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

[Chi84]

As I repeatedly have emphasized, this depends on the types of justices Disney faces along the way. Some will be more inclined to believe Disney. Some will be more inclined to believe DeSantis.

If you are going to face either type, be sure to go in with evidence they cannot choose to ignore.

But burdens of proof and legal precedents actually mean something to judges. I find the views expressed here very jaded. It’s not just who believes whom, although that will come into play.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Seriously, find some successful lawsuits against politicians for their campaign speech.

We have politicians today who say the most outrageous things, yet they continue to spew forth garbage with immunity.

You can’t just sue a politicians or anyone for the mere act of lying. Most politicians don’t employ the SBF method of constantly talking about engaging in illegal activity.

Court proceedings are not something to take lightly. Lying to a court is illegal. Remember not that long ago when Trump was claiming he declassified all of the marked documents found at Mar-A-Lago? That argument was all over TV but it never appeared in any of the legal filings because none of Trump’s lawyers were willing to risk abetting or committing perjury with such a specious argument.

While the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, that burden is not something that must be born independently. Florida has extensive open records laws. Filing suit can open up tools like discovery and depositions. A politician might have no issue lying to the public, but lying to a court is a very different game. And while someone like the governor might be able to get by with some protections, that’s not going to be the case for people like legislative staffers. So any claim that it was just campaign speech needs to be rather air tight with no contradicting witnesses or documents.

 

[Nubs70]

Lawsuits differ greatly in their elements and burdens of proof. You can’t really compare them that way.

A lawsuit, in this case, would be a civil action which only requires a preponderance of evidence no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Either a jury of 50% +1 or the opinion of a finder of fact.

 

[hopemax]

Don't take "campaign speech" literally. In this context, it covers a boarder range, pretty much anything a politician says in public.

How about their non-public statements? Communication with Disney directly? One thing we’ve learned about other recent topics that are going through various stages of legal scrutiny is that the people involved did actually write their clear intent down and sent it around.

 

[Tom P.]

It wouldn't have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt unless the guy was facing criminal charges.

Sorry, you're correct. That was the wrong language. The standard would be "preponderance of the evidence." In the case of political speech, again, I think that would he a high bar to clear.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Yeah, but he's not just saying things - he's doing it - and then telling you why. Even if he's lying, the lie doesn't undo the action. And their testimony about lying or not will be judged, not taken verbatium. It becomes increasingly hard to say "I didn't mean it" when you build a long list of things you actually did, that align with those statements.

Also, "I was just saying that to rally my base," would only be a valid excuse if Disney was in on it - which would obviously negate any need for a lawsuit anyway. Otherwise, the lie has the same chilling effect as if it was the truth and that's all that matters.

 

[Tom P.]

Only criminal cases have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases, which this would be, only have to find a preponderance of evidence. They have that with DeSantis’ own words.

Can they present a preponderance of evidence to prove his words weren't just lies?

 

[MandaM]

Can they present a preponderance of evidence to prove his words weren't just lies?

Yes, because he took actions which corresponded with his words. “I was just kidding” doesn’t usually fly far in court.

 

[Chi84]

A lawsuit, in this case, would be a civil action which only requires a preponderance of evidence no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Either a jury of 50% +1 or the opinion of a finder of fact.

And after the plaintiff establishes the elements, the burden would shift to the defendant to prove that he would have taken the action anyway, even in the absence of his motive to retaliate.

Can they present a preponderance of evidence to prove his words weren't just lies?

That would be his burden to prove they were. You know. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

 

[Chi84]

As @Chi84 provided a link to, one of the burdens Disney must prove by a preponderance of the evidence is:

the plaintiff’s protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant’s conduct.​

Let's look at one of the public statements DeSantis has released on this topic:

“Allowing a corporation to control its own government is bad policy, especially when the corporation makes decisions that impact an entire region,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “This legislation ends Disney’s self-governing status, makes Disney live under the same laws as everybody else, and ensures that Disney pays its debts and fair share of taxes.”​

​

HB 9-B ends Disney’s self-governing status and imposes a five-member state control board that is appointed by the Governor and subject to Senate confirmation.​

​

This legislation amends the Reedy Creek Improvement District charter which:​

• ENDS Disney’s self-governing status.
• ENDS Disney’s exemption from the Florida Building Code and Florida Fire Prevention Code.
• ENDS Disney’s exemption from state regulatory reviews and approvals.
• ENDS Disney’s secrecy by ensuring transparency.
• ENSURES that Disney will pay its fair share of taxes.
• PREVENTS leftist local governments from using the situation to raise local taxes.
• IMPOSES Florida law so that Disney is no longer given preferential treatment.
• ENSURES that Disney’s municipal debt will be paid by Disney, not Florida taxpayers.

DeSantis identifies clear, non-protected reasons for his actions. In order to rule against DeSantis, a judge must belittle these and believe that DeSantis' primary motivation (i.e. preponderance of evidence) is to chill Disney's protected First Amendment speech.

DeSantis is no Trump. Based on what I have learned, DeSantis is a razor sharp attorney. He knows the law. He knows the tightrope he can walk without falling off. He's not making these public statements without a backup plan, without a strategy.

But some of the new RCID board members are nowhere near as smart. Some might be downright Bozos. I expect they won't be able to stop themselves from making legal mistakes along the way. This will be Disney's best chance, if they find the need to fight back.

I’m pretty sure they can prove it was a motivating factor based on his statements that he was changing RCID to punish Disney and that he hadn’t even heard of RCID until Disney opposed the law that it did.

At that point the burden of proof would shift to the governor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he would have made the changes to RCID even if Disney had not made statements opposing the law.

 

[flynnibus]

Seriously, find some successful lawsuits against politicians for their campaign speech.

We have politicians today who say the most outrageous things, yet they continue to spew forth garbage with immunity.

You've got it backwards. This isn't about suing 'for their campaign speech' - it's about using their statements (writen and oral) as evidence in a case based on other concrete actions. Important distinction there.

 

[flynnibus]

He can say one thing in public, while his real motivation is something else. Disney has to prove that DeSantis' real motivation was to harm Disney, that DeSantis was not genuinely interested in leveling the playing field in central Florida, and that DeSantis was not just doing this to raise campaign funds.

The burden is on Disney.

Sure, but DeSantis and his crew didn't make it hard to make the list.

What do you think the excuse is for introducing these bills in the special session?
What do you think his excuse would be for rewriting the timeline of events vs what he outlined himself?

Yes the 'burden is on Disney' - but that burden sure looks a lot less than trying to come up with some convincing stories that make someone actually believe the words and actions don't line up.

 

[Chi84]

Another thing to remember is that the elements of the case will be argued and proved based on case law interpreting those elements. There will be cases defining what constitutes a substantial or motivating factor, what type of proof was sufficient in similar circumstances, etc. Its not just a matter of the judge listening to the raw facts and making a decision.

 

[flynnibus]

DeSantis identifies clear, non-protected reasons for his actions. In order to rule against DeSantis, a judge must belittle these and believe that DeSantis' primary motivation (i.e. preponderance of evidence) is to chill Disney's protected First Amendment speech.

Doesn't have to be 'primary motivation' - just convince that he wouldn't have done it anyway without that motivation. Again, the timeline is DeSantis' biggest problem. It's really hard to argue anything they did here was in the normal order of business given the timeframe they did, and their own words about their posture towards RCID before the blowup.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Looking at the makeup of the board, there appear to be at least two members who are going to be idiots and shoot off their mouths the first chance they get.

Does the new board just need a simple majority to approve/deny actions?

If so that may explain the 3 relatively qualified members and 2 thorns. Hostile enough to be a pain in the butt but not enough to actually harm the states golden goose.

 

[GoofGoof]

Don't take "campaign speech" literally. In this context, it covers a boarder range, pretty much anything a politician says in public.

So basically there is no protected speech anymore. Any politician can say whatever they want and then just say it was a lie and they can actually follow through with action (in this case they said they would punish Disney for speaking out and then followed through) and then just say they lied about why they were doing it? I refuse to believe we are that far gone. There are plenty of conservative judges who would agree with me too. Not every judge is a political hack. Many actually believe in what they do. I don’t disagree that a lot of the more recent judicial appointments were questionable but that still is only a fraction of the overall pool of judges.

 

[GoofGoof]

Does the new board just need a simple majority to approve/deny actions?

If so that may explain the 3 relatively qualified members and 2 thorns. Hostile enough to be a pain in the butt but not enough to actually harm the states golden goose.

I think if that was the intent the 3 “qualified members” could have been people actually qualified to run the district. Those 3 have no real municipal governing experience and still have pretty obvious ties to the administration. Remember at its heart RCID provides very mundane services and there are plenty of people out there with construction or road maintenance experience or utility experience or first responders. If they sincerely wanted 3 qualified people include a roads guy, a utility guy and an EMS guy. Lawyers are fine, but the district has lawyers to review and write contracts, the board doesn’t need to do that.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Or, for no reason at all.

The just announced less than a month ago $176M World Drive project, that Orlando Business Journal says "Once started, the project will take two years to complete.".

Once confirmed, the new board could:

• Stop the project immediately with nothing done.
• Shortly after the project starts, stop the project.
• In the middle of the project, when everything is torn up with maximum disruption, temporary diversions, and traffic cones everywhere, stop the project.
• Let it go to completion.

They don't need any reason at all to pick any of those options. Just the whimsy that it wasn't a great idea to spend resources on the project and that they would prefer to do something else with the money.

Short of a smoking email that directly says the project is being stopped because of content Disney is creating, there isn't any grounds Disney could sue the district on for stopping the project. The normal check on this would be voting for new board members that will take actions their constituents desire does not apply any more.

Even with that smoking email, because lets just accept that it wouldn't be an email, it'll be a stump speech shouted for all to hear, they would still have to prove that this was the reason when the board says "actually we missed the speech and just thought it was poor use of funds".

The thing is, if the board stops the project, that will save Disney millions of dollars, since they won't have to pay the district for work that was never completed, so why bother to fight it? If anyone complains about the roads, Disney can simply point to the board, and state that they cancelled the project. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[GoofGoof]

The thing is, if the board stops the project, that will save Disney millions of dollars, since they won't have to pay the district for work that was never completed, so why bother to fight it? If anyone complains about the roads, Disney can simply point to the board, and state that they cancelled the project. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Disney can also do some projects themselves if the district says no. So for example if Disney wanted to add another parking garage to Disney Springs but the board decides to block that project Disney could just build it anyway and pay out of pocket for it. All they lose is the ability to pay for the project with municipal debt and if they wanted to finance it would have to issue their own corporate debt. So if the interest rate is lower on RCID bonds vs TWDC bonds that’s the only extra cost. The other benefit is Disney would be back in total control of the project including which contractor to hire and the timing and price paid.

For things like road repairs Disney is at the mercy of the district for the most part since Disney does not own the roads. I don’t think they could just send a repair crew to fix them and pay out of pocket although if they did the district would have to sue them and what would they claim as damages? You sent a crew and repaired my road at no charge to me? Doesn’t seem like real damages.

 

[mmascari]

The thing is, if the board stops the project, that will save Disney millions of dollars, since they won't have to pay the district for work that was never completed, so why bother to fight it?

The payments are not that direct. Disney isn't paying the district to improve World Drive, a public road owned by the district and not by Disney (at least in the project area).

Disney is paying the district the tax bill the district levies.
The district is spending money on projects. Some of that money comes from the tax income, some from bonds.
The district is paying back bonds with some of the tax income.

Eliminating district spending on projects has no impact on the taxes it levies and the money Disney has to pay the district.

If there are other additional contracted services for specific services, that would be different. It would also be unusual, as why would Disney contract with the district to provided a district service within the district boundary? Since isn't that the whole point of what the district collects taxes for.

If anyone complains about the roads, Disney can simply point to the board, and state that they cancelled the project. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Because customers are so understanding and don't mind an inconvenience as long it is caused by some third party? Because no poor transportation system has ever caused throughput issues that ripple through the rest of operations?

When the bus trip takes an extra 20 minutes because the roads were left in a state of disarray, the guest who is late for their dinner reservation isn't going to complain to CFTOD instead of Disney. Then Disney can either deny their reservation as late, which is wonderful customer service, or they can absorb the impact as it ripples through the rest of the day's dining. Either creating more and more unhappy guests as they are all delayed or causing Disney to lower the restaurant throughput, reducing the revenue it generates.