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

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
They would still have to first amend the land development regulations to put more projects in from of the Board. They can then play more games, but they’d be lacking an alternative that they’re supposed to be supporting. I don’t think an injunction preventing Disney from starting certain new projects would be unreasonable.
So, just to clarify, CFTOD can request an injunction that Disney can not start new construction? And Disney could request an injunction that CFTOD can’t stop them from doing anything until things are resolved?
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
So, just to clarify, CFTOD can request an injunction that Disney can not start new construction? And Disney could request an injunction that CFTOD can’t stop them from doing anything until things are resolved?
Yes, the Board could seek their own injunction preventing Disney from acting. My idea of reasonable would be entirely new projects, places where the district could technically claim they are reconsidering the land use. I don’t think continuing existing, decades old uses would be a valid harm to the district.
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
Yes, the Board could seek their own injunction preventing Disney from acting. My idea of reasonable would be entirely new projects, places where the district could technically claim they are reconsidering the land use. I don’t think continuing existing, decades old uses would be a valid harm to the district.
Thank you, you have always been super informed about this subject and have appreciated your posts.
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
I won’t deny this as in essence it was. However its control has no negative benefits to the state, taxpayers, or guests.

That is somewhat true, it’s the way you are express that they are. You point blank acknowledged that the gov dissolved RCID because of Disneys actions. And the 1A is only one of the 5 different claims they put in their lawsuit. You are trying to pretend that they have no basis to sue for first amendment violations.
I was against the dissolution of RCID from the start. THE STATE WAS AGAINST THE DISSOLUTION OF RCID FOR OVER 50 YEARS.

The state always had the power to dissolve RCID but just let it be. (In my opinion rightly so).

I never ever said they had no basis to sue for 1A violations. If there is a post by me that says this show me.

TWDC wants their power back in WDW. They are trying to use the 1A violations to get them back.

Will they win in court? Who knows.

Freedom of speech is a right defined in the constitution.

Special districts are privileges granted by the state like a driver's license.

It's anyone's guess how this will end.

I am guessing this will take years to resolve.
 

JusticeDisney

Well-Known Member
As do I.

You're conflating two distinct matters, at least as it pertains to my argument, which is that Disney's public stance was, and remains, frowned upon by vast swaths of the Republican party. Certainly one can disagree with Disney's stances while also disagreeing with the way that DeSantis responded to those stances, which is how most people I know, myself included, feel.
I’m not conflating anything. You have stated that an entire politcal party disapproves of how Disney handled this. Such a statement is simply untrue. There are many Republicans who have zero issue with what Disney did.
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
I’m not conflating anything. You have stated that an entire politcal party disapproves of how Disney handled this. Such a statement is simply untrue. There are many Republicans who have zero issue with what Disney did.
There are many republicans that would have zero idea any of this happened if DeSantis had not turned it into “a federal case”
 

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

Back
Top Bottom