control?
-per First Amendment, govt shouldn’t be punishing Disney for their speech.
– You are taking away local representation, which is a very big deal. Imagine a state legislature singled out a city they didn’t like, dissolved the City Council and the Mayor, and replaced the City govt with governor’s appointees. Imagine it on an even bigger scale — Biden dissolves the Florida govt and appoints Kamala Harris as the new governor of Florida.
Reedy Creek was effectively a local govt elected by the locals.
So Disney is on very strong legal grounds. But for PR reasons, they may choose to avoid a public fight that puts them in the middle of culture wars.
Iger needs to figure out a way to make this go away, calmly. A shrill response would play into DeSantis’ hands.
I think you might be underselling the potential impact the board members could have on future development across WDW. As written (and accepting that the final bill will likely not resemble this draft) the ability of the reconstituted board to stymie future Disney proposals is exponentially heightened should political maneuvering warrant it.
I think Tom’s assumption is that in the end Disney will appoint a majority (not an entirety) of the board that controls the district. From that perspective, this is the state of Florida’s “second bid” on the issue and not the final compromise.
Pity that Disney can’t just pack up and leave.
To go where, exactly?
You’re supposed to be able to disagree with a politician without government retaliation. I don’t understand how any of this is constitutional at all, considering the first amendment.
No matter what you think of Chapek, or the bill, this isn’t supposed to be something that’s allowed to happen in the USA.
Yup, the larger implications are very unsettling.
Actually this is basically exactly how the government is set up to work. If there is believed to be an overstep of powers by one branch, another branch has the power to limit that overstep. That’s why Tom lays out that Walt Disney Company, if unsatisfied with the final draft of the bill, has the power to take it to the courts. The court system can then determine what is and what is not an overstep. Judicial checking Executive/Legislative is the exact purpose of the three separate powers. All of this is making the assumption that the Bill passes in the Florida Senate, which could still vote it down.
Thanks for that Joe. Not to be sassy, but I do know how the government works. I also don’t have massive faith in Florida’s politicians. People’s freedom of speech shouldn’t have to withstand tests like this in the first place.
Agree with both Aeryn and Joe wholeheartedly. But the entire Florida government and supreme court has been hand picked by the current governor. So any battle Disney attempts will most likely not make it far.
@Stef,
While it’s true that most of the causes of action Disney could bring are better suited for state courts, any First Amendment claim could be brought in federal courts. Unfortunately, even in that case the 11th Circuit and its lower district courts in Florida were among the more heavily packed by Trump while he was in office.
Why bring up irrelevant outside issues? No, this is not about freedom of speech. That’s a red herring. Little Bob stepped in poo and tracked it all through the house. Courts aren’t there to decide issues based on political leanings, regardless of what so many seem to think. It will come down to tax revenue, which neither the state nor the counties can afford to lose any of right now.
We can definitely agree on that, you really shouldn’t have to go to the courts to defend your free speech against government retribution!!
Umbrella Chapek strikes again!
I’d be shocked if Disney doesn’t get any say over the board. I’d have to agree with your analysis that this is an opening salvo and there changes from here. I also believe what will become the new acronym, CFTOD, is somehow worse than RCID.
Love Umbrella Chapek. I’m sure other photos of Chapek exist, but this is the only one you need.
Disney will not agree under any circumstances to total loss of control over the board. They would likely agree to two of seven board members to be appointed, maybe three. But they will maintain majority control in the end.
As noted before, actual dissolution of RCID would result in far, far more debt to the taxpayers than the measly cash debt, as the state or counties would have to buy the physical assets of RCID from Disney along with easements. Disney would not in any case give up the actual land, so the counties would be forced to pay leases in perpetuity on the high-value real estate.
I love it, the first 100 pages or so is only the legal description of WDW. Haven’t fully read it but haven’t seen anything regarding Celebration, or any planning activities required for such an endeavor. Another 70 pages to go!!
Just wait until you get to the section banning virtual queues. It’s a page-turner! 😉