GoofGoof
Premium Member
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
I want this job
JKick95
Active Member
What does this mean?Must be real confident in the outcome of the case
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Claiming they were not properly served the complaint seems like a pretty desperate attempt to avoid responding. If they had any actual answers they would give them instead.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
They seem utterly in over their heads. And I have to admit that I'm very glad about it.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I don’t think it was about trying to avoid answering. As the footnote sort of suggests, it seems like they may have briefly toyed with trying to make timeline arguments regarding the two cases.
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
Just makes me wonder what the plan was.
When announcing the fact they were going to hire these lawyers they made it clear they expected Disney to fight them all the way up to SCOTUS if necessary.
Did they just get complacent and not expect Disney to file first (or at all)? Was the whole gambit to try and get this into state court, with a whole bunch of ridiculous claims, and hope they found a crony enough judge that something would stick while delaying any federal action?
When they filed the state complaint they seemed like they had been blindsided and expected to have more time. This whole action occurred because Disney has been one step ahead of them - did they not expect that to happen again?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Yeah totally agree. My point is if they had real answers to defend themselves with they could go with that but instead they are hoping to push the Federal case off and get the State case in first. To me that signals they are pretty desperate.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I think they very much expected to driving the timeline and decision making. Up until that point Disney had been rather passive. Even if the motion is granted and they end up with a brief window where the agreements are considered void they have nothing to actually do with their opportunity.
Getting the agreements invalidated in state court first would have been a big help to their case in federal court. It would have potentially mooted much of Disney’s case. It would have strengthened arguments that Disney was acting improperly and needed to be uniquely addressed.
Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
Not really. Disney would still have just cause given the entire backstory. They could still say it was retaliation.
mikejs78
Premium Member
I agree with @lazyboy97o - it would remove many of their arguments around the contracts clause, takings clause, etc., If the contract was ruled by a court to not be a valid contract because it wasn't executed correctly. Sure it would leave the 1A case, but with less teeth because one of the key arguments around the contract would be gone.
Having the contract now only declared void by legislative act, with no finding of fact that the contract is invalid, puts them in a much stronger position for all the arguments of their case.
Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
Not really. Even if the contract was deemed null and void by a state court, the argument presented by Disney around the takings clause still would be satisfied. Since Disney ran Reedy Creek, you can thusly argue in court that since RCID was run by Disney pursuant to laws from the 1960s. Using legal precedent it was always Disney's land considering the RCID charter shows that a year before RCID was enacted by state law they were the Reedy Creek Drainage District. That was done when Disney petitioned the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit to form the drainage district. So the nullification of RCID without any form of compensation would support an argument of the takings clause. To bypass any issue of the takings clause, the state of Florida would have to had started eminent domain proceedings against RCID land and ultimately win in court for that case.
Now on the contract and contract clause specifically, the case would have to be taken under a rational basis review and they would have to show that Disney acted in ill-faith. That being said, the State of Florida would have to lay out how Disney did it, more specifically how they circumvented the law. One can argue that since the contract is a government contract, which there is the 1977 Supreme Court case United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey. While in this case it dealt with financing of railway operations, the Supreme Court found that governmental contracts that there has to be a higher level of scrutiny where laws are modified and can go against the government's own contractual obligations. The Supreme Court stated the opinion that "The Contract Clause limits otherwise legitimate exercises of state legislative authority, and the existence of an important public interest is not always sufficient to overcome that limitation" and that the "Legislation adjusting the rights and responsibilities of contracting parties must be upon reasonable conditions and of a character appropriate to the public purpose justifying it adoption." So the State of Florida would have to had shown the contract repeal would have to be reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose.
Layman's terms, Disney would have to have shown a careless disregard for all laws and do this to win, however if this were to mirror the 1977 case, the state would have to show that nullifying the contact would have to serve an important public purpose. In United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, The district court and supreme court of New Jersey ruled in favor of the state, however the Supreme Court ruled in favor of United States Trust Co.
I think most everyone here are missing a key piece of what Florida is doing here. The CFTOD has clearly stated they intend to rezone all of Disney's property. Thus they can prevent and themepark expansion and resort expansion. That is in fact taking Disney's property rights away and in violation of the 5th Amendment. The CFTOD has already approved the hiring of a urban planner, why? To screw Disney in retaliation of their First Amemdment Rights. This case is so clear, I wouldn't be shocked if the Florida Courts not only dismiss the CFTOD case but they write the decision in a way that supports Disney's Federal Case. I do not think the Florida Courts are such a pushover to the Florida Republicans, they have a legal obligation to be fair and just.
So you think CFTOD is trying to rezone WDPR property, or rezone CFTOD property? Disney doesn't own all of the land within the CFTOD
I do, but I also saw who the new judge is, and Disney's a very frequent defendant in her courtroom, so it'll be interesting on the state level to say the least.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
I appreciate the optimism but lol
The government can change your land's zoning without your permission.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Most of Disney’s argument is about the contracts. It’s not that without it they don’t have an argument, they would just have fewer point remaining.
Disney did not argue that RCID was taken from them. They absolutely are not going to argue that the District was theirs. That’s a prime argument against them and the previous setup.
The District’s case is a list of issues that they claim do show a careless disregard for the law.
Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
While it's the factual background, I do believe this goes into the argument. We will see the filings of actual arguments when they happen.
Last edited:
mikejs78
Premium Member
I don't see how - their arguments re the takings clause are centered around the contract.
This is a mistaken view. Disney did not run Reedy Creek. Reedy Creek and Disney are completely seperate entities, one public, one private. Disney, along with other landowners, elected members of a board to carry out local government functions. Now, practically, Disney owns the vast majority of the land within Reedy Creek, so they ultimately get to decide who is on the board, but that's no different from a small town where one family makes up the majority of people being able to elect who they want. Disney was always subject to the regulations of RCID, as that was the local government that had jurisdiction over Disney's property.
No it wasn't. RCID land is public land, and Disney's land is private land within RCID boundaries. They are two distinct legal entities.
RCID wasn't nullified, it was modified and renamed. The updated district still owns all the lands it did before. Disney still owns all the land it did before. In any case, even if it could be argued that RCID had been nullified, Disney wouldn't have standing to sue over that because the lands taken are not Disney's lands. They are public lands that the state government has legitimate control over. By that logic, Florida couldn't combine counties, because land owned by one county being merged into another county or split into two counties would violate the takings clause. Any land that RCID owns was sold to them by Disney.
Why would they have to start emintent domain proceedings against public land? Eminent domain is about taking of private land for public purpose.
It's not necessarily about that. CFTOD is arguing that Disney's contract was never entered into validly because they did not satisfy the then-current requirements of state law. I disagree with their argument, but that's the argument - that the contract isn't valid because, as a special type of contract (a land development contract), it is subject to specific requirements outlined in Florida Statutes, and that Disney didn't fulfill those requirements, making the contract void. Again, I think it's a flimsy case, but it is what CFTOD is arguing. If they were to prevail (because of a friendly judget, because you never know in a court of law), that would complicate the federal case because the argument now is that there is no contract because it was never validly entered into, and CFTOD could argue mootness at the federal level.
Agreed, that's what the legislative action by the FL Legislature that nullifies the contract does. It strengthens Disney's argument if it can be argued that the contract itself was valid from the outset, but the legislature changed the law. That's what Disney wants to argue. A dismissal of the state suit, which is unrelated to the legislative action, bolsters that case. Having the contract declared void by the state court for not following the law as it existed muddies the waters. And since it goes to the applicability of state law at the time the contract was executed, a federal court would be unlikely to rule against a state court ruling on a state law issue (whether the initial contract was in compliance with state law), based on the principle of deference. But they would be inclined to rule against a change in law that invalidated the contract, which is what the legislature did. Disney wants that to be the focus.
That's the case if the contract was valid to begin with and the legislature's nullification was at issue. And that's what I think Disney wants to argue. What DIsney is trying to avoid is having the contract declared faulty from the outset by another court.