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

[mikejs78]

The Governor and several legislators made those blatant statements, but the bill was passed by the legislature at large. Attributing the motives of legislaTORS to the legislaTURE might not be something the court wants to get into. Current case law about government action taken in retaliation for speech is usually tied to administrative (i.e. executive) agencies, not legislatures.

Generally true - but there are cases where the courts have read into legislative intent because it's been so blatent. That is somewhat the case here -

• The special session was called by the governor for the express purpose of punishing Disney for their speech
• The drafters of the bill stated that it was done to punish their speech
• Everyone who spoke on the record stated that it was for that puprose
• After the development agreement came up, the state passed numerous other laws, specificially targeted at Disney, to punish them. (The monorail inspection bill, the cancelling of the contracts, etc.) and were written in such a way as to only apply to Disney.

I don't think it's a given that Disney will lose on the law itself. It's certainly not certain either way. But either way, I do think as you point out they win based on the actions of the governor and CFTOD.

 

[Chi84]

Wait what'd I miss?

Sorry - deleted the comment.

 

[James Alucobond]

View attachment 734775
Plus, all of this has unfolded in stages and Disney wasn't really the party directly harmed by the legislation itself. The legislation was an action taken by the State against RCID. Then, later, the CFTOD has taken actions against Disney. I think the State is on solid ground for doing what they did to RCID, since RCID was a creation of the State in the first place. But the CFTOD taking punitive action against Disney and not acting in good faith on behalf of the citizens and taxpayers of the district is where the problems come up.

Said another way, I don't think Disney would have much of a case if RCID had been replaced by CFTOD and then CFTOD proceeded to treat Disney fairly.

The way CFTOD is structured is fundamentally problematic because it represents none of the interests of the landowners it oversees. It is uniquely designed to be the bludgeoning arm of a single legislator who has clearly stated that he wants to interfere in the business of the area’s residents, to the detriment of both Disney and the state at large.

 

[flyakite]

Is there public record regarding special district contract holders. It would be interesting to see how many cronies will be awarded contracts with the ending of the DEI programs.

 

[DCBaker]

New filing regarding the schedule in the Disney v. DeSantis case.

Order – #68 in WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS US INC v. DESANTIS (N.D. Fla., 4:23-cv-00163) – CourtListener.com

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE re 53 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. The court will establish a litigation schedule after resolution of the pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 49, 50 ). Briefing on those motions is set to be completed August 9. ECF No. 48 . In the meantime, the parties must...

www.courtlistener.com

 

[Cliff]

Take a look at the latest Amicus brief and the comments made there. It was covered very well with several cases cited that were very similar retaliatory actions taken against free speech that the court ruled violated the first amendment.

Even if Disney was operating it in a corrupt manner, that would be a separate issue, but also it wasn't mentioned in any of the filings nor in recorded sessions discussing the legislation to change the board. Nor has the state's attorney general filed any claims against Disney (that I'm aware) citing alleged corruption.

Another argument is this:

The state never did a thing to stop or hurt Disney's freedom speech. Absolutely nothing at all. In fact, Disney today is still 100% free to say anything they want. They back any poltical movement they choose and attack any politician they deem necessary. They can be an activist for any cause today.

The state only modified "their" RCID government. RCID is not a tool or advocate for the Walt Disney corporation. RCID's responsibility is to the general "public" and needs of the "citizens" of the state of "Florida"

Florida might argue that if Disney feels "attacked" because the state meesed with "Disney's RCID" government?....then that is a major problem.

Disney would then be admitting that RCID was just a "puppet government" of the company and the state actually "hurt" Disney by taking their "puppet" away.

To me, this is a complicated mess. Disney MUST walk a tight rope to prove that RCID was "NOT" a "puppet government" for Disney and that it always was 100% dedicated ONLY to the general public needs....yet, Florida still hurt Disney by making changes to RCID and replacing the board.

How does Disney have both at the same time? I dont know. Only the courts can judge that.

 

[Chi84]

Another argument is this:

The state never did a thing to stop or hurt Disney's freedom speech. Absolutely nothing at all. In fact, Disney today is still 100% free to say anything they want. They back any poltical movement they choose and attack any politician they deem necessary. They can be an activist for any cause today.

The state only modified "their" RCID government. RCID is not a tool or advocate for the Walt Disney corporation. RCID's responsibility is to the general "public" and needs of the "citizens" of the state of "Florida"

Florida might argue that if Disney feels "attacked" because the state meesed with "Disney's RCID" government?....then that is a major problem.

Disney would then be admitting that RCID was just a "puppet government" of the company and the state actually "hurt" Disney by taking their "puppet" away.

To me, this is a complicated mess. Disney MUST walk a tight rope to prove that RCID was "not" a "puppet government" for Disney and that it always was 100% dedicated ONLY to the general public needs....yet still hurt Disney by making changes to it and replacing the board.

How does Disney have both at the same time? I dont know. Only the courts can judge that.

This was discussed extensively earlier in the thread, with all kinds of supporting and explanatory documents as to the nature of RCID and how/why it was set up as it was. I'm assuming you haven't read any of that.

 

[Cliff]

This was discussed extensively earlier in the thread, with all kinds of supporting and explanatory documents as to the nature of RCID and how/why it was set up as it was. I'm assuming you haven't read any of that.

I dont think that the state of Florida is reading this forum...or it's attournys...or the courts are either...

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Another argument is this:

The state never did a thing to stop or hurt Disney's freedom speech. Absolutely nothing at all. In fact, Disney today is still 100% free to say anything they want. They back any poltical movement they choose and attack any politician they deem necessary. They can be an activist for any cause today.

The state only modified "their" RCID government. RCID is not a tool or advocate for the Walt Disney corporation. RCID's responsibility is to the general "public" and needs of the "citizens" of the state of "Florida"

Florida might argue that if Disney feels "attacked" because the state meesed with "Disney's RCID" government?....then that is a major problem.

Disney would then be admitting that RCID was just a "puppet government" of the company and the state actually "hurt" Disney by taking their "puppet" away.

To me, this is a complicated mess. Disney MUST walk a tight rope to prove that RCID was "NOT" a "puppet government" for Disney and that it always was 100% dedicated ONLY to the general public needs....yet, Florida still hurt Disney by making changes to RCID and replacing the board.

How does Disney have both at the same time? I dont know. Only the courts can judge that.

Of course Disney was hurt.

They entered into a deal in which they shoulder a heavier burden in terms of paying for things like roads. In exchange, they got to control the decision making process.

The deal Disney had was changed, to their disadvantage, as punishment for speech.

It couldn't be simpler or more clear.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I dont think that the state of Florida is reading this forum...or it's attournys...or the courts are either...

No, but they should be reading the amicus brief and their own state laws and regulations. Hint, being a puppet government is irrelevant.

 

[Cliff]

Of course Disney was hurt.

They entered into a deal in which they shoulder a heavier burden in terms of paying for things like roads. In exchange, they got to control the decision making process.

The deal Disney had was changed, to their disadvantage, as punishment for speech.

It couldn't be simpler or more clear.

My guess is that the state will argue that RCID was created to support thousands of citizens like the Villiges does. WDW has virtually zero actual, real citizens. I think Disney has placed 8 people in mobile homes to "act" as legal citizens of RCID? I dunno.

I also do suspect that Florida's Investigator General is parcing through years of RCID/Disney documents to possibly trap Disney in a corruption accusation. We know the IG is currently digging. We dont know what they are finding but I'm "GUESSING" this will be a future plan of the state against Disney.

Again....non of us knows what both sides are planning behind closed doors. Like all of us here...we are just spit-balling in the dark. I suspect that this fight will get WAY uglier in the future.

What "we" all say on this forum does not matter. It's how the "courts" define and judge the problems that matter. Many of us thought thid was a "slam dunk" for Disney but Im guessing that it's not that easy anymore.

 

[jinx8402]

The state only modified "their" RCID government. RCID is not a tool or advocate for the Walt Disney corporation. RCID's responsibility is to the general "public" and needs of the "citizens" of the state of "Florida"

Wrong. RCID was set up to facilitate Disney's needs that the counties could not provide to support the goal of tourism. It was not for the public needs of the citizens of the state.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My guess is that the state will argue that RCID was created to support thousands of citizens like the Villiges does. WDW has virtually zero actual, real citizens. I think Disney has placed 8 people in mobile homes to "act" as legal citizens of RCID? I dunno.

I also do suspect that Florida's Investigator General is parcing through years of RCID/Disney documents to possibly trap Disney in a corruption accusation. We know the IG is currently digging. We dont know what they are finding but I'm "GUESSING" this will be a future plan of the state against Disney.

Again....non of us knows what both sides are planning behind closed doors. Like all of us here...we are just spit-balling in the dark. I suspect that this fight will get WAY uglier in the future.

What "we" all say on this forum does not matter. It's how the "courts" define and judge the problems that matter. Many of us thought thid was a "slam dunk" for Disney but Im guessing that it's not that easy anymore.

Again, irrelevant. The information has been provided to you.

 

[Cliff]

No, but they should be reading the amicus brief and their own state laws and regulations. Hint, being a puppet government is irrelevant.

How many times in history have you 100% believed that some case was a CLEAR victory or loss in your opinion....only to find out that a court decided against your belief or understaning?

I bet a hundred times in your life.

Every lawyer believes "their" understanding of a law is correct. Half of them win, the other half loses.

Even the smartest, sharpest, brightest Harvard-trained lawyers lose...because the courts do not agree with them

 

[Chi84]

Every lawyer believes "their" understanding of a law is correct. Half if them win, the other half loses.

That could be the most inaccurate statement I’ve seen on this site, and that’s saying something

 

[lazyboy97o]

How many times in history have you 100% believed that some case was a CLEAR victory or loss in your opinion....only to find out that a court decided against your belief or understaning?

I bet a hundred times in your life.

Every lawyer believes "their" understanding of a law is correct. Half if them win, the other half loses.

This has nothing to do with certainty. Recognizing uncertainty does not require indulging you once again bringing up debunked claims. Reedy Creek Improvement District was not predicated on having a bunch of residents. Special districts that vote by landownership are expected to serve the land owners.

 

[Cliff]

That could be the most inaccurate statement I’ve seen on this site, and that’s saying something

Haha...i had to like that one.

Ok...how so?

 

[Chi84]

I dont think that the state of Florida is reading this forum...or it's attournys...or the courts are either...

I was responding to your argument - not the state of Florida’s. You seemed to be under the impression that you were bringing up something new. This may help.

https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=lr

 

[Chi84]

Haha...i had to like that one.

Ok...how so?

Just for a start, lawyers represent their clients by arguing the wording of laws, how they were interpreted in the past, etc., not their “beliefs.” Also, very rarely are cases decided entirely in one party’s favor.

 

[LAKid53]

This has nothing to do with certainty. Recognizing uncertainty does not require indulging you once again bringing up debunked claims. Reedy Creek Improvement District was not predicated on having a bunch of residents. Special districts that vote by landownership are expected to serve the land owners.

To validate your point, how many residents does the West Orange Airport Authority (an independent special district) have? Probably fewer than RCID.