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

JAB

JAB

Well-Known Member
So the government claims...

"The contracts aren't valid."

...but they are also trying to pass a (possibly unconstitutional) bill to allow them to retroactively void the contracts... which would only be necessary if the contracts are actually valid in the first place.

...and now the AG is claiming that the powers granted by the contracts (arguably) might subject Disney to public document reporting requirements which, again, could only possibly apply if the contracts are valid.

So which is it? Are the contracts valid or not? I'm guessing they're trying to cover all their bases in the event the contracts are upheld, but publicly contradicting yourself doesn't seem like the best way to hedge your bets. Do they even realize they've taken conflicting positions on the issue?
 
castlecake2.0

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Chi84 said:
I looked over the charter. The main section on the district's powers is section 9 on pp.26-30. The listed powers are (1) to engage in legal proceedings (2) maintain a corporate seal (3) own and dispose of property (4) lease facilities (5) exercise powers of eminent domain (6) powers relating to reclamation, drainage and irrigation (7) water and flood control (8) water and sewer systems (9) waste collection and disposal (10) mosquito and pest control (11) airport facilities (12) recreation facilities - this one allows the district to own, acquire, build, maintain and operate parks, golf courses, museums, convention halls and all other types of facilities (13) parking facilities (14) fire protection (15) advertising (16) transportation (17) public utilities (18) conservation and sanctuaries (19) issue bonds and (20) other powers and research and development - this is a catch-all that allows the district to develop and utilize new concepts, designs and ideas.

I'm not finding any basis in the powers listed above for prohibiting a business operating in the district from adopting health mitigation measures.

Section 23 "Planning; Building Codes; Safety Regulations; Platting and Subdivisions; Zoning" has subsection (9) that states : "Any regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of this section relating to safety, health, sanitation or building safety shall prescribe standards at least equivalent to the minimum standards in applicable statewide regulations protecting the general safety and welfare of the public." So I guess if the state somehow declares flu-type disease mitigation measures detrimental to the general safety and welfare of the public, this might fit. I'd like to say that last sentence was a joke, but . . .

I think you would be well within your rights to ask what in the charter gives them authority for what they said they were going to do. If they give you one, get bold and ask for the section that lets them control Disney's content.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this helps me a lot! I appreciate the time you took to get the details.
 
Kamikaze

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
JAB said:
So the government claims...

"The contracts aren't valid."

...but they are also trying to pass a (possibly unconstitutional) bill to allow them to retroactively void the contracts... which would only be necessary if the contracts are actually valid in the first place.

...and now the AG is claiming that the powers granted by the contracts (arguably) might subject Disney to public document reporting requirements which, again, could only possibly apply if the contracts are valid.

So which is it? Are the contracts valid or not? I'm guessing they're trying to cover all their bases in the event the contracts are upheld, but publicly contradicting yourself doesn't seem like the best way to hedge your bets. Do they even realize they've taken conflicting positions on the issue?
Click to expand...
You fight both sides if you have to. Same as Disney is going to fight this with PR and eventually in the courts.
 
Dranth

Dranth

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
I didn't say anything about the majority, though - I said his Republican/conservative base. That 32% isn't going to be swayed away from him now, no matter what - particularly as so many of them already have issues with Disney to begin with.
Click to expand...
Which is why all these things he has been doing is going to hurt him in a general. I know he and his team feel like they need it to win a primary but that is already backfiring. The gap between him and the frontrunner is as big as it ever was and even if he makes it through, these stunts are incredibly unpopular on a national level.

The fight with Disney is just another example. It isn't popular outside of people who were going to support him no matter what if he ends up the party candidate.
 
JAB

JAB

Well-Known Member
Kamikaze said:
You fight both sides if you have to. Same as Disney is going to fight this with PR and eventually in the courts.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned in my post, I get that they're trying the "throw everything at the wall" approach to hedge their bets; I'm just pointing out that this has led to contractions in their position which opens it up to more scrutiny and may hurt their argument in the end. This is fundamentally different from how Disney is handling things, regardless how many channels they use.

How is the state doing anything they can to undo the contracts even if it leads to contradicting themselves the "same" as Disney making one consistent argument in multiple channels? It's not.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Tony the Tigger said:
I’ll put it in terms you can understand.

Miami is the NYC (it wishes!) in this analogy, and Fort Lauderdale is the NJ.
Click to expand...
I covered this one earlier:

1. River (swim it at your own peril)
2. State line
3.
1682078892994.jpeg
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
jpeden said:
I still think if Disney goes to court they’re gonna go after it all, including the underlying bill that started this mess.

This is a prime case of the around, find out diagram and I think DeSantis is about to find out the hard way.
Click to expand...
If you look 4,000 posts ago…this was my stance from the start

It’s almost inconceivable that the US Supreme Court would side with an extra layer of State oversight OVER one of the country (and worlds) most well known private companies

It’s antithetical to everything we sing songs about and put on our truck Bumper stickers for the last 200 years.

They are messing with powers they don’t fully understand in Tally…

And that’s Wall Street. There is no way in hell they want transient pols messing with billion dollar gravy trains.

It’s the one slippery slope that even Wall Street won’t look for dollars on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
This all should be a slam dunk win for Disney. It REALLY should…
But we don’t know how it’s gonna play out yet.



…my point is I think there’s a volatility - when in courts - that we can’t trust because decorum was cast off…
And Disney’s legal is likely consumed by that.

They can’t sue and lose…not an option.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Lilofan said:
If he turned the state into a prison why do thousands of people from all over the world keep relocating to FL and millions keep visiting annually?
And welcome to the forum !
Click to expand...
I’m not agreeing the state is a prison in general, however the agenda he is pushing probably does make it seem that way for certain people he is targeting. It’s easy to say, if you don’t like it just move somewhere else but not everyone can afford to just quit their job and move to another state. So for those people they are stuck and it probably does feel something like a prison.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom