lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There was never anny reason for the concern to go away. Especially with related developments involving Paramount.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
Stripes
Premium Member
That’s simply not true. Please quote the specific Florida statute that states that.
You and I both know that those arguments simply don’t hold any water whatsoever with regard to the new development agreement. A court would quickly side with Disney on an injunction preventing the district from stopping Disney’s development plans.
The development agreement vested significant development rights in Disney that fully complied with the comprehensive plan that existed at the time. The settlement agreement included language that said, once the comprehensive plan was amended, the district would agree to amend the development agreement in order to vest in Disney even more development rights than the existing comprehensive plan allowed.
There is nothing problematic about any of this.
There were legitimate issues with the previous development agreement and Disney’s First Amendment case was always stronger than CFTOD v. WDW state court case.
Changes to the land development regulations do not apply to land covered by a development agreement. Changes can only be made to comply with state or federal law (which Disney would have to comply with regardless) and legitimate health and safety reasons.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You don’t have to actually have legitimate concerns to tie things up in legislation. That’s the whole reason this thread exists.
This is how local laws and policies can impact a development agreement. I will admit to condensing the process. Developing a new comprehensive plan is in good practice how you would determine both health, safety and welfare issues; as well as changes in pertinent conditions.
Last edited:
Stripes
Premium Member
Again, there were, in fact, legitimate issues with the development agreement that RCID signed. CFTOD was not wrong about that.
There are no issues with the development agreement signed with CFTOD. A court would quickly side with Disney on a preliminary injunction stopping the district from interfering with Disney’s development plans.
Chi84
Premium Member
But what are you trying to establish? That some unspecified action could be taken at some uncertain point in the future?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That Disney was complying in advance and did not get the better of the state.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There were no issues with the development regulations based on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Those were still in effect and not challenged by the first board. They would have been required to follow them if they tried to interfere with Disney’s development.
A court would not just out of hand reject interference if it was couched in terms of something like health, safety and welfare. That would be reason to enjoin Disney from proceeding while the matter is litigated. NIMBYs stall allowed development all the time, so it isn’t even some crazy hypothetical. The base assumption is that it’s easier to delay a project than mitigate harms after the fact.
Development control is also just the process that offers the most leeway in actually enacting the stated goals of controlling content. It has the biggest payoff. A development agreement cannot stop the board from cutting the building department’s budget, adopting stricter qualifications for plan reviewers and increasing permit fees. Nor would it prevent them from implementing their ride safety authority and enacting onerous regulations. Not being able to open a new half billion dollar ride seems like the sort of thing that may encourage a reconsideration of agreements.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I think if you polled independent attorneys the vast majority would tell you Disney came out on the losing end and is in a worse position than they were before things started.
It's obviously not as bad as it could have been, but it's difficult for me to understand how anyone could call this a win for Disney compared to their previous position.
It's obviously not as bad as it could have been, but it's difficult for me to understand how anyone could call this a win for Disney compared to their previous position.
Last edited:
Stripes
Premium Member
When there is a valid development agreement, courts reject bogus lawsuits from NIMBYs couched in health, safety, and welfare on a regular basis.
The plaintiff must present EVIDENCE showing a likelihood of success on their health and safety claim before a court grants a preliminary injunction.
Until the board inevitably adopted a new comprehensive plan that all future development in the district had to comply with.
Stripes
Premium Member
Compared to RCID, it’s slightly less desirable. But far more desirable than the situation in Anaheim.
Disney was not entitled to RCID in perpetuity. The state could have altered RCID at any point in time.
The lawsuits began when the district sought to invalidate a development agreement that granted Disney all the development rights in the district and it ended with the district signing a new development agreement with Disney vesting in them all the development rights in the district.
Sure. Governments have wide discretion. But that discretion is not unlimited, especially when it comes to retaliation or chilling speech. That was the core of Disney’s federal case. Not that the state created a new board, but that it did so in direct response to protected speech.
And as for “not broadcasting intent,” that ship already sailed. The governor said the quiet part out loud more than once. So did his spokespeople. So did board members. The record is full of quotes that connect the state’s actions to Disney’s public stance on legislation. You do not need to infer much when the motivation was publicly declared.
If the board makes a move that disrupts active development without solid legal basis, Disney will not need to connect it to years-old actions. They will just need to quote what was said in front of cameras last year.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The entire basis for zoning is health, safety and welfare, so the bar isn’t going to be particularly high. Before, the District would have had no evidence to ask for their own regulations to be suspended. In the future, the District can do that work.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Courts have essentially told governments to “try again” and come up with better explanations for their actions. They give that deference. And when the issues returns they only look at the new reasoning. The district is supposed to do certain things. Doing those things will not automatically be assumed to be connected to past actions and words, especially as more time passes. The board has already had significant turnover. The state government will also change.
The federal court is also going to have limited authority to interfere with what would be a local issue based on local powers. So the immediate issue of moving forward with development would be a new state case even more legally disconnected from the stated censorship efforts.
Yes. That was the entire basis for Disney’s federal lawsuit. The legal argument was not that Florida lacked the power to restructure the district. The argument was that it did so as retaliation for Disney’s protected speech. That is a First Amendment violation.
Governments can regulate. They cannot punish companies for expressing a political opinion. The moment DeSantis and his allies publicly tied the district’s dissolution to Disney’s opposition of the law, they gave that lawsuit real traction.
Disney was not fighting the structure. They were fighting the motive. And if that motive shows up again in how the board treats development, the case comes right back.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Just to clarify, I think there may be some confusion between the federal and state cases.
The federal lawsuit was about retaliation. Disney argued that the state dissolved Reedy Creek and replaced it with a state-controlled board as punishment for Disney’s protected speech. That is a First Amendment issue. It was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it can be brought back if similar retaliation happens again.
The state case was about the development agreements Disney signed before the board was replaced. That was a separate legal fight over contracts and local governance. It was settled last year.
What Disney preserved in the federal case is not about zoning powers or board turnover. It is about motive. If the new board starts blocking projects and the reasoning lines up with past political pressure, that gives Disney grounds to revive the case. It is not about what the board is allowed to do. It is about why they are doing it.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I am not confused.
The federal case resuming would be instigated by something related to how the district is exercising its power, a new local issue. They would be triggering a new state-level fight about something that would have the most near-term impact on development. A federal court would be limited in its ability to intervene in that new state-level case and might even let the state-level case play out first.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Stripes
Premium Member
The difference being that the first development agreement genuinely had significant issues with regard to its compliance with the law. The new development agreement is on solid legal footing.
Appreciate the clarification. But the trigger for resuming the federal case would not be a generic local zoning dispute. It would need to show signs of retaliatory intent tied to Disney’s past speech. If the board takes action that clearly tracks with the original political motives, that opens the door for a First Amendment challenge again.
Yes, development issues usually stay in state court. But if those actions are framed or justified in ways that echo the original retaliation - especially if there is continued political messaging - then the federal court may not view it as just a new zoning spat. It could be seen as part of the same pattern.
The difference is not what the board does. It’s why they do it. And that distinction is exactly what gives the federal case room to return.