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

[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.

 

[Stripes]

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.

DeSantis doesn’t have the power to settle though so I doubt the courts are going to push for a settlement, at least in regards to the First Amendment claims and striking down the new governance structure.

With the contracts, I imagine the court will push for some kind of agreement but we’ll see.

 

[LittleBuford]

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

Count me among them. Why shouldn’t we balk at the idea of Disney having to make concessions when they’re the victim in all this?

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

This isn’t a civil suit between two private parties. There is no settling. The court doesn’t have the authority to make the legislature write new laws.

 

[Brian]

Count me among them. Why shouldn’t we balk at the idea of Disney having to make concessions when they’re the victim in all this?

DeSantis has shown zero indication that he is willing to back down from this fight. Heck, even a PAC "encouraging" him to run for POTUS is called "Never Back Down." Should Disney wish to resolve this matter amicably, or be forced to in the event that they do not receive the full relief they are asking the court for, they will have to work with DeSantis, and do it on his terms.

That's not to excuse his retaliatory behavior. It's merely recognizing that he is the way he is, and if the courts do not intervene in Disney's favor by restoring RCID to its original form, they will have to find a way to work with him, or whoever comes after him, since he is term-limited.

 

[LittleBuford]

DeSantis has shown zero indication that he is willing to back down from this fight. Heck, even a PAC "encouraging" him to run for POTUS is called "Never Back Down." Should Disney wish to resolve this matter amicably, or be forced to in the event that they do not receive the full relief they are asking the court for, they will have to work with DeSantis, and do it on his terms.

That's not to excuse his retaliatory behavior. It's merely recognizing that he is the way he is, and if the courts do not intervene in Disney's favor, they will have to find a way to work with him, or whoever comes after him, since he is term-limited.

I largely agree with this assessment, but I’d rather Disney tried to fight and win this in the courts first before making concessions that will, I hope, prove unnecessary.

 

[GoofGoof]

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 Governor than losing the case in Court.

I think it’s too late for that now. There was reporting last year that Disney worked on a compromise with the legislature and both sides were good with it but the media portrayed it as DeSantis backing down and he threw a fit. I don’t think the Federal Court will or even can ask the sides to work out a compromise. They’d have to do it on their own. Before the board publicly “voided” the contract and Disney filed the lawsuit Iger said he would sit down with DeSantis. We all knew that would never happen and it didn’t.

If Disney loses this case, in the future when Ron is a distant memory Disney can and probably will work with the legislature to create some sort of compromise everyone can work with. Likely a Government appointed board with Disney’s input and individuals that are actually qualified. That board could sign a less “extensive” development agreement too. If the legislature wanted to they could change the board selection process. I think if the Government appoints the board it should be the local counties not the state government. They could also go back to landowners, or both. 1 from each county and 3 from landowners allows for “oversight” and gives the counties some skin in the game.