News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

Brian

Brian

Well-Known Member
Disney Glimpses said:
Today, he also said he was going to use the legislature to "nullify" the agreements. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that against the US Constitution's contracts clause?
Click to expand...
A 1983 SCOTUS decision laid out a case, and set the parameters for a judicial test to determine if a state can make a law that interferes with existing contracts. They can, provided:
  1. It does not substantially interfere with the rights of the contracting party
  2. The state has a legitimate and significant interest
  3. The law is reasonably related to furthering this interest
Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/459/400/

In my humble opinion, this is not really an open and shut case, but I'll let the lawyers on this site weigh in with their take.
 
Last edited:
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Brian said:
A 1983 SCOTUS decision laid out a case wherein a state can make a law that interferes with existing contracts, provided it:
  1. Does not substantially interfere with the rights of the contracting party
  2. The state has a legitimate and significant interest
  3. The law is reasonably related to furthering this interest
Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/459/400/

In my humble opinion, not really an open and shut case, but I'll let the lawyers on this site weigh in with their take.
Click to expand...
1. It would
2. They don’t
3. It’s not
 
Brian

Brian

Well-Known Member
peter11435 said:
1. It would
2. They don’t
3. It’s not
Click to expand...
Court dismissed. Bring in the dancing lobsters!

Court Trial GIF
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
Just a friendly reminder: This thread is supposed to be about RCID and yesterday it was very much on track. Today it seems to be getting much more into personal feelings about politicians. That's how threads get locked, and I wonder if some of the people posting here have that as their goal.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Brian said:
A 1983 SCOTUS decision laid out a case wherein a state can make a law that interferes with existing contracts, provided it:
  1. Does not substantially interfere with the rights of the contracting party
  2. The state has a legitimate and significant interest
  3. The law is reasonably related to furthering this interest
Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/459/400/

In my humble opinion, this is not really an open and shut case, but I'll let the lawyers on this site weigh in with their take.
Click to expand...
Yeah, um….can revenge against a company that spoke out against the Governor be the state’s legitimate and significant interest?
 
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Brian said:
As a personal policy, I don't entertain Holocaust comparisons. Call me when the gas chambers open.
Click to expand...
Neither do I which is why I didn't get into what happened a decade later.*

Things went south long before that point for the people of that country, though, with a certain candidate successfully maneuvering a democracy into a dictatorship through populist politics and corruption rather than a civil war.

It's easy to forget with the really, really horrible stuff that overshadowed it later, all the bad stuff that happened before that.

For what it's worth, I see shades of this with a lot of "you're with us or you're against us" all over the place (not just in one political side and not even just in politics) these days and that scares me for my son's future.

Anyway, I think it's important to pay attention to history if we are to learn anything since nothing happens overnight.

*I removed the post because you're right - it is too easy to see that as an everyone I don't like is message which actually isn't what I was going for.
 
Last edited:
Brian

Brian

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
Yeah, um….can revenge against a company that spoke out against the Governor be the state’s legitimate and significant interest?
Click to expand...
Sadly, the answer depends on which court is hearing it.

If I were a betting man, I'd be betting on Disney, I just don't think it's a slam dunk case. Of course, we'd need to see the specifics of the legislation he's proposing (interfering with the contract) to be able to make a more educated guess as to the outcome.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Brian said:
Sadly, the answer depends on which court is hearing it.

If I were a betting man, I'd be betting on Disney, I just don't think it's a slam dunk case. Of course, we'd need to see the specifics of the legislation he's proposing (interfering with the contract) to be able to make a more educated guess as to the outcome.
Click to expand...
My guess is there ain’t no actual plan yet so no actual specifics to see….just like he said for months after the original bill was passed that he would be announcing a detailed plan then after months of waiting to see what the actual plan would be they repealed the original bill.
 
Disstevefan1

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
My guess is there ain’t no actual plan yet so no actual specifics to see….just like he said for months after the original bill was passed that he would be announcing a detailed plan then after months of waiting to see what the actual plan would be they repealed the original bill.
Click to expand...
If he had a plan he wouldn’t have been played so perfectly by TWDC.
 
Brian

Brian

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
My guess is there ain’t no actual plan yet so no actual specifics to see….just like he said for months after the original bill was passed that he would be announcing a detailed plan then after months of waiting to see what the actual plan would be they repealed the original bill.
Click to expand...


I can't believe I had to search so hard to find this clip, but definitely the similar vibes with DeSantis' plan.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Premium Member
Brian said:
Sadly, the answer depends on which court is hearing it.

If I were a betting man, I'd be betting on Disney, I just don't think it's a slam dunk case. Of course, we'd need to see the specifics of the legislation he's proposing (interfering with the contract) to be able to make a more educated guess as to the outcome.
Click to expand...
Not really. You are reading way too much into that case. In that case, the government action was independent of the contract and didn't substantially alter the contract. It changed the price of the contract because the contract was tied to the price of natural gas at the time of closing, and the government of Kansas changed the law in a way that influenced the price of natural gas.

If the Legislature of FL does anything that results in the dissolution of that contract, that's a very different beast than in the Kansas case, and is one of the types of things that usually end up resulting in a 9-0 or 7-2 decision....

Alternatively, if they outlaw these types of agreements in general (and don't target Disney) that is going to have enormous ripple effects, as these agreements are common and would effect a ton of businesses and communities in the state.
 
Disney Glimpses

Disney Glimpses

Well-Known Member
Brian said:
A 1983 SCOTUS decision laid out a case, and set the parameters for a judicial test to determine if a state can make a law that interferes with existing contracts. They can, provided:
  1. It does not substantially interfere with the rights of the contracting party
  2. The state has a legitimate and significant interest
  3. The law is reasonably related to furthering this interest
Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/459/400/

In my humble opinion, this is not really an open and shut case, but I'll let the lawyers on this site weigh in with their take.
Click to expand...
I would think the blatantly and open admission that what they are doing is purely retaliatory would basically be a shoe in for Disney here.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
The problem with the state’s interest is that the state previously reviewed the 2032 Comprehensive Plan that serves as the basis of the development agreement. They also reviewed the very similar 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Neither the state nor the new board have [publicly] identified why the existing plan is now insufficient so shortly after it was reviewed.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom