Orange County might have to pay off RCID debts?

[New Mouse]

I’m pretty sure I read a civics book once.
Im para phrasing here but the purpose of the legislatures is to make laws.

The can not make retro active Laws.
But the code make a law that says no special districts in Florida. All special district will be control by the state legislature .

Correct, at which point the state or in this case the municipalities have to foot the financial burden of those districts.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

They can't arbitrarily create a law that will hurt Disney. They are bound by existing laws in play. …

Short answer, the Florida Legislature can and did pass this bill. It is black letter law that no past legislature can bind a future legislature’s powers. This Legislature is not bound by “existing laws in play.” They can repeal, amend, modify, create new ones, or in this case create a law that says it applies notwithstanding a previous law. The “notwithstanding” language has been upheld by the courts many times.

 

[DCJ]

The governors office whos up for re-election released a statement saying that the 2 page bill that was rushed through will create no new taxes for Floridians...then blames the media? Don't think I would bet on that. I don't think in the end much changes with Reedy Creek. Maybe Disney agrees not to build a nuclear facility and everyone walks away the winner. They looked at Reedy Creek a few times and decided to leave it alone before. I hope they leave it alone, Disney / Reedy Creek does a fantastic job taking care of the property without needing more government involvement to slow things down. I like less goverment.
A lot of camera time before the election.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

Correct, at which point the state or in this case the municipalities have to foot the financial burden of those districts.

Yes, and the get the right tax as well….

Can we table this conversation for about a year

 

[Robbie Cottam]

The governors office whos up for re-election released a statement saying that the 2 page bill that was rushed through will create no new taxes for Floridians...then blames the media? Don't think I would bet on that. I don't think in the end much changes with Reedy Creek. Maybe Disney agrees not to build a nuclear facility and everyone walks away the winner. They looked at Reedy Creek a few times and decided to leave it alone before. I hope they leave it alone, Disney / Reedy Creek does a fantastic job taking care of the property without needing more government involvement to slow things down. I like less goverment.
A lot of camera time before the election.

Yes, I said that two pages ago,
Let this play out
And I bet this all comes out in the wash

 

[Eeyore daily]

View attachment 665583

This makes zero sense. By dissolving the special district, the entire land becomes public domain in which the local counties will have to maintain the roads instead of RCID. Therefore, taxpayers will have to pay more just to pay for the upkeep of Disney's land. Disney already pays taxes. Who pays the tax then if Disney already does and local citizens "don't"?

 

[bcla]

Short answer, the Florida Legislature can and did pass this bill. It is black letter law that no past legislature can bind a future legislature’s powers. This Legislature is not bound by “existing laws in play.” They can repeal, amend, modify, create new ones, or in this case create a law that says it applies notwithstanding a previous law. The “notwithstanding” language has been upheld by the courts many times.

The tricky part is how this affects an existing contract - especially the part of the enabling law where the Florida legislature basically guaranteed for bondholders that they wouldn't alter the district while bond debt is still outstanding. Or the state could just pony up all bond payments upfront to discharge the debt since it's a guarantee by the state.

www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016A-OS_stickered.pdf​

REEDY CREEK​

IMPROVEMENT​

DISTRICT CHAPTER 67-764​

​

REEDY CREEK​

IMPROVEMENT​

DISTRICT CHAPTER 67-764​

GENERAL DRAINAGE​

CHAPTER 298 FLORIDA STATUTES​

As Applicable to Chapter 67-764​

​

Section 56. Pledge by the State of Florida to the Bond Holders of the District and to the Federal Government.-The State of Florida pledges to the holders of any bonds issued under this Act that it will not limit or alter the rights of the District to own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, maintain, operate or furnish the projects or to levy and collect the taxes, assessments, rentals, rates, fees, tolls, fares and other charges provided for herein and to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the holders of such bonds or other obligations, that it will not in any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Act, until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with any action or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are fully met and discharged. The State of Florida pledges to and agrees with the Federal Government that in the event the Federal Government or any agency or authority thereof shall construct or contribute any funds, materials or property for the construction, acquisition, extension, improvement, enlargement, maintenance, operation or furnishing of any of the projects of the District, or any part thereof, the State will not alter or limit the rights and powers of the District in any manner which would be inconsistent with the continued maintenance and operation of such project, or any part thereof, or the improvement thereof, or which would be inconsistent with the due performance of any agreements between the District and the Federal Government, and the District shall continue to have and may exercise all powers herein granted so long as the Board of Supervisors may deem the same necessary or desirable for the carrying out of the purposes of this Act and the purposes of the Federal Government in the construction, acquisition, extension, improvement, enlargement, maintenance, operation or furnishing of any of the projects of the District, or any part thereof.​

So the big question would be if dissolution would violate the US Constitution's Contract Clause or the Florida Constitution's equivalent (Article I, Section 10).

 

[Dcgc28]

This makes zero sense. By dissolving the special district, the entire land becomes public domain in which the local counties will have to maintain the roads instead of RCID. Therefore, taxpayers will have to pay more just to pay for the upkeep of Disney's land. Disney already pays taxes. Who pays the tax then if Disney already does and local citizens "don't"?

Desantis is saying “trust me we will figure it out” which to some people means Disney will lose lol until we see a real plan we can’t possibly know who will and won’t pay for it.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

This makes zero sense. By dissolving the special district, the entire land becomes public domain in which the local counties will have to maintain the roads instead of RCID. Therefore, taxpayers will have to pay more just to pay for the upkeep of Disney's land. Disney already pays taxes. Who pays the tax then if Disney already does and local citizens "don't"?

Until the:

A.RCID applies for a new lease on life with a new set of rules.
B.The state creates a new taxing authority for the district.
c. Something no one in the brain trust has though of yet happens.

I this is like building a house and complaining the roof is leaking when the foundation is the only thing that has been poured.

Get some popcorn, a tasty beverage, sit back relax and let this play out.....

 

[BK2014]

I’m pretty sure I read a civics book once.
Im para phrasing here but the purpose of the legislatures is to make laws.

The can not make retro active Laws.
But the code make a law that says no special districts in Florida. All special district will be control by the state legislature .

The constitutional ban on retroactive (ex post facto) laws generally only applies to criminal laws or laws that are punitive. This is not a criminal or punitive law. Nor is it retroactive. It simply undoes something that was previously done. It does not say no special districts in Florida, it only dissolves some of them, including RCID, that were in place prior to the ratifying of the Florida Constitution in 1968. There are many special districts that will still remain.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

The constitutional ban on retroactive (ex post facto) laws generally only applies to criminal laws or laws that are punitive. This is not a criminal or punitive law. Nor is it retroactive. It simply undoes something that was previously done. It does not say no special districts in Florida, it only dissolves some of them, including RCID, that were in place prior to the ratifying of the Florida Constitution in 1968. There are many special districts that will still remain.

AGREE,

 

[bcla]

This makes zero sense. By dissolving the special district, the entire land becomes public domain in which the local counties will have to maintain the roads instead of RCID. Therefore, taxpayers will have to pay more just to pay for the upkeep of Disney's land. Disney already pays taxes. Who pays the tax then if Disney already does and local citizens "don't"?

In order to tax differently, it would require a reconstituted special district that may not have all the powers of the current Reedy Creek ID but has a similar taxing authority. But those roads would then belong to that district. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure who that property reverts to. Some think the county, but that may only be in regards to bond obligations given what state law requires.

But the one thing many haven't really thought much of in this situation is that Disney set up the two incorporated cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista. Not sure what the deal is in Florida, but I've mostly understood that local roads typically belong to cities unless they're in unincorporated land where they belong to the counties. And most cities in Florida are responsible for building permits.

The plot thickens.

 

[bcla]

The constitutional ban on retroactive (ex post facto) laws generally only applies to criminal laws or laws that are punitive. This is not a criminal or punitive law. Nor is it retroactive. It simply undoes something that was previously done. It does not say no special districts in Florida, it only dissolves some of them, including RCID, that were in place prior to the ratifying of the Florida Constitution in 1968. There are many special districts that will still remain.

It also exempted districts that were re-ratified or reconstituted. I read somewhere that there were over 150 districts in Florida that were formed before the current Florida Constitution, but only six (including Reedy Creek ID) that weren't dissolved or exempt somehow.

 

[Ms Bibbidi]

The tricky part is how this affects an existing contract - especially the part of the enabling law where the Florida legislature basically guaranteed for bondholders that they wouldn't alter the district while bond debt is still outstanding. Or the state could just pony up all bond payments upfront to discharge the debt since it's a guarantee by the state.

www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2016A-OS_stickered.pdf​

REEDY CREEK​

IMPROVEMENT​

DISTRICT CHAPTER 67-764​

​

REEDY CREEK​

IMPROVEMENT​

DISTRICT CHAPTER 67-764​

GENERAL DRAINAGE​

CHAPTER 298 FLORIDA STATUTES​

As Applicable to Chapter 67-764​

​

Section 56. Pledge by the State of Florida to the Bond Holders of the District and to the Federal Government.-The State of Florida pledges to the holders of any bonds issued under this Act that it will not limit or alter the rights of the District to own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, maintain, operate or furnish the projects or to levy and collect the taxes, assessments, rentals, rates, fees, tolls, fares and other charges provided for herein and to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the holders of such bonds or other obligations, that it will not in any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Act, until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with any action or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are fully met and discharged. The State of Florida pledges to and agrees with the Federal Government that in the event the Federal Government or any agency or authority thereof shall construct or contribute any funds, materials or property for the construction, acquisition, extension, improvement, enlargement, maintenance, operation or furnishing of any of the projects of the District, or any part thereof, the State will not alter or limit the rights and powers of the District in any manner which would be inconsistent with the continued maintenance and operation of such project, or any part thereof, or the improvement thereof, or which would be inconsistent with the due performance of any agreements between the District and the Federal Government, and the District shall continue to have and may exercise all powers herein granted so long as the Board of Supervisors may deem the same necessary or desirable for the carrying out of the purposes of this Act and the purposes of the Federal Government in the construction, acquisition, extension, improvement, enlargement, maintenance, operation or furnishing of any of the projects of the District, or any part thereof.​

So the big question would be if dissolution would violate the US Constitution's Contract Clause or the Florida Constitution's equivalent (Article I, Section 10).

Interesting that it is the State of Florida and not Orange or Osceola Counties. But still there is the law that a prior Legislature cannot bind the powers of a subsequent Legislature. I think constitutionally you are thinking about the clause that says no state may abrogate the obligation of contracts. I say we grab the popcorn and watch how this comes out.

 

[Suzabella]

I think there's a lot of information floating around on blogs and in the MSM that aren't necessarily truthful according to neutral sources....surprise, surprise.

I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Too many with dogs in the race who would benefit from firing up emotions.

 

[Dcgc28]

I think there's a lot of information floating around on blogs and in the MSM that aren't necessarily truthful according to neutral sources....surprise, surprise.

I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Too many with dogs in the race who would benefit from firing up emotions.

There will be a ton of misinformation with this whole thing. The shocker to me is Disney flat out saying it can’t happen because of the bond debt. Which was released not to the public but internally and then leaked.

 

[Suzabella]

There will be a ton of misinformation with this whole thing. The shocker to me is Disney flat out saying it can’t happen because of the bond debt. Which was released not to the public but internally and then leaked.

I've also heard a lawyer in Florida say that isn't true. I've heard a reporter say it was.

 

[Robbie Cottam]

I think the point many are missing is EVERY SINGLE LAW in this country help some hurts some and some don't care.
Just because a law hurts your position doesn't make it a bad law, and if it helps your position it doesn't mean it is a good law.

Prohibition, created boot legging, and made some of the most power fun gangster in the world. At the time it was a good law

 

[Dcgc28]

I've also heard a lawyer in Florida say that isn't true. I've heard a reporter say it was.

It definitely doesn’t sound true. I can’t think of any reason why Florida “can’t” dissolve RCID, but I could see ways they can’t stop counties from picking up some slack without Disney compromising some of the aspects of RCID. Also I see ways that Disney could probably make it harder on the state through law suits, ultimately I think most of us know very little will change and RDIC will still be around with a few perks taken away.

 

[bcla]

I think there's a lot of information floating around on blogs and in the MSM that aren't necessarily truthful according to neutral sources....surprise, surprise.

I'm taking a wait and see attitude. Too many with dogs in the race who would benefit from firing up emotions.

There's some fairly neutral information out there simply about the legal ramifications. I've seen plenty talking about the pledge by the legislature in the enabling law, and as far as I can tell that simply can't be legislated away.

This is completely new ground here, and I don't think anyone claiming that this or that is bound to happen is telling the truth. About the only think I think is guaranteed is that this is going to make attorneys a lot of money.

I for one am trying to stay out of any partisan discussion. Not necessarily discussion on government, but out of the politics. And the big one is that Disney is probably concerned that the services that they had that they've relied on for decades may be not at the same standard in the future without the RCID. And there have been the employees (especially RCFD) concerned that their jobs and pensions are going.

It's going to be interesting if this goes forward. Not sure where the property and services might revert to, but previously I brought up the cities that comprise the majority of RCID. Perhaps create Bay Lake Police and Lake Buena Vista Police to take over for OCSO? Also city building permit offices? And the funding? Is is legal for a company (let's say The Walt Disney Company as a hypothetical) to donate to a city government in Florida? OK - apparently Orlando takes donations to their general fund through a non-profit they set up for that purpose.

https://www.orlando.gov/Our-Government/Get-Involved/Strengthen-Orlando/Donate