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

I was watching the news the other day about a city recognizing their city manager for 20 years of service. And I thought wow, I just read about that on Coasterbuzz. Then he got fired, later in the meeting.

It's pretty obvious that was orchestrated. In Florida that would be hard to do (assuming elected officials understand and abide by the Sunshine Laws) as elected officials are not supposed to discuss any items of City business that may come before them outside of a publicly noticed meeting.

I saw an article today saying that DeSantis signed this into law today.

Given the comments to the article it sounds like he just got a lifetime term as governor with the only escape claus being that he gets elected to President.

It would be really interesting if a Democrat ever got elected to that office. They could have some fun with all of the power that the state is picking up.

But small government pro-business, right?

As I said, it doesn't matter who is on the board, they still have a fiduciary obligation to their one taxpayer. This "woke company is getting away with nefarious things" narrative is pretty dumb. And dumb people are eating it up.

There's a local uber-conservative talk-radio station that I sometimes tune into just to listen to the crazy. All the chatter this afternoon was about how DeSantis has "crippled Disney's power" and "finally brought down the mouse!". I wanted to direct them all to Coasterbuzz...because of course we've covered this.

Those listeners could come here and be told the Reedy Creek legislation ranges from unconstitutional with possible devastating consequences to a nuisance for Disney to no change at all. And presumably several places in between. And be told they are pandered to by a certain group of politicians and are too lazy and dumb to even know it. Often by people who are pandered to by a different group of politicians and don't even realize it or care (because its coming from their team after all). And some of whom are totally against the RC law (unconstitutional, devastating, etc) but think it would be fun to have the other team's leaders exercising the same powers. Seems like it would be a productive dialogue, right?

To be fair, I'm not sure Disney should have been given those special powers to begin with. But, had they not been I don't think Orlando, or Florida in general, would be what it is today. So, perhaps I could get behind the general idea of righting this overreach from 50 years ago.

But, when you look at who he appointed. Three conservative lawyers (all major donors), one of the founders of Mom's for Liberty, and a founder of a a conservative ministry called "The Gathering". It is hard not to draw some quick conclusions.

He did the same thing appointing a board to New College of Florida, and doubled the president's salary. It's pretty weird that he's not even trying to hide any appearance of quid pro quo or nepotism. It's worse that there's no one holding him accountable.

I'd argue that what he did at New College is far more damaging than what he did to Disney. And, it has far graver implications.

Is there any pretense for these moves beyond "owning woke libs?" Like, is there at least some lip service to some economic, social, or regulatory issue?

I think there could be. The legislation creating RCID was drafted by Disney's people, and more or less adopted without editing by the legislature, so there are probably some reasons you could find. For example, allowing Disney to create infrastructure that is more or less "private" to WDW by floating tax-free bonds is essentially giving them a discount on their financing. That's possibly coming at a cost to other municipal projects in the state who might have made use of tax-free bonds, because I think the total bond volume was capped in at least some of those years. (This is dim memory from reading Married to the Mouse years ago, but I can go dig it up if people insist on sources.)

But, when you look at who he appointed. Three conservative lawyers (all major donors), one of the founders of Mom's for Liberty, and a founder of a a conservative ministry called "The Gathering".

You expected him to appoint liberals who gave money to Gillum? Some atheists too? I expect politicians to appoint people who share world/political views. Will include friends and supporters. And those who can give the politician political advantages. To the victor goes the spoils as they say.

Tax-free municipal debt is less expensive (all other things being equal) than taxable debt. And even without an express cap (not saying there isn't/can't be one in Florida; just don't know), there are practical limits in terms of demand. Investment bankers typically tell issuers before launch what other known offerings are in the pipeline. Less competition is better for issuers. Could be crowded out of market if too many competing issuances or need to increase yield/interest rates.

Though ultimately, I don't think there is anything in the new Reedy Creek legislation which changes that. Disney still can issue municipal debt to pay for projects.

GoBucks89:

You expected him to appoint liberals who gave money to Gillum? Some atheists too? I expect politicians to appoint people who share world/political views.

No, I expected him to do exactly what he did.

I hoped he might appoint some people who have, well, some experience in something relative to what it is they are about the embark on. Perhaps people with at least a little background in planning, transportation, land use, environmental issues, etc. Disney has all of those people, of course, but at least that would give this Board a fighting chance to have enough education to question, challenge or support that which Disney plans on doing going forward.

No reason to have education/experience in such matters. I assume their sole purpose is to reject anything that Disney proposes.

But again, that's just it... they can't. Planning authorities can't block legal projects, because they'll be sued and lose. It's municipal government 101. And I can assure you RCID has no legal budget for something like that, even to do so out of spite.

I see DeSantis somehow finding a way to gum up the works. I don't see him rolling over that easy. I would think that if it comes to light that his hand-picked Disney Busters end up approving everything, his followers could start to question things.

Or maybe I am putting too much faith in the idea that his followers can be swayed.

He already won: Disney can't build a nuclear power plant. :)

We are talking political victories. They don't need to be real or substantive. Or major/material. No need for causation. To people who are already leaning (at a minimum) towards your camp. Bar is incredibly low for political victories.

Remember that he tried to squash mask mandates in schools, lost. Prevent the cruise industry from requiring tests and vaccinations, lost. He had his "anti-riot" law after the George Floyd protests, lost hard on obvious First Amendment grounds. The education "stop woke" nonsense, lost, but he's still in appeals. His crusade to beat down and restrict social media companies was struck down by two federal courts. But none of it matters... his base never sees the followups in court, and so what as long as he's "fighting for regular Americans."

"Fighting for regular Americans" but typically he's fighting against what the traditional or typical (pre-MAGA) conservative policy position would be (limited government, pro-business, pro-first amendment, etc.) And his "Republican" followers either too intellectually dishonest or bankrupt to know/care of the difference.

Figured this was appropriate for the discussion…

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/desantis-promises-florida-will-control-disney-content.html