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

[Touchdown]

Someone said it already but discovery is going to be a female dog for the state. Every email and text related to this decision will be part of it and will become public. A lot of legislators are not going to be happy with what comes out.

 

[csmat99]

No chance it makes it to SCOTUS. They wouldn't touch it with a 100 ft pole.

You are wrong. they will

 

[Batman'sParents]

Someone said it already but discovery is going to be a female dog for the state. Every email and text related to this decision will be part of it and will become public. A lot of legislators are not going to be happy with what comes out.

Well, everyone named in in the lawsuit need to get a lawyer?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Whether Florida's actions were retaliatory in nature would be a question of fact, not a question of law. If the trial court finds that the actions were, in fact, retaliatory, the current SCOTUS would rule those unconstitutional 9-0. First Amendment cases win left and right at the Supreme Court, whether it's religious liberty, speech, or a number of other things.

Extraordinarily unlikely it gets that far though.

I said this months ago….

SCOTUS has no choice but to rule in favor of a corporation expressing “a political opinion”…


…and do you know why, Antonin?

 

[Brian]

See…it seems more like you were beaten soundly and efficiently on the China thing?

That's an effed up thing to say, and honestly, comes across like a thinly veiled attempt to get me to continue arguing about the China bit, which, as the conversation progressed, became more and more off topic.

I'm legitimately trying to put a stop to it, yet you and others apparently want the conversation to drift off topic.

When you argue a point that is controversial, you do tend to get quite a few people retorting with varying arguments. As you respond to each of them, the conversation becomes harder and harder to keep on topic and relevant to your original point.

As always, PMs are open for you or anyone else who wants to have a good faith discussion about the China topic, but I'm not having it here.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You are wrong. they will

They absolutely will. This case is a “Star maker” in judicial terms.

 

[Kamikaze]

You are wrong. they will

Siding with DeSantis means overturning Citizens. They don't want that. Literally no chance they take it up.

I'd happily give away Disney's autonomy to lose Citizens United, but its not going to happen.

Unless you're saying SCOTUS would take it up to side with Disney, and while thats possible, they don't need to do so, they can just choose to not take the case and have the same effect.

 

[csmat99]

A preliminary injunction is highly likely, no matter which POTUS appointed the judge.

Actually i disagree. Normally they would grant injunction especially where if you don't it could be impossible to unravel and Disney could be caused irreparable harm.

 

[lentesta]

They could try dissolving again but it would mean actually dealing with serious questions such as the bonds. They’d have to do everything by the book which means serious time and effort.

This is the thing I keep coming back to. The legislature and governor haven't yet shown the ability to think more than one step ahead.

 

[LittleBuford]

That's not what whataboutism is.

Not whataboutism: My opponent did immoral/incorrect/bad things.

Whataboutism: My opponent did immoral/incorrect/bad things, and therefore my immoral/incorrect/bad things are justified.

I know what a whataboutism is—this thread is full of them—and am confident I used the term correctly.

 

[Kamikaze]

Actually i disagree. Normally they would gran injunction especially where if you don't could be impossible to unravel and Disney could be caused irreparable harm.

Yes, and they are talking about making unrepairable changes to lands that Disney and the District own/control. An injunction is necessary.

Paragraph 187 from the filing:

Disney has a significant interest in its own contracts, which have been directly targeted by the Legislative Declaration. Disney faces concrete, imminent, and ongoing injury as a result of the contractual impairment.

I don't see how an injunction ISN'T granted.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

That's an effed up thing to say, and honestly, comes across like a thinly veiled attempt to get me to continue arguing about the China bit, which, as the conversation progressed, became more and more off topic.

I'm legitimately trying to put a stop to it, yet you and others apparently want the conversation to drift off topic.

When you argue a point that is controversial, you do tend to get quite a few people retorting with varying arguments. As you respond to each of them, the conversation becomes harder and harder to keep on topic and relevant to your original point.

As always, PMs are open for you or anyone else who wants to have a good faith discussion about the China topic, but I'm not having it here.

…the language!!

it happens to all of us. This is ultimately a debate forum and he got you with a clean haymaker.

No big deal.

But it’s not to be construed as support/not support for egregious human rights violations.
There is no argument there.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

Depends on the timing. 95% of the root cause of all of this is DeSantis running for POTUS. A year from now that will likely not be an issue so if the legislature wanted to compromise they could even if he tries to veto. There will be no compromise until DeSantis’s POTUS campaign is over so not in the next year or so.

I think Disney would absolutely prefer a settlement. They don’t care about “winning” some political argument. They just want to move forward running their company as they see fit.

DeSantis is young and will run again in 2028 so I don’t see much incentive for him to moderate in a year. Similarly, should DeSantis resign, the state’s LG - even if they wanted to seek detentè with TWDC - will be locked in a tough place with both the base/voters and the legislature (since this is now statute and can’t be undone via EO or regulation) if they’re seen as capitulating.

The only way I see this ending is if Disney wins in court and forces a policy-based compromise resolution back in the hands of the legislature who will approach this begrudgingly.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is the thing I keep coming back to. The legislature and governor haven't yet shown the ability to think more than one step ahead.

I imagine a restored Reedy Creek Improvement District’s first order of business would be issuing some more bonds that cannot be called early.

 

[Brian]

…the language!!

it happens to all of us. This is ultimately a debate forum and he got you with a clean haymaker.

No big deal.

But it’s not to be construed as support/not support for egregious human rights violations.
There is no argument there.

I have admitted several times amidst these 800 pages when I was wrong. I don't need to use "trending off topic" as an excuse to end an argument I think I'm losing.

 

[GoofGoof]

So is this an example of escalating to de-escalate?

Threaten to sue and file suit but later settle?

Maybe. I think Disney worked on a compromise this summer. If reporting was accurate at the time the legislature was on board. We even had quotes from members suggesting they were willing to negotiate now that Iger was back. That compromise fell through because it was reported in the media as “DeSantis backing down” and he was triggered by that, killing the compromise. Flash forward to today and we had the first official action by the board causing injury to Disney when they claimed the contracts were void. So Disney sued and added in the 1a pieces too. I don’t think they saw any avenue to negotiate or compromise at this point.

There is really no up side for the state of FL or it’s residents here. Disney wins the lawsuit and they go back to business as usual with the state footing a huge legal bill for both sides. Disney loses the lawsuit and the state’s top employer and catalyst for its most important industry is damaged. That doesn’t help one person living in the state, at least not anyone who eats pudding with a spoon. So while Disney would have been glad to compromise and may still be willing under optimal conditions they saw no way to get what they wanted without the lawsuit.

 

[mkt]

I imagine a restored Reedy Creek Improvement District’s first order of business would be issuing some more bonds that cannot be called early.

A single dollar in debt paid back over 1000 years

 

[Scoots71]

Daytona Speedway as well. I’m not sure who owns the track, maybe NASCAR now.

Yes NASCAR owns the track and the One Daytona development next to it.

 

[Brian]

They could try dissolving again but it would mean actually dealing with serious questions such as the bonds. They’d have to do everything by the book which means serious time and effort.

This is the thing I keep coming back to. The legislature and governor haven't yet shown the ability to think more than one step ahead.

Not only that, the governor and members of the legislature would need to learn how to keep their mouths shut. DeSantis literally wrote part of Disney's argument for them in his book.

I think there would also need to be a "cooling off" period, realistically. They can't have a second go-around right after being beaten in court.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

What about an out of court settlement? Parties settle all the time out of court after filing lawsuits.

This isn't a suit for monetary damages. Whatever happens with it, we're going to find out.