posted ago by TheModernDaVinci ago by TheModernDaVinci +30 / -0

This is mildly old news by now, but I have still seen some people (usually of the type defending Disney) trying to say that DeSantis is a monster for getting rid of the Reedy Creek Improvement District because "It will cost Floridians! It will cause Chaos! DeSantis is basically a Communist and hates Free Markets!" Needless to say, that isnt true, but the exact ways it isnt true were explained here by one Andrew Esquire (aka Legal Mindset on Youtube), who is one of only a handful of lawyers in Florida who specializes in the laws around Florida Special Districts and the municipal bonds related to them.

The Extremely short TLDR: Florida is 100% in the right to do this, Disney has little to nothing they can do legally to stop it, and they are gaslighting and lying through friendly mouthpieces because they are seething over the fact that they are losing their own personal Ancapistan due to a few [reddited] employees.

The Longer TLDR:

  1. Reedy Creek was entirely unique in Florida and had an absurd degree of power at its control. Their powers were actually more like a county instead of a city, which is what most Special Districts are. In fact, laws were changed to make sure it could never happen again.

  2. Also unique of Reedy Creek, the district was created by an act of Legislature, not law. Which also means it can be destroyed by an act of Legislature without any risk of law.

  3. There has actually been some will to try and renegotiate Reedy Creek for decades, but there had never been enough to actually push the button until Disney decided it was going to cockslap the Florida government and give them the finger because they wanted to push "the message." So Disney has no one to blame but themselves in that particular regard.

  4. Reedy Creek is legally separate from Disney, which means getting rid of it can not be considered retaliation for Disney's "speech" in the state. This means Disney both lacks standing to sue over the issue, and if they tried to assert standing it would invalidate the bonds on Reedy Creek as they were supposed to be used for public infrastructure, not business use.

  5. There is already significant amount of case law stating that if the district is indeed disbanded, the cost of the bonds are accessed against the citizens of the former District....which is still Disney. If Reedy Creek attempted to make Orange and Osceola Counties pay the bonds, it would be thrown out in 2 seconds by the courts.

  6. The dirty little secret is that Orange and especially Osceola County would actually like to collect some taxes on Reedy Creek, because right now they are effectively subsidizing the cost of running the area and getting nothing from it. So they would love to get something out of Disney so they could pay for needed infrastructure and county running cost that they are short on right now.

  7. In the legislation passed disbanding Reedy Creek, there is already a process allowing the district to be reestablished, it would just have to follow current Florida law instead of the vast powers originally granted to them, and it would take only about 2 weeks to get it approved. Disney is well aware of this as they have established new Special Districts since Reedy Creek, they are just seething over losing their little kingdom.

So these are just some things to consider based on what is happening. Just things to consider if you see anyone try to argue otherwise.

Comments (4)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
BidenLikesMiners 2 points ago +2 / -0

I saw someone saying Disney has the final say on it being disbanded, is it right? Or is the choice fully among the legislature?

TheModernDaVinci [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

At least based on how Legal Mindset made it sound, it is up to the legislature since it was their act that created it in the first place. And considering there is case law concerning outstanding debts of disbanded Special Districts, I would imagine these districts have been disbanded before even if the person who indirectly owned them didnt want them to be.

BidenLikesMiners 1 point ago +1 / -0

That might be how it works, but with disney money, maybe it will change whether they can successfully prevent the dissolution.