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

[lazyboy97o]

How long does it take for injunctions to be granted?

It depends. You can seek emergency relieved very quickly for something that is imminent but for other things it can be weeks.

 

[Tha Realest]

Hypothetical for all the attorneys (and armchair attorneys like myself). I can see a scenario where the court would rule that the legislation itself is constitutional (due to not being able to know the motive of every legislator, etc. that has been brought up before), but rule that DeSantis and the board are violating Disney's 1A rights in the manner they are carrying out said legislation, because it is clear that they are, in fact, retaliating for political speech.

In a ruling like that, what would the remedy be? Enforcing the development agreement is obvious in that case, but how does the court prevent further retaliation? What possible remedies can the court employ?

That’s what I am getting at in terms of the appropriate remedy. The court can rule acts (both legislative and executive) unconstitutional. Can they order a legislature to pass a new act? Now you’re getting into separation of powers issues. Keeping the current composition of the board in place and having them execute current contracts is problematic, as @lazyboy97o suggests, as it still leaves a lot of potential for mischief within the bounds of their current parameters.

Point being, there are a lot of past, current, and future acts (legislative, executive, and board driven) that have to be contemplated here.

 

[GoofGoof]

Its there in the relief at the very end

There will be more process for scheduling etc

Don’t those overturn the bills that dissolved RCID and the one that amended the makeup of the board? So if a judge issued preliminary or immediate injunctive relief based on those would they actually reinstate the old RCID board? Almost like a reboot. I’m out of my element on the legal stuff so maybe way off base, but I assumed there would be an intermediate step where the current board stays but they are frozen from making new changes to the district rules until a final judgement.

 

[drnilescrane]

It depends. You can seek emergency relieved very quickly for something that is imminent but for other things it can be weeks.

I was looking at the timeline of HONEYFUND.COM INC et al v. DESANTIS et al, i.e. the Stop Woke act lawsuit presided over by Walker.

It took them about a week from filing to ask for a Preliminary Injunction, a week after that to set a hearing date for a month out, then another week for the judge to rule.

 

[LAKid53]

Shouldn’t it be Long live Lilibet?

At least as long as her great grandmother

 

[LAKid53]

I was looking at the timeline of HONEYFUND.COM INC et al v. DESANTIS et al, i.e. the Stop Woke act lawsuit presided over by Walker.

It took them about a week from filing to ask for a Preliminary Injunction, a week after that to set a hearing date for a month out, then another week for the judge to rule.

Emergency injunctions can happen much sooner as they are meant to halt damage to the affected party immediately.

 

[drnilescrane]

Emergency injunctions can happen much sooner as they are meant to halt damage to the affected party immediately.

Of course, but I don't think Disney's going to go down that route. Nothing the board has done so far has caused immediate *this needs to be stopped today* harm.

 

[GoofGoof]

I was looking at the timeline of HONEYFUND.COM INC et al v. DESANTIS et al, i.e. the Stop Woke act lawsuit presided over by Walker.

It took them about a week from filing to ask for a Preliminary Injunction, a week after that to set a hearing date for a month out, then another week for the judge to rule.

This is good info. If I’m not mistaken in that case the preliminary injunction paused the law from going into effect while the final decision was made. I wonder if this will work the same.

Emergency injunctions can happen much sooner as they are meant to halt damage to the affected party immediately.

So far the board hasn’t actually taken action to cause immediate damage, but I wonder if these upcoming meetings will result in an action deemed to be an immediate and irreparable damage. They could be shooting themselves in the foot and giving Disney more ammo.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That’s what I am getting at in terms of the appropriate remedy. The court can rule acts (both legislative and executive) unconstitutional. Can they order a legislature to pass a new act?

Why would the court need to require new legislation?

 

[LAKid53]

That’s what I am getting at in terms of the appropriate remedy. The court can rule acts (both legislative and executive) unconstitutional. Can they order a legislature to pass a new act? Now you’re getting into separation of powers issues. Keeping the current composition of the board in place and having them execute current contracts is problematic, as @lazyboy97o suggests, as it still leaves a lot of potential for mischief within the bounds of their current parameters.

Point being, there are a lot of past, current, and future acts (legislative, executive, and board driven) that have to be contemplated here.

They sure are.

However, if the court grants the full relief Disney is seeking, the current Board no longer exists and the state's case is unsubstantiated. It's all going to depend on what the ruling says. And the state WILL appeal the ruling if it's in Disney's favor.

If after all the appeals are exhausted and the state lost on the merits of its case, the Court won't be happy if it tries the same again.

 

[LAKid53]

Of course, but I don't think Disney's going to go down that route. Nothing the board has done so far has caused immediate *this needs to be stopped today* harm.

Disney may be waiting for the outcome of the next Board meeting.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Moving Disney World is not realistic.

The lawsuit was the last resort. They didn’t actually have another option.

I had a strange thought. When Walt Decided to build Disneyland everyone around him thought he was crazy and it would never work and would cost too much. Walt didn’t care what everyone thought or how much money it would cost. He had a vision.

Is history repeating itself? The modern Disney Company has a vision and as we see does not care how much it costs. TWDC is willing to lose hundreds of millions because they have a vision.

Is it so far fetched for the modern Disney company to do the impossible again and move Walt Disney World and change it’s name to Disney World?

 

[RamblinWreck]

I had a strange thought. When Walt Decided to build Disneyland everyone around him thought he was crazy and it would never work and would cost too much. Walt didn’t care what everyone thought or how much money it would cost. He had a vision.

Is history repeating itself? The modern Disney Company has a vision and as we see does not care how much it costs. TWDC is willing to lose hundreds of millions because they have a vision.

Is it so far fetched for the modern Disney company to do the impossible again and move Walt Disney World and change it’s name to Disney World?

It would be hard to fathom that the damage done to them in FL, regardless of how crazy the Governor and new board are, is so great as to make it even remotely worth considering something so extreme and so extremely expensive.

They’ve been building that place up for 50 years.

 

[drnilescrane]

Disney may be waiting for the outcome of the next Board meeting.

Nothing's going to happen at the May 1 meeting aside from some blowhard rhetoric.

As for the May 10 meeting, the CFTOD is engaging in the exact same type of PR/Messaging battle that Disney is. Their position is that Disney was operating outside the law, so they are passing essentially performative resolutions to that effect. They're going to have difficulty getting the RCID legacy staff to play ball with their game of using the bureaucracy as retaliation, at least until they get some more of their political appointees onboard.

 

[GoofGoof]

I had a strange thought. When Walt Decided to build Disneyland everyone around him thought he was crazy and it would never work and would cost too much. Walt didn’t care what everyone thought or how much money it would cost. He had a vision.

Is history repeating itself? The modern Disney Company has a vision and as we see does not care how much it costs. TWDC is willing to lose hundreds of millions because they have a vision.

Is it so far fetched for the modern Disney company to do the impossible again and move Walt Disney World and change it’s name to Disney World?

If they do this can they move IASW to EPCOT World Showcase where it belongs?

 

[Disone]

Disney’s lawsuit wording seems convoluted. “As punishment for ..free speech.” Just because one has right to free speech, doesn’t mean there isn’t consequences for free speech. One could put a sign in their yard saying something offensive, but that doesn’t protect him from the consequences of public opinion or fallout. If Disney is the only entity gifted the special privilege of self-government, how is taking away a privilege that no other entity has been granted a “punishment?” If the threat was taking away an amenity that all businesses and competitors were given, that might be deemed a punishment. But taking away a privilege is a reciprocal renegotiation of the relationship. It seems more like a case of ‘don’t look a gif horse in the mouth’?

My personal opinion at this point is that it’s silly retaliation, and a political stunt. Why not just sit down and work it out? I am generally anti-government and it looks like zealous over reach. However Disney’s “punishment” counter seems flimsy to me.

Once upon a time there was an inn keeper. The inn keeper has honorary guests, and he put cookies out on a silver platter for them every day. They were the only guests of the inn to get free VIP cookies. The guests would eat all the delicious cookies, however they felt morally compelled to spread word to the neighborhood that the inn was not sanitary. They guests even funded the local DeSanitary Club against unkept inns. So the inn keeper decided not to bake any more free cookies. The guests sued the inn keeper for retaliation for taking away their free cookies, and for punishing them for their First Amendment right to tell the public they have a dirty inn.

The End

You are not even paying attention are you?

 

[drnilescrane]

It would be hard to fathom that the damage done to them in FL, regardless of how crazy the Governor and new board are, is so great as to make it even remotely worth considering something so extreme and so extremely expensive.

They’ve been building that place up for 50 years.

It's a stupid cable news soundbite. No, Disney aren't going to move 50 years of infrastructure investment. They will however turn off the taps and wait it out - we've seen his this happen twice in Anaheim, and the city always comes around.

The PR play here is to make a big deal about how all the money they are spending on a new, improved DisneylandForward was money earmarked for WDW.

 

[LAKid53]

It would be hard to fathom that the damage done to them in FL, regardless of how crazy the Governor and new board are, is so great as to make it even remotely worth considering something so extreme and so extremely expensive.

They’ve been building that place up for 50 years.

Agree. Sports teams have threatened to pack up and move if the City doesn't fund a new stadium. The threat only works if the entity is capable of carrying it out without great financial cost.

 

[Lilofan]

I find the use of the word "magistrate" interesting. Magistrates are lay judges who can issues citations, hold hearings, determine fines, etc. In the UK.

In the US, magistrates are officers of the various courts who handle a variety of judicial proceedings, typically things like traffic court, etc. They are appointed by the court itself, i.e., judges.

There was a guy who I worked with from New England who spoke with a very thick NE accent. He told me he had legal troubles and had to go before the magistrate in MA . That's the first time I ever heard of the word.

 

[GoofGoof]

https://www.thestreet.com/travel/either-disney-wins-or-everyone-loses-in-battle-with-desantis?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

Interesting take on the situation and something we have talked about some here. In summary the article concludes that either Disney wins or everyone loses.

So, DeSantis can accomplish a few things in his war with Disney.

• He could gain control over the former Reedy Creek District and make it harder for Disney to build things at Disney World. That doesn't seem like a win for the governor because nobody lives in the district aside from a handful of Disney executives. Making the Mouse House jump through hoops to get things done might be satisfying for DeSantis, but at best it's annoying for the company and at worst Disney decides to spend some of its budget at its other theme parks.
• DeSantis could harass Disney into spending less money in Florida and maybe could even talk some of his supporters nationwide out of visiting the park. Again, it's hard to see how DeSantis wins there because it's not as if those tourists will flock to other Florida locations.

It's hard to see what DeSantis gets out of his battle with Disney. If he wins, he hurts his state, maybe in a way meaningful enough that costs some of his supporters their jobs. If he loses, that's a political loss of face, which makes him look weak to his constituents, which in turn won't help his national political aspirations.