There was a excellent article last month
Bloombergtax.com which did a great job of explaining this whole situation. I can’t find the link but I did copy and paste a portion to send to a friend which I will post.
This is a fantastic resource for this discussion.
If Florida attempts to place Reedy Creek under state control, Disney will have a much stronger court case than if the state simply dissolved the district. Depending on who you ask, Disney
already had a claim that dissolving the district was unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. However, that claim was not entirely clear, as it would be unusual for a court to step in to say a state cannot dissolve one of its own subdivisions based on an alleged improper motive.
Disney’s right to elect its representatives is much stronger than its right to have Reedy Creek exist at all. Disney, as property owner, was granted the statutory right to elect the district’s board of supervisors. If Florida tried to replace it with state political appointees, the situation would go from the state managing its own subdivisions to the state taking away a landowner’s right to vote for its local representatives—an action courts are much more accustomed to stepping in to prevent. Florida cannot avoid this control issue by simply creating a new district with a different governing body, as the state Constitution would
require Disney to approve any special district with taxing powers like Reedy Creek.
That’s not to say Florida can do nothing to rein in Disney’s control. There have already been discussions that Florida might add one or more governor-appointed seats to the board without taking a majority. Florida could also require that Reedy Creek’s major decisions be approved by the state, similarly to how other local governments have their comprehensive plans and building and fire code amendments vetted by state agencies. But the chief direction of the district will most likely remain with the representatives elected by Disney.
