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

[Serpico Jones]

I still can’t believe it’s gotten to this point and cooler heads didn’t prevail.

 

[danlb_2000]

I still can’t believe it’s gotten to this point and cooler heads didn’t prevail.

Cooler heads could prevail if this was about solving an actual problem that they could come to an agreement over.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Can someone with access to a legal database tell me if either:

• US Trust Co vs New Jersey (1977) -or-
• Allied Structural Steel vs Spannaus (1978)

have been superseded?

ETA: Both were SCOTUS cases in which the state tried to invalidate a contract to which it was a party.

SCOTUS said (I'm summarizing):

• Courts should use strict scrutiny when evaluating the state's claims
• The state has to list the specific thing to which it's objecting
• The state must use the least-disruptive means necessary to resolve the objection

That ... does not seem to be happening in the Florida legislation out today.

Question is if Disney will sue to stop any of this, or just let it ride?
They've played their cards very smartly and close to the vest.
I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall in their discussions.

 

[GoofGoof]

That was *exactly* my point.



This statement completely contradicts your first.

Do you feel that there are no political consequences for actions taken by political appointees or do you feel in this specific insance, the electorate would reward those actions with re-election?

It doesn’t contradict at all. You said if they do anything wrong then we have to wait 4 years to vote the governor out. I said thats not how it works. There are Federal and State laws that need to be followed and a constitution (also federal and state) so checks and balances. Their only repercussion isn’t to wait 4 years to vote someone different in.

I also don’t agree that because DeSantis won election that everyone who voted for him agrees with this action in this case. It’s a 2 party system so inevitably the majority of people will vote for someone they disagree with a lot of the time. Only the sheep who can’t think for themselves blindly support all the actions of the guy they voted for but that’s a small percent of total voters.

 

[MR.Dis]

So the state will win by further violating home rule and telling the counties and their independently elected property appraisers how much to assess certain properties within their jurisdiction?

I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.

 

[Figgy1]

I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.

The majority of posters who are lawyers or have worked in Fl government dealing with laws that apply here agree Disney has an excellent chance of winning.

 

[Chi84]

I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.

There's nothing wrong with that, but the article is very short and doesn't explain anything about how the state could claim self-dealing. Opinions are only as good as the facts or information supporting them.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You're correct. 21 years after her death. May she live as long as her great grandmother.

It’s not specifically about her either. It’s all of his living descendants. So if one his grandsons is the last one living then it ends after his death.

 

[peter11435]

The entire “void the entire contract because RCID failed to notify all landowners 60 days in advance by mail” seems highly dubious.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the former RCID board did fail to notify all of the district’s landowners.

The typical judge is going to hold up the contract, make sure all landowners are notified and, if none object within the 60 days required by statute, allow the contract to take effect.

What district landowner is going to object? They all have close business relationships with Disney. Are any of them going to want the new crazy board deciding what Disney can do instead of Disney?

Any judge worth their salt seeks the least invasive remedy.

Yep. The only landowner that would object would be the district itself and they were obviously noticed and entered into the agreement.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.

You provided a sound bite that has no supporting information.

 

[Brian]

That's not what the state wants. They want to control Disney. They don't want a cooler heads compromise. They want domination.

I disagree. I think that DeSantis needs and wants an off-ramp, lest he be viewed as "losing" to Disney by his base, and compromising his future political ambitions.

If I were Iger, I'd be calling up DeSantis and trying to game out a mutually agreeable solution to the issue, where nobody comes out with egg on their face. What that solution would look like, I'm not sure, but one of these guys went to Yale and Harvard, and the other has run a Fortune 50 company for over a decade. In other words, they're both intelligent men; I'm sure they can figure something out.

None of this to say that Disney is obligated to make amends, or did something wrong in the first place, but clearly this situation is just going to keep getting more and more ridiculous with each passing day, and, despite the protestations of some, they can't just pickup WDW and move it somewhere else. Disney would be wise to open the lines of communication up right at the top of the org chart and start working towards an off-ramp where DeSantis can claim "victory" with his base and Disney doesn't take a huge PR and/or monetary hit, or compromise on their claimed values.

Again, should Disney have to do this? No. But clearly this situation will just continue escalating, so it would be wise for Disney to attempt to put a stop to it sooner rather than later.

 

[MR.Dis]

The majority of posters who are lawyers or have worked in Fl government dealing with laws that apply here agree Disney has an excellent chance of winning.

Yes, and I have read the posts and they do not appear to be unbiased against a certain Gov or political party. There are 2 sides to every disagreement, and no one side is totally correct. So as I posted many pages back, do not underestimate your opponent.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The entire “void the entire contract because RCID failed to notify all landowners 60 days in advance by mail” seems highly dubious.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the former RCID board did fail to notify all of the district’s landowners.

The typical judge is going to hold up the contract, make sure all landowners are notified and, if none object within the 60 days required by statute, allow the contract to take effect.

What district landowner is going to object? They all have close business relationships with Disney. Are any of them going to want the new crazy board deciding what Disney can do instead of Disney?

Any judge worth their salt seeks the least invasive remedy.

The law doesn’t say all land owners within a jurisdiction. It says all “affected” land owners. Is the CVS in Flamingo Crossing an affected land owner if they’re not a party to nor bound by the agreement?

 

[orky8]

I disagree. I think that DeSantis needs an off-ramp, lest he be viewed as "losing" to Disney by his base, and compromising his future political ambitions.

If I were Iger, I'd be calling up DeSantis and trying to game out a mutually agreeable solution to the issue, where nobody comes out with egg on their face. What that solution would look like, I'm not sure, but one of these guys went to Yale and Harvard, and the other has run a Fortune 50 company for over a decade. In other words, they're both intelligent men; I'm sure they can figure something out.

None of this to say that Disney is obligated to make amends, but clearly this situation is just going to keep getting more and more ridiculous with each passing day, and, despite the protestations of some, they can't just pickup WDW and move it somewhere else. Disney would be wise to open the lines of communication up right at the top of the org chart and start working towards an off-ramp where DeSantis can claim "victory" with his base and Disney doesn't take a huge PR and/or monetary hit, or compromise on their claimed values.

Again, should Disney have to do this? No. But clearly this situation will just continue escalating, so it would be wise for Disney to attempt to put a stop to it sooner rather than later.

I think originally Desantis wanted the political fight and thought it played well for him, but that narrative is shifting. Now, he needs an off-ramp, whether he realizes or not. Perhaps a $17B victory for the State could help?

 

[GBAB1973]

I disagree. I think that DeSantis needs an off-ramp, lest he be viewed as "losing" to Disney by his base, and compromising his future political ambitions.

If I were Iger, I'd be calling up DeSantis and trying to game out a mutually agreeable solution to the issue, where nobody comes out with egg on their face. What that solution would look like, I'm not sure, but one of these guys went to Yale and Harvard, and the other has run a Fortune 50 company for over a decade. In other words, they're both intelligent men; I'm sure they can figure something out.

None of this to say that Disney is obligated to make amends, but clearly this situation is just going to keep getting more and more ridiculous with each passing day, and, despite the protestations of some, they can't just pickup WDW and move it somewhere else. Disney would be wise to open the lines of communication up right at the top of the org chart and start working towards an off-ramp where DeSantis can claim "victory" with his base and Disney doesn't take a huge PR and/or monetary hit, or compromise on their claimed values.

Again, should Disney have to do this? No. But clearly this situation will just continue escalating, so it would be wise for Disney to attempt to put a stop to it sooner rather than later.

He's had multiple chances at an off ramp and has chosen not to take them. He wants complete domination here of Disney.

He never had to pick this fight to begin with. The education bills were going to get passed regardless of Disney weighing in or not. He could have just ignored them and still gotten what he wanted legislatively.

When they created the law giving him full control of the board, he had other options. Maybe allow the state to pick 3 and Disney to pick 2. He then could have exited claiming a W.

But at every step of the way, he's double and tripled down on this. He doesn't want a partial win. He wants a complete win. He's so far into it now though that he no longer has a choice. He has to keep fighting even if he realizes he's losing. Backing out now would be viewed as weakness and this whole thing was about PR more than anything.

 

[Chi84]

Can someone with access to a legal database tell me if either:

• US Trust Co vs New Jersey (1977) -or-
• Allied Structural Steel vs Spannaus (1978)

have been superseded?

ETA: Both were SCOTUS cases in which the state tried to invalidate a contract to which it was a party.

SCOTUS said (I'm summarizing):

• Courts should use strict scrutiny when evaluating the state's claims
• The state has to list the specific thing to which it's objecting
• The state must use the least-disruptive means necessary to resolve the objection

That ... does not seem to be happening in the Florida legislation out today.

I'm not sure any amount of legal research is going to help with this particular situation. A court's analysis of the contracts clause is generally going to begin with the assumption that legislation, by its nature, is meant to have broad application and is not directly targeted at interfering with an individual's or a business's contract rights. The interference considered in these cases is ancillary - collateral damage - to the purpose of the legislation.

 

[Henry Mystic]

Cooler heads could prevail if this was about solving an actual problem that they could come to an agreement over.

Exactly. It’s to score political points.

Nothing. More.

There’s no possible middle ground that can be found if that is the aim.

 

[GoofGoof]

I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.

It seems like maybe a case of bad reporting. I don’t know what to take as the so called expert‘s opinion and what’s added by the writer.

If the legal battle ends in the state’s favor, DeSantis promises public safety pay raises and a reassessment of property value to potentially have the company pay more in taxes in Orange and Osceola counties. Kramer predicts it will be a tough case for Disney to win.

This is not a shown as a quote from Kramer so hard to say if he said it or not. So if this entire statement actually came from Kramer he’s not very credible. No legal battle is necessary to give pay raises to RCID EMS. The district controls that with or without the development agreement in place and the idea that the district somehow controls the tax assessment for the counties is also a fairytale. The governor literally made that up. So if this expert is actually saying he believes this will happen if Disney loses a hypothetical lawsuit then he’s not very credible. He also doesn’t specify what case will be tough for Disney to win.

Legal analyst explains challenges with nullifying Reedy Creek agreement

"It always depended on the state of Florida playing ball with Disney," legal analyst Steven Kramer said.

www.wesh.com

 

[Mr. Stay Puft]

The entire “void the entire contract because RCID failed to notify all landowners 60 days in advance by mail” seems highly dubious.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the former RCID board did fail to notify all of the district’s landowners.

The typical judge is going to hold up the contract, make sure all landowners are notified and, if none object within the 60 days required by statute, allow the contract to take effect.

What district landowner is going to object? They all have close business relationships with Disney. Are any of them going to want the new crazy board deciding what Disney can do instead of Disney?

Any judge worth their salt seeks the least invasive remedy.

Exactly. Not following every step of the law does not guarantee an automatic judgement against a defendant, whether in a civil lawsuit or a criminal case. Sometimes judges will just see something like this as an honest mistake or oversight and will allow the party at fault to remedy the situation in good faith, rather than just going for a straight up judgement not in favor of.

 

[Brian]

He's had multiple chances at an off ramp and has chosen not to take them. He wants complete domination here of Disney.

He never had to pick this fight to begin with. The education bills were going to get passed regardless of Disney weighing in or not. He could have just ignored them and still gotten what he wanted legislatively.

When they created the law giving him full control of the board, he had other options. Maybe allow the state to pick 3 and Disney to pick 2. He then could have exited claiming a W.

But at every step of the way, he's double and tripled down on this. He doesn't want a partial win. He wants a complete win. He's so far into it now though that he no longer has a choice. He has to keep fighting even if he realizes he's losing. Backing out now would be viewed as weakness and this whole thing was about PR more than anything.

You're not wrong on many of those opportunities, especially when it came to reconstituting RCID into CFTOD and the board's composition.

What I think bears repeating is that it has to be Iger who makes the call. DeSantis needs to be able to say to his base that Disney extended the olive branch. If DeSantis extends an olive branch preemptively, or even goes so far as to call Iger himself, that will absolutely leak to the press, and his base will abandon him and consider him a weakling.