When Governor Ron DeSantis appointed a new government for the Reedy Creek Improvement District, the intention seemed clear – to curtail Disney’s efforts in maintaining its vast land holdings around Disneyworld. However, the plan has hit numerous roadblocks and created more problems than anticipated. In the midst of this controversy, Glen Gilzean, the chair of the state ethics commission, finds himself entangled in a conflict of interest.
Gilzean, tasked with leading the reimagined Reedy Creek Improvement District, seemed unfazed by his dual roles as chair of the state ethics commission and administrator of the tax district. However, a legal opinion from the ethics commission’s general counsel revealed that this arrangement violated state laws prohibiting public employees from serving on the ethics commission. Despite claims of seeking legal advice elsewhere, Gilzean’s decision to hold both positions raised eyebrows and brought the conflict into the spotlight.
The handling of this entire situation, from the formation of the new board to the legal issues surrounding the district’s contracts, leaves much to be desired. DeSantis attempted to dissolve the board but soon realized the financial burden it would impose on the state. The replacement board’s failure to object to binding contracts with Disney, which DeSantis later had the legislature void, has resulted in a constitutional lawsuit that even conservative judges view as unfavorable for DeSantis. It is a series of events that has left many perplexed and concerned.
Although DeSantis managed to render the state case brought by the board against Disney moot through legislative action, it has taken an unexpected turn. Despite the absence of enforceable contracts under state law, Circuit Judge Margaret Schreiber decided to assess whether the contracts are unenforceable or void for other reasons. However, the reasoning behind her decision has been called into question, as it appears to lack substance. The judge’s ruling has caused unnecessary strain on judicial and taxpayer resources, with an impending federal suit that will eventually resolve the matter.
Disney has filed its answer and counterclaims in the state case, dispelling any hope DeSantis may have had that the corporation would relent. The ongoing legal battle with Disney adds yet another layer of complexity to the already convoluted situation.
As the saga surrounding DeSantis’ Disney district continues to unfold, it becomes evident that the initial plan to hinder Disney’s control has veered off course. The conflict of interest involving Glen Gilzean raises questions about the ethical standards of those in power. The legal handling of this matter has left many scratching their heads, as judges struggle to find solid grounds for their decisions. While the controversy persists, it remains to be seen how this chapter will conclude. For now, uncertainty looms, and the implications resonate beyond the boundaries of the Reedy Creek Improvement District.
Market Capital Research 