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

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Any that almost single-handedly created modern tourism in the second biggest tourism revenue generating state in the country?

Nah, but that's more of a media thing than something that matters to the court system. I've worked on a few cases that had as much (and probably more) money at stake for huge corporations, though -- those all lasted for years (as this one probably will).
 

Figgy1

Well-Known Member
As currently written, it wouldn’t apply to anything in RCID.

View attachment 712276


RCID/CFTOD was created by a special act of the Florida legislature. Not a “local act.” This is the level of incompetence running the state of Florida. They can’t even craft legislation illegally targeting a specific company without making a huge mistake.
Soon to be reworded;)
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
As currently written, it wouldn’t apply to anything in RCID.

View attachment 712276


RCID/CFTOD was created by a special act of the Florida legislature. Not a “local act.” This is the level of incompetence running the state of Florida.
For now. All it takes is an amendment to the amendment when heard in committee tomorrow. Unless your interpretation is wrong.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Nah, but that's more of a media thing than something that matters to the court system. I've worked on a few cases that had as much (and probably more) money at stake for huge corporations, though -- those all lasted for years (as this one probably will).
I thought your point was “quickly”?

…I probably misread you then
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Great, you know one of their cronies must lurk here, now you've told them what to fix ;)
Who's that? If you mean me, if you think I have any connection to the Governor's Office, you would be wrong. I'm an observer only. Besides, I was very clear from the outset this didn't happen in a vacuum. I said any reaction to what happened after that is valid. I'm now just reporting factual info as I know it, such as bill amendment text and when heard by committee.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Who's that? If you mean me, if you think I have any connection to the Governor's Office, you would be wrong. I'm an observer only. Besides, I was very clear from the outset this didn't happen in a vacuum. I said any reaction to what happened after that is valid. I'm now just reporting factual info as I know it, such as bill amendment text and when heard by committee.

I was just making a joke 😭


(but now I am suspicious of you 🕵️‍♂️)




(still just joking around)
 

Chi84

Premium Member
Did they pay these lawyers by the word? I haven't read the Act creating the Board, but @castlecake2.0 the documents now identify both the authority for prohibiting COVID-19 mitigation (safety and sanitation of structures in which private businesses operate) and the enforcement penalties ($250 civil fine for every day of violation). As far as private businesses within the district, the Board states that it has declared that "society is harmed by discrimination based on COVID-19 vaccination status" and generally prohibits requiring documentation certifying vaccination or post-infection recovery or imposing a testing mandate to gain entry into the buildings.

Unlike the other sections applying to property owned by the district, it doesn't prohibit requiring masks or other face coverings.

This is just based on a very cursory reading in an area I'm not too familiar with. If anyone else can weigh in, I would love to know your take.
 

afterabme

Active Member
Did they pay these lawyers by the word? I haven't read the Act creating the Board, but @castlecake2.0 the documents now identify both the authority for prohibiting COVID-19 mitigation (safety and sanitation of structures in which private businesses operate) and the enforcement penalties ($250 civil fine for every day of violation). As far as private businesses within the district, the Board states that it has declared that "society is harmed by discrimination based on COVID-19 vaccination status" and generally prohibits requiring documentation certifying vaccination or post-infection recovery or imposing a testing mandate to gain entry into the buildings.

Unlike the other sections applying to property owned by the district, it doesn't prohibit requiring masks or other face coverings.

This is just based on a very cursory reading in an area I'm not too familiar with. If anyone else can weigh in, I would love to know your take.
Wonder how this will affect the 24-hr Adventhealth urgent care by 535 and the cast member health building behind Epcot.
 

JAB

Well-Known Member
Assuming the lawsuit doesn't move fast enough to get resolved before June 1, what are the chances the board backs off the suit if the "retroactively void valid contracts" bill passes?

The board would gain the authority to void the contracts regardless of whether they were properly executed, so the lawsuit would become moot. Would they void the agreements, but still keep trying to get them declared invalid anyway just in case Disney sues to get the law declared unconstitutional?

Or might a judge dismiss the board's suit if the bill passes because the new law makes the suit pointless, but then they could refile if Disney gets the law overturned?
 

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

Back
Top Bottom