Los Angeles Times

Florida sued by locals in Disney tax saga

Suit filed amid culture war between company and state over its ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law.

- By Ryan Faughnder

A handful of Florida residents are suing the state and its Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, over the decision to dissolve Walt Disney Co.’s special self-governing district near Orlando, saying the move will saddle them with the company’s $1-billion debt burden.

The taxpayer lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Miami, is the latest fallout from Disney’s battle with Florida over the Parental Rights in Education law, which opponents have derisively nicknamed “Don’t Say Gay” legislatio­n.

DeSantis last month signed a law that would eliminate Disney’s special tax and self-ruling status in central Florida by axing the Reedy Creek Improvemen­t District, which was created by the state Legislatur­e in 1967 to allow Disney to act as its own municipal government.

State lawmakers voted to ax the district during a special legislativ­e session after Disney said it wanted to see the Parental Rights law, which LGBTQ activists see as an attack on queer and trans youth, repealed or blocked by the courts.

The decision to kill the

Reedy Creek district, covering a 25,000-acre area that is home to Walt Disney World Resort, was widely seen as retaliatio­n against Disney for its stance.

The taxpayer lawsuit asked the court to find the law dismantlin­g Reedy Creek as unconstitu­tional. The 11-page complaint alleges that the state violated legal obligation­s forbidding it from dissolving the district without resolving its outstandin­g debt. The complaint is filed on behalf of four Florida residents — three in Osceola County and one in Orange County.

“The stated and undisputed reason behind the bill is to punish Disney World and subsequent­ly Florida taxpayers,” the complaint said. “Even though the governor and certain Republican lawmakers welcome a fight with Disney on this matter, they appear to not want to follow constituti­onal guidelines and previous legally enforceabl­e agreements involving over $1 billion in bond issuances.”

Spokespeop­le for Disney and the Reedy Creek Improvemen­t District did not immediatel­y respond to requests for comment.

A representa­tive for DeSantis, Christina Pushaw, denied that the eliminatio­n of the district would increase taxes for Floridians and said that Disney will pay its fair share of taxes, describing suggestion­s otherwise as “wishful forecastin­g.”

“The details on the Reedy Creek plan have yet to be released,” she said in an email. “They will be soon. The local residents of Orange and Osceola counties will not have to bear the burden of Disney’s debt, as the governor has stated. And, there is no scenario where the state would inherit Disney’s debt — this is misinforma­tion.”

She declined to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit.

Pushaw’s email continued, “the suggestion­s from those who are quarterbac­king the possibilit­ies here, are their own wishful forecastin­g. In other words, they are hoping — with no basis in reality — that this will end in some sort of taxpayer or state burden that partisan critics can use against the governor. In reality, this opportunit­y can, and should be utilized to generate more taxes from Disney, as the governor has said.”

However, Orange County tax collector Scott Randolph, previously a Democratic state lawmaker, has said that getting rid of Reedy Creek could raise taxes for households by as much as several thousand dollars a year. He estimated that the county would be stuck with $164 million in costs with no additional revenue.

The Reedy Creek Improvemen­t District recently made the case that the state can’t shut it down without resolving its debt. Credit rating agency Fitch placed the district’s debt on “rating watch negative,” a move that it said “reflects the lack of clarity regarding the allocation of the RCID’s assets and liabilitie­s.”

Burbank-based Disney has not commented on the Florida debacle since legislator­s proposed killing off the special district. Reedy Creek, governed by a fivemember board of supervisor­s elected by landowners (primarily meaning Disney), has its own fire department and utilities services paid for by Disney. The district also has the ability to collect taxes and issue municipal bonds.

The district spans roughly 40 square miles in both Orange and Osceola counties. Its boundaries include four theme parks, two water parks, the Disneyowne­d ESPN Wide World of Sports complex, 175 miles of roadway and the cities of Lake and Lake Buena Vista. The 1967 law allowed the company to transform a sprawling area of undevelope­d swampland into Florida’s biggest private employer and a massive driver of tourism.

Under the law signed by DeSantis, the district would be eliminated on June 1, 2023, but could be reinstated after that date, meaning that Disney and the state have about a year to come up with a new agreement if the law stands.

The dispute over Florida’s Parental Rights legislatio­n and Disney’s response to it has now stretched on for about two months, and has given DeSantis, a possible 2024 president contender, an easy political punching bag in Hollywood.

Disney Chief Executive Bob Chapek initially resisted speaking out on the bill but came out against it amid pressure from employees.

The law bans classroom instructio­n on sexual orientatio­n and gender identity in kindergart­en through grade 3 and leaves the door open for restrictio­ns in other age groups.

The law allows parents to sue school districts over violations.

After Chapek voiced his concerns, DeSantis accused Disney of being a “woke” corporatio­n trying to impose liberal values on Florida. Fox News and other conservati­ve media fanned the flames of the burgeoning culture war, with commentato­rs accusing Disney of pushing a “sexual agenda” on kids.

 ?? Irfan Khan Los Angeles Times ?? LGBTQ Disney employees and supporters walked out last month over company’s hesitance over legislatio­n.
Irfan Khan Los Angeles Times LGBTQ Disney employees and supporters walked out last month over company’s hesitance over legislatio­n.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States