By PRFSU Writers 2023-2024 
Devon Cranford
Seemingly overnight, a slew of new princes and princesses were added to the Disney roster, but this time it’s from the non-fantastical Windsor family. The connection between the English monarchy and The Walt Disney Corporation does not take place in its parks or entertainment but instead comes from a controversial legal contract signed by The Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID). The contract is a deal to hand over the majority of the board’s power and “its ability to do anything” to Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., with a clause determining the expiration date of the agreement to be twenty-one years after the death of the longest living descendent of King Charles III. With Google search trends spiking for the search terms Reedy Creek, King Charles, and Rule Against Perpetuities, citizens, reporters, and board members scrambled to see what they missed at the public board meeting of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, and how all of these seemingly random ideas were suddenly interconnected.
The History of Reedy Creek
The Reedy Creek Improvement Act was established in 1967 by the Florida State Legislature with the purpose of creating the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID), a quasi-county managed by The Walt Disney Corporation to help bring utilities and development to the land now known as Walt Disney World. At the time, this land was ten to fifteen miles away from electric and water lines, and at no burden to local taxpayers, this act allowed Disney to pay for the infrastructure themselves.
The RCID board is comprised of five members, who up until this year, were elected by landowners in the district, and because The Walt Disney Co. is the majority landowner in Reedy Creek, they were essentially handpicked by Disney. Additionally, because Disney is the majority landowner, nearly all taxes levied in the area are paid by Disney itself. In fact, the only other land in the RCID not owned by The Walt Disney Co. is five acres of undeveloped land distributed amongst the five board members, as well as public roads. With the exception of small amounts of non-landowner Disney employees and family members, Disney has been the sole voter, landowner, and taxpayer of the RCID.
Disney Speaks Out, DeSantis Speaks Back
Disney and Governor DeSantis have been in the news so much recently, that it might be difficult to remember how the altercation started. The first sign of instigation between Disney and DeSantis did not come from changes in business or operations of the board, but instead from a policy disagreement between Governor DeSantis and Florida’s second-largest employer, when, following the passage of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, former (now back at the helm) Disney CEO, Bob Iger, and the Disney CEO at the time, Bob Chapek, separately issued statements publicly opposing the legislation.
Following these statements, Governor DeSantis began hinting at a fight with Disney, saying at a rally in Boca Raton, “In Florida, our policies got to be based on the best interest of Florida citizens, not on the musing of woke corporations.” In the weeks following, Republican legislators started to support DeSantis’s position by returning political contributions from Disney and hinting at repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement Act. On April 19th in the midst of a special session, held after the regular legislative session had already commenced, state Senator Bradley filed SB 4-C, a bill to dissolve certain independent districts established before the writing of Florida’s current constitution in 1968, which happened to be just a year after the Reedy Creek Improvement Act of 1967. The bill in effect would abolish “six out of 1,844 special districts” on the effective date of June 1, 2023, with Reedy Creek being a clear target according to comments from the sponsor of the House companion bill Rep. Randy Fine, “I will say this: You got me on one thing — this bill does target one company. It targets the Walt Disney Co.”
Amid reports of Disney debt and taxes potentially costing taxpayers $1 billion in the event of dissolution of the district, lawmakers opted to keep the district and its special tax status, and they instead handed over the power to pick RCID board members to the state. In a special session in early 2023, a Governor DeSantis-backed bill removed Disney’s ability to nominate board members and shifted it to the Governor. The same day, the Governor announced his board nominations to the newly named Central Florida Tourism Oversight District: Martin Garcia, Bridget Ziegler, Brian Aungst Jr., Mike Sasso, and Ron Peri.
Governor DeSantis praised the changes to the board as increased accountability for Disney and claimed “there’s a new sheriff in town”, saying that Disney no longer had the option to govern themselves and was subject to the same laws as competitor theme parks like Seaworld and Universal Studios.
The trajectory seemed to be pointing towards Disney having a considerable amount of their power stripped away, with the Governor and state legislators exuding confidence with their proposed changes. Unbeknownst to them, Disney had been devising their own plan in plain sight via an agreement signed at a public meeting of the RCID board.
Cat and Mouse Game
At the February 8th meeting of the RCID, the day before the Florida House of Representatives would vote to approve HB 9-B and hand over nomination power to the Governor, the Reedy Creek board heard and passed a new proposal. With little scrutiny and a unanimous vote, the board agreed to a development agreement that handed over status as the primary developer to the Walt Disney Co., essentially stripping the board of its regulatory power. The bill also prevents the board from using any intellectual property of Disney, including but not limited to Mickey Mouse, and allows for Disney to pursue legal action if that provision is violated.
The agreement was barely reported on and had no response from the Governor or any of the legislators that had worked on the legislation that this agreement would effectively nullify. It was not until the first meeting of the new board that the full agreement, which can be read here, received public attention.
The clause that sparked the most reactions was the expiration of the agreement, which is said to last in perpetuity or when Disney loses interest in its Florida resort, meaning that, excluding some scenarios where Disney abandons their business in Florida, it effectively has no expiration date. However, there is a common law called the “Rule Against Perpetuities” that does not allow for agreements related to property law to exist without an expiration date. It states that securing and vesting property to any entity can happen no later than 21 years after a life of being at the time of the law, ensuring that any property agreement is impacting people currently alive rather than generations into the future. It is important to note that the “Rule Against Perpetuities” is often considered confusing or unnecessary, and is specifically defined by Cornell Law as virtually impossible to decipher.
In an effort to protect themselves from the “Rule Against Perpetuities”, the agreement states that if the agreement violates the rule, then the agreement “shall continue in effect until twenty-one years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III.” The use of King Charles III comes from a common practice in British law known as the “Royal Lives Clause.” The simple explanation for the inclusion of his highness is that British royalty is often evoked in cases of perpetuity, as they often live long and have easy-to-track family trees.
Reaction to the King
In what came as a shock to board members, despite the agreement happening at a public meeting in accordance with Sunshine Law, the agreement was in place by the time the new board started to get to work. The board spoke on the issue, with Brian Aungst Jr. saying, “I can’t think of a more naked attempt to circumvent the will of the voters and the will of the Florida Legislature.” Other board members echoed the concerns and agreed on seeking legal counsel to challenge the agreement in court. The Attorney General’s office requested all documents from the previous board related to the agreement but was told no such documents exist, with the Governor taking a more aggressive stance arguing for toll roads, ride inspections, and even floating the idea of a state prison in the RCID. As for the Florida legislature, Senate President Passidomo has stated they will consider it but “don’t anticipate doing anything in the near term”, but recent amendments filed by senate Republicans show an effort to recapture power and make the development agreement void.
With the Reedy Creek Improvement District renamed to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, the board now being comprised of DeSantis appointees, and the added restrictions not allowing them to use Disney Intellectual Property, the Walt Disney Co. has never been further apart from its special tax district. Despite all this uncertainty, Disney CEO Bob Iger recently announced a $17 billion investment into Florida, showing that Disney is undeterred in improving Walt Disney World Resort, and further cementing the House of the Mouse as a permanent fixture in Florida.