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

JoeCamel

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
It is generally not a good idea to tell a court you are being prevented from doing something and then doing that very thing. Not being able to make changes was a major argument in their case against Disney.

The big change they made in regards to zoning and development was giving the boot to the planning commission and appointing themselves. They did also codify their supremacy over the municipalities, but that was part of the new charter.

And since I’ve now mentioned the planning commission, that’s another area where Disney could have been given a concession but was not. If this is all about switching over to just no nonsense business, why not go back to a planning commission with planning professionals?
Click to expand...
Planning pros are scary. Southshore Tampa Bay was trying to steer development and one side paid the "pros" that designed Seaside to present a plan to their liking. It was expensive and a total non-starter as they failed to understand what the existing community was. I met with them three times and each time they were deaf to any criticism or input as "they designed Seaside" therefore they knew best.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Tom P. said:
I have read a lot of the recent posts on this thread, but not all of them, so apologies if I'm covering ground that was already covered.

Look, I am a conservative Republican. I like DeSantis and generally approve of his time as governor of Florida. But he was going to end up losing this battle and he knows it. He openly stated that he was punishing Disney for their political speech. And thanks to the questionable actions of some on "my side" of the aisle, the Supreme Court has long ago established that corporations are people too for the purpose of the law. So he was clearly running afoul of the First Amendment. He would have eventually been smacked down by one court or another.

But he was running for president. And he know that he could make political hay from this and that it wouldn't wend its way through the courts in time to negatively affect his campaign. That campaign is over now, so he's safe to kiss and make up with Disney, which was always going to happen.

For Disney's part, even though they're well within their rights to express whatever opinions they want, I think Chapek handled the situation horribly from beginning to end, which was part of why he ended up being shown the door. Disney has the right to express their opinions, but many people are tired of being smacked over the head with in-your-face messaging as part of their entertainment. And Iger came in wanting to clean this mess up from the beginning and this was his opportunity to do so.

So, bottom line, Disney did some dumb things, DeSantis did some dumber (and unconstitutional) things, and just as everybody knew would happen, in time the two sides are going to come back together and continue to do business in Florida.

For my part, I'm going to keep going to Walt Disney World and enjoying it. If I boycotted every company that said or did something I disagreed with, I'd have to move to a cabin in the mountains and grow my own food.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree on the court Interpretation

I said about 1000 pages back that I couldn’t see the Supreme Court ruling for a state against a private business…especially this private Business.

So why do we suppose they settled on this? The timing is key
 
Figgy1

Figgy1

Premium Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
Bridget and a couple of dudes on only fans?

…I’ll see myself out now
Click to expand...
1711588966298.png
 
I

Isamar

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
It is generally not a good idea to tell a court you are being prevented from doing something and then doing that very thing. Not being able to make changes was a major argument in their case against Disney.

The big change they made in regards to zoning and development was giving the boot to the planning commission and appointing themselves. They did also codify their supremacy over the municipalities, but that was part of the new charter.

And since I’ve now mentioned the planning commission, that’s another area where Disney could have been given a concession but was not. If this is all about switching over to just no nonsense business, why not go back to a planning commission with planning professionals?
Click to expand...

Probably because there was no possible deal to be had that didn’t give DeS the ability to claim victory on paper. The rest will come later in the negotiated agreements that will get little to no press.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Isamar said:
Probably because there was no possible deal to be had that didn’t give DeS the ability to claim victory on paper. The rest will come later in the negotiated agreements that will get little to no press.
Click to expand...
Brining on a new planning board could have easily been spun as part of the ongoing implementation of good governance practices. They had to get rid of the Disney cronies and now that they are moving forward they can bring on new people.

But again I ask, why drop your only levage for something promised in the future? Even if a new agreement is done and just waiting, it has to go through two noticed meetings, plenty of time for things to change again.
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
That issue will not be litigated unless Disney revives the federal suit.
Click to expand...
It’s not up to Disney to revive the federal suit. It’s dead. If anyone could revive it, it’s the appellate court.
flynnibus said:

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

I don't claim to understand all the nuances of this legal situation, but I can perceive one thing: both sides were losing. DeSantis lost considerable political clout nationally once he realized the fight with Disney was not popular beyond the extreme right. He assumed people in the state and...
forums.wdwmagic.com forums.wdwmagic.com
Click to expand...
Here:


My favorite line is where the parties refer to the Jan/Feb 2023 agreements as having been “purportedly adopted.”
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
mkt said:
Chatting with Miami/Tallahassee lobbyist & attorney.

The word up there is that this was entirely done so DeSantis wins on paper and saves face, while after all is said and done, Disney gets what they want: control (via a likely friendlier and more competent board)
Click to expand...
A Miami / Tallahassee lobbyist & attorney that’s also an Orlando WDW bus driver.
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
Its not - which is why its specifically mentioned i this settlement
Click to expand...
A judge dismissed the case. It can only be “revived” if an appeals court reverses. Disney can choose to push forward with its appeal, but ultimately it is up to an appellate court to “revive the federal suit.”
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
EPCOT-O.G. said:
It’s not up to Disney to revive the federal suit. It’s dead. If anyone could revive it, it’s the appellate court.

Here:


My favorite line is where the parties refer to the Jan/Feb 2023 agreements as having been “purportedly adopted.”
Click to expand...
There’s a final order in the case but the lawsuit isn’t dead; in fact, abandoning an appeal is often part of settlement agreements. And given this particular district judge’s track record of being overturned on first amendment issues, it’s a viable point.
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
There’s a final order in the case but the lawsuit isn’t dead; in fact, abandoning an appeal is often part of settlement agreements. And given this particular district judge’s track record of being overturned on first amendment issues, it’s a viable point.
Click to expand...
You’re right. It’s not dead. It’s just been dismissed by a judge, appealed with an uphill battle, and the parties agreed to stay further briefing so they can negotiate a new development agreement between Disney and the CFTOD.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
EPCOT-O.G. said:
You’re right. It’s not dead. It’s just been dismissed by a judge, appealed with an uphill battle, and the parties agreed to stay further briefing so they can negotiate a new development agreement between Disney and the CFTOD.
Click to expand...
The settlement agreement requires the parties to negotiate in good faith. If that doesn’t happen, they’ll end up back in court for breach of the agreement.

But none of this is likely to happen. The only party who thought he would benefit at all by this course of action was bitten in the behind by it and has no reason to hassle Disney anymore.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
Tonto said:
I’m hopeful this is the beginning of the end of this legal battle. No one benefits, and everyone loses.

Disney needs to start rebuilding its image and continuing to fight DeSantis only prevents that from occurring.

Time to turn the page!
Click to expand...
The parties have turned the page. They settled the case. It’s over.
 
Tom P.

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
DeSantis should have chosen a different campaign strategy. Books will be written about what a poor choice he made in going after Disney. In fact, there are already some pretty lengthy analyses by political experts.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Even if you wanted to base a campaign on an "anti-woke" strategy, Disney was the wrong target. Liberal or not, Disney is still beloved and Walt Disney World is one of the most popular vacation destinations in the world. It was just never going to end well for DeSantis.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom