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

[tallica]

Personally we’ve shifted away from in park ADRs to resort dining.

Funny thing is the resort restaurants are hurting more than park restaurants. Signature restaurants are down the most.

 

[tissandtully]

This poll is interesting, somewhat contradicts the Harvard poll.. Survey is of all adults, so that's a flag, but couple of key things from the topline:

• Are you more or less likely to support a political candidate who does the following: Supports or passes laws designed to punish a company for its political, social, or cultural stances.
  • More likely: 27%
  • Less likely: 73%
• Are you more or less likely to support a political candidate who does the following: Supports the free speech rights of a company, even if they disagree with what the company is saying.
  • More likely: 77%
  • Less likey: 23%
• Which of the following statements comes closest to your view, even if neither is exactly right?
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is punishing Disney for exercising their right to free speech: 64%
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is rightfully rolling back special treatment for Disney: 36%
• Do you think Disney was acting within its right when it criticized the Florida law banning the discussion of sexuality and gender in public schools last year?
  • Yes: 55%
  • No: 23%
  • Don't know: 22%
• How has your opinion of the following changed, if at all, as a result of their fight over LGBTQ+ issues in Florida?
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
    • More favorable: 23%
    • Less favorable: 42%
    • No impact: 36%
  • The Walt Disney World resort
    • More favorable: 24%
    • Less favorable: 27%
    • No impact: 49%
  • The Disney Company
    • More favorable: 29%
    • Less favorable: 29%
    • No impact: 42%

The partisan breakouts are generally what you'd expect, with a majority of Republicans generally siding with DeSantis (64%), a majority of Democrats generally supporting Disney (87%) and a majority of independents also supporting Disney (67%).

I find this poll more interesting than the Harvard poll because it breaks out the issue into much more detail and cross-checks by asking a number of different questions. It still has some problems (as all polls do) but this one seems a lot less loaded language wise than the Harvard poll. For example, they don't call it a "special taxing district" while still referencing that Disney has some "legal priviledges" that were removed by DeSantis.

these are way better questions

 

[tissandtully]

Funny thing is the resort restaurants are hurting more than park restaurants. Signature restaurants are down the most.

almost like they are priced stupidly high

 

[Chi84]

There are multiple claims of failure... from what they voted on, to what was documented, to timelines, to changes between readings that were not discussed, to the district not even having the authority to pass what they did, etc. Lots of issues brought up today... I assume they are in the board packet but haven't tried to go through it yet.

Validity of those points is another debate...

Disney has decided to challenge the state’s actions based on violations of their constitutional rights under 4 sections of the US Constitution.

They basically reduced the 70+ pages of “Legislative findings” to “a scattershot collection of alleged contract infirmities” that were pretextual in nature and therefore insufficient to withstand a challenge based on violation of Disney’s constitutional rights.

Well-written document that is very easy to understand for anyone who is interested.

 

[flynnibus]

So the previous tweet mentioned about a lawyer saying Disney has no 1A case is based on a interpretation not covered in the thread previously.



The argument is... from a case in MD https://casetext.com/case/kensington-volunteer-fire-dept-inc-v-montgomery-cnty-md where some firefighters were suing that they were targets of retailiation when the local gov took away their funding because they opposed legislation from the gov. (Sound familiar??)

The cited appeals court case found that a legislative action was immune from questioning it's motive because it's the legislature is doing it's work and was 'facially valid'. This case relied upon United States v. O'Brien where SCOTUS ruled a law outlawing destruction of draft cards was valid, even though people were destroying draft cards as a form of protest and being arrested.

But from O'Brian they establish basically a test to quantify if the regulation is actually tailored to the government need instead of just retaliation...

[W]e think it clear, that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidential restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest

The Kensington case also highlights a difference between government action by decree of one (say.. someone acting as your boss) vs government action via legislative action. And basically saying when the action is from the legislature doing their normal duty, you can't question their motive. (my paraphrasing... you can read the opinion on your own, or the tweet's POV).

This at skin deep is very troublesome... it basically says as long as it's done via the legislative process, it can't be a 1A violation. Clearly you can't take that kind of interpretation unilaterally. One, the O'Brian case key words are that the action is constitutionally valid to start with... so it doesn't negate the idea a law itself can violate the 1A. But the distinction here in the Kensington case (and Disney) is they are talking about the motive behind the law, and if the action was retaliatory. This is what the lawyer is basing his dismissal of Disney's 1A argument over.

Now.. he's the 1A lawyer and I'm not.. but here is why I am not convinced by his conclusion.

The Kensington case doesn't universally give the legislation actions immunity, it says in that case the action was 'facially valid'. It was valid because they later elaborate how the budget change (the action in this case) actually had valid reasoning for things BESIDES just targeting the group in question. Basically.. the budget passed was arguably valid for reasons beyond the 1A retaliation claims.

But this is where I think the Disney case differs... the same arguments of why the Kensington budget moves were validated by motives BESIDES the 1A retaliation... those same kind of other "facially valid" motivations are lacking in the laws passed by the FL legislature. I believe Disney can argue in both the criteria from O'Brian and the judgement from Kensington... that the changes are in fact essentially solely retalitory and not "facially valid" for other reasons. The timelines, the statements made about why the bills were introduced, when they were introduced, the scope of them, their design vs other comparable entities/districts.. I think Disney can defeat the "facially valid" argument that would otherwise give the state's action to change RCID immunity.

What say you?

 

[Vacationeer]

This poll is interesting, somewhat contradicts the Harvard poll.. Survey is of all adults, so that's a flag, but couple of key things from the topline:

• Are you more or less likely to support a political candidate who does the following: Supports or passes laws designed to punish a company for its political, social, or cultural stances.
  • More likely: 27%
  • Less likely: 73%
• Are you more or less likely to support a political candidate who does the following: Supports the free speech rights of a company, even if they disagree with what the company is saying.
  • More likely: 77%
  • Less likey: 23%
• Which of the following statements comes closest to your view, even if neither is exactly right?
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is punishing Disney for exercising their right to free speech: 64%
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is rightfully rolling back special treatment for Disney: 36%
• Do you think Disney was acting within its right when it criticized the Florida law banning the discussion of sexuality and gender in public schools last year?
  • Yes: 55%
  • No: 23%
  • Don't know: 22%
• How has your opinion of the following changed, if at all, as a result of their fight over LGBTQ+ issues in Florida?
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
    • More favorable: 23%
    • Less favorable: 42%
    • No impact: 36%
  • The Walt Disney World resort
    • More favorable: 24%
    • Less favorable: 27%
    • No impact: 49%
  • The Disney Company
    • More favorable: 29%
    • Less favorable: 29%
    • No impact: 42%

The partisan breakouts are generally what you'd expect, with a majority of Republicans generally siding with DeSantis (64%), a majority of Democrats generally supporting Disney (87%) and a majority of independents also supporting Disney (67%).

I find this poll more interesting than the Harvard poll because it breaks out the issue into much more detail and cross-checks by asking a number of different questions. It still has some problems (as all polls do) but this one seems a lot less loaded language wise than the Harvard poll. For example, they don't call it a "special taxing district" while still referencing that Disney has some "legal priviledges" that were removed by DeSantis.

POLL LINK

Only 9 pages. The other one was 283 lol.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

almost like they are priced stupidly high

…you know…

 

[doctornick]

This poll is interesting, somewhat contradicts the Harvard poll.. Survey is of all adults, so that's a flag, but couple of key things from the topline:

• Are you more or less likely to support a political candidate who does the following: Supports or passes laws designed to punish a company for its political, social, or cultural stances.
  • More likely: 27%
  • Less likely: 73%
• Are you more or less likely to support a political candidate who does the following: Supports the free speech rights of a company, even if they disagree with what the company is saying.
  • More likely: 77%
  • Less likey: 23%
• Which of the following statements comes closest to your view, even if neither is exactly right?
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is punishing Disney for exercising their right to free speech: 64%
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is rightfully rolling back special treatment for Disney: 36%
• Do you think Disney was acting within its right when it criticized the Florida law banning the discussion of sexuality and gender in public schools last year?
  • Yes: 55%
  • No: 23%
  • Don't know: 22%
• How has your opinion of the following changed, if at all, as a result of their fight over LGBTQ+ issues in Florida?
  • Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
    • More favorable: 23%
    • Less favorable: 42%
    • No impact: 36%
  • The Walt Disney World resort
    • More favorable: 24%
    • Less favorable: 27%
    • No impact: 49%
  • The Disney Company
    • More favorable: 29%
    • Less favorable: 29%
    • No impact: 42%

The partisan breakouts are generally what you'd expect, with a majority of Republicans generally siding with DeSantis (64%), a majority of Democrats generally supporting Disney (87%) and a majority of independents also supporting Disney (67%).

I find this poll more interesting than the Harvard poll because it breaks out the issue into much more detail and cross-checks by asking a number of different questions. It still has some problems (as all polls do) but this one seems a lot less loaded language wise than the Harvard poll. For example, they don't call it a "special taxing district" while still referencing that Disney has some "legal priviledges" that were removed by DeSantis.

This fight isn't about the general election, it's about the Republican primary though. So, being viewed positively by Republican voters is exactly what DeSantis wants and why he is doing it. If he were to win the nomination or become the de facto nominee then he would have to pivot to more moderate positions and would distance himself from this fight with Disney. That's just how politics works in the US given the two party system and current climate.

I guess I'm confused as to why people in this thread keep indicating this is going to hurt DeSantis' presidential bid. If he can't get the Republication nomination, then there's no chance for him to be President. Thus appealing to Republican voters is the first hurdle and what he is working on now.

(I'm not saying it is going to work or anything, but it doesn't matter at this point if Dems or Independents disapprove of this action)

 

[networkpro]

I know bookings are down. Also, Disney sit down restaurants had one of the slowest spring breaks ever. Plus non-park divisions are definitely hurting.

We just returned home from a couple of weeks at WDW and it was possible to have your choice of almost any table service day of (of course the smaller venues like 220 were solid except for really off off hours).

 

[Andrew C]

This fight isn't about the general election, it's about the Republican primary though. So, being viewed positively by Republican voters is exactly what DeSantis wants and why he is doing it. If he were to win the nomination or become the de facto nominee then he would have to pivot to more moderate positions and would distance himself from this fight with Disney. That's just how politics works in the US given the two party system and current climate.

I guess I'm confused as to why people in this thread keep indicating this is going to hurt DeSantis' presidential bid. If he can't get the Republication nomination, then there's no chance for him to be President. Thus appealing to Republican voters is the first hurdle and what he is working on now.

(I'm not saying it is going to work or anything, but it doesn't matter at this point if Dems or Independents disapprove of this action)

Not to mention, this is small potatoes for most when considering who they are going to vote for...

 

[tissandtully]

This fight isn't about the general election, it's about the Republican primary though. So, being viewed positively by Republican voters is exactly what DeSantis wants and why he is doing it. If he were to win the nomination or become the de facto nominee then he would have to pivot to more moderate positions and would distance himself from this fight with Disney. That's just how politics works in the US given the two party system and current climate.

I guess I'm confused as to why people in this thread keep indicating this is going to hurt DeSantis' presidential bid. If he can't get the Republication nomination, then there's no chance for him to be President. Thus appealing to Republican voters is the first hurdle and what he is working on now.

(I'm not saying it is going to work or anything, but it doesn't matter at this point if Dems or Independents disapprove of this action)

I think it's just clear it doesn't seem to be giving the boost he intended, not sure if it is deteriorating support, but looks likely he can't overcome the margins

 

[mmascari]

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

I'm sure they could find a buyer for that type of bond. At a minimum, there's a larger entertainment company that also runs theme parks that would gladly purchase RCID bonds that cannot be paid off early.

 

[Chi84]

So the previous tweet mentioned about a lawyer saying Disney has no 1A case is based on a interpretation not covered in the thread previously.



The argument is... from a case in MD https://casetext.com/case/kensington-volunteer-fire-dept-inc-v-montgomery-cnty-md where some firefighters were suing that they were targets of retailiation when the local gov took away their funding because they opposed legislation from the gov. (Sound familiar??)

The cited appeals court case found that a legislative action was immune from questioning it's motive because it's the legislature is doing it's work and was 'facially valid'. This case relied upon United States v. O'Brien where SCOTUS ruled a law outlawing destruction of draft cards was valid, even though people were destroying draft cards as a form of protest and being arrested.

But from O'Brian they establish basically a test to quantify if the regulation is actually tailored to the government need instead of just retaliation...
"[W]e think it clear, that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidential restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest"

The Kensington case also highlights a difference between government action by decree of one (say.. someone acting as your boss) vs government action via legislative action. And basically saying when the action is from the legislature doing their normal duty, you can't question their motive. (my paraphrasing... you can read the opinion on your own, or the tweet's POV).

This at skin deep is very troublesome... it basically says as long as it's done via the legislative process, it can't be a 1A violation. Clearly you can't take that kind of interpretation unilaterally. One, the O'Brian case key words are that the action is constitutionally valid to start with... so it doesn't negate the idea a law itself can violate the 1A. But the distinction here in the Kensington case (and Disney) is they are talking about the motive behind the law, and if the action was retaliatory. This is what the lawyer is basing his dismissal of Disney's 1A argument over.

Now.. he's the 1A lawyer and I'm not.. but here is why I am not convinced by his conclusion.

The Kensington case doesn't universally give the legislation actions immunity, it says in that case the action was 'facially valid'. It was valid because they later elaborate how the budget change (the action in this case) actually had valid reasoning for things BESIDES just targeting the group in question. Basically.. the budget passed was arguably valid for reasons beyond the 1A retaliation claims.

But this is where I think the Disney case differs... the same arguments of why the Kensington budget moves were validated by motives BESIDES the 1A retaliation... those same kind of other "facially valid" motivations are lacking in the laws passed by the FL legislature. I believe Disney can argue in both the criteria from O'Brian and the judgement from Kensington... that the changes are in fact essentially solely retalitory and not "facially valid" for other reasons. The timelines, the statements made about why the bills were introduced, when they were introduced, the scope of them, their design vs other comparable entities/districts.. I think Disney can defeat the "facially valid" argument that would otherwise give the state's action to change RCID immunity.

What say you?

Disney addressed this at length in their complaint. In every section they showed why there was no reason other than retaliation and backed it up pretty well.

The part about dissolving RCID with absolutely no plan in place for a successor for its assets or financial obligations is particularly compelling.

 

[mikejs78]

So the previous tweet mentioned about a lawyer saying Disney has no 1A case is based on a interpretation not covered in the thread previously.



The argument is... from a case in MD https://casetext.com/case/kensington-volunteer-fire-dept-inc-v-montgomery-cnty-md where some firefighters were suing that they were targets of retailiation when the local gov took away their funding because they opposed legislation from the gov. (Sound familiar??)

The cited appeals court case found that a legislative action was immune from questioning it's motive because it's the legislature is doing it's work and was 'facially valid'. This case relied upon United States v. O'Brien where SCOTUS ruled a law outlawing destruction of draft cards was valid, even though people were destroying draft cards as a form of protest and being arrested.

But from O'Brian they establish basically a test to quantify if the regulation is actually tailored to the government need instead of just retaliation...
"[W]e think it clear, that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidential restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest"

The Kensington case also highlights a difference between government action by decree of one (say.. someone acting as your boss) vs government action via legislative action. And basically saying when the action is from the legislature doing their normal duty, you can't question their motive. (my paraphrasing... you can read the opinion on your own, or the tweet's POV).

This at skin deep is very troublesome... it basically says as long as it's done via the legislative process, it can't be a 1A violation. Clearly you can't take that kind of interpretation unilaterally. One, the O'Brian case key words are that the action is constitutionally valid to start with... so it doesn't negate the idea a law itself can violate the 1A. But the distinction here in the Kensington case (and Disney) is they are talking about the motive behind the law, and if the action was retaliatory. This is what the lawyer is basing his dismissal of Disney's 1A argument over.

Now.. he's the 1A lawyer and I'm not.. but here is why I am not convinced by his conclusion.

The Kensington case doesn't universally give the legislation actions immunity, it says in that case the action was 'facially valid'. It was valid because they later elaborate how the budget change (the action in this case) actually had valid reasoning for things BESIDES just targeting the group in question. Basically.. the budget passed was arguably valid for reasons beyond the 1A retaliation claims.

But this is where I think the Disney case differs... the same arguments of why the Kensington budget moves were validated by motives BESIDES the 1A retaliation... those same kind of other "facially valid" motivations are lacking in the laws passed by the FL legislature. I believe Disney can argue in both the criteria from O'Brian and the judgement from Kensington... that the changes are in fact essentially solely retalitory and not "facially valid" for other reasons. The timelines, the statements made about why the bills were introduced, when they were introduced, the scope of them, their design vs other comparable entities/districts.. I think Disney can defeat the "facially valid" argument that would otherwise give the state's action to change RCID immunity.

What say you?

I think you're right. The motives here are very clear based on statements by the principles. Kensington also is only an appellate decision, it doesn't necessarily control here, while O'Brian does.

One part of Disney's complaint struck me, in that they demonstrated that this dissolution differed from other dissolutions that have been done in the state previously (in that it lacked a rational for dissolution, a plan for how to break up the district and distribute the assets/debts, etc.):

197. The law’s passage was highly irregular. The bill was added to a special session convened for other purposes even though there was no emergency that would justify such rushed treatment: RCID had existed for decades, and Senate Bill 4C did not propose dissolution until June 2023. The bill passed only three days after identical bills were simultaneously introduced in the House and Senate. There was no debate in the House. Stakeholders did not have time to conduct their own analyses. And no concrete plan to effectuate the dissolution of RCID, or address the ramifications of doing so, was proposed in the months following the legislation’s hasty enactment. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 267 (1977) (“Departures from the normal procedural sequence also might afford evidence that improper purposes are playing a role. Substantive departures too may be relevant, particularly if the factors usually considered important by the decisionmaker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one reached.”).

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Disney addressed this at length in their complaint. In every section they showed why there was no reason other than retaliation and backed it up pretty well.

The part about dissolving RCID with absolutely no plan in place for a successor for its assets or financial obligations is particularly compelling.

It’s a 1A…
SCOTUS already threw open the doors on corporate 1A…because they wanted no restrictions on money used for power…

Bet Sammy and Clarice want mulligans on that vote here?

 

[GoofGoof]

So the previous tweet mentioned about a lawyer saying Disney has no 1A case is based on a interpretation not covered in the thread previously.



The argument is... from a case in MD https://casetext.com/case/kensington-volunteer-fire-dept-inc-v-montgomery-cnty-md where some firefighters were suing that they were targets of retailiation when the local gov took away their funding because they opposed legislation from the gov. (Sound familiar??)

The cited appeals court case found that a legislative action was immune from questioning it's motive because it's the legislature is doing it's work and was 'facially valid'. This case relied upon United States v. O'Brien where SCOTUS ruled a law outlawing destruction of draft cards was valid, even though people were destroying draft cards as a form of protest and being arrested.

But from O'Brian they establish basically a test to quantify if the regulation is actually tailored to the government need instead of just retaliation...


The Kensington case also highlights a difference between government action by decree of one (say.. someone acting as your boss) vs government action via legislative action. And basically saying when the action is from the legislature doing their normal duty, you can't question their motive. (my paraphrasing... you can read the opinion on your own, or the tweet's POV).

This at skin deep is very troublesome... it basically says as long as it's done via the legislative process, it can't be a 1A violation. Clearly you can't take that kind of interpretation unilaterally. One, the O'Brian case key words are that the action is constitutionally valid to start with... so it doesn't negate the idea a law itself can violate the 1A. But the distinction here in the Kensington case (and Disney) is they are talking about the motive behind the law, and if the action was retaliatory. This is what the lawyer is basing his dismissal of Disney's 1A argument over.

Now.. he's the 1A lawyer and I'm not.. but here is why I am not convinced by his conclusion.

The Kensington case doesn't universally give the legislation actions immunity, it says in that case the action was 'facially valid'. It was valid because they later elaborate how the budget change (the action in this case) actually had valid reasoning for things BESIDES just targeting the group in question. Basically.. the budget passed was arguably valid for reasons beyond the 1A retaliation claims.

But this is where I think the Disney case differs... the same arguments of why the Kensington budget moves were validated by motives BESIDES the 1A retaliation... those same kind of other "facially valid" motivations are lacking in the laws passed by the FL legislature. I believe Disney can argue in both the criteria from O'Brian and the judgement from Kensington... that the changes are in fact essentially solely retalitory and not "facially valid" for other reasons. The timelines, the statements made about why the bills were introduced, when they were introduced, the scope of them, their design vs other comparable entities/districts.. I think Disney can defeat the "facially valid" argument that would otherwise give the state's action to change RCID immunity.

What say you?

I don’t know all of the background facts in the other case but I doubt anyone in the local government wrote a book boasting about how they took down a group of woke firefighters. One big difference here is motive is not really in question. The governor and members of the legislature are on public record (and in published works) talking about taking the action to punish Disney.

 

[scottieRoss]

I think Disney opened a bigger Pandora's Box by being sneaky to keep control of RCID. They acted like they were going accept it and than tried to keep it last minute with clever wording. I may be wrong but I don't think much would have changed if they had lost control of RCID. Now Disney has made DeSantis even more determined to crush The Mouse. It will probably cost Disney millions in lost revenue due boycotting company wide.

Sneaky, by protecting their interest, before the new state law was even introduced in the legislature?
Or, sneaky by publishing notice of what they were doing?
Or even, sneaky by submitting it to the state and getting it approved by the state?
And they 'acted like they were going to accept it' because they had already passed the Development Agreements and were prepared to live under those.
Finally, good luck with the boycott, it has never worked in the past. It sure ain't gonna work right now

 

[Andrew C]

I don’t know all of the background facts in the other case but I doubt anyone in the local government wrote a book boasting about how they took down a group of woke firefighters. One big difference here is motive is not really in question. The governor and members of the legislature are on public record (and in published works) talking about taking the action to punish Disney.

I guess we will see! Should be interesting to see how this swings...back and forth...

 

[GoofGoof]

This fight isn't about the general election, it's about the Republican primary though. So, being viewed positively by Republican voters is exactly what DeSantis wants and why he is doing it. If he were to win the nomination or become the de facto nominee then he would have to pivot to more moderate positions and would distance himself from this fight with Disney. That's just how politics works in the US given the two party system and current climate.

I guess I'm confused as to why people in this thread keep indicating this is going to hurt DeSantis' presidential bid. If he can't get the Republication nomination, then there's no chance for him to be President. Thus appealing to Republican voters is the first hurdle and what he is working on now.

(I'm not saying it is going to work or anything, but it doesn't matter at this point if Dems or Independents disapprove of this action)

If his end goal is to win the GOP primary then it may work. If the goal is to win the general election then it plays poorly in swing states that decide POTUS elections.

 

[Andrew C]

If the goal is to win the general election then it plays poorly in swing states that decide POTUS elections.

General is a long way off....things can change so quickly...