mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Do you know how she's ruled in cases involving Disney?
Yes, they seized RCID (but that's somewhat hyperbolic language), but not from Disney as Disney and RCID are seperate entities.
-
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
Do you know how she's ruled in cases involving Disney?
Yes, they seized RCID (but that's somewhat hyperbolic language), but not from Disney as Disney and RCID are seperate entities.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
A government responsible for urban planning should hire such professionals. The Board has the authority on its own to change the land use regulations and local governments often change zoning on land owners. Most local government zoning regulations include “future land use” which can influence and limit how property owners utilize their property.
Probably both.
There are a lot more issues with trying to prevent continued existing use of property that has already been developed but hurdles can be erected. It’d be hard to argue that a new ride at an existing theme park is an inappropriate use. It’d be easier to erect other development barrier related to things like “design appropriateness” and traffic.
Rezoning undeveloped land could cause bigger headaches for Disney whenever they got around to developing it. Not really something that can be predicted, much less useful in the near term.
Freeing District owned land would allow the Board to do as it desires. That goes back to the governor’s “prison speech” and how they can cause issues.
The problem though is that the Board lacks an alternative Comprehensive Plan on which to base changes to the land use regulations.
Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
The takings clause literally is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment
The contracts clause is Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution, That states: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
But they are arguing it citing Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, "when a law overrides “substantive” contract rights in “specific” real property," So we need to see what they consider in further findings on what is their specific real property.
Here is the land as per the RCID Arcgis of the land that Disney owns within RCID.
Have fun https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=9ea646909fc94e3b94f7fe7cd8f70a45
Here is a 2004 map for you,
I should have used dissolved vs nullified.
Refer back to the map of who owns what land.
I refer back to United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey.
Context is key in this matter and the background facts don't lie.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
We know what Disney considers the property that was taken, the contracts.
What’s the point you are trying to make? Disney still owns their land. The District still owns its land. Disney’s land was not taken. Disney being the major landowner doesn’t mean they own the District. That’s an incredibly important distinction. That Disney “owned” the District is an argument against them because that in and of itself is a violation that can jeopardize the contracts which is why it’s part of the District’s argument.
Stripes
Premium Member
The 22nd.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Which private property are you alleging has been taken? Disney isn't even making this argument.
I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is. Disney, in its argument, has already cited the "substantive" contract rights being "land use rights and obligations", not the ownership of the land itself - the ability to develop their property and the certainty around that development plan, which represents the ability to monetize their property.
I'm still not sure of your point. None of the legislation or contract voiding seized Disney's land.
Law has very specific rules that doesn't always match common sense. Standing, for example, matters. As does deference between courts. Context might matter here, but the arguments have to change if the contract itself is declared faulty because it didn't comply with state law when inacted.
JAB
Well-Known Member
Sounds like the board is getting desperate if they're trying the "dog ate my homework" defense. 
And, not surprisingly, the government's short-sightedness and lack of coordination seems to have hamstrung the board's lawsuit, since, as was predicted here a while back, the new legislation makes the lawsuit unnecessary.
And, not surprisingly, the government's short-sightedness and lack of coordination seems to have hamstrung the board's lawsuit, since, as was predicted here a while back, the new legislation makes the lawsuit unnecessary.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
It is interesting that for the first 500 pages or so of this thread many people felt Disney had a really strong 1st amendment case due to the governor clearly acting to punish Disney for speaking out and that they should have “fought back” and pursued legal action. Some even went as far as to criticize the company and call them cowards for not acting and letting the government get away with the action. This was long before anyone even knew of the development agreements signed before the board was seized. Flash forward to today and Disney has sued in Federal Court including several contractual issues related to the development agreements as well as several counts related to 1st amendment violations. I’m now hearing from some that if the state courts rule the development contract was not valid then Disney doesn’t have a strong case anymore. What happened to the strong case they had for the first 500 or so pages?
It's still a strong conlaw case, and even IF the agreement is determined to be illegal/invalid, they can still try to get the original law struck.
Stripes
Premium Member
Their federal case in regards to the contracts would certainly be damaged by a state ruling against them. Disney’s motion to dismiss is incredibly strong though.
I still think their First Amendment case is iffy. They ought to have a rock solid case but I don’t think prior case law is on their side. That said, their case is unique in very important aspects, so we’ll see.
Chi84
Premium Member
It’s unique in that public officials rarely admit to retaliating against citizens in order to suppress political speech. We live in odd times.
flynnibus
Premium Member
You're hearing people say
"They lose the ability to win on 4 points instead of 1 or 2 points"
This isn't a binary thing - this is a layered thing. The 1A throwing everything out is the 'home run' swing... it can win it all, but it can also strike you out. Losing all your ability to get on base first... means you lessen your ability to win in smaller steps.
The vast majority of the discussion before was about qualifying if the state's actions were retailation... and less about the ability to win a case with that point of fact. Now in the legal phase, it's more about the actual matters in front of the court, and not the high level impressions.
The reality is the 1A while easy to qualify, is much harder to execute in the courts due to all the carve outs of when it IS able to be restricted. That's where the fight on those points will be. Just like the DA case before it... "sure it was a 1A violation, but it wasn't actionable because...' - The nuances and technicalities can be complex. That's why it's better when Disney has a multi-point strategy to defend their interests.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
What I'm arguing doesn't really have anything to do with whether I think their 1A case is strong or not. I think they still do have a strong 1A case, but obviously the more arguments they can present, the better off they are. There is a chance that the courts decide based on not wanting to infer legislative intent (which I've mentioned here before). But at the end of the day, you want to present the strongest case possible, and having the contracts intact barring the legislative action is what puts them in the strongest position.
Also, the recent legislative actions on voiding the contracts and the monorail inspections bolster their case and add evidence to it. If the contract is voided by a FL court for not having been properly executed, that removes that additional argument which shows a pattern of behavior on the part of the state of FL.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The freedom of speech issues were not just related to the First Amendment. A number of state-level issues related to freedom of speech were also discussed, and often ignored to try and make it a First Amendment only argument.
Most of Disney’s federal complaint is about the contracts. If they were removed from the federal case there is just less there. It’s an issue of quantity.
As we discussed, what has happened before and precedent influences decision making and arguments. We’ve discussed the case law about courts being hesitant to assume and question intent, especially when the action would otherwise be a legitimate exercise of legislative authority. A court finding that Disney and the District disregarded the law to enact illegal deals would be evidence that there was a problem the state needed to address.
scottieRoss
Well-Known Member
Does their time limit run from the Complaint or the First Amended Complaint?
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Lake Nona canceled. No surprise there…
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Due to "changing business conditions.". And whether or not that was the main factor, the press is tying it to the DeSantis feud.
Disney Pulls Plug on $1 Billion Development in Florida https://nyti.ms/41RYKSx?smid=nytcore-android-share
Separate Nona discussion...
forums.wdwmagic.com
Orlando Becoming East Coast Headquarters for Disney Parks, Experiences, and Products
I’m talking about the California College Promise program, not the grant. You know what? Okay. I aware CA has various programs. But you’re attempting to compare one that *might* offer two years free CC tuition to one that covers tuition costs at a four year university. This discussion all...
JAB
Well-Known Member
Lake Nona always felt like a very Chapek bean-counting move. The DeSantis/CFTOD situation gives Iger a plausible excuse to undo another one of Chapek's unpopular plans. I wonder if the CA imagineers who rage quit over the Lake Nona announcement will be given the opportunity to return.