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

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Since the District would be seeking the dissolution of the contract, I’m not sure an injunction would be necessary at this moment. The court would have to issue some sort preliminary voiding. As of right now, there also isn’t really anything for Disney to have enjoined. The District has not yet moved to change the land use regulations, so even if they’re operating from the view that the contract is void nothing really changes.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Since the District would be seeking the dissolution of the contract, I’m not sure an injunction would be necessary at this moment. The court would have to issue some sort preliminary voiding. As of right now, there also isn’t really anything for Disney to have enjoined. The District has not yet moved to change the land use regulations, so even if they’re operating from the view that the contract is void nothing really changes.
I was about to write something similar. I would think the contract still stands unless it’s declared void by the courts. Disney doesn’t need to do anything right now. If the district fails to comply with the contract or attempts to block development then Disney would need to act. The injunction would be to force the district to comply with the contract until a court can rule on it. I don’t know if anything changes if/when the legislature passes their bill allowing the district to void the contract. Then Disney may have to file something to challenge that law.
 

JAB

Well-Known Member
It’s funny how they try to make it seem like they aren’t trying to target Disney but the wording is specifically tailored toward Disney only.
Exactly. They never explicitly name Disney, but the criteria are always drafted in a way such that it only applies to Disney. Or as the kids on the InterWebs say these days... "Tell me you're targeting Disney without telling me you're targeting Disney."
 

DCBaker

Premium Member


Link to the text -


Screen Shot 2023-04-24 at 5.08.24 PM.png
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Exactly. They never explicitly name Disney, but the criteria are always drafted in a way such that it only applies to Disney. Or as the kids on the InterWebs say these days... "Tell me you're targeting Disney without telling me you're targeting Disney."
Every bill crafted in the Florida Legislature affecting Disney, including exemptions, is always written in such a way to specifically refer to WDW without naming the company or the theme park resort.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
…might be a different kinda scale/arena here?

It's really not. Not naming any names, but we represent/I've worked on cases for companies that are even larger than Disney. Those cases may not have had the same media attention (although a couple arguably did), though.

Anyways, it's kind of irrelevant. I don't actually think this (potential, I suppose, since nothing has been filed yet) case is going to be over in a few months.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member

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

Back
Top Bottom