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

[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?

 

[lazyboy97o]

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?

I asked a question the other day. It seems to set a trap for the District as the language of the bill refers to development agreements that are in effect. Using the authority of this act seems like it would mean reversing their position and acknowledging that it is a valid agreement that is in effect. That kills the District’s case in state court.

Not taking the state up on this authority means there is the potential for conflict in between the state and District in their federal defense.

 

[disneylandtour]

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?

Florida sees the possibility that they will lose in court. So they are trying to do the same thing from another angle. But again, this seems like a delay strategy, as Disney will likely need to figure out how to address this through a court filing as well. Each day I see the monstrous legal bills that will pile up to undo all this.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Florida sees the possibility that they will lose in court. So they are trying to do the same thing from another angle. But again, this seems like a delay strategy, as Disney will likely need to figure out how to address this through a court filing as well. Each day I see the monstrous legal bills that will pile up to undo all this.

Losers:
TWDC
WDW Parks and Resorts
Guests of WDW Parks and Resorts
DeSantis
Iger
The special district
Florida state
Florida taxpayer

Winners:
THE LAWERS!!!!

 

[JAB]

I wonder if they think they're covering their bases (even though the board's current position contradicts the need for legislation) in the event that the court declares the contracts valid.

CFTOD: "We have the power to declare these contracts void because they're not valid"

Courts: "Nope. The contracts are valid."

CFTOD: "Fine; they're valid. The new law lets us retroactively void them, then, and our vote to void still counts. So there!"


Of course this scenario doesn't really help them if the court nullifies 4C/9B.

 

[Lilofan]

Losers:
TWDC
WDW Parks and Resorts
Guests of WDW Parks and Resorts
DeSantis
Iger
The special district
Florida state
Florida taxpayer

Winners:
THE LAWERS!!!!

Protect you when harmed , defend you when accused - Lawyers $$$

 

[seascape]

Protect you when harmed , defend you when accused - Lawyers $$$

Yes, everyone loves the lawyer who is on your side.