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

afterabme

Active Member
Also two good profiles on some of the firms working on the case: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/busin...2689A38&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=lawdesk

 

Surferboy567

Well-Known Member
If Disney wins this, and all their demands are met what happens exactly?

“Declare that House Bill 4C and House Bill 9C are unlawful and unenforceable because they were enacted in retaliation for Disney’s political speech in violation of the First Amendment”

This is suggesting a full roll back of the initial Reedy Creek dissolution bill. What does that look like in practice the state just picks up and leaves? Old board members are reinstated new politics rolled back?

Or are we only talking about the developer agreement as it is also listed in the lawsuit?

What stops the state from trying to do this again? If Disney wins the suit can they stop that from happening?
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
If Disney wins this, and all their demands are met what happens exactly?

“Declare that House Bill 4C and House Bill 9C are unlawful and unenforceable because they were enacted in retaliation for Disney’s political speech in violation of the First Amendment”

This is suggesting a full roll back of the initial Reedy Creek dissolution bill. What does that look like in practice the state just picks up and leaves? Old board members are reinstated new politics rolled back?

Or are we only talking about the developer agreement as it is also listed in the lawsuit?

What stops the state from trying to do this again? If Disney wins the suit can they stop that from happening?
I wondering about this too.

They can’t actually have a court order “reinstate” a legislative act that was dissolved…so it’s a bigger mess than we are even giving it credit for…

I suppose it can be declared unconstitutional? But that leaves future shenanigans open

This is why you never “pull on the string”
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
If Disney wins this, and all their demands are met what happens exactly?

“Declare that House Bill 4C and House Bill 9C are unlawful and unenforceable because they were enacted in retaliation for Disney’s political speech in violation of the First Amendment”
I believe it would effectively reinstate RCID as it was.
This is suggesting a full roll back of the initial Reedy Creek dissolution bill. What does that look like in practice the state just picks up and leaves? Old board members are reinstated new politics rolled back?

Or are we only talking about the developer agreement as it is also listed in the lawsuit?

What stops the state from trying to do this again? If Disney wins the suit can they stop that from happening?
All hypotheticals, but it’s been theorized that a judge could issue a “cooling down” period where the legislature would be unable to do anything regarding RCID for X amount of time. The legislature also would not be able to do the exact same thing they just did (to my understanding) if Disney wins. The suit is also trying to have the legislatures void of the developers agreement overturned as well. It could be said they don’t really care about the development agreement because if they win they don’t need it. Just doesn’t make sense to sue multiple times, so they put everything in there.
 

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
I don’t see how it’s “unrelated” at all…

You want to talk about avoiding wages and taxes…lake nona is the poster child for it.

They should cancel it immediately…should have already, actually.
I think Disney can see the day Ron is the former and they still want to cut wages so they proceed as planned repeating all the while " this too shall pass "
 

lentesta

Premium Member
With Judge Mark Walker assigned to the case, trust me, Disney has already won.
Disney could show up with a junior attorney and still win this. DeSantis doesn't have a prayer.

My complete hypothetical is the suit had prepped over the last few months, arguments tailored for - if not each, then almost every - judge up through SCOTUS.

If you told me half this doc was being fine-tuned on Dropbox six months ago, I would 100% believe that.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
This is suggesting a full roll back of the initial Reedy Creek dissolution bill. What does that look like in practice the state just picks up and leaves? Old board members are reinstated new politics rolled back?

If the judge agrees to that remedy, yes. It may not be the same board, but the landowners could then elect a new or the same board.

What stops the state from trying to do this again? If Disney wins the suit can they stop that from happening?

As suggested above, I could see the judge ordering a "cooling off" period of a decade or longer.

They can’t actually have a court order “reinstate” a legislative act that was dissolved…so it’s a bigger mess than we are even giving it credit for…

Yes they can. The act was dissolved by the new bill. If the new bill is declared unconstitutional, then everything, including its repeal of the old act, is void.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
@Sirwalterraleigh mentioned this yesterday, but here's the source. Federalist society lawyer thinks Disney has a solid 1A case.

 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Yes they can. The act was dissolved by the new bill. If the new bill is declared unconstitutional, then everything, including its repeal of the old act, is void.
Yeah…I “thought Better” of that…
But it doesn’t mean they can’t try another tactic…maybe even with some thought this time 😎
 

scottieRoss

Well-Known Member
When it comes to resolution, the judge can issue an order that the dissolution was unconstitutional and roll back. Then have the 2 parties come up with a plan moving forward and enter it as a consent agreement. ie The state agrees to let RCID elect a new board and that it will not attempt to dissolve it or reconstitute it for X years. Then the state and Disney would be bound by the terms of the Consent Decree
 

Bob Harlem

Well-Known Member
Disney is a wealthy company. They are not hiring an army of $2000 per hour attorneys to champion the first amendment. They see a state subsidized profit center being taken from them, and are hiding behind the first amendment argument. The Florida Constitution provides for these districts under the state codes including the provisions for removing said districts. This is a straight up state law battle, not a Federal issue.
 

Figgy1

Premium Member
Disney is a wealthy company. They are not hiring an army of $2000 per hour attorneys to champion the first amendment. They see a state subsidized profit center being taken from them, and are hiding behind the first amendment argument. The Florida Constitution provides for these districts under the state codes including the provisions for removing said districts. This is a straight up state law battle, not a Federal issue.
What exactly is the state subsidizing? Disney pays taxes to the counties, state corporate tax and taxes to RC.
 

esskay

Well-Known Member
Yeah…I “thought Better” of that…
But it doesn’t mean they can’t try another tactic…maybe even with some thought this time 😎
There would likely be a 'cooling off' period where they can't try it again for a certain period. Meanwhile RCID can put in place restrictions to make it pointless to even try.

I'm also not sure the state would want to try. If (or more likely when) they get their butt handed to them they'll switch to something else to try and draw focus away from their very public failure.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom