Reread my post you are incorrect with your statement. Read the word NOT.
-
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
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
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Just read it and I agree. The order pretty much straight up says that it’s being considered because it might influence the federal decision.
She also reiterated the District’s bizarre claim that the agreements would suddenly be applicable in five years under SB 1604.
She also buys into the nonsense claim that the District is being hindered in doing its work. The District still has not officially started work on a new comprehensive plan. They’re not being delayed on making changes to the development regulations because they don’t have an alternate plan to use as a basis as required by state law. And the only change they’ve even talked about is affordable housing which, due to state law, is now automatically allowed within most of the District.
Last edited:
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
The fact that they seem sympathetic to the district worries me on the ruling. Especially in state court.
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
It's hard not to read between the lines when legislative policy (i.e. intent) is invoked by the judge - i.e. she's not pleased with Disney attempting to circumvent the legislature, nor with their attempts to circumvent the Florida (i.e. her) courts.
The CFTOD lawyers have written exactly what the state court wants to hear.
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
After thinking on this, given what was shared as a response I think it’s gonna be an uphill battle for Disney to win this in STATE court. Clearly the governor calls the shots and will do anything in his power to make him look correct.
I do however, Disney will have a much better shot in FEDERAL court. This should be a slamdunk case for Disney, but given how that response was worded maybe it won’t be as cut and dry as I originally thought.
I do however, Disney will have a much better shot in FEDERAL court. This should be a slamdunk case for Disney, but given how that response was worded maybe it won’t be as cut and dry as I originally thought.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
If Disney loses in state court half the Federal case is gone. They could still win on the other grounds, but a loss in state court, which seems almost a lock at this point, will make it harder to win the Federal case now.
If Disney wins in Federal Court that the reason for the first bill was a violation of their first amendment rights, then everything thereafter becomes unconstitutional. Now, that wont prevent the Legislature from passing a new bill but with as bad as Desantis is doing in his Presidental race he is losing power and I doubt the Legislature will continue to rubber stamp his desires. The only bill that has passed and become law that could survive is the monorail inspection bill.