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

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
As a personal policy, I don't entertain Holocaust comparisons. Call me when the gas chambers open.
Neither do I which is why I didn't get into what happened a decade later.*

Things went south long before that point for the people of that country, though, with a certain candidate successfully maneuvering a democracy into a dictatorship through populist politics and corruption rather than a civil war.

It's easy to forget with the really, really horrible stuff that overshadowed it later, all the bad stuff that happened before that.

For what it's worth, I see shades of this with a lot of "you're with us or you're against us" all over the place (not just in one political side and not even just in politics) these days and that scares me for my son's future.

Anyway, I think it's important to pay attention to history if we are to learn anything since nothing happens overnight.

*I removed the post because you're right - it is too easy to see that as an everyone I don't like is message which actually isn't what I was going for.
 
Last edited:

Brian

Well-Known Member
Yeah, um….can revenge against a company that spoke out against the Governor be the state’s legitimate and significant interest?
Sadly, the answer depends on which court is hearing it.

If I were a betting man, I'd be betting on Disney, I just don't think it's a slam dunk case. Of course, we'd need to see the specifics of the legislation he's proposing (interfering with the contract) to be able to make a more educated guess as to the outcome.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Sadly, the answer depends on which court is hearing it.

If I were a betting man, I'd be betting on Disney, I just don't think it's a slam dunk case. Of course, we'd need to see the specifics of the legislation he's proposing (interfering with the contract) to be able to make a more educated guess as to the outcome.
My guess is there ain’t no actual plan yet so no actual specifics to see….just like he said for months after the original bill was passed that he would be announcing a detailed plan then after months of waiting to see what the actual plan would be they repealed the original bill.
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
My guess is there ain’t no actual plan yet so no actual specifics to see….just like he said for months after the original bill was passed that he would be announcing a detailed plan then after months of waiting to see what the actual plan would be they repealed the original bill.
If he had a plan he wouldn’t have been played so perfectly by TWDC.
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
My guess is there ain’t no actual plan yet so no actual specifics to see….just like he said for months after the original bill was passed that he would be announcing a detailed plan then after months of waiting to see what the actual plan would be they repealed the original bill.


I can't believe I had to search so hard to find this clip, but definitely the similar vibes with DeSantis' plan.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
Sadly, the answer depends on which court is hearing it.

If I were a betting man, I'd be betting on Disney, I just don't think it's a slam dunk case. Of course, we'd need to see the specifics of the legislation he's proposing (interfering with the contract) to be able to make a more educated guess as to the outcome.
Not really. You are reading way too much into that case. In that case, the government action was independent of the contract and didn't substantially alter the contract. It changed the price of the contract because the contract was tied to the price of natural gas at the time of closing, and the government of Kansas changed the law in a way that influenced the price of natural gas.

If the Legislature of FL does anything that results in the dissolution of that contract, that's a very different beast than in the Kansas case, and is one of the types of things that usually end up resulting in a 9-0 or 7-2 decision....

Alternatively, if they outlaw these types of agreements in general (and don't target Disney) that is going to have enormous ripple effects, as these agreements are common and would effect a ton of businesses and communities in the state.
 

Disney Glimpses

Well-Known Member
A 1983 SCOTUS decision laid out a case, and set the parameters for a judicial test to determine if a state can make a law that interferes with existing contracts. They can, provided:
  1. It does not substantially interfere with the rights of the contracting party
  2. The state has a legitimate and significant interest
  3. The law is reasonably related to furthering this interest
Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/459/400/

In my humble opinion, this is not really an open and shut case, but I'll let the lawyers on this site weigh in with their take.
I would think the blatantly and open admission that what they are doing is purely retaliatory would basically be a shoe in for Disney here.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
The problem with the state’s interest is that the state previously reviewed the 2032 Comprehensive Plan that serves as the basis of the development agreement. They also reviewed the very similar 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Neither the state nor the new board have [publicly] identified why the existing plan is now insufficient so shortly after it was reviewed.
 

invader

Well-Known Member
Anything to add about RCID?
No, because I don’t practice anything remotely close to this area of law but I do appreciate your frequent attempts to keep this thread on track.

I come to this thread to read updates about the governor’s spat and do get somewhat annoyed reading legal analysis about what a “shoe in” an “open and shut” case this is for Disney.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom