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

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Premium Member
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 Judges usually prefer when specific sections are repealed or the specific intent of bypassing a current law is made known.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

Well-Known Member
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

Premium Member
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.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Conservatives used to love business. Now business has gone "woke".

Also gone is that conservative love for business. At best, conservative politicians want businesses to "stay in their lane." At worse, they want to punish "woke" businesses.
You just overstepped in generalization on this one.

Things are nuts now…but time isn’t on the side of crazy either. Equilibrium will be met.

You’re living in that. Your state. When you poke the “sleeping giant” you see what can happen and rather quickly. Florida’s inner circle is overestimating how secure they are. Generational shift in the next 10 years isn’t gonna go their way
 
Last edited:

GoofGoof

Premium Member
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.
Conservatives used to love business. Now business has gone "woke".

Also gone is that conservative love for business. At best, conservative politicians want businesses to "stay in their lane." At worse, they want to punish "woke" businesses.
Yeah, hate to say it, but @ParentsOf4 nailed this. We are definitely seeing a major shift in the political landscape that goes far beyond DeSantis or any one politician. Shifts have happened throughout the short history of this country so not unprecedented, but still alarming to see this. As both parties move further and further to the extremes we have never had a need for a 3rd party more.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
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.
Honestly…I see this as a very rare case where they could agree…

Cause:
1. Money
2. When states do things half-@$$ed and talk too much…they like to slap them down. This is the practical posterchild for that.
3. Money
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Yeah, hate to say it, but @ParentsOf4 nailed this. We are definitely seeing a major shift in the political landscape that goes far beyond DeSantis or any one politician. Shifts have happened throughout the short history of this country so not unprecedented, but still alarming to see this. As both parties move further and further to the extremes we have never had a need for a 3rd party more.
Well we’re getting into national/global political theory here…

But the amount of tumult going on right now is at furious pace by global standard as far as scope…something is gonna have to give
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I would think Disney would be making plans on how to handle any likely outcome.
I think that’s already done:

“There’s no reason to change anything…look at what we’ve have paid for/contributed to the state for 70 years with no issues”

The state has no valid counter argument for that.

…Then they go out for shawarma
 
Last edited:

GoofGoof

Premium Member
What do we think is happening behind the scenes here. Disney and the District have barely made a peep about this. There has to be something in the works?
Nobody knows at this point. Word came out that there were discussions between the legislature and the district and the framework for a compromise plan was agreed on but that didn’t provide enough political pop for one guy so here we are. I am sure Disney has made plenty of contingency plans for a range of paths this could take but there’s nothing to do or say publicly at this point. The last thing Disney wants is a drawn out public dispute, but that is exactly what the Gov wants so Disney staying silent is burning him up. Most of the news media has largely forgotten about this issue already but if Iger takes a shot at the gov now it goes right back to the front page. Instead Disney has stayed silent and DeSantis just keeps repeating the same lines over and over in the hopes of getting some traction from it.
 

kong1802

Well-Known Member
Nobody knows at this point. Word came out that there were discussions between the legislature and the district and the framework for a compromise plan was agreed on but that didn’t provide enough political pop for one guy so here we are. I am sure Disney has made plenty of contingency plans for a range of paths this could take but there’s nothing to do or say publicly at this point. The last thing Disney wants is a drawn out public dispute, but that is exactly what the Gov wants so Disney staying silent is burning him up. Most of the news media has largely forgotten about this issue already but if Iger takes a shot at the gov now it goes right back to the front page. Instead Disney has stayed silent and DeSantis just keeps repeating the same lines over and over in the hopes of getting some traction from it.

Yep.

It's why lil Ronnie is going the special session route. It's very pick me of him.
 

rio

Well-Known Member
I am not sure everyone is aware of what has been happening. The Governors office has disclosed what they plan to do. They are NOT going to dissolve the District, just change the governing body. As many have pointed out on this forum, dissolving the district opens this up to multiple challenges. By just changing the construction of the board, which is allowed by law, they avoid most of the legal issues. All debts would stay with the district. The board will be 5 member (same as now) appointed by the Governor (change from having current land owners appoint the board). Disney could challenge, but would lose (well 99% chance they would lose). There are whispers that Disney has been negotiating behind closed doors that 5 members would be appointed by gov but that one of the appointed members would be a current resident (i.e. Disney employee). The Gov would claim complete victory, but Disney would not try to challenge and would not disagree with Gov claim of victory.
So the governor can appoint political appointees if someone disagrees with him-and those appointees can decide issues regarding taxation, services, etc. How is that a win for any of the local landowners?
 

Dranth

Well-Known Member
I am not sure everyone is aware of what has been happening. The Governors office has disclosed what they plan to do. They are NOT going to dissolve the District, just change the governing body. As many have pointed out on this forum, dissolving the district opens this up to multiple challenges. By just changing the construction of the board, which is allowed by law, they avoid most of the legal issues. All debts would stay with the district. The board will be 5 member (same as now) appointed by the Governor (change from having current land owners appoint the board). Disney could challenge, but would lose (well 99% chance they would lose). There are whispers that Disney has been negotiating behind closed doors that 5 members would be appointed by gov but that one of the appointed members would be a current resident (i.e. Disney employee). The Gov would claim complete victory, but Disney would not try to challenge and would not disagree with Gov claim of victory.
They already passed the bill to remove the district. So, unless they are going to backtrack on that part of it and pass yet another bill to overturn the first one, the district is gone.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
my favorite kind of new post...

Screen Shot 2023-02-02 at 4.00.51 PM.png
 

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

Back
Top Bottom