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

[MrPromey]

Disney's power move are the two municipalities that they control. Unfortunately, then Florida's power move is that they can call a special legislative session to dissolve the municipalities and transfer them to the counties.

And then the power move for local government would be to start charging $25 bucks a car to park in those nice garages in Disney Springs.

Hey, they gotta' pay that debt off somehow, right?

 

[mkt]

And then the power move for local would be to start charging $25 bucks a car to park in those nice garages in Disney Springs.

Hey, they gotta' pay that debt off somehow, right?

The ultra power move would be to charge $100 parking for any car with a Yellow STATE Florida License plate.

 

[Kamikaze]

How long could this be reasonably blocked, if it did go to the courts? Would it still “go into effect” or effectively be blocked for months?

EDIT: Of course, this is only if Disney takes action. After this “plan” is released. I hadn’t even noticed the timing with the earnings call.

Years. Many of them.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.

Disagree on the Supreme Court.

This reeks of “interfering with private business”

You know that’s not gonna sell well. The government is supposed to ensure that billion dollar companies are protected from losing a dime…as long as they’re never given rules/told what to do…

It’s like “Article 17” or something

 

[lazyboy97o]

Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.

Disenfranchisement is usually considered an injury.

 

[mikejs78]

Law is complex and Disney is fighting an uphill battle with the Florida Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court all leaning conservative. I'm not sure an individual judge will be able to block this for long without support from higher courts.

For example, according to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a plaintiff has to show an "actual or imminent" injury, not one that is "speculative or conjectural." To date, we've only speculated what harm Disney might suffer. I'm not sure that simply changing how a special district's board of supervisors are appointed qualifies as an injury. Even if a judge issues an injunction, an appeals court could reverse this on something along the lines of Lujan.

I'm not suggesting that Disney's case (or any case brought forward by the district's residents) rests on Lujan. Instead, I'm suggesting that court rulings often depend on a judge's individual biases, and this influences which aspects of the law they focus on to reach the ruling they want.

There are exceptions, but most judges, both liberal and conservative, tend to be above politics. Sure, they have their biases and views that color their decisions, but it is less about who scores political points vs the underlying ideology. Case in point - numerous conservative judges have already ruled against various laws proposed and signed by DeSantis. Very few judges, including the supreme court, have any cover for the former President's lawsuits regarding the 2020 election.

I think pointing out the conservative judiciary overstates things by quite a bit. Even under Lujan, harm can be claimed by the fact that a board with the power to levy taxes without any kind of representation will have been created.

It actually doesn't have to even be TWDC doing the suing. One of the other (Disney affiliated) landowners can.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You have more faith than I do that justices like Thomas and Altito will rule in Disney’s favor.

My gut tells me they fully support the Parental Rights in Education Act and this will strongly influence their rulings. They are not going to give Disney a win and will figure out a way to get there. The question then becomes, how many other justices will join them, if it gets that far.

This is the battle that Disney faces in the conservative Florida Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit. Like it or not, a judge’s personal views often bleed over into their decisions.

This is why we have liberal and conservative justices. They both are looking at the same law but often reach polar opposite decisions.

I think they would be hesitant to go against an iconic private business…because the halls of power won’t like it at all.

And (prepare edit…try to keep it “non-local)…but if you look at the landscape/numbers…a certain state official will be off the front page in 3 years. And they all know it…which is why complete distractions like this are being pushed so hard now…it’s a desperation move.

This also could take years…Clarence Thomas might need ponce de Leon to be around that long

 

[mikejs78]

You have more faith than I do that justices like Thomas and Altito will rule in Disney’s favor.

Ok. Let's talk supreme court. I highly suspect you're right about Thomas and Alito. That's two against Disney. I also think that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson are a shoe-in to side with Disney. I also think Roberts is in that camp, as he has become a more moderating force over the years. So that's 4-2 for Disney. That means they would need one of the remaining three justices to side with them, and I think the odds are in their favor.

Gorsuch is the most conservative of the remaining three, and generally the most likely to side with Alito and Thomas. But - he wrote the opinion that applied the civil rights act to LGBTQ individuals. He is as pure a textualist as they come.

Kavanaugh - another right-center jurist is known for his pro-business approach and for having a very expansive view of the first amendment.

Barrett - wildcard; very pro-business record. Record on speech is unclear.

If I had to handicap a Supreme court case, I'd say 6-3 in favor of Disney.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There are exceptions, but most judges, both liberal and conservative, tend to be above politics. Sure, they have their biases and views that color their decisions, but it is less about who scores political points vs the underlying ideology. Case in point - numerous conservative judges have already ruled against various laws proposed and signed by DeSantis. Very few judges, including the supreme court, have any cover for the former President's lawsuits regarding the 2020 election.

And it is not just more senior conservative judges making these rulings. It's even more recent appointees who owe their jobs to the people whom they are ruling against. The special master review of the items collected in the search of Mar-A-Lago was ended by conservative judges on the Eleventh Circuit, a majority of whom were appointed by Trump, because Justice Thomas decided the matter didn't need further review. And while there are examples of judges who do very much seem to craft an argument out of their desired outcome, its not usually based on their views of completely different issues regarding completely different legislation because they want to give a win to a particular person.

These cases are also assigned at random. There is no guarantee that the case ends up before a particular judge or panel of judges. Even if the case can eventually be elevated to a full panel where the majority is known, those bodies will not just take the case without lower court rulings. The state has no injury for which it can claim a need to more immediately escalate to the higher bodies.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There are exceptions, but most judges, both liberal and conservative, tend to be above politics. Sure, they have their biases and views that color their decisions, but it is less about who scores political points vs the underlying ideology. Case in point - numerous conservative judges have already ruled against various laws proposed and signed by DeSantis. Very few judges, including the supreme court, have any cover for the former President's lawsuits regarding the 2020 election.

I think pointing out the conservative judiciary overstates things by quite a bit. Even under Lujan, harm can be claimed by the fact that a board with the power to levy taxes without any kind of representation will have been created.

It actually doesn't have to even be TWDC doing the suing. One of the other (Disney affiliated) landowners can.

I think you have a very “textbook” view of what judges are now. I admire your optimism…but a lot of recent rulings are junta level appalling/in the tank.

What’s on “the street” is different.

But I agree that there is little chance this would go against Disney. There are some things that have a different status/level.

I’ve always argued that Disney is one of them.

What are we talking about here? Some low level carpetbagger trying to raise cash off attacking an American legend company that runs one of the very select most known/popular/visited places in the country?

Does that scan in the District of Columbia?

Easy question.

 

[lazyboy97o]

My read of the Florida Constitution is that the legislature is within its legal authority to dissolve the district.

Similarly, the Florida Constitution allows the legislature to create a new district, and to transfer the powers of that district:

Transfer of powers. — By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.

A friendly court (as the Florida Supreme Court is likely to be), could very well decide that this allows the legislature to pass a law to transfer the powers of RCID to the newly created special district.

Again, I'm not saying that the case will turn on this particular section of the Florida Constitution. Instead, I am saying that Disney is going to have to fight a complex legal battle and likely will experience setbacks along the way.

When it comes to the Florida Constitution, federal courts might stay out of this, meaning Disney has to win battles concerning special districts in state court. Ultimately, Florda judges are politicians.

You're conflating different things. There are plenty of cases where an injunction ended with the decision to allow the enjoined action to proceed. The bar for an injunction is lower than that for a ruling.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

My read of the Florida Constitution is that the legislature is within its legal authority to dissolve the district.

Similarly, the Florida Constitution allows the legislature to create a new district, and to transfer the powers of that district:

Transfer of powers. — By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.​

A friendly court (as the Florida Supreme Court is likely to be) could decide that this allows the legislature to pass a law to transfer the powers of RCID to the newly created special district.

Again, I'm not saying that the case will turn on this particular section of the Florida Constitution. Instead, I am saying that Disney is going to have to fight a complex legal battle and likely will experience setbacks along the way.

When it comes to the Florida Constitution, federal courts might stay out of this, meaning Disney has to win battles concerning special districts in state court. Ultimately, Florda judges are politicians.

I think they would have to change the constitution first?

My understanding is that the municipalities affect have to vote to approve a dissolution?
Which is EXACTLY why Disney had it written that way.
Much smarter men in 1965…even without iPhones

Also…Disney has said nothing…they could unleash the PR hounds and flood the Airwaves with just how much money and how many lives are financed by port orleans. It’s more shocking that anyone really wants to admit.

 

[GoofGoof]

My read of the Florida Constitution is that the legislature is within its legal authority to dissolve the district.

Similarly, the Florida Constitution allows the legislature to create a new district, and to transfer the powers of that district:

Transfer of powers. — By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.​

A friendly court (as the Florida Supreme Court is likely to be) could decide that this allows the legislature to pass a law to transfer the powers of RCID to the newly created special district.

Again, I'm not saying that the case will turn on this particular section of the Florida Constitution. Instead, I am saying that Disney is going to have to fight a complex legal battle and likely will experience setbacks along the way.

When it comes to the Florida Constitution, federal courts might stay out of this, meaning Disney has to win battles concerning special districts in state court. Ultimately, Florda judges are politicians.

If a court looks at what you quoted above and then rules that the legislature can still do this then they are basically saying throw out the constitution and the judicial branch of government while you are at it and everything happens with a simple majority vote in the legislature. No guaranteed rights for anyone. Seems like a brilliant idea.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The Florida legislature has the power to change the law. This is why when the wording to dissolve the district was worded this way:

Notwithstanding s. 189.072(2), any independent special 23 district established by a special act prior to the date of 24 ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, 25 and which was not reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise 26 reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968, is dissolved effective June 1, 2023.​

The "notwithstanding" means they can ignore previous laws, including the original charter. This is within their legislative power to do so.

However, the state legislature cannot violate the state constitution. Therefore, any challenge at the state level is going to have to hinge on the Florida Constitution.

This is why I highlighted this section of the state constitution:

Transfer of powers. — By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.​

Depending on one's interpretation, this could suggest that the state legislature has the power ("provided by law") to transfer the "function or power of a" "special district" to another special district "by law". The legislative passes laws. The legislature has the power.

Well…That is horrifically conceived and written…

Which is why I’m not surprised at all.

This is intellectually stupid and defies all logic. Which is my contention since day 1 and there’s been nothing to disprove it.

 

[GoofGoof]

There are lots of things done with a simple majority vote in the legislature that I don't like.

Our power is in electing officials who won't do things that we don't like.

And in a Constitution that is supposed to protect us against those elected officials.

Yeah it’s the last sentence that is the issue. There is a constitution. It clearly spells out how the transfer of power occurs. If a judge decides to “interpret“ that the legislature can just do what they want because the judge is a politician and he sides with the majority in the legislature than what’s the point of a constitution or a judicial branch. Throughout the history of this country judges were either elected or appointed by politicians but that never stopped them from doing their duties.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The original question was:

How long could this be reasonably blocked, if it did go to the courts? Would it still “go into effect” or effectively be blocked for months?​

I'm suggesting that any injunction could quickly be overturned on appeal on any one of numerous aspects of the law.

Again, I am not predicting which aspect of the law. Instead, I am presenting examples. Ultimately, I am suggesting that the final ruling could hinge on some aspect of the law that we haven't even discussed on this thread as well as the personal biases of justices.

I just don't see this as a slam dunk for Disney. IMO, Disney should prevail. That doesn't mean they will.

You're still confusing two very different things. A preliminary injunction is not the same as winning a case. There are plenty of examples where a party gets a preliminary injunction but loses the case. Preliminary injunctions are also not quickly overturned as a matter of course, because higher courts demand the process be followed. Florida is currently in the process of defending the Stop WOKE Act in the federal circuit courts which enjoined the legislation, but the state did not go running to get that undone by the Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court because they would not have let it happen.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

It’s like we’re in bizarro world… people are worried the right leaning justices (historically pro business) will doom RCiD and the left leaning justices (historically anti business) our now Disneys saviors? Do people actually believe this?

DeSantis is using Disney for personal political gain but that doesn’t mean the entire party has shifted ideology and will follow him.

If it got all the way to the Supreme Court, something I find highly unlikely, my guess is 8-1 or 7-2 for Disney, you’ll get 1 or 2 (we all know who) that will go against them out of partisanship but the other 7-8 will side with the law and Disney.

 

[mikejs78]

The "notwithstanding" means they can ignore previous laws, including the original charter. This is within their legislative power to do so.

There are limits to the notwithstanding clause. Judges don't usually like them to begin with because it's somewhat sloppy and there are a lot of caveats to those types of clauses because of prior legislation. Judges usually prefer when specific sections are repealed or the specific intent of bypassing a current law is made known.

Same goes for "as established by law". It's not a slam dunk. To use that, the legislature would have to establish an alternative process for the transfer of powers. No such process has been established, so the FL can't just do it out of thin air to Reedy Creek, Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake. They would need to create legislation first that established this process.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am not confusing two different things.

If a judge issues an injunction, this could have immediate adverse consequences that affect not only residents of the district, but Orange and Osceola Counties as well. (Issuing bonds, paying taxes, and planned construction, for example.) A higher court might feel the need to expedite the process.

Leaving RCID in legal limbo for months (or longer) is not a good thing.

A preliminary injunction would keep legislation from going into effect. What adverse consequences are immediately and irreparably created by maintaining the status quo? The counties and their residents would continue on as they have done for the past half century. There would be no issues with bonds or taxes because they would continue to be paid and collected just as they are now. Construction would continue as planned.

The big argument for the change is that Disney doesn't pay taxes. Money can easily be collected at a later date, especially since that's the supposed goal. In the past there have been comments that Disney does not follow state regulations, but as you pointed out, the harm would be specific and immediate, not speculative. Even with something like building codes, a building department is not the entity that actually assumes liability for non-conformance, that falls to the state regulated architect, engineers, and contractors; so the state's argument would end up being that they need to be in control because they are allowing rampant disregard for state regulations.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You're still confusing two very different things. A preliminary injunction is not the same as winning a case. There are plenty of examples where a party gets a preliminary injunction but loses the case. Preliminary injunctions are also not quickly overturned as a matter of course, because higher courts demand the process be followed. Florida is currently in the process of defending the Stop WOKE Act in the federal circuit courts which enjoined the legislation, but the state did not go running to get that undone by the Eleventh Circuit or Supreme Court because they would not have let it happen.

This is a very valid point about injunctions…because of the commodity they use: time.

Time is on Disneys side. They have the pockets to stretch it out and allow the “political clock” to run out.