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

[flynnibus]

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.

Did they though? Obviously they provide tons of cites that it was retaliation based on quotes... but less content about debunking the retort that there were potential legitimate purposes.

Probably the most damning is Paragraph 62 on page 21
Paragraph 63 mainly tries to defend the public interest of the district
Paragraphs 69/70 mentions the deficiencies in that 4C didn't address the spin down of the district, but doesn't really speak to the potential valid purpose.. just that it was done hastily and poorly

Is there much else really trying to speak to the otherwise potentially valid reasons for 4C and 9B?

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Did they though? Obviously they provide tons of cites that it was retaliation based on quotes... but less content about debunking the retort that there were potential legitimate purposes.

Probably the most damning is Paragraph 62 on page 21
Paragraph 63 mainly tries to defend the public interest of the district
Paragraphs 69/70 mentions the deficiencies in that 4C didn't address the spin down of the district, but doesn't really speak to the potential valid purpose.. just that it was done hastily and poorly

Didn't the governor publicly admit that he had never even heard about the district until Disney criticised his legislation? It makes it hard to argue that you proposed to abolish then take over the district for valid reasons when you didn't know what it was or how it worked.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Yeah but the Kensington case basically concludes the motives are irrelevant.. as long as the action had (what I'll call) greater valid purposes. One could argue that dissolving out of date constructs would be valid. Or that rescoping RCID had valid purposes as well in terms of modernization, updating the city vs district language, retiring old concepts, etc. I'm not saying those are the ONLY ones, but it speaks to an argument one would make that there are legitimate 'reasons' and not the retaliatory ones alone.

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.):

Yeah but that is more an argument of 'poorly done' and throws doubt into it's completeness... but does it really challenge the argument of done for a valid purpose? The same deficiency basically applied to all the districts in that same way too. Tho obviously the impact at RCID was far greater because of what they had outstanding.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

And it isn't like DeSantis just became governor - if he truly wanted Disney to be treated like everyone else he could have looked into RCID at any point

That's the least compelling part of this. Governors do things late in their terms or in second terms all the time. You can't just say "aha! You didn't do this on Day 1 so you don't really care about it!"

The rest of the retaliatory commentary is much more relevant.

 

[Chi84]

Did they though? Obviously they provide tons of cites that it was retaliation based on quotes... but less content about debunking the retort that there were potential legitimate purposes.

Probably the most damning is Paragraph 62 on page 21
Paragraph 63 mainly tries to defend the public interest of the district
Paragraphs 69/70 mentions the deficiencies in that 4C didn't address the spin down of the district, but doesn't really speak to the potential valid purpose.. just that it was done hastily and poorly

Is there much else really trying to speak to the otherwise potentially valid reasons for 4C and 9B?

I know what you mean, but this is the plaintiff's complaint laying out the elements of its cause of action. When the state files a response identifying legitimate government purposes, Disney will have an opportunity at that time to reply to the response and do the "debunking."

 

[flynnibus]

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 reason why this is significant is because the case cited concluded that motive is irrelevant when it came to the legislative action (as long as it met the other conditions)

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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

It’s likely a route…
And could be what Iger boasts as his “crowning achievement.”

…it’s a good bet, actually…as Disney plus isn’t picking up steam, the parks are lagging again and that stock is falling even before the coming market crash

 

[mikejs78]

Is there much else really trying to speak to the otherwise potentially valid reasons for 4C and 9B?

Were those potentially valid reasons ever stated? Their point was that the principles involved stated what the reasons were - to retaliate against Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

Didn't the governor publicly admit that he had never even heard about the district until Disney criticised his legislation? It makes it hard to argue that you proposed to abolish then take over the district for valid reasons when you didn't know what it was or how it worked.

But again.. following this line of thought from the other cases... the motivation wasn't relevant as long as it was part of an action that was in itself considered valid for the legislature.

There are parallels (but not equivalencies) in the same defense that played out in the DA firing in FL.. where basically they said "yes, its retaliation, but he was going to fire you anyway and had the right to... so the 1A angle is moot".

 

[flynnibus]

Were those potentially valid reasons ever stated? Their point was that the principles involved stated what the reasons were - to retaliate against Disney.

The state has made claims on the valid reasons in various venues.

I was speaking more to the point that it's a vector that can undermine Disney's obvious 1A examples. Disney won't have a problem (IMO) proving intent - the issue is, is it actionable? That's what this other lawyer made his case over and I was just trying to discuss that. The response was given that Disney addressed it.. and I don't think they really have (yet).

 

[Chi84]

But again.. following this line of thought from the other cases... the motivation wasn't relevant as long as it was part of an action that was in itself considered valid for the legislature.

There are parallels (but not equivalencies) in the same defense that played out in the DA firing in FL.. where basically they said "yes, its retaliation, but he was going to fire you anyway and had the right to... so the 1A angle is moot".

I'll read the case but in the meantime the complaint addresses what needs to be shown by the state on p. 66 in pars. 180-182.

 

[flynnibus]

I only have a knee jerk question from the little I read about the firefighter case but wouldn't them being government employees change the dynamic of the decision. Disney does not work for the state the state works for Disney or is supposed to but as I said I know very little about the cases

In that case they weren't actually employees and that is actually part of why some of their claims were defeated (in other topics). It's an interesting case to read, as well as the references to O'Brian. Check it out.. certainly made me rethink some of the attacks that would/could be made.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

But again.. following this line of thought from the other cases... the motivation wasn't relevant as long as it was part of an action that was in itself considered valid for the legislature.

There are parallels (but not equivalencies) in the same defense that played out in the DA firing in FL.. where basically they said "yes, its retaliation, but he was going to fire you anyway and had the right to... so the 1A angle is moot".

I think you’re taking the ramifications to business out of this…
And frankly that’s the entire game.

The state is gonna lose. And likely unanimously through the circuits.

Who’s gonna be served here? Florida autonomy? Or megawealth?

If you want in those terms…there is no real question. Which one has to be preserved?

It’s a gateway that the brokers will not allowed to be broken.

So where could it go?

Say a regime change in a state voids tax credits or mineral rights for ford or Exxon?
Why? Cause they don’t like their product…
So the pass a bill and sign it…legitimate.

Goes to court and it’s upheld…somebody loses money. And the precedent? SCOTUS ruling allowing Florida to void agreements with Disney at any time/whim due to ideological beef.

I think everyone is overlooking what this is about. Money.

It’s money versus “some guy” that just showed up.

Who wins that battle?

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

But again.. following this line of thought from the other cases... the motivation wasn't relevant as long as it was part of an action that was in itself considered valid for the legislature.

There are parallels (but not equivalencies) in the same defense that played out in the DA firing in FL.. where basically they said "yes, its retaliation, but he was going to fire you anyway and had the right to... so the 1A angle is moot".

But unlike in Kensington where the municipal budgetary issues and need for department staff reductions were know beforehand, was there any evidence that the legislature and Florida elected officials intended to take this action to dissolve and replace RCID before the legislation in question and corresponding company response?

I feel like this should be easy to prove (or disprove).

 

[flynnibus]

I'll read the case but in the meantime the complaint addresses what needs to be shown by the state on p. 66 in pars. 180-182.

Yeah, but that is related to the contracts topics - not the challenges to 4C and 9B.

State can easily argue there are "legitimate state interest" in deciding how a district is managed.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Unreasonable to think that juries won’t side with Disney,

Would this case involve a jury or just be argued before a judge?

He probably had a great shot a year ago but this unhinged act combined with the radical policies has weakened him.

I’ve said the same, the rational conservative spot was wide open and probably would have won him the nomination had he just been rational, instead he decided to try to out trump Trump and is failing miserably at it.

Disney Lawyers Are Done Playing, Sue Florida Gov. DeSantis​

View attachment 712689

The actual article rehashes stuff already known here but I thought the headline and picture were cool

Mickey walking into court with sunglasses and a briefcase to litigate this would be the greatest PR stunt ever, it would make the news everywhere.

 

[flynnibus]

But unlike in Kensington where the municipal budgetary issues and need for department staff reductions were know beforehand, was there any evidence that the legislature and Florida elected officials intended to take this action to dissolve and replace RCID before the legislation in question and corresponding company response?

Sequence and motive are not relevant.. and that's kinda the sharp knife the decision welds. It's all ignored because the action was considered a valid one under the budget constraints the county was under and that the changes were applied to others as well. The criteria focuses on the action being valid even if you ignore the retaliation element. That's why it's so dangerous and becomes critical to evaluate the legitimacy of the action outside of 1A scrutinies.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The state has made claims on the valid reasons in various venues.

I was speaking more to the point that it's a vector that can undermine Disney's obvious 1A examples. Disney won't have a problem (IMO) proving intent - the issue is, is it actionable? That's what this other lawyer made his case over and I was just trying to discuss that. The response was given that Disney addressed it.. and I don't think they really have (yet).

I highly doubt Disney fleet of lawyers are “taking a swing” at this is. They look for more ironclad than the Feds.

 

[LAKid53]

New polling shows Republicans support Ron DeSantis’ attacks on Disney​

Sauce: https://floridapolitics.com/archive...ows-republicans-want-ron-desantis-disney-war/

Tiny sample size so take with a grain of salt, but this might explain why those in the echo chamber haven't backed down.

So small that it makes results irrelevant.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

Sequence and motive are not relevant.. and that's kinda the sharp knife the decision welds. It's all ignored because the action was considered a valid one under the budget constraints the county was under and that the changes were applied to others as well. The criteria focuses on the action being valid even if you ignore the retaliation element. That's why it's so dangerous and becomes critical to evaluate the legitimacy of the action outside of 1A scrutinies.

Interesting and slightly concerning. I still have to think the very public statements from the bill sponsors in the legislature and some of the new board members about Disney’s content, fighting “woke”, etc. will be germane here. Especially given there was not an immediate financial impetus on the state or local government.