Disney tells investors state can’t dissolve special district without paying debt
miamiherald.com
miamiherald.com
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps...
Making decisions about public goods explicitly as political retaliation for failing to support unrelated positions of the ruling party is authoritarianism. It's *particularly jarringly authoritarian from a faction that is simultaneously arguing that “free speech” is being violated when private actors choose not to actively relay their speech.
I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant, as if they are entitled to those privileges.
Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture.
If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
With Reedy Creek, Disney doesn't need to worry about whether local politicians will approve expansions or meet the needs of the Walt Disney World complex since the local government is purely serving Disney.
If you take a look at Disneyland in California, Disney is going up against Anaheim and Orange County councils on a pretty routine basis to get new things built.
Sure it's a benefit to Disney, but it's also a benefit to the county taxpayers:
* Disney subsidizes both counties' services and infrastructure by paying property taxes to pay for services/infrastructure, but not consuming them, or contracting for them where needed.
* Allows counties to avoid costly legal and procedural issues when Disney wants to add new features, attractions, or services at their park, or wish to ensure consistency of services provided by the two different counties.
So, what is the crux of your objection?
> Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false.
It is absolutely true. Stop lying.
> The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
The district, in turn, provides services, including fire response, emergency medical services, water and sewage treatment, and can issue municipal bonds to finance infrastructure projects, which comes with tax advantages which are shared by no other corporation or individual in the nation. The arrangement gives Disney control over municipal services and autonomy when it comes to how the land is used and developed, exempting it from a number of regulations. Again, a privilege enjoyed exclusively by Disney Corp.
> It is absolutely true. Stop lying.
Disney paid $780 million dollars in state and local taxes in FY 2021. Florida law does not allow an entity to be charged a different county property tax rate than other citizens. That's why, if the special district is dissolved, every property owner in Orange and Osceola will be facing a 20% property tax hike: the counties can't simply charge Disney a higher property tax rate to cover the costs of providing Disney infrastructure and services.
> which comes with tax advantages which are shared by no other corporation or individual in the nation.
You mean not shared by any of the 1844 other special districts in Florida, including Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, HOAs, fire and water districts, law libraries, energy facilities, etc.?
Can you be more explicit about the tax advantages of municipal bonds compared to corporate bonds that you are referring to? You make an overly broad claim, here.
> Again, a privilege enjoyed exclusively by Disney Corp.
And, again, you are wrong. That privilege ("right", really, since it's enshrined in law), is afforded to a number of other entities in Florida (see above). And similar arrangements exist in many, if not most, other states.
They consume no county services that property taxes generally cover (by agreement with the counties). The RCID then levies additional taxes, 2-3x more than the county property tax, on RCID residents which pay for infrastructure and services within the RCID. In some cases, the RCID contracts back to the counties (e.g., the sheriff's office for ~$13 million) to provide services within the RCID.
The result: Disney subsides property taxes in both Orange and Osceola counties, and RCID residents pay 3x more in property taxes than Orange or Osceola counties do, and 2-3 times more than Florida law would allow outside of a special district.
The real benefit that the RCID confers to Disney is control of the consistency and quality of infrastructure and services that they have on their property. And it avoids contention between the counties and Disney in cases of zoning or other civil issues like alcohol licensing, where the two counties may differ, forcing Disney to either have to cater to the most restrictive policies of the two counties, if the policies are compatible, or have different levels of service depending on which county a particular piece of Disney's property sits. Imagine being able to buy alcohol on one side of the park, but not the other, or having great roads on one side of the park, but not the other?
What tax breaks does Disney get? They pay Orange and Osceola property tax, despite receiving no services or infrastructure support from the county (except those that they contract for). Florida law requires that all property taxes be levied equally, so Disney pays the same rate as everyone else in the counties.
The RCID levies additional property taxes on RCID residents (almost all Disney), to pay for the infrastructure it provides to the district. Those amount to ~2-3 times more than the county taxes, and 3 times more than state law would allow the county to charge outside of an independent special district.
The ability for the RCID to charge taxes is a result of its status as an "independent" special district, meaning that it has ad valorem taxation rights (the ability to levy taxes on the residents of it's property beyond state and county taxes). Florida state law requires that any special district that is not completely encompassed with a single municipal boundary be chartered as an independent special district. Since Disney's property spans both Orange and Osceola counties, it is required to be an independent special district. Disney could have requested independent special district status, but in this case it was moot.
If Disney got more special privileges as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. If Disney had neutral actions taken as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. So the "punishment" aspect is key to making it a violation, but I am making the case that it is not actually punishment, when considering the context of the rest of society.
Yes, if we exclude the thing that people are complaining about, there is no basis for complaint.
Let's suppose the federal government adopted 30 percentage point higher tax rates for everyone who registered as a Republican, donated to a Republican party committee or candidate, or voted in a Republican primary.
Now, particular tax rates are not themselves a matter of right, so by the same logic that there is no basis to complain about the political retaliation against Disney since it is not via something that is a matter of right, Republicans would have no valid basis for complaint.
EDIT>> Oh I think I see now, you are comparing the introduction of a special tax hike on a group of people with removing special privileges from Disney. Those aren't the same at all.
That's the key. I'm arguing that "adverse" doesn't mean "not receiving special unfair treatment."
“Adverse change” means a change in which the resulting condition is worse for the entity involved than the status quo ante.
The justice of either the resulting state or the status quo ante is not relevant to whether the change is adverse.
There is no dispute that:
(1) Florida intends Disney to be worse off because of this change, and
(2) Florida is motivated by Disney's exercise of its First Amendment rights in making this change.
This combination is impermissible regardless of any other context, and is absolutely retaliatory regardless of any other context.
I don't think this is true even of DeSantis himself. This action is very clearly being taken to punish Disney for it's free speech.
> RCID operates in accordance with its Charter and Chapter 189, Florida Statutes, The Uniform Special Districts Accountability Act. Additional information contained in legislation. Click here to view the District Charter: https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RCID-Charter...
Further, the first amendment to the US Constitution grants people (and corporations due to rulings like Citizens United, et al.) the right to publicly voice their opinions (good or bad) about the government's actions without fear of government retaliation, except in very narrow cases where that speech is deemed illegal. This is the real crux of the issue: if this legislation was retaliatory--and there are ample indications that it was in the public record--then the legislation violates Disney's first amendment rights.
Whether the corporate rights exist in law for Disney (and other theme parks) is a matter of public record. Whether those rights should be granted at all is a topic worthy of debate, but it actually orthogonal to this particular issue, though they are clearly related.
And the harm to Disney and Orange and Osceola counties is that they must transition all of the infrastructure and services that are operated by the RCID to the counties before the dissolution of the RCID on July 1, 2023. On or after July 1, 2023, Disney can petition the government to re-establish the special district. If approved, then Disney and the counties will have to transition the infrastructure and services back to the newly re-established RCID. The time, effort and cost of those two transitions will be born by Disney and the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers and will like run in the 10s to 100s of millions of dollars, with no business, legislative, or regulatory benefit for the expenditure.
Not being retaliated against government for political speech is, in the US, a right, whether or not the retaliation is via a thing that is itself or right.
This is super important, because most interactions with government are not things that are a matter of individual right outside the rights to not being singled out on an impermissible basis, so if you erase that last bit you enable widespread arbitrary government discrimination.
> I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant
Basically no one is defending that, they are defending substantive due process rights, which are what prevent government from making all other rights moot by how they allocate costs and benefits that are not themselves otherwise matters of Constitutional right.
Well, yes, nothing looks like retaliation when you ignore motivations. Motivations define retaliation.
Starting out with selectively ignoring the facts most relevant for assessing whether a thing fits into a particular category is a singularly bad way of assessing whether that is the case.
Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.
Even your argument upthread is that this is an adverse change that Disney deserves for other reasons than the actual motivation, not that it is not an adverse change.
Put it another way: Imagine a law that said white people get 10% off of every purchase. Now that law is repealed, and white people say: "I'm being harmed!" Are they?
Yes, so (independent of whether the status quo is just or not) the act is:
(1) harmful to Disney, and (2) motivated by Disney’s exercise of its first amendment rights.
> Considering the full context makes it not actual harm.
No, it doesn't. It makes it harmful in a way you believe is warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation.
But the fact that an adverse government action would be warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation does not make taking the same action in retaliation for exercise of Constitutional rights permissible.
Your white privilege example includes no impermissible motivation, and assumes an initial state that would not merely be undesirable policy, but bright line prohibited by the 14th Amendment.
While the Disney special district may be undesirable in some model of fairness, it is not unconstitutional, and the action to remove it does have an impermissible motivation. So the analogy fails on key points.
Obviously, yes, they are worse off after the change.
Yeah, I just don't get the “if I stab you, but you actually deserved it, you aren't actually harmed by it.”
Whether or not that's how you view harm, that's not the understanding of harm that is operative in law. Justification is a separate consideration from harm there, even if you conflate them together.
Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm, but thanks for totally misrepresenting my position as a last minute jab to an otherwise civil conversation.
So, now your position is that the rule that whether or not there is justification for an act which causes someone to be worse off than previously determines whether that change constitutes harm is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off, not generally?
Your concept of “harm” becomes less clear the more you say about it.
But it remains the case that it's not the usually definition of harm, or the one applicable to whether it is acceptable, under the Constitution, for government to act in a certain way in response to the exercises of Constitutionally-guaranteed free expression.
Yes. It's not a difficult concept. Children often get upset about rules that are enforced on them, and feel "worse off." Doesn't mean it's harm. Context matters. The world isn't binary.
Also, it's ok to just disagree, since it's clear we disagree on the definition of harm. No need to start constructing strawmen of my position.
Are you saying that losing the benefit of the special district doesn't actually make Disney worse off, and that they are just an immature corporate child lacking the maturity to understand the benefit Daddy DeSantis and Mommy Leg are giving them by taking away their Reedy Creek sucker?
Or is this a complete non-sequitur to distract from the fact that Disney would, in fact, be worse off after the change?
Sure. Slave-owners were also harmed when the slaves were freed. The fact that a harm is just does not make it not harm.
Put another way, would you really claim that someone put in prison for assaulting someone was not harmed? In most cases it's going to be pretty clear they were, yet it can still be just for the sake of protecting others.
>Put another way, would you really claim that someone put in prison for assaulting someone was not harmed?
How is that the same? In my example, I was removing an exclusive and special benefit. I don't see how putting someone in prison is removing an exclusive and special benefit, unless your view is that the default state is everyone should be imprisoned.
Well, let's actually try to apply your scenario and actually make it analogous to the Disney scenario for a moment. Imagine said law exists. Now imagine "Joe" speaks vocally against a law proposed by the "FiFi" party, which currently happens to hold the majority in the legislature and executive branch office. Now the "FiFi" party is suddenly pushing to remove the discount from "Joe" and no one else.
THAT is what's happening here. Disney is hardly the only business which has negotiated preferential treatment. Stadiums and factories are the two most common examples, but there are plenty of examples of States including Florida providing tax breaks and other special treatments to a variety of businesses. But now it seems you can only negotiate with them if you tow the party line. Disagree and any special treatment you've negotiated will be revoked, while everyone who stayed silent gets to keep theirs.
Now, is "Joe" harmed by losing his discount while everyone else gets to keep theirs? Can you really argue that the above isn't the government suppressing free speech?
Are you making the case that it's very common, and so it's not special nor unfair? I am very skeptical that more than %0.001 of businesses (1 in 100,000) benefit from these special government privileges. Especially if you consider all people, since corporations are legally people. It smells like crony capitalist corruption to me...far from normal, and very unfair to everyone else. Shouldn't be happening. Take it all away, I don't care what the motivation is, because to me, it's not harm to remove corruption.
Usually these will be around tax breaks but also special water rights, rights to self govern certain things, rights to use public land, exemptions from certain laws, etc. Usually the justification is that it benefits the local economy exactly the same as the justification for Disney's. Yet somehow here Disney is the only one being targeted. Apparently you are allowed to negotiate these things, but the government will renege on it's agreements if you later dare to speak against them.
If Florida was pushing to kill ALL of these arrangements it would be a non-issue (or rather a very different issue). Instead they are targeting only Disney, for daring to speak against their party line, in a clear attempt to silence their speech. No amount of trying to re-frame the issue changes that.
I agree, if Florida attempted to kill all of the special arrangements, it would definitely appear less biased to people (although impractical, it could still be purely political cover). If you're making the case that targeting Disney's special privileges vs the other company's special privileges is what makes it unfair, I could get behind that more than other arguments that I've seen. But my response to that would be to expand the removal of these privileges. Since that is far less likely to happen, I'm comfortable with using politically motivated reasons (of any side, I don't care who does it and why) to accomplish it.
I cannot begin to fathom this position. Your describing "you can negotiate special privileges if you have enough influence, but only if you never speak against me" as less corrupt than "you can negotiate special privileges if you have enough influence".
Retaliation is about the why, not the what. Retaliation is me doing B because of A.
def: Retaliation: The act of retaliating, or of returning like for like; retribution; now, specifically, the return of evil for evil
In this case, it's about Disney acting in a way that pols don't like. "But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state." - FL Rep Randy Fine
No, and you're twisting what you know retaliation to be, to pretend that is merely "cause and effect." That's very deceptive, because I think you know that it doesn't make much sense to say "He gave me a nice gift, so I retaliated with my own nice gift."
intransitive verb
to return like for like
especially: to get revenge
transitive verb to repay in kind retaliate an injury
Words have dictionary definitions, legal definitions, and connotations (note: the especially). Your usage above is consistent with both the dictionary and legal definitions of retaliate, but would be confusing to most English speakers because of the connotations.
The structure of the law reinforces the retaliatory nature of the legislation: the law goes into effect immediately and dissolves the 6 special districts a year from now. The 6 special districts may petition the government to re-establish their special districts after they have been dissolved. This places a massive and unique burden on Disney since Disney and the two counties that it's property spans (Orange and Osceola), must take on an enormous amount of work and expense, to transition infrastructure and services to the counties before the special district is dissolved on July 1, 2023. Then, if the government grants the petition to re-establish the RCID, the counties and Disney will have to unwind all that work to transition the infrastructure and services from the counties back to the RCID. That wasted transition work will cost both Disney and the two counties' taxpayers 10s or even 100s of millions of dollars, and will have served no rational legislative or business purpose.
If the goal of the bill was to simply to require the re-establishment of the 6 special districts that were not re-established since the update to the state constitution, then the bill should have allowed the special districts to petition for re-establishment any time starting now, before dissolution, rather than requiring the special districts to dissolve before they can petition for re-establishment.
And I bet that Disney's petition to re-establish the district will not be passed, if it is passed at all, at the same pace as the law to strip them of the special district rights in the first place. The SB-4C bill was submitted, passed with no debate in either House or Senate, and no public comment, and signed into law--including a change to the special session rules that allowed it to be considered and passed--all in the span of 96 hours. Most bills take weeks or months--not just 4 days--and go through substantial debate and public comment periods to get through that process.
Politicians have explicitly stated that they are punishing Disney for criticizing a law.
There is no gray area here.
Disney's "special rights" are not all that special or uncommon in Florida. There are 1844 active special districts in Florida, 76 of which have ad valorem taxation rights. Other theme parks in Florida, such as Sea World and Universal, also have special districts to manage their properties.
The definition of a special district enshrines into law specific rights for the owner(s) of the special district, meaning that those are, in fact, rights, not just privileges to be withdrawn at a whim. And Florida specifically pledged to honor those rights both by writing the law that established the RCID, and further committing to not dissolve the district unless all bond debts were paid--the separate law that is referenced in the original article.
I would encourage you to read through the Florida Special District web page: https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s...
If you want to argue against special districts existing at all, that's fair. But to argue that Disney shouldn't have one, but the rest of the special districts, including those of Disney's competitors, are acceptable is not a good-faith argument.
I can both dislike Disney and believe this move was unconstitutional at the same time.
It is strange that the entirely of "the left" takes the blame for private actions taken by business, which is then used as some strange "well they started it" reaction by Republican lawmakers to do a much more egregious version of exactly what they repeatedly claim they are against.
An honest call for freedom of speech would defend it against all censorship, public and private.
Indeed, between the two, I find censorship by private "oligarchs" more threatening. Public officials come and go, but the oligarchs remain.
(Edit in response to Volundr: We're not talking about small magazines about Harleys here. Someone who has billions of users and power that rivals governments and changes the outcome of elections must be prevented from abusing that power.)
Edit in response to below: The courts will enforce the law without any input from us. We can only wait and see what they do, if anything. So I'm not discussing that, I'm discussing the hypocrisy in advocating for the principle only when it suits you.
Second edit: It's possible that people simply have different interpretations of the principle, but if that was the case, I'd expect to see a lot more objections to schools that force mandatory ideology on their students, failing them if they disagree; more objections to Canada and European countries when they punish people for their expression; and fewer concerns about Musk taking over Twitter.
What I see instead is people who only call for free speech to defend speech they agree with. Which, as I said before, isn't free speech at all.
Maybe the difference is that not everyone agrees with your expansive definition of the principle of free speech. So what appears to you as advocating for the principle only when it suits your opponents, is simply that not everyone agrees with your particular take on the principle itself.
Its fairly easy to support the interpretation of free speech where the state cannot use its expansive power to punish people for their expression. A forceful (via law) application of this principle to private entities would impact their rights in other ways (such as free association) so it isn't surprising that fewer people agree with this more extreme version of the principle.
Only, you're the one who has defined "the principle" in your own terms. I prefer to read "the Constitution." The position that I defend is the one backed by the Constitution. You can portray that as flip-flopping every time I go from defending a company's right to curate content that it broadcasts to attacking government attempts to enforce religious beliefs through censorship and legislative retaliation to speech, but my position is unwavering.
I cannot disagree with this statement more. What speech you choose to publish and not is a vital part of free speech. If I publish a motorcycle newsletter, and choose to publish a letter to the editor about why Harley's are great, and don't publish another about why Harley's suck that is part of my protected speech. It arguably makes my magazine worse, but that's for my readers to decide. Perhaps they are tired of reading endless articles ragging on Harley's and are pleased to have a publication where they can escape it.
What I do think is that this is the first major case of a fascist pushing the limits of the first amendment. The revocation of the special status was explicitly a direct consequence of Disney's protected speech.
I also believe that corporations should not govern. I would support revoking this district for basically any other reason. But that this targeted punishment due to the content of speech is undeniable, both because of desantis' statements and because The Villages, another special district that is very conservative did not have its status revoked.
If you talk to literal fascists they don't like corporate personhood either.
That's the legal notion that corporations have the same rights as real people, but the special district would still be objectionable if a real person had been allowed to set up their own private local government.
Free speech
Free press
Freedom of association
Freedom of religion
Non-establishment of religion
If a state had such a law would be pretty clearly unconstitutional ab initio.
> If it was being repealed for some politically motivated reason, and white people said "I am being harmed!" would you agree with them?
Assuming the law not only existed on the books but was enforced by the state prior to the repeal, yes, they would obviously be being harmed for an unconstitutional purpose in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
(If any remedy was available, it wouldn't involve preserving the policy, because that policy is a violation of other people's Constitutional rights, but since we haven't been discussing remedies in the Florida case and no one has argued that the special district exceeds Florida’s Constitutional power, that aspect of the hypothetical is not relevant to the discussion.)
I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, but, you are not currently making a good argument to defend it.
The smoking gun would be a leaked text from De Santis saying "We'll get the woke bastards. We'll take away their special district." But I don't think any evidence has emerged yet showing that was indeed his motivation.
Having said that, it was voted through by Florida lawmakers; it would only take a handful of loudmouth politicians saying to camera "See? We're winning the war on woke at Disney!" for a plausible case to start emerging.
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/15172454664...
However, even ignoring that, your premise is still fundamentally flawed: Every citizen has rights afforded to them via the first amendment to representation and to redress the government for grievances, regardless of how much they pay in taxes. And corporations have some status as a person, so they share those same rights.
I agree that corporations sometimes don't pay their fair share of taxes. However, that does not seem to be the case with Disney, at least in this particular instance. And it's actually a bad-faith deflection from the real issue of the violation of Disney's first amendment rights against government retaliation for voicing opposition to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill (now law).
Special priviledges are hardly limited to Disney.
Because 1844 other special districts exist in Florida, including Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, HOAs, fire districts, water districts, law libraries, development holdings, etc. So Disney does not have rights that nobody else has, and those rights exist to allow those entities to have control over their property to avoid unnecessary, costly, and unproductive conflicts with county rules.
This part isn't necessarily guaranteed. Over in California, Disneyland frequently has trouble with Anaheim/Orange County when seeking approval for new projects. They've had entire hotels and parking structures designed, publicly announced, and then canceled because the local government wouldn't play ball.
The only thing that guarantees Disney's continued ability to build whatever in Florida is if they continue to be their own local government.
It's sophomoric and clownish of people to assert constitutionality upon an issue such as this one. It's unconstitutional all the way down.
Is it? What provision(s) of the constitution does it violate?
I really am amused by the power of being able to have lawyers that understand the law better than the people that wrote or passed the law. I think Disney has that power. Its not that they necessarily understand it better although that can be a factor, its that they can warp realities with unrelated variables to create their desired reality.
Again they do? With a quick search I can't find any statement made by either the legislature or the administration that the arrangement is unconstitutional. Yes, they are attempting to repeal it, but simply repealing it doesn't imply unconstitutionality. In fact I think we can safely infer that they don't given that there is no attempt to revoke similar arrangements with stadiums and other such situations in which private businesses get a variety of advantages not available to the average business or taxpayer.
You are going to need to provide a citation to back up the assertion that Disney is somehow tax exempt. Disney receives no special tax exemptions resulting from the RCID, that I am aware of. Disney paid over $780 million in local, county and state taxes in FY 2021. And Florida law does not allow counties to charge it's residents different property taxes. That is why the residents of Orange and Osceola counties are facing a 20% property tax increase if the RCID is dissolved: the counties cannot simply charge Disney a higher tax rate than the rest of the county property owners.
> If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.
Free speech, as defined in the first amendment, is a right afforded to all citizens of the United states. That right is not predicated on paying anyone anything. That's why it's a right. It's not transactional: a homeless person has the same first amendment rights that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have. Corporations, like Disney, have protections under the first amendment due to "personhood" enshrined in "Citizens United" and other laws.
Your arguments fly in the face of the first amendment's core precept--that the right of free speech is not a privilege only afforded monied landowners or government. It is an inherent right of every citizen to freely criticize government without fear of retribution and to seek redress from government harm, regardless of financial status.
Don’t states have pretty broad sway in how they manage their municipalities? It’s not like this is the first time a company owned a company town
edit: also it seems like they mostly took over local governance - fire, sewer, cops, trash, etc. I haven’t read anything about them not being subject to the state laws of Florida
Disney owns the land that RCID operates. It's not public lands and most, if not all of it, was bought from private landowners during the '60s. The term "public lands" refers to government-owned property. Sometimes public lands are loaned, licensed, or leased to private entities (e.g., for logging, oil-drilling, public services like gas stations, etc.) but that's not the case here.
> taking over all local and state governance for itself is also rather unconstitutional.
Florida has specific legislation allowing entities to take on portions of local, county and state governance as part of it's Special District laws. 1844 entities have been granted these rights, including Disney. See https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s...
> In essence, the state had a contractual obligation not to interfere with the district until the bond debt is paid off
If it was written into the contract, yes, and maybe the state can't just break the contract willy-nilly. If, however, the bond matter was written into the law that made these special districts possible rather than into the contract, then no, it's not part of the contract, and no legislature can be bound by statutes passed by past legislatures.
[1]: SB-4C text: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022C/4C/BillText/er/P...
[2]: 189.072(2) text: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20St...
The former says:
> (2) Notwithstanding s. 189.072(2), any independent special23 district established by a special act prior to the date of24 ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968,25 and which was not reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise26 reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5,27 1968, is dissolved effective June 1, 2023.
I.e., the legislature in 2022 does not feel bound by the legislature in 2021, and just to be sure they came up with a specific constitutional rationale for that beyond the traditional one.
It also says that the Reedy Creek district can re-apply to become an independent district again.
In any case, SB-4C doesn't address the bond issue at all, and it doesn't say that 189.072 doesn't apply as to bonds.
189.072 says, about bonds:
> (4) DEBTS AND ASSETS.—Financial allocations of the assets and indebtedness of a dissolved independent special district shall be pursuant to s. 189.076.
and 189.076 says:
> (2) Unless otherwise provided by law or ordinance, the dissolution of a special district government shall transfer the title to all property owned by the preexisting special district government to the local general-purpose government, which shall also assume all indebtedness of the preexisting special district.
So I assume that continuity will be provided: the financial obligations of the special district will become the financial obligations of the two counties spanned by Disney's special district.
That doesn't seem in the least mysterious. I'm sure there will be court cases, but ISTM that the text in question is pretty straightforward.
Now DeSantis has to throw a wrench into all this because of his presidential aspirations. I'm (thankfully) not a resident of the state, but the prospect of long term economic loss over the ambitions of one man would make me furious.
OTOH, watching the video, this politician is total disingenuous slime, I'm a bit angry just listening to him, and I'm not from Miami, or even America.
This is the tough thing about subsidies. Orange County's population has grown 10x since 1950, which has been a huge boon to Florida (from a tax base perspective, from a representation in Federal government perspective, etc.).
You could argue that the subsidy is now too 'sweetheart' of a deal since Disney can't exactly move the park, but isn't that the literal opposite of the Republican economic platform?
Maybe so.
But this wasnt a re-negotiation. This was payback for Disney pausing donations to Republican politicians.
Disney is not exempt from paying taxes for services in the way people think it's exempt. It's not paying zero. On the contrary, it's reportedly currently taxing itself 3x the maximum tax rate the city or county is allowed to tax.
So it's in the statute, not any contract?
State statutes are not contracts.
Nor can one legislature session bind a future one through statute.
ref: https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/th...
I'm sure there will be interesting court cases out of this.
That is, whether cancelling the special district interferes with the extant bonds will be an interesting question for the courts, but if Disney can pay... And anyways, the legislature could always make it so the counties inherit the bonds (and the 3x tax power until they're paid off, maybe), so it seems unlikely that the legislature can do nothing here.
I bet a lot of people would want to immigrate to the Great State of Disney. Orderly management and mandatory morning sing alongs would probably be a great comfort.
It might, but Disney becomes a taxpayer as well and the county/state would not necessarily be under an obligation to maintain the roads and property to the same level that Disney presently does. This presents a huge challenge to Disney, because they need the property to be maintained at this level and need to have the flexibility that the special district affords them. Can you imagine the regular government permitting required to do what they do? Right now if they need to fill in a wetland area to build a hotel—no one outside of Disney need be involved in the yes or no of that decision.
Whether or not it’s legal will be for the courts to decide…however, should it stick, make no mistake…this hurts Disney far more than it hurts the local tax payers. If it didn’t Disney would have ended this special deal long ago.
Large city massive: Disney's property in Florida is roughly the same size as the city of San Francisco, though the vast majority of it is undeveloped.
> The government can take the district back but now they are on the hook for providing services
Yes, but there is no requirement that they continue to provide services at the same level of quality that the special district provides. The Disney experience will suffer (and tourism and tax revenue will fall) if the counties cannot provide services that are consistent across the two different counties, and consistent with Disney's current level of service.
Anyone saying anything with any sort of certainty is not to be taken seriously.
There is no way that the counties will be able to maintain the same level of service to Disney if they take over all the services. They don't have the money, the will, or the culture to do so, nor should they (probably).
A couple of hypothetical examples:
* What if one county is dry, but not the other? Does Disney allow purchase/consumption of alcohol on one side of the park, but not the other?
* What if the response time of EMS was significantly different between the two counties (meaning outcomes on one side of the park were far better than the other side)?
* What if the roads on one side are well maintained, but the other side is filled with cracks and potholes (like most city streets), so your initial perception of the park depended on which county you ended up entering the park from?
* What if Disney wants to open a new attraction, but they can't get commitment from the counties to provide the additional power and zoning for it?
How would those things affect your opinion of the park as a guest?
Fair point, but unrelated to the question about taxation.
* What if the response time of EMS was significantly different between the two counties (meaning outcomes on one side of the park were far better than the other side)?
OK but why tax themselves to fund a public EMS service instead of just contracting a private ambulance company?
* What if the roads on one side are well maintained, but the other side is filled with cracks and potholes (like most city streets), so your initial perception of the park depended on which county you ended up entering the park from?
Why tax yourself to fund public roads that only you use? Just build private roads on your own property with your own money.
* What if Disney wants to open a new attraction, but they can't get commitment from the counties to provide the additional power and zoning for it?
Again, why tax yourself to build public power infrastructure that only you use? Why not build it yourself out of your own money?
It has been commonly referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, rather than the official name of "Parental Rights in Education" bill in a wide variety of forums, which I'm sure you are aware of. Don't be willfully obtuse.
Disney's special district status is not unique. More than 1800 entities ranging from theme parks, HOAs, libraries, energy district, etc., all have similar rights. Take some time to read this: https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s...
Disney is far less of "unique snowflake" than the outspoken FL Republicans would like you to believe.
Second, I don't think it was retribution for going against the Parental Rights bill. The opposition to the bill (and the arrest of some Disney employees involved with human trafficking) is the catalyst that brought Disney's special privileges to the forefront. It is not the reason they are losing the privileges. There would have been calls to remove the special privileges regardless of Disney's opposition to the bill.
Those counties can raise their taxes on the land Disney inhabits in order to recoup those "losses".
"The current tax rate is three times higher than the maximum amount allowed by cities and counties"
The state of Florida is dissolving, unilaterally, and without taking any public comment from Disney, the county, the county residents, or the rest of the state, the very vehicle that would allow what you are talking about.
They don’t have to provide upkeep/services/etc to the same level that Disney currently does. Drive around the greater Osceola/Kissimmee area and ask yourself “Is Disney going to be ok with their roads and common spaces in this condition?” Pretty sure the answer there is “no” and Disney will still maintain the roads to their standard and this will ease the burden on the counties…and pay taxes to boot. Disney has a golden goose that they have paid a whole lot of money for over the last 50 years to shit golden eggs, they aren’t going to slaughter the goose just because the price of goose feed goes up.
I find it most humorous that the ones calling it retribution would generally support this measure if it had been forced on, say, Koch Industries in a red district of a purple state.
Some of us are ok with pointing out issues regardless of "whose side" is involved. It would be nice if there were more of us like that.
edit: @stuxnet I can't reply to your reply so I'll amend here:
I'm not a Disney fan either but that's not the concern being addressed -- it's the "reasoning" behind it and the fact that it fits into a pattern of harassments and intimidation of all who do not support them.
Punishing others as political theater is dangerous territory and it only seems to be accelerating. Public officials/applicants are advocating for death to all who oppose them. If that doesn't bother you because you're on the right team then I encourage you to revisit that and examine how that might not be good for society.
The point I was trying to make is that regardless of the recent motivations, the end result is that a mega corporation is stripped of privileges that they shouldn't have had in the first place. I would support that in this case and also the other fictional case I presented with Koch Industries.
So I guess the point of contention is in the motivation, but that doesn't matter to me as long as the end result is the same.
I think debating whether special districts should be allowed at all would be a good discussion to have, but it is completely separate from whether what the government did in passing SB-4C is a violation of Disney's (and possibly the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers') first amendment rights.
Sure. But rolling back those privileges within an act of overt political revenge - that insures it becomes yet another expensive, taxpayer funded bench-slap.
Two of FL's legal money-drains - see FL mention: https://www.project-disco.org/competition/033122-despite-war...
and there's this: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commen...
To restate my position - I don't believe that Disney (or any other corporation) should ever have the ability to levy taxes in their own special district as that is explicitly a function of government.
Instances of political revenge, especially in this day and age, are not rare or limited to one side of the political spectrum. I oppose any attempts to target groups of non-affiliated people (by race, sexual orientation, etc), but can't be too upset when the casualty is a mega corp like Disney.
You realize that is a very slippery slope, right? The first amendment confers free speech as a right regardless of your financial status. If you start to erode that right, and say "if you are 'rich' it's OK if your rights are trampled," then the subjective definition of "rich" will just be adjusted to match the person currently in the crosshairs, until one day, the person in the crosshairs is you.
Most people had no clue Disney had special privileges. Due to the extra eyes on Disney because of their opposition to the Parental Rights in Education bill and the arrest of some Disney employees on human trafficking charges people learned about the special privileges. Once people learned about the special privileges the lawmakers decided to remove them due to the public support of doing it. Doing what the people want is what politicians are supposed to do.
I think there would have been calls to remove the special privileges regardless of Disney's opposition to the bill.
It's retribution.
Desantis’ lap dog Rep. Randy Fine says that Disney must be punished for not behaving property. "It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state.
But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state."
ref: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/22/florida-republican-govt-...
Like I said, the bill was the catalyst of this, but not really the reason.
Not precisely. They clarified Disney's misbehavior was having "CA Values" in FL.
It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state.
This and other "We're going after Disney" statements were made days/hours after Disney voiced it's objections to the Don't Say Gay bill. The legislators' messaging is fairly unambiguous here.
The implication that dissolving RCIC was already destined to happen at this time, that seems disingenuous given that the Governor's staff had - only last year - carved out Disney from FL's unconstitutional SM law.
I don't believe it would have happened at this time if Disney had not opposed the Parental Rights bill. Like I said above I believe it opened the opportunity up to do it. If Disney hadn't opposed this bill the next time they did something unpopular with the average Floridian they would have lost their special privileges.
I think there is a long list of things that Disney has been supporting for years that the average Floridian opposes and considers CA values. I think promoting trans kids and putting warnings on old movies are good examples.
I think the politicians who gave Disney an exception wanted to use Disney, but I don't think they actually supported Disney. Disney's support for various woke thing was widely known by conservatives. I doubt those involved with the exception supported Disney back then. They just didn't have the opportunity to implement what they wanted.
I had too search for it. I found a PSA that I think you might be referring to: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/06/disney-networks-among-outlet...
Do you take issue with its contents?
Except that it wasn't "removing special privileges" from anyone but Disney:
* What about the special privileges that 1800+ other entities have under Florida's special district laws? Why are they not also being discussed for dissolution?
* Why was the bill introduced, passed with no debate in either house, and signed into law in a 4 day period and in a special session that was not even called for the purpose of debating special districts (it was amended by DeSantis to specifically allow this bill to be passed)?
* Why is the bill structured to force Disney to transition all of the RCID infrastructure and services to Orange and Osceola counties before dissolution on July 1, 2023, but Disney cannot petition for the special district to be re-established until on or after July 1, 2023? That provision means Disney has to transfer all infrastructure/services to the county, petition the government to re-establish the special district, then transition all the infrastructure/services back to the RCID if the petition is granted. All the costs of that mandated, obviously useless double-transition, will be borne by both Disney and the counties taxpayers, and will likely be in 10s-100s of millions of dollars, each.
PS: Yes, the final bill SB-4C dissolves a total of six special districts, mostly to obscure the fact that this was specifically targeting Disney, but none of the other five will suffer even a tiny fraction of the same financial or ongoing business impacts that Disney and Orange and Osceola counties and their taxpayers will.
What happens if the Florida legislature flipped Blue next election, and started passing legislation against right-leaning entities for "misbehaving" by voicing opposition to more liberal social policies?
What happens if the legislature decides to use eminent domain to repossess your house because they disagree with a Tweet you made?
Hopefully, you can see how these actions are pernicious attacks on the first amendment.
* Disney's status as an "independent special district" in Florida. (Note that there are 1800+ active special districts in Florida, so Disney's not unique in that regard.)
* The government's retaliatory actions in SB-4C that the government has said pretty explicitly are due to Disney's public opposition to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill (see https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/15172454664...), which is in direct violation of the first amendment.
These should be argued separately because they each deal with very different matters of law, governance, policy, etc.