Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
So what stopped them from doing that 5 years ago when they should have started it?
-
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
OvertheHorizon
Well-Known Member
Tom P.
Well-Known Member
Also, there are tens of thousands of Florida voters who work for Disney Orlando. Easier to convince them of the big bad folks in across the country in California than right there where they work.
Cute.
No. An actual lobbyist with a law license who is GOP aligned and is in my extended family.
lentesta
Premium Member
Don't get me started. My medication hasn't kicked in.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Based on public statements, Disney wanted to cool things off some time ago.
But with DeSantis running for president, any deal would have been spun as a DeSantis loss by his opponents.
Now that he’s no longer running and the national spotlight is no longer on him, I suspect DeSantis was willing to agree to the deal that Disney wanted to make all along.
Disney wants profitable business growth in Florida. This agreement supports that.
But with DeSantis running for president, any deal would have been spun as a DeSantis loss by his opponents.
Now that he’s no longer running and the national spotlight is no longer on him, I suspect DeSantis was willing to agree to the deal that Disney wanted to make all along.
Disney wants profitable business growth in Florida. This agreement supports that.
I agree, Disney started putting feelers out for wanting to settle and tone this down at the end of 2023 and after the setbacks in the various court cases, they realized that it would be increasingly difficult to put things back to the way they were. I agree with you on the Governor, but I will add that it was likely not the State of Florida initiating settlement talks with Disney, but the other way around.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
I think this is exactly how it went down, Disney’s been trying to resolve this for a year but DeSantis was dug in for personal reasons, now that he’s out of the election FL could finally sit down and listen to what Disney was offering without it “damaging” a campaign. 2 years of infighting with one of your state’s largest employers/revenue generators, and millions of tax dollars spent on lawyers, for political reasons, what a fiasco.
I don't disagree, but both sides were pretty much dug into their positions. Once the actual court cases started going sideways for Disney there was the realization that some type of settlement needed to be worked out. Just coincidentally it occurred after the Governor's political campaign ended.
Chi84
Premium Member
There's a lot of nuance with the court cases that isn't apparent from news reports. The state case required determinations of fact issues, which means it was unlikely to go out on summary judgment for either side. That's why depositions were being taken - to flesh out what facts needed to be determined in court.
In the federal case, the district judge dismissed the case at the pleadings stage based on his determination of the law (in fact, the application of a single case), which is the easiest determination to overturn on appeal. The appellate court would give no deference at all to the district court's judgment. And that particular judge has a history of being overturned by the 11th circuit. See Warren v. DeSantis USCA11 No. 23-10459 (reversing Allen Winsor), where the concurring judge stated "the state can't exercise its coercive power to censor so-called 'woke' speech with which it disagrees. What's good for mine is (whether I like it or not) good for thine." That's the decision that stood - not Judge Winsor's judgment.
Where courts are involved, this kind of nuance is everything. The point is that neither of these cases were anywhere near to being over when this settlement was reached.
In the federal case, the district judge dismissed the case at the pleadings stage based on his determination of the law (in fact, the application of a single case), which is the easiest determination to overturn on appeal. The appellate court would give no deference at all to the district court's judgment. And that particular judge has a history of being overturned by the 11th circuit. See Warren v. DeSantis USCA11 No. 23-10459 (reversing Allen Winsor), where the concurring judge stated "the state can't exercise its coercive power to censor so-called 'woke' speech with which it disagrees. What's good for mine is (whether I like it or not) good for thine." That's the decision that stood - not Judge Winsor's judgment.
Where courts are involved, this kind of nuance is everything. The point is that neither of these cases were anywhere near to being over when this settlement was reached.
pdude81
Well-Known Member
They can't pretend they are holding off on new development as a threat to the state while telling investors they are supercharging new development in the state. Those two things can't happen at the same time. And as the major taxpayer in the district, we know Disney was footing the bill for these "studies" designed to damage their reputation.
And while they have dismissed the suit/countersuit and avoided setting a potentially bad legal precedent in Florida in relation to the development agreement, they only closed off the claims made in that specific state case.
Would they be allowed a referendum by a certain percentage of voters in district to change the voting type for board seats? Or is that something that only the board can do? In my local district up north it is not that hard to get a ballot question up, as long as you follow the rubric and have enough signatures, but I don't know if similar rules apply for a multi-county special district in Florida.
And while they have dismissed the suit/countersuit and avoided setting a potentially bad legal precedent in Florida in relation to the development agreement, they only closed off the claims made in that specific state case.
Would they be allowed a referendum by a certain percentage of voters in district to change the voting type for board seats? Or is that something that only the board can do? In my local district up north it is not that hard to get a ballot question up, as long as you follow the rubric and have enough signatures, but I don't know if similar rules apply for a multi-county special district in Florida.
mikejs78
Premium Member
Nothing in the court case that is the subject of this settlement went sideways. In fact, another interpretation was that depositions were about to start and DeSantis and the CFTOD didn't want certain things to become public record.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
They can say whatever they want. It’s not against any rules as long as you don’t say something binding that directly affects financial responses. Disney never does that. All things plausibly deniable.
Disney lost their ability to issue public bonds…which makes any large expansion unlikely as it stands now
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Mmmmm…I don’t think it would have played out in Disneys favor that way…
But if it did…then the shareholders should be livid they settled…ceding their control over development/master planning over to a political board that will have as much Comcast influence on it as TWDC as time goes on
Additionally,...I read that all of this does NOT stop the State Investigator General from moving forward. It also has no effect on the "third-party" investor organizations suing Disney over the complaints about the public bonds and more.
There are other serious cases that could easily involve more digging, more investigation and more discovery for more court cases down the road where Disney is at legal risk. It's safe to assume that more legal court drama is coming.
Could Disney have surrendered it's fight in order to save it's actual "employees" and ex-RCID staff from being legally liable and in danger? I have to think or hope this was not a factor???.
Padora's box was opened BIG here for MANY legal outsiders to see.
As Disney fans,...yes, we are sure that Disney has done nothing wrong. However, non-Disney fans do not see the world in the same way we do.
It was going so well for them at the state level that they basically capitulated to everything the state sought?
It was a legal quagmire going nowhere for either side anytime soon. Disney more so than the state needed to move on from this.
Chi84
Premium Member
There are people who are determined to discuss this in simplistic terms (won! lost!); my earlier post was just to clarify for the ones who are interested in the nature of court cases.
The fact is that almost no federal civil cases reach trials. Both cases were destined to be settled. Just need two parties willing to do so.
Last edited:
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
How many of these objectives came about?
Does the CFTOD exist?
Was the RCID reconstituted?
Are board members elected by the landowners?
Do the development agreements enacted in early 2023 still remain in effect?
LSLS
Well-Known Member
So this is just for the state lawsuit, correct? And this would be the contract laws part of the lawsuit?
So you think a guy that invested billions in Disney's goal is to find gross misconduct in finances, report it, and tank the stock price? His goal is NOT to just cut things bare bones and get as much money as possible out of the short term, he is trying to destroy everything if at all possible?
flynnibus
Premium Member
The settlement actually included a wide range of release of claims by both parties attributed to things that 'have been, or could have been' part of the two state lawsuits.