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

[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.

 

[Touchdown]

I would think the state needs to prove another legitimate reason why they changed things. And given that there are plenty of other special districts in the state it’s going to be hard to prove why only RCID was targeted.

 

[GoofGoof]

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)

I didn’t think it was saying motive was completely irrelevant. In that case they couldn’t prove motive but there was evidence of a legitimate reason for doing what they did. From your post:

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

So in that case they determined there was an important government interest that was unrelated to the suppression of free speech. In this case the people passing the legislation have already told us their motivation was to punish Disney. That’s not a substantial governmental interest and even if it was, that interest is not unrelated to free speech.

The motive of the legislature is not irrelevant, it’s usually just difficult to prove the true motive.

 

[mikejs78]

I didn’t think it was saying motive was completely irrelevant. In that case they couldn’t prove motive but there was evidence of a legitimate reason for doing what they did. From your post:

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

So in that case they determined there was an important government interest that was unrelated to the suppression of free speech. In this case the people passing the legislation have already told us their motivation was to punish Disney. That’s not a substantial governmental interest and even if it was, that interest is not unrelated to free speech.

The motive of the legislature is not irrelevant, it’s usually just difficult to prove the true motive.

Exactly. In Kensington you didn't have a legislative record of legislators stating, on the record, that this was being done to punish the volunteer firefighters.

There's also the subsequent evidence, with the laws that the legislature is about to pass now regarding monorail inspection and the actual voiding of the contract. In the former case, they will have to show why there is a need to write the law in such a way as to only apply to special districts that span more than one county. In the latter, they will need to show why breaking the contractors in the public interest. But all these legislative acts together establishes a pattern of behavior – We are not just dealing with one isolated legislative act.

 

[LAKid53]

…correct….

…and 1000% correct


It’s amazing how many have forgotten - or more accurately not bothered to take 1 hour to educate themselves…
…that Disney BUILT central Florida

There was nothing there prior. Tourism followed and it’s one of the most concentrated areas in the country/world…

None of this should be in dispute. For a second.

To say RCID needed “changing” is devoid of factual basis. Only low paid workers have a legitimate complaint as to the “downsides”

…but I bet we aren’t gonna fix that…are we Florida?

That's not entirely accurate. The population of Orlando in the mid 1960s was over 250K.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

At least have the whole legal team wearing custom Mickey Ears and these t-shirts

 

[BagOfGroceries]

The Most Magical Legal Team on Earth is off to kick butt. Go get em!

 

[mikejs78]

At least have the whole legal team wearing custom Mickey Ears and these t-shirts

View attachment 712748

Add in the caption "We are the magic" below.

 

[BagOfGroceries]

Add in the caption "We are the magic" below.

They’re the people making the aforementioned call.

 

[JAB]

At least have the whole legal team wearing custom Mickey Ears and these t-shirts

View attachment 712748

State lawyer: "Your honor; I object to this whole Mickey Mouse operation!"

Disney lawyer in the room hears this and starts drafting a trademark infringement suit.

 

[LAKid53]

At least have the whole legal team wearing custom Mickey Ears and these t-shirts

View attachment 712748

Not appropriate court room clothing.

But wear at press conferences?

 

[flynnibus]

I would think the state needs to prove another legitimate reason why they changed things. And given that there are plenty of other special districts in the state it’s going to be hard to prove why only RCID was targeted.

well one.. they'd say it wasn't only RCID that was targeted by 4C - they'd point to the other districts that were caught in the net too.

And 9B is about redoing the charter... so obviously that bill would be specific to RCID.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

That's not entirely accurate. The population of Orlando in the mid 1960s was over 250K.

I believe that was “regional”

Orlando itself had a population of 50,000 when RETLAW showed up.

Now it’s like 400,000? 2 mil region?

8x and 8x



But beyond that…I’ve used the analogy before: Orlando kinda acts like a college town.

Colleges towns always claim “our town would be here without School X…”

Right…but there’d be open tables at the 1 Applebees