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

[mkt]

It's Friday and there's no new filings.

Huzzah to another boring weekend.

 

[Batman'sParents]

Is the new board issuing permits for WDW without issue?

 

[JoeCamel]

Is the new board issuing permits for WDW without issue?

Have any been submitted that require their approval?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Is the new board issuing permits for WDW without issue?

Building and development permits are still issued by the administrative staff, not the Board, and continue to be issued. The Board has not yet amended the District regulations such that they would be involved.

 

[Disney Analyst]

 

[DCBaker]

Here is the motion to dismiss document.

 

[drnilescrane]

So, IANAL. But I asked my friend, who is studying for the FL bar, who called the claims "fragrantly stupid" and "performative for Fox News". Hopefully he passes.

 

[Chi84]

So, IANAL. But I asked my friend, who is studying for the FL bar, who called the claims "fragrantly stupid" and "perforative for Fox News". Hopefully he passes.

Sounds pretty smart.

 

[drnilescrane]

In case you were wondering, on a claim by claim basis:

• Does Disney Lack Standing To Sue The State Defendants?
  Disney does have standing, they are allowed to sue in an individual capacity & have a particularized injury.
• Are Disney’s Claims Against The State Defendants Barred By Sovereign Immunity?
  No, see above. It's a suit in equity.
• Are Disney’s Claims Against The Governor Barred By Legislative Immunity?
  Not a thing in this context.
• Does Disney Fail To State A Claim?
  

Anyway, the CFTOD motion should drop today too and that's going to be the fun one.

 

[DCBaker]

Anyway, the CFTOD motion should drop today too and that's going to be the fun one.

And here is the response from the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District on Disney’s motion to dismiss in the state case.

 

[drnilescrane]

And here is the response from the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.

That's the state lawsuit, not the federal one. We all missed this, it was filed last week.

Unfortunately on this one I think the CFTOD might have a minor win on the performance of service.

 

[DCBaker]

That's the state lawsuit, not the federal one. We all missed this, it was filed last week.

Unfortunately on this one I think the CFTOD might have a minor win on the performance of service.

Ah, yes! I was just coming back to ask if you were talking about the Federal suit.

 

[mikejs78]

That's the state lawsuit, not the federal one. We all missed this, it was filed last week.

Unfortunately on this one I think the CFTOD might have a minor win on the performance of service.

Really? Based on what?

 

[drnilescrane]

Really? Based on what?

Well, I take that back - they *might* have a minor win. IANAL of course. I've found the detail of the statute in the past. CFTOD is arguing that because Disney didn't attest to the fact that Martin Garcia was unavailable it was invalid service.

Let's see Disney's response.

 

[Rhinocerous]

So, IANAL. But I asked my friend, who is studying for the FL bar, who called the claims "fragrantly stupid" and "performative for Fox News". Hopefully he passes.

Agreed. This whole thing stinks.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Thoughts on the District’s response to Disney’s motion to dismiss (state case):

• They don’t exactly seem confident that SB 1604 is going to be upheld.
• Have to love how they contradict Garcia’s speech about how they had to do this by claiming they technically acted first and ignore that they called a special session in response to being sued.
• They brought up the nuclear canard! A true sign of understanding and a strong argument! When in doubt, bring out the nuclear boogeyman.
• No surprise that they have the 11th Hour lie.
• Love the righteous indignation over the idea of Disney controlling development at a place name, let me check here, oh right, Walt Disney World that they largely own.
• The District argues that the development agreements would actually come back into effect in 2028 but that ignores the requirement for them to reratify them.
• I like how they get to page 8 and then suddenly decide they need to define void ad initio In the main body of the argument.
• Seriously, have these people never actually looked at who they’re supposed to be serving? It’s one thing to parade on TV about how you have work to do and people to serve, but to actually put it in a motion is something else

 

[lazyboy97o]

Now reading the state’s motion to dismiss Disney’s case in federal court:

• Right into the mischaracterizations and omissions. Other districts set their taxes. The state didn’t require building codes when the District was created.
• Nuclear! And on page 2 to boot.
• 11th Hour lie. Check.
• Contradicts District’s claim that they would be bound by the development agreements in the future when SB 1604 expires
• They cite the OPPAGA report that doesn’t really support their actions.
• Calls votes by land Owners an “oddity” which we know is a lie
• Calls other districts, that were not actually changed “antiquated”

It seems the state is really hoping that nobody checks what anyone is saying and just believes whatever they say.

 

[Chi84]

Now reading the state’s motion to dismiss Disney’s case in federal court:

• Right into the mischaracterizations and omissions. Other districts set their taxes. The state didn’t require building codes when the District was created.
• Nuclear! And on page 2 to boot.
• 11th Hour lie. Check.
• Contradicts District’s claim that they would be bound by the development agreements in the future when SB 1604 expires
• They cite the OPPAGA report that doesn’t really support their actions.
• Calls votes by land Owners an “oddity” which we know is a lie
• Calls other districts, that were not actually changed “antiquated”

It seems the state is really hoping that nobody checks what anyone is saying and just believes whatever they say.

That language truly annoys judges.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That language truly annoys judges.

What language? The general tone or something more specific? Or something I suggested?

 

[Chi84]

What language? The general tone or something more specific? Or something I suggested?

Oh sorry. I meant the conclusions like “oddity” and such. Motions are just supposed to state the facts. It’s up to the judge to conclude whether something was “11th hour” “puppet board” “power grab.” It makes reading the pleadings so much harder.