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

[UNCgolf]

I'd love to know his actual name to look up his credentials. He must be a solo practitioner because I can't imagine any halfway reputable firm would allow him to have a Youtube channel, especially one that's providing misleading at best information.

He's either a terrible attorney or he knows he's not being completely truthful on his channel and is just trying to make extra money. It seems like the kind of thing the bar would look down on, though.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'd love to know his actual name to look up his credentials. He must be a solo practitioner because I can't imagine any halfway reputable firm would allow him to have a Youtube channel, especially one that's providing misleading at best information.

He's either a terrible attorney or he knows he's not being completely truthful on his channel and is just trying to make extra money. It seems like the kind of thing the bar would look down on, though.

Did you actually make it through the whole thing? I’m guessing it doesn’t get better?

 

[UNCgolf]

Did you actually make it through the whole thing? I’m guessing it doesn’t get better?

Oh, I didn't even bother watching it. I just perused his page and saw some of the other videos he'd posted -- checked out a little bit of one of them and that was enough for me. He was referencing Project Veritas as a legitimate information source.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Ah ah, yeah that makes sense. I need to stop thinking as a civil engineer sometimes.

I hang with a crew of them…no harm done.

And I hope all of you get back to your home planet safely one day

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Think of it this way.

The U.S. Supreme Court is conservative.

The Eleventh Circuit (which oversees Florida) is conservative.

The Florida Supreme Court is conservative.

These are the legal minds that ultimately matter. Not an attorney in a YouTube video or one who writes an article for Bloomberg.

Laws are complex, with different justices emphasizes different aspects of the law.

How much confidence do you have that all three will rule in favor of RCID/Disney?

I’m 99% all will rule against Florida

 

[UNCgolf]

Think of it this way.

The U.S. Supreme Court is conservative.

The Eleventh Circuit (which oversees Florida) is conservative.

The Florida Supreme Court is conservative.

These are the legal minds that ultimately matter. Not an attorney in a YouTube video or one who writes an article for Bloomberg.

Laws are complex, with different justices emphasizes different aspects of the law.

How much confidence do you have that all three will rule in favor of RCID/Disney?

I'm certainly not 100% confident, but judges tend to be less politically motivated than, well, politicians. They of course have a particular mindset from which they approach cases, but generally speaking, conservative judges lean towards pro-business decisions in a way that would frown on this. Not just in terms of Disney itself, but also in terms of potential contractual infringement and damage to bondholders.

They also tend to have a wider view about what these decisions will do overall in other circumstances, not just the particular case they're deciding. Look at the number of staunchly conservative judges that repeatedly shot down the election fraud cases.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Contracts can be changed by mutual agreement by both parties.

Contracts can be transferred.

Contracts (generally) survive when someone dies. Effectively, RCID is "dying", with its inheritors being Orange and Osceola Counties.

Is the State of Florida allowed to transfer RCID bonds to the governing bodies that replace it?

I'll say it again, this time a little differently. It doesn't matter what you and I think. What matters is what the members of the Florida Supreme Court think.

At least until RCID decides to appeal any decision to federal courts.

With this in mind, what's your opinion of the Florida Supreme Court?

Where is the mutual agreement here?

 

[flynnibus]

How much confidence do you have that all three will rule in favor of RCID/Disney?

Conservative tends to lean pro-business, less gov. I'm not sure how pointing out all the conservatives thinks you believe that means they will throw business under the bus?

This is also why it's better RCID fight this - not make this into an emotional argument. Make it about straight up contract law and the power of government.

 

[mikejs78]

I'm simply suggesting that I expect surprises along the way, rulings that I don't necessarily agree with. (Hence why I wrote, "How much confidence do you have" in "all three".)

Right now, Disney is effectively pursuing this through its government (i.e. RCID). (With RCID acting independently of Disney.) Technically, it's one special district within the state of Florida (that the State of Florida created) against the State of Florida.

I expect Disney to ultimately win in the courts, but it could get messy along the way. If this even makes it through the courts before Disney/Florida figure something out.

There may be the odd judge that rules the wrong way, but I think most judges, even conservative ones, will go with RCID on this one. If they don't, Florida's bond rating could tank completely and destroy the Florida economy.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'm simply suggesting that I expect surprises along the way, rulings that I don't necessarily agree with. (Hence why I wrote, "How much confidence do you have" in "all three".)

Right now, Disney is effectively pursuing this through its government (i.e. RCID). (With RCID acting independently of Disney.) Technically, it's one special district within the state of Florida (that the State of Florida created) against the State of Florida.

I expect Disney to ultimately win in the courts, but it could get messy along the way. If this even makes it through the courts before Disney/Florida figure something out.

I would like to hope that the courts cherish their independence and understand the role they play in the checks and balances. I don’t think every conservative judge will automatically back the Republican legislature no matter what they do. Also as has been pointed out numerous times this particular action is ”unRepublican” in the traditional sense so many conservative judges who are not newly appointed won’t necessarily agree with it. Politicians need to tow the party line to get re-elected even if they don’t personally agree with it but judges who are appointed don’t face that same pressure.

 

[UNCgolf]

I would like to hope that the courts cherish their independence and understand the role they play in the checks and balances. I don’t think every conservative judge will automatically back the Republican legislature no matter what they do. Also as has been pointed out numerous times this particular action is ”unRepublican” in the traditional sense so many conservative judges who are not newly appointed won’t necessarily agree with it. Politicians need to tow the party line to get re-elected even if they don’t personally agree with it but judges who are appointed don’t face that same pressure.

I almost mentioned this -- judges who were appointed in the past 6 or so years are more likely to be on board (or will figure out a way to be on board) because judicial appointments have become so hyper partisan. People who were considered unqualified made it onto the bench solely for political reasons.

That's not to suggest that all of the more recent appointees are unqualified or would be on board with it; just that a higher percentage of them are likely to support partisan political goals than longer serving judges.

 

[some other guy]

following up an old post of mine about "well, I'll see how Sabatini feels"
he's totally on-board, from a couple of interviews he's done in the past week
take that for how you will personally, but Sabatini is absolutely on-board, and suggests that incoming Special Sessions will have various hoo-hah to cover MUH BONDS and other noises

 

[Nubs70]

South Park S13E1 - poignant

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

I almost mentioned this -- judges who were appointed in the past 6 or so years are more likely to be on board (or will figure out a way to be on board) because judicial appointments have become so hyper partisan. People who were considered unqualified made it onto the bench solely for political reasons.

That's not to suggest that all of the more recent appointees are unqualified or would be on board with it; just that a higher percentage of them are likely to support partisan political goals than longer serving judges.

This is an important point that bears repeating.

Conservative judges are not modern culture warriors or right-leaning populists in the traditional sense of the current political paradigm. Usually they are broader institutionalist mindsets that favor the private sector in disputes where the burden of proof is placed on government.

Traditionally a more conservative legal theorist would argue in favor of limiting the governments authority over the private sector. This includes in matters of land use (eminent domain) law, corporate speech/personhood, etc. Not to mention matters of stare decisis and a general apathy to make broad reaching rulings that would empower the government against the rights of individuals -or corporations by extension.

Then when you factor in the average age and time/era of appointment of most conservative jurists you’ll find that there are very few judicial activists. Case in point - a state/federal judge appointed by (a Governor or President) Bush is possibly of different political/ideological stripe than a DeSantis/Trump appointee - and even then conservative/liberal legal theory has not yet fully morphed to match the polarization of our body-politic, per se.

 

[lazyboy97o]

following up an old post of mine about "well, I'll see how Sabatini feels"
he's totally on-board, from a couple of interviews he's done in the past week
take that for how you will personally, but Sabatini is absolutely on-board, and suggests that incoming Special Sessions will have various hoo-hah to cover MUH BONDS and other noises

That’s very insightful and specific.

 

[some other guy]

That’s very insightful and specific.

Anthony Sabatini is a Central FL-ish politico who has made no small part of his name in raging at how a lot of the GOP in Florida aren't conservative enough, to the point that he's voted against at least a few of DeSantis's budgets iirc
He's expressed ideas that he feels that the panic around bonds and whatnot is overblown in a couple of radio interviews over the past week. Also he explains that imminent special sessions may include tying up loose ends about Reedy Creek.
Obviously everybody's got an angle but when this guy's angle is "STILL TOO MUCH SPENDING REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" it's at least a bit leaning towards the idea that maybe some of the spazzing around the subject is possibly overrated.

 

[Brian]

I would like to hope that the courts cherish their independence and understand the role they play in the checks and balances. I don’t think every conservative judge will automatically back the Republican legislature no matter what they do. Also as has been pointed out numerous times this particular action is ”unRepublican” in the traditional sense so many conservative judges who are not newly appointed won’t necessarily agree with it. Politicians need to tow the party line to get re-elected even if they don’t personally agree with it but judges who are appointed don’t face that same pressure.

To be fair, judges in Florida have to run for office and/or seek reelection to retain their seats, but point taken.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Anthony Sabatini is a Central FL-ish politico who has made no small part of his name in raging at how a lot of the GOP in Florida aren't conservative enough, to the point that he's voted against at least a few of DeSantis's budgets iirc
He's expressed ideas that he feels that the panic around bonds and whatnot is overblown in a couple of radio interviews over the past week. Also he explains that imminent special sessions may include tying up loose ends about Reedy Creek.
Obviously everybody's got an angle but when this guy's angle is "STILL TOO MUCH SPENDING REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" it's at least a bit leaning towards the idea that maybe some of the spazzing around the subject is possibly overrated.

That’s still not anything specific. Several representatives have made contradictory claims about how there are no issues or they will fix issue the issues at some undetermined time. None have offered much in the way of specifics and make a lot of incorrect statements regarding the District. Seeing as they created the mess it’s hard to believe that more secret planning will present a solid solution.

 

[peter11435]

Anthony Sabatini is a Central FL-ish politico who has made no small part of his name in raging at how a lot of the GOP in Florida aren't conservative enough, to the point that he's voted against at least a few of DeSantis's budgets iirc
He's expressed ideas that he feels that the panic around bonds and whatnot is overblown in a couple of radio interviews over the past week. Also he explains that imminent special sessions may include tying up loose ends about Reedy Creek.
Obviously everybody's got an angle but when this guy's angle is "STILL TOO MUCH SPENDING REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" it's at least a bit leaning towards the idea that maybe some of the spazzing around the subject is possibly overrated.

If there’s anything the last couple weeks should have taught you it’s that politicians at all levels are woefully uniformed about the topics and the legislation they create and vote on. Reedy Creek is just one example among many. Sabatini is no exception.

 

[some other guy]

That’s still not anything specific. Several representatives have made contradictory claims about how there are no issues or they will fix issue the issues at some undetermined time. None have offered much in the way of specifics and make a lot of incorrect statements regarding the District. Seeing as they created the mess it’s hard to believe that more secret planning will present a solid solution.

I can understand there's a lot of Fog Of War going on, and I'll try to give receipts for this guy's claims in the next day or so, but my basic premise is "this guy goes off the chain when he gets a bug up a butt about even his fellow GOP", not "I have clear expenditure claims and how anything will settle out in the end"