DeSantis reportedly wants to bring Disney's Reedy Creek under state control

No one is more "pro business" than the GOP, right? More power and outrage instead of progress or policy. The thing is, it's not clear that he can actually do anything that he's talking about, which is par for the course. The courts have shot him down over and over again. There's no law that says he can just arbitrarily appoint people to Reedy Creek. It's not even clear that last summer's law can alter the district.

I still don’t see how this is (Florida’s) constitutional. It specifically states that special districts must be run by the landowners consent and any new special district requires the approval of all the landowners.

Welp. "There's a New Sheriff in Town"

The takeway:

"Florida lawmakers voted Thursday to give Gov. Ron DeSantis new power over the state’s most iconic theme parks amid his ongoing feud with Disney.

Under a fast-tracked bill that could be headed to the Republican governor’s desk by the end of the week, the state would take over the Reedy Creek Improvement District, the 55-year-old government body that has effectively given Disney control over the land around its Orlando-area theme parks. The district’s existing board, made up of individuals with close ties to Disney, would be replaced by a five-member board hand-picked by DeSantis."

Pretty sure this is going to end up in the courts and, like most things DeSantis does, eventually fail long after he scored points with his base. One of the legal opinions I read recently said this still likely runs afoul of the state constitution. The legislature could in fact dissolve it, maybe, but of course the tax consequences for Orange and Osceola Counties would be devastating. But then there's the issue that the statutes say that the state can't interfere with the guarantee of municipal bonds, which they would certainly do. So now they want to transfer control, but apparently that constitutionally requires approval of the district itself. And this isn't even getting into the issue of it being declared by politicians as retribution for Disney exercising its First Amendment right to free speech.

I'm pretty skeptical that anything will change in the end.

When DeSantis first went after Disney it was in the midterm campaign season. I had figured that once the election was over, all the hubbub over Reedy Creek would be too. It looks like I was wrong.

Well now he's prepping for a run at the presidency.

I had figured that once the election was over, all the hubbub over Reedy Creek would be too.

DeSantis/Legislature couldn't do nothing because Reedy Creek will be dissolved on June 1, 2023 unless they do something. Without something to replace it, there would be a whole host of issues (including what happens to the district's debt). From what I have seen, the district won't be dissolved under the new law. Its name and how its board is appointed will change. That presumably addresses the issue that Fitch raised with respect to credit rating of district's debt obligations.

From what I understand, Reedy Creek is a creature of the Florida legislature. As such, the legislature has authority to make changes to it. Courts may/likely will have to decide how much the legislature can change and for what reasons.

^ Correct. There is no attempt to dissolve it, just to rename it and give the governor the power to appoint whomever he pleases.

Without going into too much detail, what's the "worst that could happen" from a Disney standpoint since it isn't being dissolved?

I'm sure to some extent the mouse was prepared for this.

I assume there's a thought that he'll be able to control Disney's stance on social and political issues. That's unlikely, so what can his hand selected board really do? They're not going to shut down the fire department or stop maintaining the roads. They could keep them from borrowing money for future projects, but isn't Disney essentially paying off that debt by taxing their own business? Like it's been said before: this is all a product of the Republican party, the party of small government.

Whomever runs the district has a fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers regardless, and the only taxpayer is Disney. If they need to issue bonds to build a road, there's no reason for them to say no.

Without going into too much detail, what's the "worst that could happen" from a Disney standpoint since it isn't being dissolved?

Disney operates under different regulatory regimes across the world. If they are looking to move forward with the same project in each of their parks, they would need to go through a different (and in some ways very different) process at each of the parks. And because to a large extent they are political in nature, those regulatory environments are subject to changing from time to time. Disney (like other entities operating around the world) understand that and need to adapt their approach to the particular regulatory regime.

How much will change with a different board for the district remains to be seen. Doubt it will be significant given the importance of the parks to Florida's economy. In the end, may well be more political than substantive. Alert the media. Maybe the bots will post some articles about the shocking politicians acting politically. LOL

They're not going to shut down the fire department or stop maintaining the roads.

Statements I have seen from members of the firefighters' union are in favor of the change. Though the union has had an ongoing feud with the district.

Jeff:

Whomever runs the district has a fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers regardless, and the only taxpayer is Disney. If they need to issue bonds to build a road, there's no reason for them to say no.

You made the point I was trying to make much more clear. This is purely about DeSantis creating the perception that he's lording over Disney and the fact that it's largely BS doesn't matter to his supporters.

Let's say the change to Splash Mountain had not been thought of until after this board is put into place. Would the board have the ability to veto the proposed change? Or is their reach not that far?

No, the district has nothing to do with that. The whole arrangement benefits Disney in two ways. One, they get to control "their" land without having to be taxed on it. The roads are owned by the district, the government, and so the county doesn't assess tax on it. Two, the district builds whatever roads and infrastructure Disney needs, and Disney pays the "tax" to build it. The money I assume comes mostly from municipal bonds, which is a cheaper way to finance than if it were a private entity.

Beyond that, I think they approve building plans, as any local authority would, but again, since Disney can fund it to whatever level makes that fast and efficient, they do. But a building authority can't arbitrarily disapprove of something that the land is zoned for, because they'll get sued and lose. (This is something angry people showing up at city hall don't understand about things they don't want built in their neighborhood, by the way.)

Thanks Jeff for the nice explanation.

Another article from the NYT. Its take is basically that this is mostly a nuisance, but not getting fast approval for things could be an expensive problem.

I'm not sure when exactly the Republicans abandoned being pro-business and small government. This guy is hostile toward the state's largest employer, he's put government in your pants and in classrooms, in public health, and has attempted to weaponize government to anyone that rage addicts don't like. That's fascism, not governing, and a far cry from the Reagan years.

bigboy:

You made the point I was trying to make much more clear. This is purely about DeSantis creating the perception that he's lording over Disney and the fact that it's largely BS doesn't matter to his supporters.

I really despise that these things are calculated and designed for a base that they know won't research or question it. The whole CRT boogyman is sort of adjacent to this and equally ridiculous.

“Owning woke libs” is all the platform a succesful candidate needs.

People confuse "woke" with "basic human respect."