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

[CaptainAmerica]

• I think it's unlikely they lose on facts. The case is pretty straightforward, and DeSantis did nothing to help his case with his book, his repeated statements, etc.
• I also think it's unlikely they lose on standing. Maybe if it were just the dissolution of RCID like the original bill was, but with the whole set of facts
  • The creation of a new governor-appointed board with taxing authority, which there is no president for in the state
  • The bill to void the contracts, which applies only to Disney
  • The bill to inspect monorails, which also applies only to Disney (unless it applies to no one at all based on the mistake made)
  • The statements of the board members that they intend to influence Disney's content
  • The statements about building a prison, etc.
• I think Disney could partially lose the 1A portion of the case on the law in one potential issue - legislative intent. Courts have been hesitant to infer legislative intent in past cases due to the number of individuals involved in passing legislation, etc. This is the one area that makes me nervous. Still, there has never been a case with so many blatant statements from many legislators on how they were punishing "woke" Disney.
• Even if Disney loses on that part on those grounds regarding the passage of the law, I think they win on the execution of the law by the executive. It's abundantly clear that DeSantis, who has the power over the board, is targeting Disney for speech. So I could see a scenario where the court upholds the law, but throws out the board or severely constrians the board, or puts them under a judicial watchdog..
• I still think the most likely scenario given the facts is that the whole set of laws is tossed, we go back to the pre-2022 state, and a consent agreement is required to not touch things for a period of 10 years or so...

I agree with all of this.

Legislative intent will be interesting. DeSantis' motivations were clear. Some legislators' intent was clear. But the intent of the legislaTORS isn't the same thing as the intent of the legisltaTURE.

 

[EeyoreFan#24]

Good question for FDEM and their vendor right now.

Is false alarms really that big of a problem?

 

[GrumpyFan]

Queue the new accounts and restarting of old arguments in 3, 2, 1.

I wish we could start a new thread on this, and only allow "Well-Known Members" or those with certain Reaction Score or Points to discuss. That would cut down on some of the riff-raff, repetitiveness, and off-topic side trails that happen so frequently. I might even consider paying for something like that.

 

[mkt]

Queue the new accounts and restarting of old arguments in 3, 2, 1.

eh, it's wapo.

We'll (hopefully) be fine.

 

[WDWHero]

eh, it's wapo.

We'll (hopefully) be fine.

also paywalled

 

[mmascari]

also paywalled

A gift (link), just for you (and anyone else that want to click it).

https://wapo.st/425ZUea

 

[JAB]

"
And on the April 28 edition of , host Tom Corless dug into DeSantis’s response to Disney’s lawsuit, fact-checking and providing historical context.

“I will give you my usual disclaimer that I have no political agenda,” he said."

Since I don't really read his stuff, what has his take been if anyone knows?

I'll just say there's a reason why links to his site are banned on multiple Disney fan forums, and leave it at that.

 

[Figgy1]

"
And on the April 28 edition of , host Tom Corless dug into DeSantis’s response to Disney’s lawsuit, fact-checking and providing historical context.

“I will give you my usual disclaimer that I have no political agenda,” he said."

Since I don't really read his stuff, what has his take been if anyone knows?

Posting anything by him is forbidden here. He is he who shall not be named in these parts

 

[JohnD]

• • The bill to inspect monorails, which also applies only to Disney (unless it applies to no one at all based on the mistake made)

You and others keep referring to the transportation bill's reference to "local act" as a "mistake". I don't believe it is.

Putting aside the substantive arguments regarding the state's actions against Disney, here is just a sample of "local bills" (that would become "local acts", if passed) on the calendar today. Some involve special districts.

As a reminder, here is the language in the bill:

So, there are a lot of good arguments. This isn't one of them.

 

[GoofGoof]

I really, really hope the company chooses to invest in WDW.

But with what's happening now, it worries me.

Why wouldn’t they. Disney has an excellent chance of winning this lawsuit. If they do there’s no reason not to invest there. If they lose the lawsuit then it becomes more of a risk to spend more money at WDW but that’s a very short term problem. By the time this case is settled DeSantis will have about 2.5 or less years left in power then he’s gone, never to be heard from again (anyone know where Jeb Bush is these days?). With a failed POTUS run under his belt his hold over the current legislature may be weakened even before he is officially gone. A lame duck with no political future is less of a threat to lawmakers. Disney will be playing the long game.

 

[scottieRoss]

You and others keep referring to the transportation bill's reference to "local act" as a "mistake". I don't believe it is.

Putting aside the substantive arguments regarding the state's actions against Disney, here is just a sample of "local bills" (that would become "local acts", if passed) on the calendar today. Some involve special districts.

View attachment 714507

As a reminder, here is the language in the bill:
View attachment 714509

So, there are a lot of good arguments. This isn't one of them.

In the 1968 Florida Supreme Court opinion, the court refers to Chapter 67-764, Laws of Florida, Special Acts 1967, which is the Reedy Creek enabling legislation as a special act, so not a local act.

 

[The Mom]

Please stay on topic. The next poster to stray off topic, along with those who follow, will be given a time out or no longer be allowed to participate in the discussion going forward

 

[MrPromey]

Please stay on topic. The next poster to stray off topic, along with those who follow, will be given a time out or no longer be allowed to participate in the discussion going forward

As always, thank you for the gentle guidance and generous warnings!

 

[JAB]

While it seems like Disney has a decent chance to win both their 1A claims, I'm curious about how the overlap between the federal and state lawsuits might play out if they don't.

Obviously if the federal outcome results in 4C/9B being declared unconstitutional, the state suit is irrelevant as the district would revert back to RCID. But what happens if the federal court upholds the contracts, but doesn't declare 4C/9B unconstitutional, and partisan state judges rule for CFTOD? Since the board isn't suing to void the contract, but instead make it "unenforceable," could Disney end up in a scenario where their valid contracts are still effectively "void" even if they get them upheld at the federal level?

 

[lazyboy97o]

While it seems like Disney has a decent chance to win both their 1A claims, I'm curious about how the overlap between the federal and state lawsuits might play out if they don't.

Obviously if the federal outcome results in 4C/9B being declared unconstitutional, the state suit is irrelevant as the district would revert back to RCID. But what happens if the federal court upholds the contracts, but doesn't declare 4C/9B unconstitutional, and partisan state judges rule for CFTOD? Since the board isn't suing to void the contract, but instead make it "unenforceable," could Disney end up in a scenario where their valid contracts are still effectively "void" even if they get them upheld at the federal level?

I don’t think you’d get simultaneous cases. Disney would likely move for either dismissal or at least a delay pending the outcome of the original federal litigation. The state and District will probably try to similarly get the federal court to kick out as much as possible, if not all of the case, as a state matter.

 

[JohnD]

In the 1968 Florida Supreme Court opinion, the court refers to Chapter 67-764, Laws of Florida, Special Acts 1967, which is the Reedy Creek enabling legislation as a special act, so not a local act.

Yes, it's a special act but I can assure you, the Legislature routinely refers to bills affecting local jurisdictions as "local bills". When passed, it becomes an "act". I think you're making a distinction without a difference. 9B was a local bill before it passed and was signed making it a "local act."

 

[LittleBuford]

Yes, it's a special act but I can assure you, the Legislature routinely refers to bills affecting local jurisdictions as "local bills". When passed, it becomes an "act". I think you're making a distinction without a difference. 9B was a local bill before it passed and was signed making it a "local act."

Isn't the point in question "special" vs. "local", not "act" vs. "bill"?

 

[JohnD]

Isn't the point in question "special" vs. "local", not "act" vs. "bill"?

It's both. There was a "local bill" on the calendar today for the Lake Padgett Estates Independent Special District. Regarding your making a distinction without a difference, when signed by the Governor, it will be both a "special act" and a "local act". Why? It's a local bill about an independent special district, just what the RCID was.

 

[JohnD]

The Senate is now debating SB 1604 (the bill which contains language revoking the Disney-RCID development agreement) sent back to them from the House with a non-Disney amendment. The Senate concurred with the House. It now goes to the Governor.

 

[GoofGoof]

The Senate is now debating SB 1604 (the bill which contains language revoking the Disney-RCID development agreement) sent back to them from the House with a non-Disney amendment. The Senate concurred with the House. It now goes to the Governor.

Has anyone publicly addressed the need to pass a bill that revokes a development agreement that they already declared was void? How can the district move forward with their lawsuit now unless they ignore this bill?