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

[lazyboy97o]

If Disney prevails (and I agree with you that they will), it absolutely will matter, as the operating agreements that they executed will be controlling.

If Disney fully prevails in federal court the development agreement and restrictive covenants will be moot as they will again exercise de facto control of the District.

 

[JusticeDisney]

If Disney fully prevails in federal court the development agreement and restrictive covenants will be moot as they will again exercise de facto control of the District.

That may, in fact, be the case. Or it could be determined that the development agreement is controlling. Either way, Disney prevails.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That may, in fact, be the case. Or it could be determined that the development agreement is controlling. Either way, Disney prevails.

The District would still be bound by the agreements so long as they remain in place. Disney and the District could mutually agree to their termination.

There is also the possibility that Disney prevails in federal court but loses in state court and the agreements are declared void ab initio.

 

[mmascari]

Yeah I'm not concerned about physically how they do it.

What I can't rationalize at this point is WHAT they would target as the acceptable end-state for both parties. What is the compromise they would settle on? This is the part I can't conceive a setting that works for everyone in ways they would be willing to give up right now. My point is 'whats the target we all agree on?' -- That's the thing I think is most convoluted.

Mechanics are easily addressed if all parties are pushing for the same goal.

The two are intertwined and each limit the other significantly. It's not some wide open any option is possible scenario.

In both the federal and state cases, the courts can rule on the laws and contracts. They can either say they're legal and in force, or they can say they're not legal. It's possible the courts could say that parts of the law/contracts are not legal but that other parts still apply, but I doubt this happens.

Beyond that, the lawyers from the state don't have a lot of negotiating leeway. It's not like the state lawyers could offer changing how the board is selected. They could offer that they'll ask the state legislature to write a new law changing how the board is selected and that they'll say the governor will sign said legislation into law. There's a lot of "if" and "possible" and very little guarantee that such an offered plan would actually be implemented. There's to many ways for it to go sideways, and the state lawyers cannot effectively guarantee any new law would be passed. There's no way Disney drops the case based on a deal where the state suggests they'll change the law but hasn't actually changed it yet.

The state legislature could pass new legislation undoing the prior legislation. A new law to reset RCID to a new state that revises the law that made the board governor appointed that revised the law that would have disbanded RCID by revising the law that established RCID in the beginning. Until that happens, I don't see how any compromise is even possible.

 

[Chi84]

The two are intertwined and each limit the other significantly. It's not some wide open any option is possible scenario.

In both the federal and state cases, the courts can rule on the laws and contracts. They can either say they're legal and in force, or they can say they're not legal. It's possible the courts could say that parts of the law/contracts are not legal but that other parts still apply, but I doubt this happens.

Beyond that, the lawyers from the state don't have a lot of negotiating leeway. It's not like the state lawyers could offer changing how the board is selected. They could offer that they'll ask the state legislature to write a new law changing how the board is selected and that they'll say the governor will sign said legislation into law. There's a lot of "if" and "possible" and very little guarantee that such an offered plan would actually be implemented. There's to many ways for it to go sideways, and the state lawyers cannot effectively guarantee any new law would be passed. There's no way Disney drops the case based on a deal where the state suggests they'll change the law but hasn't actually changed it yet.

The state legislature could pass new legislation undoing the prior legislation. A new law to reset RCID to a new state that revises the law that made the board governor appointed that revised the law that would have disbanded RCID by revising the law that established RCID in the beginning. Until that happens, I don't see how any compromise is even possible.

If Disney wins in federal court the new board is gone. At that point if Florida declares the agreements void won’t Disney just enter into new ones? Maybe we’re talking about different agreements?

My guess is if Disney wins in federal court there will be a settlement that includes dropping the state litigation in exchange for Disney concessions regarding the composition of the board. No one will ever hear the terms.

Actually now that the governor has moved on, the possibility of settlement looks more likely.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

https://x.com/scottgustin/status/1691221025919578117?s=61&t=Z7oiUO3GrXPcbPtW6UxqPw

https://x.com/scottgustin/status/1691221658877767680?s=61&t=Z7oiUO3GrXPcbPtW6UxqPw

Someone‘s looking desperate…

Source: Scott Gustin

Gotta love the person who started the dispute saying the other side should move on.

He also wants Disney to drop their lawsuit because "they're going to lose". Why would he want them to drop a lawsuit that he is going to win? Hmmm, maybe, and this might sound crazy, but maybe, just maybe, he's not so confident he will prevail. Maybe.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If Disney wins in federal court the new board is gone. At that point if Florida declares the agreements void won’t Disney just enter into new ones? Maybe we’re talking about different agreements?

My guess is if Disney wins in federal court there will be a settlement that includes dropping the state litigation in exchange for Disney concessions regarding the composition of the board. No one will ever hear the terms.

Actually now that the governor has moved on, the possibility of settlement looks more likely.

If Disney wins in federal court then the agreements being declared void in state court doesn't really matter because Disney would again control the board. They wouldn't pursue invalidating the Comprehensive Plan and changing the land development regulations.

Who would have the authority to enter into a settlement? Changing the composition of the board would require the involvement of the legislature.

 

[Chi84]

If Disney wins in federal court then the agreements being declared void in state court doesn't really matter because Disney would again control the board. They wouldn't pursue invalidating the Comprehensive Plan and changing the land development regulations.

Who would have the authority to enter into a settlement? Changing the composition of the board would require the involvement of the legislature.

It would. I’m assuming the legislature won’t be hostile to Disney now that the governor has “moved on.”

 

[tissandtully]

Never back down... unless....

 

[Chi84]

Never back down... unless....

. . . it no longer benefits you.

 

[flynnibus]

Beyond that, the lawyers from the state don't have a lot of negotiating leeway. It's not like the state lawyers could offer changing how the board is selected. They could offer that they'll ask the state legislature to write a new law changing how the board is selected and that they'll say the governor will sign said legislation into law. There's a lot of "if" and "possible" and very little guarantee that such an offered plan would actually be implemented.

Again… very do-able if all parties are in agreement.

The state legislature is already a puppet of the gop leadership. They pass changes, both parties do what they already agreed to. The speed of the court cases is easily stalled.

Let’s be real… the state is not some atagonistic third party here. It’s the GOP whose defacto leader is the stakeholder. It would be more complicated if the rest of the gop wants out more than they are willing to back desantis and you get a rift.

But if all parties settle on a path… i’m sure they could find a way… and cases go poof. I just don’t foresee on what they could settle on.

Closest i can see is the counties nominating or electing the board. That would potentially diffuse the argument of disney playing god… while avoiding a puppet state.

 

[mikejs78]

I just don’t foresee on what they could settle on.

I could see this scenario -

• CFTOD drops the state suit, re-ratifies the development agreement and covenants
• CFTOD board remains as-is and pledges to work more with Disney
• Disney drops its lawsuit with option to refile
• Things stay that way until 2027, when the legislature quietly redoes the charter and creates a compromise situation of some kind (e.g. Governor appoints the board, but Disney has to ratify it, the counties choose, a 50/50 split between the governor/Disney, something like that).

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I could see this scenario -

• CFTOD drops the state suit, re-ratifies the development agreement and covenants
• CFTOD board remains as-is and pledges to work more with Disney
• Disney drops its lawsuit with option to refile
• Things stay that way until 2027, when the legislature quietly redoes the charter and creates a compromise situation of some kind (e.g. Governor appoints the board, but Disney has to ratify it, the counties choose, a 50/50 split between the governor/Disney, something like that).

…I think that one might be a problem

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

…I think that one might be a problem

I don’t think that would be acceptable to Disney either, a pledge isn’t legally binding. Disney needs legal coverage, not an agreement that the hostile board could break at any time.

In a perfect world they’d bring RCiD back, since it benefited everyone including the state, but that ship has unfortunately sailed.

 

[MR.Dis]

The governor was the only one ever benefiting from all of this and he's obviously decided that's no longer the case. His statement about moving on is clear legalese for "let the settlement negotiations begin." I wouldn't be surprised if it was already happening.

Yes this should be happening. As pointed out on various other threads, Mr Igor has his hands full of problems. This is something that has really gone too far. Make a settlement and move on. And anyone who believes that one side will definitely win has not paid attention how no sure thing happens when the courts get involved.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

In a perfect world they’d bring RCiD back, since it benefited everyone including the state, but that ship has unfortunately sailed.

This is my opinion as well…but that probably just makes us “idiots”

 

[mmascari]

If Disney wins in federal court the new board is gone.

This was in the context of a settlement instead of a court verdict. The state cannot really settle the case with Disney though. The legislature could pass a new law making the current court case irrelevant. That's not really the two parties agreeing to a settlement though. It's certainly not the two opposing legal teams agreeing to a compromise. If we include Disney (maybe with help from the state lawyers) lobbying the state legislature to pass that new law and what it looks like, maybe that's a settlement path. But, it's nothing like any other settlement negations in any normal court case. The state lawyers don't really have any negotiating leverage to bring about a settlement instead of complete the outcome in court.

If Disney wins in federal court, nothing else really matters anymore.

My guess is if Disney wins in federal court there will be a settlement that includes dropping the state litigation in exchange for Disney concessions regarding the composition of the board. No one will ever hear the terms.

If Disney wins in federal court, the board will change back to what it was. Any other change to the composition of the board that is not "revert back because the law that changed it wasn't legal" and "keep the current" would require a new law being passed to change it. Everyone will know what is in the new law, even if they don't know how that content was lobbied for.

It would. I’m assuming the legislature won’t be hostile to Disney now that the governor has “moved on.”

They'll all have to "move on", meaning completely reverse their prior positions. Not the "move on" that means Disney just gives up and accepts the new situation.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

It's easy to say just settle when you're not the party which has had your rights egregiously tramped on.

Any concession by Disney just enables this type of behaviour moving forward. Accepting a "compromise" is still a loss if you lost something while the other side gained something.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It's easy to say just settle when you're not the party which has had your rights egregiously tramped on.

Any concession by Disney just enables this type of behaviour moving forward. Accepting a "compromise" is still a loss if you lost something while the other side gained something.

I agree…

But how do you quantity a “win” in this case?

This isn’t exactly a fender bender in the parking lot…

The goofballs brought to light alot of things about Disneys Florida arrangement they never really talked about. The fact they ran with and lied for Money and attention probably doesn’t matter. In reality.

If it was a “bubble” and it burst…not sure you can pretend it’s still a possibility?

 

[Chi84]

This was in the context of a settlement instead of a court verdict. The state cannot really settle the case with Disney though. The legislature could pass a new law making the current court case irrelevant. That's not really the two parties agreeing to a settlement though. It's certainly not the two opposing legal teams agreeing to a compromise. If we include Disney (maybe with help from the state lawyers) lobbying the state legislature to pass that new law and what it looks like, maybe that's a settlement path. But, it's nothing like any other settlement negations in any normal court case. The state lawyers don't really have any negotiating leverage to bring about a settlement instead of complete the outcome in court.

If Disney wins in federal court, nothing else really matters anymore.


If Disney wins in federal court, the board will change back to what it was. Any other change to the composition of the board that is not "revert back because the law that changed it wasn't legal" and "keep the current" would require a new law being passed to change it. Everyone will know what is in the new law, even if they don't know how that content was lobbied for.


They'll all have to "move on", meaning completely reverse their prior positions. Not the "move on" that means Disney just gives up and accepts the new situation.

So no settlement then? I guess we’ll have to wait to find out.