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

[LAKid53]

I agree with you on this. That is why I believe the best case Florida can present is the first bill was constitutional. Disney does not have the constitutional right to their own government. They need to follow the same rules and regulations as Universal, SeaWorld and others. They need to follow the sames rules as other hotel and restaurants and shopping centers. Where Florida loses is they want more and that is why the February bill has no chance of survival. It went too far in taking control of WDW. The only 3 possible outcomes I can see. First, the original bill stands, the RCID is dissolved and the debt is given to the counties but the State pays the bill in a new bill. Second, Disney wins everything and the RCID is restored as it was. Third, Disney decides to end the district voluntarily, pays the bonds and goes under the jurisdiction of the Counties, which of course want to work with Disney for development, jobs and taxes. Disney doesn't need the RCID but it is still beneficial for the counties and does give us the Disney bubble.

If 4C is ruled constitutional, that debt is then absorbed by the counties. Would Section 100.201, F.S., apply with regards to issued bonds that suddenly become county obligations? Property owners would be outraged if they saw their property taxes go up significantly and were not given the opportunity to vote as prescribed under Florida law.

 

[mikejs78]

They could but it’s also possible those rulings are overturned on appeal. I would hope the judge rules on each complaint separately even if winning 4 and 5 makes 1, 2 and 3 unnecessary. Then on appeal if for some reason 4 and 5 are overturned the first 3 stick.

It doesn’t work that way, or at least it’s not supposed to. Judges are supposed to decide cases on the narrowest grounds possible. They are supposed to dispose of cases, not issue advisory opinions. Any rulings not necessary to disposition of the case would be treated as dicta. (Or if your from Chicago, “ditka.”)

Can the appeals court if they overturn a favorable ruling for Disney on 1a then opine on the other complaints if they were not ruled on by the initial judge or would Disney need to refile the complaint in a new case minus the 1a sections?

What would likely happen if the appeals court overturned a 1A decision, would it would be remanded to the lower court to reconsider the remaining claims.

 

[mikejs78]

If 4C is ruled constitutional, that debt is then absorbed by the counties. Would Section 100.201, F.S., apply with regards to issued bonds that suddenly become county obligations? Property owners would be outraged if they saw their property taxes go up significantly and were not given the opportunity to vote as prescribed under Florida law.

Not only that, there's still the open question on whether or not the bonds being transferred to the counties would represent a contract breach, given the promise made to bondholders in the original Reedy Creek act.

 

[lentesta]

40 years ago, the Supreme Court was held in high esteem. If I correctly remember, polls consistently showed the Supreme Court with approval ratings well above 50% even as Congress and President polled poorly.

No poll shows this today.

If the Supreme Court, the most qualified body in the judiciary, can be viewed as partisan, then it should surprise no one that the same level of partisanship has made its way into lower courts.

Again, I’d point to Harry Reid’s nuclear option in 2013 as changing what federal courts are turning into.

You know - and this is all hypothetical, because what do I know? - if you told me that Walker was actually the third judge to be offered this case after two others passed on it as a no-win career-killer, I would totally believe that.

Like "If I rule according to the facts, I'll never move up in a Republican administration. And if I rule for the state, I'll get smacked down on appeal and spend the rest of my career eating lunch at the Pompano Applebees with Aileen Canon."

Hypothetically.

ETA (May 5, 2023): Walker was the second judge to be offered the case.

 

[Stripes]

I‘ve seen this argument several times here. It’s frightening to me that what they are basically implying is that there really is no 1st amendment freedom of speech protection in this country as long as the legislature punishes you and does it with an action that would otherwise be legal. That’s sad and scary at the same time, but I don’t think any of the cases referenced were as cut and dry as this. I can understand the argument that if you cannot definitively prove motive and if there is another legitimate reason for the action other than punishment then you can’t prove the action is punitive so it’s not a violation. In this case there’s zero doubt about the motive of the actions. None, not a single reasonable person can claim otherwise. So if we all know the motive was to punish Disney for speaking out and free speech (and freedom from Government retaliation for speaking out) is supposed to be protected by the Constitution how can anyone rule this is anything other than a constitutional violation?

It’s time we start holding people responsible for their actions and their public statements. I’m so sick of hearing people defend politicians and other public officials by saying they didn’t really mean what they said.

What is happening in Florida frightens me. I’ll be honest, I don’t think the contracts are gonna hold up in court.

I believe there are legitimate holes the state will poke in the contracts that will sink them. Disney’s only response thus far has been to call the findings “a scattershot collection of alleged contract infirmities.” I’ve looked into some of the alleged infirmities and there is definitely reason for Disney to be concerned.

Whether Disney will win on First Amendment grounds is 50/50 at best, in my opinion. Setting Disney aside for a moment, the idea that a legislature/governor can retaliate against a citizen or private company for speaking their mind in the way that DeSantis and company have sets a very dangerous precedent. The 1st Amendment may as well not even exist if that’s the case. This case may very well go down as one of the most significant cases in U.S. history. I certainly hope that the Supreme Court is so appalled by this situation that they take up the case.

Disney has other arguments they could make against the takeover in Florida courts, but those will eventually make their way to the Florida Supreme Court. 4 of the 6 justices on that court were appointed by DeSantis.

 

[Dranth]

The 60 Vote Rule encouraged compromise. “You appoint a judge you like as long as I get to appoint a judge I like.”

As politics became more partisan during the last couple of decades, compromise became less accepted. Party extremist on both sides began to gain strength and control the narrative. If you didn’t cave into their demands, you were primaried.

This all started with Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987. There’s a reason it’s still referred to as “getting borked”.

Again, I don't disagree, but Robert Bork had some pretty extreme views that were untenable. As soon as a more centrist judge was nominated with Kennedy, he passed.

I think that was the main selling point of the 60 vote threshold. It forced a centrist view because very rarely does one party have enough to just appoint whoever they want. Once that was taken to the extreme of saying you get NO judges appointed unless they agree with our side it was no longer useful and needed to go.

 

[sblank]

The 60 Vote Rule encouraged compromise. “You appoint a judge you like as long as I get to appoint a judge I like.”

As politics became more partisan during the last couple of decades, compromise became less accepted. Party extremist on both sides began to gain strength and control the narrative. If you didn’t cave into their demands, you were primaried.

This all started with Robert Bork’s nomination in 1987. There’s a reason it’s still referred to as “getting borked”.

Relating this back to Disney/DeSantis, this is why it’s important what judges they pull in appeal.

Bork lost a bipartisan vote because he freely admitted to holding ghoulish beliefs and that he would rule according to those beliefs. His nomination's biggest legacy is that future nominees learned from his loss to obfuscate and lie about that kind of stuff. The seat he was nominated for went to Kennedy by a unanimous 97-0 vote so it had everything to do with Bork as a nominee, not partisan politics.

 

[GrumpyFan]

What is interesting is National Review and WSJ were generally pro-DeSantis a few months ago. They felt he had the populism of Trump without the crazy. To see them opine against the governor here is interesting. The National review one in particular, gets the idea of the special district reasonably right:

It’s also bad policy. Walt Disney World’s setup in Florida is, indeed, unusual, but it doesn’t quite make sense to call it a “carve-out.” Properly understood, a “carve-out” is a rule that is applied differently to entities of a similar or identical nature: The Walt Disney Company, for example, enjoys a brazen carve-out in Florida’s tech-regulation bill: an exemption for Disney+ that was not granted to Netflix, Hulu, or HBO Max. By contrast, the rules that apply to Walt Disney World could be better described as “tailored,” for, despite the insinuations of many Florida Republicans, Walt Disney World’s accommodation is unique not in its type but only in its particulars. As it happens, Florida has 1,844 special districts, of which 1,288 are, like Walt Disney World, “independent.” The Villages — where Governor DeSantis made his announcement about the review of Walt Disney World’s status — is “independent,” as are Orlando International Airport and the Daytona International Speedway. Clearly, Walt Disney World is a weird place: It is the size of San Francisco, it straddles two counties (Orange and Osceola), and, by necessity, it relies on an infrastructure cache that has been custom-built to its peculiar needs. To claim that the laws that enable this oddity to work represent a “special break” is akin to claiming that the laws that facilitate special installations such as Cape Canaveral or the World Trade Center are “special breaks”: true, in the narrowest sense, but false when examined more closely.

@mikejs78 This is brilliant, and one of the best explanations of Disney's "Special District" that so many fail to understand.

Many just see it as Disney getting special favors or a competitive advantage, but it's just as much an advantage to Florida and the taxpayers as it is to Disney.

 

[mikejs78]

I believe there are legitimate holes the state will poke in the contracts that will sink them. Disney’s only response thus far has been to call the findings “a scattershot collection of alleged contract infirmities.” I’ve looked into some of the alleged infirmities and there is definitely reason for Disney to be concerned.

I think you're dead wrong on this. There is nothing I've seen that would give cause to void the contracts, and for the infirmities listed, I don't think the board would even have standing to challenge.

 

[RamblinWreck]

What is happening in Florida frightens me. I’ll be honest, I don’t think the contracts are gonna hold up in court.

I believe there are legitimate holes the state will poke in the contracts that will sink them. Disney’s only response thus far has been to call the findings “a scattershot collection of alleged contract infirmities.” I’ve looked into some of the alleged infirmities and there is definitely reason for Disney to be concerned.

Whether Disney will win on First Amendment grounds is 50/50 at best, in my opinion. Setting Disney aside for a moment, the idea that a legislature/governor can retaliate against a citizen or private company for speaking their mind in the way that DeSantis and company have sets a very dangerous precedent. The 1st Amendment may as well not even exist if that’s the case. This case may very well go down as one of the most significant cases in U.S. history. I certainly hope that the Supreme Court is so appalled by this situation that they take up the case.

Disney has other arguments they could make against the takeover in Florida courts, but those will eventually make their way to the Florida Supreme Court. 4 of the 6 justices on that court were appointed by DeSantis.

Can you elaborate on some of the reasons Disney should be concerned?

 

[GrumpyFan]

You know - and this is all hypothetical, because what do I know? - if you told me that Walker was actually the third judge to be offered this case after two others passed on it as a no-win career-killer, I would totally believe that.

Like "If I rule according to the facts, I'll never move up in a Republican administration. And if I rule for the state, I'll get smacked down on appeal and spend the rest of my career eating lunch at the Pompano Applebees with Aileen Canon."

Hypothetically.

Just curious your thoughts on this suit being the first of several potential, if it fails? Or maybe even if it succeeds?
What other causes might they submit to the court for a ruling?
I would be willing to bet money that Disney's lawyers have at least two or three more drafts and several other ideas if this suit fails.

 

[danlb_2000]

This is a huge mess that could have easily been resolved by a sit-down with the leadership and a compromise reached.
Good leaders know that the first step in a conflict should ALWAYS be diplomacy and an attempt to find peaceful compromise, not a declaration of war.
Iger gets this, Desantis does not.
Not a good look for a potential Presidential candidate.

Not sure what kind of compromise could have been reached on this. It all originated with the Governor being unhappy that Disney opposed legislation. Either the governor agrees to be ok with that, or Disney retracts their opposition

 

[LAKid53]

I was just referring to the part where Disney admits in its own pleading that the state has a valid interest in overseeing how its special districts are run.

Of course the other side gets to present its case, but it will be awhile before that happens, so in the interim we're speculating as to what that will be and how successful it will be.

Analyzing precedent is also very difficult; the well-established principle in this country is that government is not authorized to use its official power to punish citizens for their political speech and this extends to corporations. I've read many cases and haven't seen one where a government official was so brazen about using the legislature to punish and control speech. Most of the cases involve subtle actions that need to be analyzed to determine whether the right to free speech was impacted. Here, we know what was done and why and are looking at precedent to see if there's a way it can be justified under current principles of law. In short, this case is different.

The remainder of your post makes me sad. It is true - and has always been true - that judges have ideological leanings. They are human beings with beliefs, values and experiences that come to bear on their rulings. But federal judges in particular are highly qualified lawyers who take pride in their ability to analyze the law and apply legal precedents to their rulings. Implying that any judge on that level will make a decision based on politics without considering the issues is not fair.

State court judges are more of a wildcard when it comes to qualifications, but I'm not even comfortable with the idea that the Florida courts would immediately come out in favor of the state on this issue. I'm aware that things are changing, but I hope our judges still have some principles.

I would agree with your last statement about state judges, but the Florida Supreme Court ruling that several districts created in 2020, both Florida Legislature and Congressional, did not violate either of the Fair Districts amendments approved by voters in 2010, does not give me hope. Voters in Florida passed those two amendments to prevent, or at least minimize, gerrymandering by EITHER party. That the highest court in the state would ignore specific language that was upheld by the 11th Circuit on appeal when the amendments were challenged after voter approval is troubling.

 

[LAKid53]

Sitting down to end feud only works when both sides are interested in a resolution. It is quite obvious here that DeSantis just wants destruction of Disney because they dared to speak up against him.

And it scores points with a segment of the voting population.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This is a huge mess that could have easily been resolved by a sit-down with the leadership and a compromise reached.
Good leaders know that the first step in a conflict should ALWAYS be diplomacy and an attempt to find peaceful compromise, not a declaration of war.
Iger gets this, Desantis does not.
Not a good look for a potential Presidential candidate.

There is the problem, "Good leaders".

 

[Stripes]

I think you're dead wrong on this. There is nothing I've seen that would give cause to void the contracts, and for the infirmities listed, I don't think the board would even have standing to challenge.

I hope I am wrong. There are genuine issues with the contracts that open the door to a judge declaring them void altogether. In the complaint, Disney is already hinting at the possibility of asking the court amend the contracts in order to deal with the infirmities. But there’s no guarantee that the judge will amend the contracts as opposed to voiding them.

 

[Chi84]

Can the appeals court if they overturn a favorable ruling for Disney on 1a then opine on the other complaints if they were not ruled on by the initial judge or would Disney need to refile the complaint in a new case minus the 1a sections?

Actually, when I answered your initial question my mind was on intermediate courts, not trial courts. Different rules apply to what should be decided by trial courts in the first instance. I'm not familiar with federal practice at the district court level.

As a general rule, appeals courts will give varying levels of deference to trial court decisions based on the stage of the litigation and what went into making the decision. Findings of fact made after hearing testimony are given great deference, but if the matter before a reviewing court is solely a question of law it can conduct de novo review, which means it can decide on another basis without further input from the trial court. Appeals courts have various powers, including remanding for further fact findings or determinations. Again, this is very general and not specific to federal law. I'm sure there are people here better qualified to answer.

 

[RamblinWreck]

Not sure what kind of compromise could have been reached on this. It all originated with the Governor being unhappy that Disney opposed legislation. Either the governor agrees to be ok with that, or Disney retracts their opposition

The governor had many opportunities to be petty and vindictive, without being THIS petty and vindictive, and it would have worked just fine. And Disney would have played ball.

 

[mikejs78]

I hope I am wrong. There are genuine issues with the contracts that open the door to a judge declaring them void altogether. In the complaint, Disney is already hinting at the possibility of having the court amend the contracts in order to deal with the infirmities. But there’s no guarantee that the judge will amend the contracts as opposed to voiding them.

What are those issues? I haven't seen any.

 

[scottieRoss]

I hope I am wrong. There are genuine issues with the contracts that open the door to a judge declaring them void altogether. In the complaint, Disney is already hinting at the possibility of having the court amend the contracts in order to deal with the infirmities. But there’s no guarantee that the judge will amend the contracts as opposed to voiding them.

Can you give an example of these issues?