DeSantis board rips Disney for ‘backroom’ development deal

Attorneys for a Florida board handpicked by Gov. Ron DeSantis accused Disney on Wednesday of engaging in a “backroom deal” with its predecessor to retain development rights for one of its theme parks located in a special tax district.

Lawyers for the Central Florida Tourism District said during a board meeting that the House of Mouse brokered the “sweetheart” development agreement earlier this year — prompting the new board to agree unanimously to hold a vote to nullify the deal April 26.

The five-member board is expected at that meeting to declare the previous development agreement with Disney “null and void,” a source familiar with the matter told The Post.

In prepared remarks, Chairman Martin Garcia slammed Disney for pushing forward with its 11th-hour attempt to retain development rights — and praised DeSantis for being “willing to shine a light on the arrangement” by appointing the new board.

“Regardless of your politics, nobody should favor outdated legislation that elevates a corporation above the public good,” he said. “In seeking to improve the functioning of the district, nothing is off the table for us.”

Garcia also claimed that the new board had “wanted to work with Disney, but Disney decided they didn’t want to work with us. It was Disney’s way or the highway.” 

Lawyers for the DeSantis-appointed board said in a presentation to its members that Disney illegally tried to extend its decades-long special arrangement in the jurisdiction formerly known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

“The bottom line is that Disney engaged in a caper worthy of Scrooge McDuck to try to evade Florida law,” said David H. Thompson, a managing partner at DC-based Cooper & Kirk, who is serving as litigation counsel for the new board.

Thompson argued the previous board members violated Florida statutes by failing to mail notices to property owners in the district informing them of the agreement.

He said the Reedy Creek board then dodged oversight by ignoring other procedural guidelines — and in coordination with Disney broke the nondelegation doctrine, which prevents private companies from taking on governmental functions.

“Under these agreements, Disney would have the right to set the maximum height of buildings in the district; Disney would have all of the developmental rights to the exclusion of any other property owner in the district; and Disney would have the right to insist on roads being built without any ability for the District to reassess the advisability of building such roads,” Thompson told the new board members.

The agreement would also have kept the district from using the name “Disney” or any characters, symbols or intellectual property relevant to its flagship Walt Disney World resort.

Emails revealed during the presentation also showed that Disney tried to hide its role in drafting the development agreement, Thompson also said.

“My name is currently at the top of the document as a drafter,” Disney’s chief counsel, John McGowan, wrote in a January email to Reedy Creek’s legal counsel, Ed Milgrim. “And I am comfortable having my name on it, but from an optics perspective that is not ideal and it would be better to have a non-Disney employee be the drafter.”

McGowan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Disney denies any wrongdoing and said in a statement last month that all of its agreements complied with Florida law.

DeSantis, 44, challenged Disney last year for control of Reedy Creek, where the entertainment company has maintained since 1967 the sole authority to develop around 27,000 acres.

The conflict began after the company criticized the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential candidate over his so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which banned the discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation in public schools before fourth grade.