I won't stoop to your level of name calling and accusations. A fire can't burn without fuel.
-
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
scottieRoss
Well-Known Member
Your post that I replied to implied that most were Disney Execs with second or third homes there.
Incorrect. Read my post again.
DisneyFanatic12
Well-Known Member
Guys, Lilofan said GO was mostly execs, they were wrong. Now, they seem to understand GO is not mostly execs. Miscommunication/confusion solved.
Garcia: “We will now charge the woke Disney executives living in Golden Oak more in taxes to cover our budget shortfall”
Is that a joke or real quote? It's so hard to tell these days.
Reread my post you are incorrect with your statement. Read the word NOT.
So everybody missed the extra not. While the side diversion into the housing practices of Disney execs may be interesting. It doesn't really matter.
In context, this was the more relavent to the district conversation:
However, Golden Oak is NOT on property.
So, whomever lives there, doesn't matter at all. None of the Golden Oak residents live within the district boundary.
mf1972
Well-Known Member
did a new law pass that requires any local or state government official to add the word “woke” to their vocabulary or are they just channeling the dear leader?
This is a joke, but shows how crazy things have gotten that we need to clarify
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
I can't catch up on all this latest stuff but the complaints about paying for police has me confused, it's pretty normal to pay off-duty law enforcement isn't it or to contract with local departments?
Churches and privates businesses do it here around me all the time. There's one private business that hires the local police Dept to direct traffic every afternoon during shift change for a large business. I'm not really sure how this was as misuse of funds, I'd say if it were government dollars then it would be.. (I guess technically RCID money would be gov, but that's being a bit nitpicky as it only exists due to one particular private businesses presence).
Churches and privates businesses do it here around me all the time. There's one private business that hires the local police Dept to direct traffic every afternoon during shift change for a large business. I'm not really sure how this was as misuse of funds, I'd say if it were government dollars then it would be.. (I guess technically RCID money would be gov, but that's being a bit nitpicky as it only exists due to one particular private businesses presence).
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
I don't even remember if this is good or bad for Disney?
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
Neutral. Disney was trying to have it both ways a bit. Worth a shot.
The judge however does seem to be rather sympathetic to the District's argument it's a simple state law contract dispute and as a local government they need immediate certainty... which makes me think she's going to be sympathetic to any number of the technicalities thrown up by the district. A narrow ruling that gives them what they want while trying to preserve basic contract law. Just my dumb hot take.
Last edited:
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
My other thoughts:
- Disappointed the judge didn't rule over the process server dispute. Would have been a great bellwether for how she interprets the law and the technical arguments made by CFTOD
- Disney doesn't really care about the contacts. They don't want the development agreements, they want to win the whole damn thing. This is just a bright, shiny object that keeps the CFTOD distracted (they're obsessed with winning this minor battle in state court) and limits the blast radius while preserving the status quo. CFTOD can win this battle but they'll loose the war.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I disagree that they were trying to have it both ways. The state has mooted the contracts and this dispute is purely hypothetical. Even if the court rules in Disney’s favor that means nothing because state law prohibits the District from honoring them.
I’m hoping there might be a bit more in the full order than just the screenshot but it’s not yet showing the county clerk’s website.
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
In my quick read the judge essentially says in her opinion Disney were trying to argue that the agreements were no longer in force in state court but their federal arguments hinged on the agreements being valid.
The judge states that if she rules for the CFTOD she feels that the federal claims are likely to fail - i.e. adopting the CFTOD argument entirely. She absolutely wants to rule on the hypothetical.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Thank you. I’m trying to read it but seriously who decided to post it as a bunch of images on Facebook?!
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
The same reporters who post iPhone screenshots to Twitter. I guess they aren't used to this type of civil intrigue in the 18th ranked DMA.
Usually they have court footage or some splashy pictures from the Sheriff's department.
Here's the statement from Disney in response to the ruling.
“Today’s decision has no bearing on our lawsuit in federal court to vindicate Disney’s constitutional rights, and we are fully confident Disney will prevail in both the federal and state cases.”
www.hollywoodreporter.com
“Today’s decision has no bearing on our lawsuit in federal court to vindicate Disney’s constitutional rights, and we are fully confident Disney will prevail in both the federal and state cases.”
Judge Rejects Disney’s Bid to Dismiss Lawsuit in Florida Feud Over Special District
The ruling was issued in one of two cases that will decide the company's authority to oversee development around Disney World.
www.hollywoodreporter.com