Went ahead and resolved N/A, as the situation is murky enough that I didn't feel confident about a full YES or a full NO. Even though I was leaning towards YES (or partial YES) and still think that's probably the closest to correct given my initial description, that would've led me to resolve in such a way that mainly enriched myself when there's a pretty good argument for either resolution. Didn't feel great about that, so I went with N/A. See comment chain below for a bit more elaboration.

Apologies for the anticlimax, all! I'd thought I was fairly clear in the setup/description, but reality found a way to be more confusing.

IMO the outcome is murky enough that any resolution would have been satisfactory. I appreciate your effort to keep the decision transparent.

It's too bad that you had to resolve as N/A but I think this was the right call. This was a very interesting market though!

The day has come! I'm still somewhat undecided on the best resolution here - gonna wait a few days for folks to make their arguments and/or share info.

As far as I can tell, the last development in this story was the revelation of the "gotcha" deal that Disney's board made before DeSantis' board took over. If there have been no other developments in the story since then (and I can't find any), that would argue for a fairly straightforward NO resolution, I think - even if that's eventually overturned, it hasn't been by June 1st and the market was explicitly timed.

YES folks, am I missing anything else? ( @acc @BruceGrugett @MartinRandall @Botlab @Chelos).

@MattP the strongest argument I can think of in favor of YES is that some may claim that the default position of the current status quo is that (1) Disney no longer controls the board of the RCID, (2) the state passed legislation that invalidates Disneys "gotcha" agreement with the old RCID board. Because of these reasons, the RCID is operating as if they can ignore Disney.

I find neither of those reasons compelling, as (1) has a decent chance of being overturned by Disney's lawsuit (I think Disney has a 70% of winning to the point that the RCID is reinstated as it was in 2022); and (2) will almost certainly be overturned (I have a seriously hard time imagining how that could possibly survive a lawsuit. I am more than 95% confident that will be overturned and Disney's "gotcha" deal with RCID will survive the states attempt to retroactively invalidate it.)

So even if (1) and (2) are arguments in favor of a YES resolution today, I would be surprised if either is still true in three years.

@bflytlegmailcom yeah, I'm honestly leaning towards a somewhat mixed resolution, on the order of PROB 33% as previously mentioned below. The market was specifically about the status quo as of June 1st, not the eventual status quo. That said, I can't find any more up to date news stories that actually give more details on what the current status quo actually is. Disney claims their agreement with the previous board gives them control over the district, the government claims they've invalidated that agreement, and I'm having a hard time telling whose version of events more closely resembles the current reality while lawsuits are underway (though I agree with you Disney is more likely to prevail in court). Latest stories I'm seeing are from early May, before the original law actually went into effect on June 1st.

@MattP the latest story on the RCID from the Orlando Business Journal

(from this link - requires subscription) is reproduced below for your reference:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis names new member to Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board

By Ryan Lynch

Staff Writer, Orlando Business Journal

Jun 1, 2023

Updated Jun 2, 2023, 4:17pm EDT

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has named Tampa attorney Charbel Barakat as a new member to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District's board.

Barakat will fill a spot on the five-person board made up of DeSantis appointees who now govern Walt Disney World Resort's land. The move comes after Winter Park attorney Michael A. Sasso, who was appointed to the board when it was created in late February, resigned from it in a May 22 letter, creating a vacancy.

Some believe Sasso, who declined to comment on his decision, resigned because his wife Meredith Sasso was named to the Florida Supreme Court, which at some point may be a future conflict of interest as legal battles between Disney and the board wend their way through the court system.

Barakat's appointment will be subject to confirmation by the Florida Senate.

Why this matters: Disney is Central Florida's largest employer, and decisions by the board can affect the theme park's plans and the companies that work with it.

Barakat is regional general counsel for D.R. Horton Inc. (NYSE: DHI) in Tampa. He's a commissioner for the Second District Court of Appeal Judicial Nominating Commission and serves on the Florida Development Finance Corp.

He was a 2019 Top Corporate Counsel honoree for sister paper Tampa Bay Business Journal. He earned his bachelor’s degree in international studies from Johns Hopkins University and his law degree from New York University School of Law.

The board's next meeting will be June 21.

Meanwhile, Disney and the Central Florida tourism district are involved in lawsuits against each other in federal and state courts.

The DeSantis-created Central Florida Tourism Oversight District this year replaced the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which was the 39-square-mile governing jurisdiction and special taxing district created in 1968 for Walt Disney World Resort's land that acts with the same authority and responsibility as a county government.

The Walt Disney Co.'s (NYSE: DIS) Walt Disney World — the nation's largest single-site employer, with nearly 75,000 Orlando workers — has four local theme parks: Magic Kingdom, Epcot, Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios.

Walt Disney World alone is the top generator of visitors to Orlando, with more than 50 million people going through its turnstiles in previous years — many of those repeat visitors.

Disney also owns two area water parks, Blizzard Beach and Typhoon Lagoon, as well as several themed hotels, golf courses, a camping resort, timeshare properties, a residential community called Golden Oak at Walt Disney World Resort, ESPN Wide World of Sports and Disney Springs.

* * * * * * * *

Note that this newspaper has been saying that the CFTOD replaced the RCID, even after the new law reversed that plan earlier this year. But it is my understanding that the RCID board is operating as though the agreement with Disney was revoked. Disney will then add any action in violation of the agreement to the existing lawsuits, and the situation will remain in a state of limbo until the lawsuits are resolved.

@bflytlegmailcom roger that, thanks for the up to date story!

If the new board is indeed currently operating as if Disney's maneuver was invalid (and thus that they control the district), that would militate for at least a partial YES resolution (even if Disney is in fact still enjoying many of the same privileges as they had previously).

Given that the district persists, but Disney's control over it is indeed (if only temporarily) removed, I lean towards at least 50% PROB resolution because that's definitely within the conditions I set forth in the description. What holds me back is that I don't want to resolve in such a way that I (as the main YES holder) take mana from folks who bet NO, as I suspect we were both operating under similar assumptions of what the actual end result would be, and just disagreed on how that would map to resolution (aka I don't think I actually predicted the outcome better than y'all, necessarily). Tbh I'm considering N/A, if only to avoid the appearance of disreputable resolution.

This is probably the toughest market I've had yet. Should've been much more specific in the conditions. xD

@MattP as the largest shareholder of NO, I would not find that outcome to be unreasonable, although it is different from my position (obviously). You have been very open to explaining your intent with this market, and are obviously not attempting anything dishonest here.

@bflytlegmailcom (and other bettors), here's a few notes on how I'm currently thinking about this:

• First off, the first and second sentences of the description are completely independent. It seems almost certain that the first criterion will not be met (aka Reedy Creek being dissolved per SB 4C), but the second criterion is still entirely possible.

• I do think if Disney the ability to control the governing board of the district, that's a pretty clear weight towards a "YES" resolution (note the parenthetical in the last sentence of the description, in which I indicated from the beginning that Disney's control over the district board was fairly important to my sense of whether the district persists in its current form or not).

• That said, while they have lost control over the board, it's somewhat up to interpretation if their "special privileges" have been removed. I'd honestly need to do some more research here to determine how many of said privileges have been removed in my judgment. For now though it seems like they're keeping most of them, so that's some weight towards "NO" resolution.

• One other factor here is the name - both of my resolution criteria in the description assumed the name would persist (e.g. "if an entity called the RCID persists, but..."). This was arguably a misstep on my part not thinking of the "name change but few other substantive changes" ahead of time. I think the name change provides slight weight towards "YES", but not a ton.

• Lastly, I think there should be a decent a priori bias towards "NO" unless all the conditions are fulfilled - I did not frame this as a PROB resolution question, though the situation is murky enough that I'm seriously considering it.

All in all, if I had to resolve right now, I'd probably resolve PROB to 33%. That said, I do not plan to resolve to any PROB resolution (or to NO for that matter) until June 1st, as there is always the possibility something could change before then (the legislature could pass another bill next week). The only situation in which I think I'd resolve this earlier than the deadline in the title is if there was an unambiguous YES (dissolution) that occurred before June 1st.

After a skosh more research, leaning slightly more towards YES (maybe 50% or so) than when I wrote the above... it does seem like some of their special privileges have been removed as well.

So all in all we currently have:

• Arguing for YES: name change, Disney board control lost, some privileges removed

• Arguing for NO: some privileges retained, district still exists even though it has been substantially altered

Certainly open to hearing more from bettors - and as I said, I have no plans to resolve this to PROB or NO until June 1st, per the plain reading of the title (if I become convinced of 100% YES, I could resolve early... we'll see).

Seems like a decent summary of the current situation: https://www.disneytouristblog.com/florida-files-new-bill-to-replace-disney-worlds-reedy-creek-improvement-district/

@MattP I totally respect that position, although I would argue that a revocation of unused privileges has no material impact to Disney, so I wouldn't consider it a change. Is Disney really going to want to build a nuclear power plant in the near future?

The loss of control of the Disney board is a real loss for Disney, there is no way around it. And the structure of the board, being populated by Governor, makes them far less likely to act in the interest of Disney or the Central Florida region in general.

I figured there would be a good chance that at least some of the board would be representatives of local governments. But I wasn't thinking of how unlikely it would be that DeSantis would put representatives from Orange or Osceola counties on the board, given the Democratic leanings of those jurisdictions.

(When this whole thing first started, I thought the only way the RCID would be dissolved would be if it's bonds and responsibilities were given to the Cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, which Disney controls similar to the RCID. It is not clear to me what those cities are for other than to provide Disney another layer of control, although I am not aware of these cities being used for much of anything. In Florida, cities can do anything that the RCID can do, although the state has more control over the ways they can operate than they had over the old RCID.)

All of that is to say, you can resolve the market as you see fit. My case is laid out in my previous post, as my reading of the market makes me believe it should resolve as NO. But if the market was intended to gage whether DeSantis would convince Disney to lobby the Governor of Florida in a way they hadn't before, while allowing him to claim victory without meaningful impact to Disney's operations, it should resolve YES.

It is worth noting that the new RCID will have the potential to impact Disney if they choose to make obstructionist decisions regarding building permitting. It is worth noting this because both the City of Orlando (authority having jurisdiction of the main campus of Universal Orlando Resort) and Orange County (authority having jurisdiction of SeaWorld and the location of Universal's new theme park under construction) are extremely accommodating to Universal and SeaWorld.

The City of Orlando has a plan reviewer who literally has an office at Universal for expedited plan reviews. The building code is definitely enforced as vigorously with Universal as anyone else, but the review times are definitely faster than other developers in Orlando may get for their projects. I believe Orange County has a similar system, although I am not certain about that.

So if the new RCID decided to make all permit applications take six months longer than before, that is within their power, and would put Disney at a legitimate disadvantage to the other major players in the region.

@MattP it appears as though Disney bound the Reedy Creek Improvement District to a covenant prior to the new board taking over that will require the RCID to "require Disney to have the final say on any specific plans the district may have on land the district owns/oversees. "To ensure consistency with the overall design and theming of the [Walt Disney Parks & Resorts] properties, the exterior design, appearance and exterior aesthetic qualities of any improvements (including, without limitation, alterations) to any portion of the RCID properties subject to [Disney's] prior review and comment, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed," said the agreements."

https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2023/03/29/florida-reedy-creek-desantis-overreach.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search

There are a few other things here, but it is really looking like Disney will continue to control anything they care to.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023B/9B/?Tab=BillText

Looks like the state will probably not dissolve the district. SB4C will probably instead be amended to simply change the name of the district and change how board members are selected.

Based on my reading of the market description, if the bill is passed, it should resolve to no for these reasons:

"This question resolves to YES if Florida's state government dissolves the Reedy Creek Improvement District on June 1st 2023, as outlined in SB 4C signed by Governor DeSantis."

If this new bill is passed, the above section points to NO.

"I will also resolve YES if an entity called the Reedy Creek Improvement District persists, but with Disney's control over it and special privileges removed."

If this new bill is passed, the above section points to NO. Disney will continue to have a special-purpose government intended to build and maintain infrastructure specific to their land holdings. Disney will not be likely to have to wait on building permit reviews the way Sea World has to, for instance. An argument in favor of YES is that Disney will not pick the board, but I do not think that will have a material impact here. The board will still be bound by the charter of the district which will be to maximize the success of the district. This looks to me like a shallow concession to the governor in order to allow the district to remain. Others may disagree.

"I will resolves NO if legal challenges delay the dissolution beyond the June 1st date called for in the law,"

There will be no dissolution if the bill is passed.

"or if SB 4C is significantly amended (such that Disney does not actually lose control of the governing board of the district) or repealed."

The new bill will significantly amend SB 4C.

I moved the market to 5%, because I think the bill has a 95% chance of passing.

@bflytlegmailcom I think there's a strong case that Disney's control of the new district is removed since they no longer pick the board. Indeed I heard that the new law stipulates that no member of the board can even be affiliated with Disney. I agree in practice Disney will not be materially hurt by this, but this does still feel like a loss of control which should result in YES resolution.

The bill has been signed by the governor.

https://www.flgov.com/2023/02/27/governor-desantis-signs-one-bill/

I think this market can probably be resolved. I have laid out my case why it should resolve to NO with the passage of this bill.