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

[Dranth]

Zoning authority isn’t a blank check. A government can’t just manufacture a flimsy health or safety rationale to block development it doesn’t like—especially when it previously granted vested rights. Courts can and do strike down such tactics when they’re pretextual or unsupported.

Yes, a government can manufacture flimsy rational for just about anything. The question is does a person or company want to deal with the time, legal cost and publicity to fight it. Given much of what I have seen this year, the answer is mostly no which shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Companies want to make money, espoused principles are a secondary concern.

 

[Stripes]

Yes, a government can manufacture flimsy rational for just about anything. The question is does a person or company want to deal with the time, legal cost and publicity to fight it. Given much of what I have seen this year, the answer is mostly no which shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Companies want to make money, espoused principles are a secondary concern.

What happened last time the CFTOD interfered with Disney’s business interests again?

 

[Chi84]

That Disney was complying in advance and did not get the better of the state.

If the government is hellbent on violating the constitutional rights of its citizens - and the citizens are okay with that - no one wins and nothing comes out for “the better.”

 

[lazyboy97o]

Zoning authority isn’t a blank check. A government can’t just manufacture a flimsy health or safety rationale to block development it doesn’t like—especially when it previously granted vested rights. Courts can and do strike down such tactics when they’re pretextual or unsupported.

Again, you’re relying on unrealistic hypotheticals and exaggerating the consequences.

We are having this discussion because Disney passed on fighting a flimsy pretext! Litigation takes time and Disney wasn’t interested in taking the time.

You keep assuming the state and district will only ever act in good faith going forward when the situation is the result of acting in bad faith. That assumption is also held by courts and keeps getting exploited.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

The insane part is you painting this story as starting with the lawsuits over the DA... when it's a war that started many actions before that.

Disney was never "on board" with the change - it was something the GOP rammed through with haste in special session without any consultation of anyone.. so much so even the counties were like 'wth dude, this won't fly' and forced them to go back and start a "do over" to try to rework it again to something that would be feasible.

The course changed when Iger came back and wanted that uncertainty ended and didn't want the company in the spotlight fighting this. DeSantis' power situation had already changed.. making it so both sides could agree to something that let them both get back to focusing on making money and not public social wars.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If the government is hellbent on violating the constitutional rights of its citizens - and the citizens are okay with that - no one wins and nothing comes out for “the better.”

All the more reason Disney should not be given a pass for “compromising”.

 

[Stripes]

Litigation takes time and Disney wasn’t interested in taking the time.

Not when they lost a motion for a preliminary injunction! There’s a difference between being a coward, which is what you’ve accused Disney of being, and being downright foolish, which is what they would have been had they followed your advice.

 

[flynnibus]

If the government is hellbent on violating the constitutional rights of its citizens - and the citizens are okay with that - no one wins and nothing comes out for “the better.”

Which is how we all lost in this situation.. where a company with essentially unlimited resources to make that stand and push back against a clearly blatant chilling action was lead to capitulating to avoid having their business disrupted further.

 

[LAKid53]

Zoning authority isn’t a blank check. A government can’t just manufacture a flimsy health or safety rationale to block development it doesn’t like—especially when it previously granted vested rights. Courts can and do strike down such tactics when they’re pretextual or unsupported.

Again, you’re relying on unrealistic hypotheticals and exaggerating the consequences.

Clearly you're not familiar with zoning boards in Florida. Yes, they can.

 

[Stripes]

Clearly you're not familiar with zoning boards in Florida. Yes, they can.

Give me just one example that is comparable to this situation.

 

[Chi84]

Which is how we all lost in this situation.. where a company with essentially unlimited resources to make that stand and push back against a clearly blatant chilling action was lead to capitulating to avoid having their business disrupted further.

Disney brought the lawsuit to protect its business, not to vindicate its constitutional rights. Yes, the violation was the vehicle to make that happen, but the lawsuit was always going to be settled when Disney was satisfied with the business outcome.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

What happened last time the CFTOD interfered with Disney’s business interests again?

It’s been like a year…you might want to wait until there is a political advantage to crapping all over Disney again…
…it likely won’t take long.

All the more reason Disney should not be given a pass for “compromising”.

Bob is was trying to rebuild his ego then…

So capitulation was strategic

The good news is he’s still trying to do that now and things look much worse.

 

[mkt]

Resuming the federal case does not require new retaliatory action. That would only be so if the case had been dismissed with prejudice. The original claims regarding the state’s action are still available and still what would be argued about in federal court.

New actions by the district would require new evidence as to their intent. That’s a bar that rises with time. And even with that evidence, it may still not rise to a federal issue.

Free speech is absolutely a federal issue. That is the entire basis of the original case.

It was not dismissed with prejudice, which means those claims are still available if Disney chooses to bring them back. The core argument was that the state restructured the district to punish Disney for protected speech. Any new actions by the board that appear motivated by that same intent can reinforce the original claims.

Yes, new actions would require evidence. But Florida’s public records laws make that easier to obtain than most states. Given what has already been said on the record, and what could be uncovered with a records request, proving motive would not be a heavy lift.

If they try something, Disney will have more than enough to work with.

 

[Chi84]

All the more reason Disney should not be given a pass for “compromising”.

Don't be too hard on Disney.

This was a "chilling effect" case rather than straight censorship, which complicates the matter. Plus, lawsuits are often multi-faceted and are almost always lengthy, expensive and unpredictable. They can protect constitutional rights but are not the best way.

Although businesses are now "people," I would argue they are not the best people to protect citizens' constitutional rights. That is for the citizens to do by way of the ballot box. If people don't understand their rights or are okay with government violating their rights as long as they get whatever momentary win they are after, these issues will come up repeatedly.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Don't be too hard on Disney.

This was a "chilling effect" case rather than straight censorship, which complicates the matter. Plus, lawsuits are often multi-faceted and are almost always lengthy, expensive and unpredictable. They can protect constitutional rights but are not the best way.

Although businesses are now "people," I would argue they are not the best people to protect citizens' constitutional rights. That is for the citizens to do by way of the ballot box. If people don't understand their rights or are okay with government violating their rights as long as they get whatever momentary win they are after, these issues will come up repeatedly.

Speech was not the only avenue open to Disney. They could have encouraged more action on the part of the bond holders. The residents of the cities could have challenged the “unique” taxing authority or the usurpation of the cities’ home rule.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Speech was not the only avenue open to Disney. They could have encouraged more action on the part of the bond holders. The residents of the cities could have challenged the “unique” taxing authority or the usurpation of the cities’ home rule.

Aren’t the “residents” like 20 corporate appointees?

Pretty sure they backed the rat on this one anyway

 

[UNCgolf]

I'm baffled that people are trying to spin this as a win for Disney.

While I suppose you could call it a win in relative terms compared to a worst case scenario, Florida/the governor got just about everything they wanted. If you had to pick a winner between the state and Disney, it was clearly the state.

From a legal standpoint, Disney is in a worse position than they were before, and the potential of the federal lawsuit is not significant leverage to protect their interests. There's no guarantee they would even win (as much as it seems like a blatant "chilling effect" case to this attorney).

 

[Chi84]

Speech was not the only avenue open to Disney. They could have encouraged more action on the part of the bond holders. The residents of the cities could have challenged the “unique” taxing authority or the usurpation of the cities’ home rule.

Those don't seem to be particularly effective avenues though.

 

[mkt]

I'm baffled that people are trying to spin this as a win for Disney.

While I suppose you could call it a win in relative terms compared to a worst case scenario, Florida/the governor got just about everything they wanted. If you had to pick a winner between the state and Disney, it was clearly the state.

From a legal standpoint, Disney is in a worse position than they were before, and the potential of the federal lawsuit is not significant leverage to protect their interests. There's no guarantee they would even win (as much as it seems like a blatant "chilling effect" case to this attorney).

Easy. Disney is still operating as before, while being able to frame the exit from the Lake Nona campus as a consequence of the state’s retaliation. Meanwhile, Florida walked away looking like an unreliable business partner and a political bully.

The board fell in line. Permits kept flowing. The billion-dollar development plan moved forward. Disney reopened its donation pipeline. The headlines faded.

The federal case was dismissed without prejudice, so the legal pressure is still there if the state tries anything again. Disney kept control and held onto its leverage.

If that is what losing looks like, most companies would take it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm baffled that people are trying to spin this as a win for Disney.

While I suppose you could call it a win in relative terms compared to a worst case scenario, Florida/the governor got just about everything they wanted. If you had to pick a winner between the state and Disney, it was clearly the state.

From a legal standpoint, Disney is in a worse position than they were before, and the potential of the federal lawsuit is not significant leverage to protect their interests. There's no guarantee they would even win (as much as it seems like a blatant "chilling effect" case to this attorney).

In the end…they’re always gonna be “mutual hostages”

Florida…especially now…would love to exploit Disney for cheap political donations…

But in the end, I think they pay half their sales tax in a place that can’t get it right anyway.

So at most…there will be ripples here and there