Has the Governor retained separate legal counsel on this? I thought most of the lawyers were retained by, and paid by, the new CFTOD.
They are. The governor has the attorney general to represent the state.
Has the Governor retained separate legal counsel on this? I thought most of the lawyers were retained by, and paid by, the new CFTOD.
Right. Has the AG retained outside counsel? I’m not sure where the state of FL is on the hook for the outside legal feesThey are. The governor has the attorney general to represent the state.
They can declare.it a failure, but I don't think they can do anything to change it without Disney's approval. It's a report, nothing more.The first thing I notice is 6-90.2 (d), given that we know the new board is itching to get rid of Classe as District Administrator, I suspect this will attempt to be addressed in the meeting. I have a feeling that unless there are other restrictions elsewhere (I'm only reading the specified chapters/articles at the moment), the board intends to appoint the Planning Board at this meeting, and I don't expect it will be a "friendly" one. Seems like they might also try to expand the Planning Board's authority/scope under 7-30, or possibly use them as a tool to suggest that the current Comprehensive Plan is, "upon further review," a "failure" (7-30.4).
Seems like there's some mischief that the Board could get up to to waste Disney's time and money involving these sections, and would put their slate of suggested lawyers to work.
It's interesting that Belloti was decided by the liberal bloc of justices and Citizens by the conservative block. In any case, stare decisis would fall back to both of these as precident unless there was an overwhelming desire by a majority of justices to overturn both of these, and I don't see that with the current Supreme Court. At most I would see a likely 7-2 decision here in Disney's favor.Corporate 1A rights were established by Belotti. In Austin and McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court allowed some corporate restrictions specific to campaign finance. Citizens United struck down even these limited restrictions.
Citizens United is specific to campaign finance. Belotti established that corporate speech rights go beyond the "materially affecting" standard.
As noted in the liberal justices' dissent of Citizens United:
Postratification practice bolsters the conclusion that the First Amendment, “as originally understood,” … did not give corporations political speech rights on a par with the rights of individuals. Well into the modern era of general incorporation statutes, “[t]he common law was generally interpreted as prohibiting corporate political participation,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 819 (1978) (White, J., dissenting), and this Court did not recognize any First Amendment protections for corporations until the middle part of the 20th century.
Prior to Belotti, the materially affecting standard generally applied to corporations, where corporate speech rights were limited to matters that “materially affect[ed] any of the property, business or assets of the corporation.”
Disney's free speech rights regarding Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law don't originate with Citizens United. They originate with Belotti.
Belotti and Citizens United both are 5-4 decisions and both remain controversial. Disney is in a much stronger legal position by making this a contract dispute.
I’m not so sure of that. It seems to be within the CFTOD’s purview under state law to amend or revoke the developer agreement if they deem it a “failure.”They can declare.it a failure, but I don't think they can do anything to change it without Disney's approval. It's a report, nothing more.
I think any judge worth his or her salt would not agree that the agreement can be deemed a failure by either party before anything has even happened. I do think that if this does stand, they will play this card the moment a single thing goes awry.I’m not so sure of that. It seems to be within the CFTOD’s purview under state law to amend or revoke the developer agreement if they deem it a “failure.”
![]()
2021 Florida Statutes :: Title XI - County Organization and Intergovernmental Relations :: Chapter 163 - Intergovernmental Programs :: Part II - Growth Policy; County and Municipal Planning; Land Development Regulation (Ss. 163.2511-163.3253) :: 163.
Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statuteslaw.justia.com
“Periodic review of a development agreement.—A local government shall review land subject to a development agreement at least once every 12 months to determine if there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. If the local government finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of the development agreement, the agreement may be revoked or modified by the local government.”
None of that language on its face requires input by Disney. Now, it’s a questionable proposition at best that there will be substantial competent evidence that Disney has failed to comply with the agreement, or that these moves won’t be viewed as pretextual. It’s also unclear that the CFTOD can unilaterally modify the agreement, or what happens if the agreement is revoked - do they default to the previous agreement? Lots of unknowns.
Right. Has the AG retained outside counsel? I’m not sure where the state of FL is on the hook for the outside legal fees
I’m not so sure of that. It seems to be within the CFTOD’s purview under state law to amend or revoke the developer agreement if they deem it a “failure.”
![]()
2021 Florida Statutes :: Title XI - County Organization and Intergovernmental Relations :: Chapter 163 - Intergovernmental Programs :: Part II - Growth Policy; County and Municipal Planning; Land Development Regulation (Ss. 163.2511-163.3253) :: 163.
Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statuteslaw.justia.com
“Periodic review of a development agreement.—A local government shall review land subject to a development agreement at least once every 12 months to determine if there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. If the local government finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of the development agreement, the agreement may be revoked or modified by the local government.”
None of that language on its face requires input by Disney. Now, it’s a questionable proposition at best that there will be substantial competent evidence that Disney has failed to comply with the agreement, or that these moves won’t be viewed as pretextual. It’s also unclear that the CFTOD can unilaterally modify the agreement, or what happens if the agreement is revoked - do they default to the previous agreement? Lots of unknowns.
The OP wrote, “DeSantis charging the state $1.9K per hour for his lawyers…”If the attorney general decided that her staff doesn't have sufficient legal knowledge or experience to handle such a case, then the state would hire outside counsel. I can't remember if professional services are required to be obtained by bids. If so, then that RFP will be noticed, most likely in several major papers in the state and possibly others outside.
If the state hires the outside counsel, then the state, i.e., the attorney general's office, would pay. Which means Florida taxpayers (and visitors).
I’m skeptical the evidence exists or that it withstand scrutiny. But the provision of the law does not require Disney’s assent.A tad difficult to deem a development agreement a failure prior to any of the work covered by the agreement happening.
Can someone translate this?View attachment 709474
The guy went to Harvard and Yale yet recently claimed in an interview that he didn't know what 'sanctimonious' meant.DeSantis charging the state $1.9K per hour for his lawyers to investigate Disney who he called a "joke". The Yale undergrad/ Harvard MBA educated lawyer still upset by being outsmarted by Mickey Mouse is still trying to punish Disney. FL tax dollars hard at work. He seems clueless to realize that his two biggest and low paying industries- agriculture and tourism are the biggest drivers of income for the Sunshine State.
That same article discussed how it was a narrow case with a narrow ruling. There weren’t general, across the board bans on speech.Bellotti represents the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' attempt to limit corporate speech on a matter of public policy. In this case, it was the state legislature's desire to get a state personal income tax approved by referendum. These corporations very much were expressing their opinions on a matter that did not directly affect them.
Quoting from the first sentence of Wiki's article on Bellotti:
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time.
Yes, I know, Wiki is not the best source but it tends to do a reasonably well job of explaining legal decisions in laymen's terms.
Disney not only stated their opposition to the law but also stated their intention to use company resources to oppose the law, similar to what happened in Bellotti.
Bellotti directly applies to what happened to Disney.
The OP wrote, “DeSantis charging the state $1.9K per hour for his lawyers…”
None of us have seen any evidence of retention by the Governor or AG, certainly not to that specific amount. We know CFTOD has retained outside counsel, but 1) that’s not the Governor, and 2) that’s paid by the CFTOD.
I’m skeptical the evidence exists or that it withstand scrutiny. But the provision of the law does not require Disney’s assent.
I think it can and would, especially if they’re not permitted to introduce evidence during any hearing where a finding of substantial evidence shows a failure to comply.No but Disney can sue as it potentially is an affected party by any changes to the Plan.
Close 1 lane at a time to install the transponders/tag readers and plate readers…a day per lane…trust me, to make $$$, even in New Jersey, you’ll be surprised at how fast they can get it done…
They can, would, and should. And if there was not substantial evidence of failure they would win. I think you’re misunderstanding why that statute exists in the first placeI think it can and would, especially if they’re not permitted to introduce evidence during any hearing where a finding of substantial evidence shows a failure to comply.
But the statute as written does not contemplate that Disney make such a finding, only that the local government does
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.