Reedy Creek replacement board says it's relegated to "maintaining roads and infrastructure"

The butt hurt of the board is fantastic. More from NYT, which talks about the background of the board, including the "water can make you gay" guy, and the fact that they seemed to think that they could somehow influence Disney content.

I think my favorite member is the wife of Florida’s Republican Party chairman. Bridget Ziegler is co-founder of Moms For Liberty which by my estimation only seeks to restrict freedoms. She states the new board won’t stand for this and won’t back down.
I wonder (at 795.00/hour) how fast those legal fees will pile up.

Attorneys fees will add up quickly. On Disney's dime essentially.

https://www.documentcloud.o...-ag-letter

Until they personally sue the Board members for failing to act in the public interest of their constituents.

You Floridians make me laugh, not only did your state elect this clown, but now your tax dollars are in some form going towards fighting one of the top revenue generating entities in your own backyard.

Stupidity abound in that state for sure. But if there is anything to learn from this it is that corporations run the government, federally, locally, wherever. Too bad Ron missed that lesson.

Board members likely have indemnity rights from entity formerly known as Reedy Creek and may have D&O coverage.

Yes, we have to trade great weather for a big box of stupid. That's not lost on me. If you think this is bad, look up the stories about New College of Florida. I'm pretty sure something illegal is going on there, they just haven't been caught yet.

Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes governs ethics, training requirements and ethics enforcement, and it's a pretty convoluted matrix of rules depending on what you do and where as an elected or appointed official. Financial disclosures apply to everyone though, and I think an enterprising journalist could probably find some conflicts with these cats. They probably have little to no civil penalty exposure personally though, so they'd have to be caught doing something wrong or neglecting their fiduciary duties.

Add this to the long, long list of TheMillenniumRider posts that I was largely in agreement with until the swerve at the end. You've still got it, buddy.

A corporation defending itself with clever legal moves against an arbitrary, retaliatory, politically motivated attack is not evidence that corporations run the government (a position I'm generally in agreement with).

So ... if Disney sues the Reedy Creek board, and the individuals on the board are indemnified (as they probably are), but Reedy Creek is held liable, who pays the judgment on behalf of Reedy Creek? Would Disney basically be suing itself?

(There would obviously be other potential benefits to a suit, particularly clarifying what the board can and cannot do.)

I'm not sure how things will play out precisely. But history has shown that Disney is not afraid of a bare-knuckle legal fight if they think they are right, and they can be tenacious about it.

It's also interesting to wonder where the money for the current Board's legal fees will come from. Does the Board have unilateral authority to raise taxes in the District, or must that be put to a vote of the "residents"? If the latter, the Board is going to be on a very short leash--because I'd hate to be the person who has to defend against a claim of mis-managed funds if, for example, the legal action makes a dent in the District's ability to, say, pay for fire and rescue.

ApolloAndy:

Add this to the long, long list of TheMillenniumRider posts that I was largely in agreement with until the swerve at the end. You've still got it, buddy.

Hey, what can i say, I aim to please and maintain consistency in doing so.

For some context, I didn’t mean that Disney shouldn’t be exercising muscle against these idiots, but that they appear to have the ability to steamroll over them as needed, which seems to be the case with many companies and our governmental entities. Be it through fully legal channels, or more backdoor ones.

Not sure what the district's finances look like or what governing docs provide. But there may be some discretion for the board in terms of what gets paid if there are not enough funds to cover all expenses. Different ways to prioritize. Could try to minimize negative impacts/disruptions. Could do the opposite and seek to cause some disruption to incentivize more revenue. Cities/towns often take the latter approach with funding issues by cutting police/fire rather than administrative expenses no one would miss. Schools often do the same thing: cut whatever will most impact students/parents (busing, sports/student activities popular targets) with no negative impacts on admin/teacher/staff side. Again, don't know enough to know how much ability there is to do that here.

Both sides should understand their rights/powers as they move forward. Confident Disney does. Particularly based on their moves right before the new board took over (expect those were in the works since the dissolution/takeover were first announced). Rule Against Perpetuities provision took me back to first year law school. From several statements that DeSantis and the new board members have made, seems like they think they were put on Disney's board rather than Reedy Creek's board.

Jeff:

There was a NYT article about Michigan politics today where some DNC party official said the same thing. It gives me some hope, not that I want the nation to go all Democrat necessarily, but more that the MAGA faction is relegated to obscurity.

Anecdotal but my life long 80 something dad who has been a life long Republican voted Democrat for the first time in his life last year. He doesn't like Trump but would hold his nose and vote for him, now he's tired of the cult republicans and what they're doing to the party.

The DeSantis butt hurt is delicious, as he's calling for an investigation of the things that happened in the open that he and his cronies never bothered to pay attention to.

Meanwhile, Iger (same article) made the case that what DeSantis is doing is obviously anti-business and anti-free speech.

This is my favorite part.

Notice of a hearing on Disney’s action was made in The Orlando Sentinel on Jan. 18, according to tax district disclosures. The matter was discussed at a short public meeting on Jan. 25. After a second notice in The Sentinel on Jan. 27, it was approved at a second public meeting on Feb. 8.

Mr. DeSantis named five appointees to the oversight board on Feb. 27. Three are lawyers who have donated campaign money to Mr. DeSantis.

I'm curious, did this raise any eyebrows in Florida? This just reeks of pay to play.

The entire process should have raised more eyebrows, so I doubt this was more than a blip.

Again, smells like New College. Aren't there watchdog groups that... watch stuff like this?

Hey DeSantis! Snooze ya lose! Neener neener.

DeSantis and Board are acting shocked at what Disney did. Did they really think that Disney would just hand the keys to the kingdom over because the governor said to?