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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Incredibly telling how this latest bill was signed quietly and unannounced.

That’s why abc should call the other networks and issue a public response…maybe an Iger clip with it?

 

[JAB]

Incredibly telling how this latest bill was signed quietly and unannounced.

And more examples of their hypocrisy as they tack it on as amendments to pre-existing legislation and pass it just before the close of the general session while making accusations about Disney's "sneaky, eleventh-hour" deals.

 

[GoofGoof]

It seems to me that, by enacting yet another piece of retaliatory legislation, all the state is really accomplishing is giving Disney more ammunition for their lawsuit.

I don’t think he cares. He has told anyone who will listen he’s taking these actions to punish Disney for being woke. He’s not trying to hide it. He thinks the ends justify the means. I believe the end game is to have the courts rule this behavior is acceptable so then he can continue unrestrained.

@ParentsOf4 posted a dissent earlier from Scalia/Thomas where they disagreed with a first amendment ruling because they believe essentially in levels of free speech and that the government should determine what speech is appropriate. See the example below. So how is that related to this? If the same logic is applied, but instead of white supremicist group you sub in woke corporation you can see how dangerous this becomes when the government can decide which speech is free. I’m not saying the courts will rule this way, but if they did it would significantly change how free speech works for corporations.

Let's look more closely at the case referenced by David French in his New York Times article, "Disney v. DeSantis, How Strong Is the Company's Lawsuit?"

In O'Hare Truck Service v the City of Northlake, Associate Justice Kennedy wrote the 7-2 majority opinion. The majority included historically liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Kennedy himself was a swing vote. For example, Kennedy was the deciding vote in Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. O'Connor also joined the majority, and she is largely viewed as having shifted from more conservative at the start of her term to more liberal by the end.

However, the Court's two most conservative justices, Scalia and Thomas, dissented. In their dissent, Scalia wrote:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought [original emphasis] to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes. The ability to discourage eccentric views through the mild means that have historically been employed, and that the Court has now set its face against, may well be important to social cohesion. To take an uncomfortable example from real life: An organization (I shall call it the White Aryan Supremacist Party, though that was not the organization involved in the actual incident I have in mind) is undoubtedly entitled, under the Constitution, to maintain and propagate racist and antisemitic views. But when the Department of Housing and Urban Development lets out contracts to private security forces to maintain law and order in units of public housing, must it really treat this bidder the same as all others? Or may it determine that the views of this organization are not political views that it wishes to "subsidize" with public funds, nor political views that it wishes to hold up as an exemplar of the law to the residents of public housing?​

The question then becomes, is the Supreme Court of 2023 more like Scalia and Thomas, or is it more like Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and O'Connor?

David French, the NYT author, has been attacking DeSantis since the fight with Disney began. (For example, see this Washington Post article.) This doesn't make French wrong, but I respectfully suggest looking more closely at articles to understand where the author is coming from and what they are not telling you.

In this post, I provided a more detailed analysis of this case from a First Amendment perspective, focusing on the current makeup of the Supreme Court and their propensity to overturn liberal precedent. IMO, Disney has a strong contract case, but any First Amendment decision will require winning over two conservative justices.

 

[tissandtully]

So what happens now after this bill was signed? I'm looking out for outlets that are reporting this as a win or leaving out important context that this doesn't really do anything. No wonder so many people are misinformed:

DeSantis signs bill allowing Florida board to cancel Disney deals

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on Friday signed a bill into law that gives a new board he controls the power to void development agreements its predecessor body signed with Disney - the latest episode in a feud between the conservative governor and the entertainment giant.

www.reuters.com

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs bill targeting Disney

Gov. Ron DeSantis on Friday signed a measure aimed at overturning controversial development agreements involving Walt Disney World.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[RamblinWreck]

I don’t think he cares. He has told anyone who will listen he’s taking these actions to punish Disney for being woke. He’s not trying to hide it. He thinks the ends justify the means. I believe the end game is to have the courts rule this behavior is acceptable so then he can continue unrestrained.

@ParentsOf4 posted a dissent earlier from Scalia/Thomas where they disagreed with a first amendment ruling because they believe essentially in levels of free speech and that the government should determine what speech is appropriate. See the example below. So how is that related to this? If the same logic is applied, but instead of white supremicist group you sub in woke corporation you can see how dangerous this becomes when the government can decide which speech is free. I’m not saying the courts will rule this way, but if they did it would significantly change how free speech works for corporations.

The David French piece is interesting background but I have a hunch that most judges won’t view this as a conservative/liberal thing in the context of the first amendment.

If the action taken by DeSantis had been limited to the original idea to dissolve the district, it might be murkier.

At this point there have been 4 targeted pieces of legislation, Disney’s property is now stuck in an area run by a local government they have no vote in and is openly hostile toward them, with no end to the antagonism in sight.

Losing on the first amendment claims would give the green light to every government in the United States, large or small, to pass any laws/ordinances/etc they want to annoy and harass any party under their purview for any reason at all.

It doesn’t take a lot of foresight at all to see that, IMO.

 

[Stripes]

And they also drew a Rick Scott appointed federalist society member.

The Chief Judge reassigned the case to another judge. No reason was given.

To be clear, this is in regards to the state lawsuit filed by the board, not the federal lawsuit that Disney filed.

https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/DocView/Doc?eCode=q102rx1vlE9lPGZB%2FnFd0PfDti74ZEO4OR40X%2BSLQ2tFs5icbfYVtUtFDwq6NFzYyp7jZKqTBPTt8ACEz3lzVRN6SNnCi1NnTnrNoBfV0p%2FHi87iPk5fSeRz%2F3rgRjbLcIoMbSIwCY0%2FY1zm4wuYAA%3D%3D

 

[seascape]

The solution to this fight is a compromise. Restore the name of the District to RCID and increase the Board to 7. Have one Board member appointed by each of the 2 counties, one by the Govenor, 3 by Disney and 1selected by a vote of Disney Springs business and non Disney Hotel owners. The WDW bubble must continue and all of the land should only be developed as the Disney vacation kingdom.

The State could claim Disney no longer has control because they only have 3 of the 7 Board Members, the same as the Government with the one other member selected by the business owners inside WDW. The counties want WDW to grow and prosper to get more tax revenue and jobs.

 

[Patcheslee]

That’s why abc should call the other networks and issue a public response…maybe an Iger clip with it?

Don't worry he compensated with his signature lol

 

[lazyboy97o]

The solution to this fight is a compromise. Restore the name of the District to RCID and increase the Board to 7. Have one Board member appointed by each of the 2 counties, one by the Govenor, 3 by Disney and 1selected by a vote of Disney Springs business and non Disney Hotel owners. The WDW bubble must continue and all of the land should only be developed as the Disney vacation kingdom.

The State could claim Disney no longer has control because they only have 3 of the 7 Board Members, the same as the Government with the one other member selected by the business owners inside WDW. The counties want WDW to grow and prosper to get more tax revenue and jobs.

It’s not a “compromise” of Disney’s the only entity giving something up.

 

[GoofGoof]

The David French piece is interesting background but I have a hunch that most judges won’t view this as a conservative/liberal thing in the context of the first amendment.

If the action taken by DeSantis had been limited to the original idea to dissolve the district, it might be murkier.

At this point there have been 4 targeted pieces of legislation, Disney’s property is now stuck in an area run by a local government they have no vote in and is openly hostile toward them, with no end to the antagonism in sight.

Losing on the first amendment claims would give the green light to every government in the United States, large or small, to pass any laws/ordinances/etc they want to annoy and harass any party under their purview for any reason at all.

It doesn’t take a lot of foresight at all to see that, IMO.

I agree. If we look at historic precedent the courts wouldn’t rule this way. However, I think the point being made is maybe the Supreme Court actually wants to make a change to corporate free speech. With corporations leaning left and the court leaning very right it’s not hard to see how they may be at least thinking about limiting corporate free speech going forward. It’s possible. I don’t think it’s likely. I think in the end the appeals court makes the final call and the US Supreme Court never touches this case.

 

[Brian]

The solution to this fight is a compromise. Restore the name of the District to RCID and increase the Board to 7. Have one Board member appointed by each of the 2 counties, one by the Govenor, 3 by Disney and 1selected by a vote of Disney Springs business and non Disney Hotel owners. The WDW bubble must continue and all of the land should only be developed as the Disney vacation kingdom.

The State could claim Disney no longer has control because they only have 3 of the 7 Board Members, the same as the Government with the one other member selected by the business owners inside WDW. The counties want WDW to grow and prosper to get more tax revenue and jobs.

That's a reasonable proposal, but some around here would balk at the idea of Disney having to make any concessions.

I similarly proposed a 3-3 split board with three being state/governor-appointed and three landowner-elected, with the inevitable gridlock being by design. It would send a message to the public (favoring the governor) that Disney is no longer "self-governed" and allow Disney to block any future state retaliation attempts, at least as it relates to the proceedings of the board of supervisors. It would require compromise and level-headedness in order to get anything done.

 

[GoofGoof]

The solution to this fight is a compromise. Restore the name of the District to RCID and increase the Board to 7. Have one Board member appointed by each of the 2 counties, one by the Govenor, 3 by Disney and 1selected by a vote of Disney Springs business and non Disney Hotel owners. The WDW bubble must continue and all of the land should only be developed as the Disney vacation kingdom.

The State could claim Disney no longer has control because they only have 3 of the 7 Board Members, the same as the Government with the one other member selected by the business owners inside WDW. The counties want WDW to grow and prosper to get more tax revenue and jobs.

The Governor doesn’t want a compromise. This was never about proper governance. It’s a punishment for not bending a knee and kissing the ring. Something like that could be a long term solution after this administration turns over.

 

[StaceyH_SD]

Why so low key on this one, Ron? No splashy press conference at Reedy Creek to sign the legislation?

 

[mkt]

The Chief Judge reassigned the case to another judge. No reason was given.

To be clear, this is in regards to the state lawsuit filed by the board, not the federal lawsuit that Disney filed.

https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/DocView/Doc?eCode=q102rx1vlE9lPGZB%2FnFd0PfDti74ZEO4OR40X%2BSLQ2tFs5icbfYVtUtFDwq6NFzYyp7jZKqTBPTt8ACEz3lzVRN6SNnCi1NnTnrNoBfV0p%2FHi87iPk5fSeRz%2F3rgRjbLcIoMbSIwCY0%2FY1zm4wuYAA%3D%3D

Thanks for reminding me, I didn't do today's upload.

Saying that, I asked my wife and a few others if they knew Judge Schreiber. Generally knowledgable on civil procedure, methodical, but a bit slow in working through the docket. If she remains judge, this will go long.

Also though not a federalist society member, she's a former member of the American Inns of Court, which does lean conservative - but Eisenhower/Nixon/Reagan conservatives, not Trump/DeSantis conservatives.

 

[mkt]

Here's today's CFTOD v Disney upload

 

[Andrew C]

I agree. If we look at historic precedent the courts wouldn’t rule this way. However, I think the point being made is maybe the Supreme Court actually wants to make a change to corporate free speech. With corporations leaning left and the court leaning very right it’s not hard to see how they may be at least thinking about limiting corporate free speech going forward. It’s possible. I don’t think it’s likely. I think in the end the appeals court makes the final call and the US Supreme Court never touches this case.

I don't think you're interpreting the thoughts of the textualists on the court correctly...

 

[seascape]

That's a reasonable proposal, but some around here would balk at the idea of Disney having to make any concessions.

I similarly proposed a 3-3 split board with three being state/governor-appointed and three landowner-elected, with the inevitable gridlock being by design. It would send a message to the public (favoring the governor) that Disney is no longer "self-governed" and allow Disney to block any future state retaliation attempts, at least as it relates to the proceedings of the board of supervisors. It would require compromise and level-headedness in order to get anything done.

I would hate 3 members appointed by the Govenor. I can see one but not more, the 2 counties are directly impacted by and benefit from WDW. Then there should be an odd number of members so things will get done. Having that member represent the other businesses is reasonable since they pay about 20% of the RCID taxes.

 

[mkt]

Today's Disney v DeSantis upload. Another person who has first amendment issues against DeSantis was trying to piggyback on the suit. Was rejected.

 

[mkt]

With corporations leaning left

Corporations lean towards what their market research says will make them money.

 

[seascape]

The Governor doesn’t want a compromise. This was never about proper governance. It’s a punishment for not bending a knee and kissing the ring. Something like that could be a long term solution after this administration turns over.

I know DeSatis is nuts. I just about said that at the meeting Monday. I know he doesn't want a reasonable solution. However, the courts both Federal and State will want the parties to reach a reasonable solution. While my proposed compromise would get rid of the current Board, if they actually took their jobs seriously they would agree to this as its in everyones best interest. Disney loses complete control but the landowners and tax payers regain the majority and the 2 counties and State get representation and a say on all RCDI issues. It is also a better deal for the Govenor than losing the case in Court.