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

[GoofGoof]

I don’t think there’s much more to be said here at this point. Nobody is going to change their minds and it serves no purpose to continue to say the same stuff over and over.

 

[LittleBuford]

I don’t think there’s much more to be said here at this point. Nobody is going to change their minds and it serves no purpose to continue to say the same stuff over and over.

This goes for pretty much every thread here!

 

[Andrew C]

I don’t think there’s much more to be said here at this point. Nobody is going to change their minds and it serves no purpose to continue to say the same stuff over and over.

Plus. Super Bowl time.

 

[flynnibus]

But you’ve not explained how this is action violates the Florida constitution.

Because
1- its not part of debunking your assertion
2- it’s been discussed earlier

In short… you are again deflecting and saying ‘but what about…’ and trying to move the focus instead of acknowledging the defect in your assertion.

Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable.

No / that’s not what their current statement means. They can have other factors driving their decisions.

And while you might not like the outcome, the legislature can change the laws - yes, even ones they’ve passed in a prior session.

No - here you go again just trying to turn right back to the same points we just debunked. The debate isn’t ‘can they change a law’. Ffs no one is saying they can’t. But they are not unconstrained in what laws they can enact.

They’ve chosen not to even challenge this, and have been very clear in their statements.

Their statements? You’re feeling quite bold after ONE statement. But i know precision is a tough topic for you

 

[flynnibus]

And for the love of god… who cares about the variety article. It literally is just reporting the very same statement we all read with zero additional citations or information. It’s like a piece reporting about a tweet… it’s nothing more than the tweet.

It’s “disney made this statement” and some more context about the events leading up to it. the only meat in the thing is literally their own conclusion based solely on the same statement we’ve all seen. They don’t even cite their own sources, followups or anything beyond the statement itself. Which has already been addressed how it can mean several different things.

You can say ‘well varity concluded their statement means disney will ‘not fight’ this bill… not much else.

 

[peter11435]

They’ve chosen not to even challenge this, and have been very clear in their statements.

You’re saying that but you don’t actually know that. They have not officially stated they will not challenge this and they certainly haven’t clearly stated that in a statement.

 

[thomas998]

That puts Disney on roughly equal footing unlike few other litigants. And that’s before you get to the relative experience and abilities of the state AG and the firms Disney hires.

You seem to be forgetting that Florida can make and change rules all day long to get to the result they want. Disney can at most pack up and leave to another state which I think even you know isn't going to happen.

 

[peter11435]

You seem to be forgetting that Florida can make and change rules all day long to get to the result they want.

This is actually an important point regarding litigation. If Disney did fight this action and win, which I still think they likely would. The state would still be in a position to make things difficult for them in numerous other ways going forward. And could just come back for the district again in the future with a better plan.

 

[mikejs78]

But you’ve not explained how this is action violates the Florida constitution. Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable. And while you might not like the outcome, the legislature can change the laws - yes, even ones they’ve passed in a prior session.

One provision of this legislation is that the board can raise a certain amount of tax not approved by the voters. The '68 constitution clearly states that ad valorem taxes are limited to 10 mil. Special districts can raise more, but only with the consent of the electorate.

Since no change was made to Lake Buena Vista or Bay Lake, and since those residents previously did not decide who sat on the board, it seems difficult for residents of those two cities to claim injury. They were unable to select board members before, and they still can't.

That's actually not true. The legislation takes powers from Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista that are their rightful powers as municipalities, and gives them to the district. Some of these were delegated to the district by the municipalities, but legally prior to this legislation, those powers could be taken back by the municipalities at any time. Now they can't be. This could give standing and provide harm to the mayor and city council of both municipalities.

 

[mkt]

Disney made $82.7 billion in revenue last year, which is comparable to the GDP of Sri Lanka.

They could afford the lawyers.

It doesn't matter how many high priced lawyers Disney sends to fight this if the courts are stacked against them.

 

[Nubs70]

Since this action involves RCID:

RCID has standing, WDW does not.

 

[JoeCamel]

Since this action involves RCID:

RCID has standing, WDW does not.

Plus landholders do imo

 

[peter11435]

Since this action involves RCID:

RCID has standing, WDW does not.

Lol

Disney also has standing

 

[UNCgolf]

I’ve cited to the Variety article, which appears to be the most authoritative read on Disney’s decision making. If you have additional sources which provide insight into how this went down, I’d love to read them. Until then, we only have 1) Disney’s statement indicating they’re not challenging this, and 2) informative articles that give insight and context to this decision. Legislatures are also not bound by previous opinions or conclusions.

Your take on the Variety article is wrong, though, as I pointed out above. It doesn't say anything remotely close to what you've suggested it says -- in fact, it says basically nothing at all. It certainly doesn't say that Disney (or any attorneys anywhere, for that matter) have concluded that they don't have a case, even if they've decided against bringing one.

I don't really understand why you keep pointing to it as though it's meaningful in any way.

 

[mkt]

Since this action involves RCID:

RCID has standing, WDW does not.

Disney has standing as a landowner.

 

[thomas998]

This is actually an important point regarding litigation. If Disney did fight this action and win, which I still think they likely would. The state would still be in a position to make things difficult for them in numerous other ways going forward. And could just come back for the district again in the future with a better plan.

That's why it is stupid when a company gets into a ing contest with a state government. They might win battle but they won't win the war. Look at how long the tobacco industry fought against the feds when it came to advertising. They may have prolonged their ability to use Joe Camel and target kids but then the government still won in the end and probably hit them with tougher measures than if they had not fought tooth and nail from the start.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I don’t think there’s much more to be said here at this point.

After skimming the last several pages for any updates (was at DL this weekend) that seems to be a fair assessment, it’s interesting that Disney has remained so quiet but I guess their statement about not fighting it is as much as we’re going to get. Seems they just want this circus and the accompanying press to quietly go away.

 

[LittleBuford]

it’s interesting that Disney has remained so quiet

I really expected them to issue a statement to the CMs.

 

[Kirby86]

I really expected them to issue a statement to the CMs.

The original statement pretty much did. They said It's going to buisness as usual and they are going to find a way to have the same quality working within the new limits. They might send out a cast member email tomorrow since I highly doubt corporate would be bothered to do it on the weekend.

 

[sedati]

The original statement pretty much did. They said It's going to buisness as usual and they are going to find a way to have the same quality working within the new limits. They might send out a cast member email tomorrow since I highly doubt corporate would be bothered to do it on the weekend.

"Watch what you say."

or

"Why stand up for what's right when you can sit down and shut up."

or

"Rights, schmites."

That's the message I got.