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

[drnilescrane]

They seem utterly in over their heads. And I have to admit that I'm very glad about it.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Not really. Disney would still have just cause given the entire backstory. They could still say it was retaliation.

 

[mikejs78]

Not really. Disney would still have just cause given the entire backstory. They could still say it was retaliation.

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]

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.

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.

 

[seascape]

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.

 

[Unbanshee]

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

 

[mkt]

I do not think the Florida Courts are such a pushover to the Florida Republicans

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]

I do not think the Florida Courts are such a pushover to the Florida Republicans

I appreciate the optimism but lol

 

[mkt]

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

The government can change your land's zoning without your permission.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

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]

Most of Disney’s argument is about the contracts.

Disney did not argue that RCID was taken from them.

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.

 

[mikejs78]

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.

I don't see how - their arguments re the takings clause are centered around the contract.

Since Disney ran Reedy Creek, you can thusly argue in court that since RCID was run by Disney pursuant to laws from the 1960s.

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.

it was always Disney's land

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.

nullification of RCID without any form of compensation would support an argument of the takings clause

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.

the state of Florida would have to had started eminent domain proceedings against RCID land and ultimately win in court for that case.

Why would they have to start emintent domain proceedings against public land? Eminent domain is about taking of private land for public purpose.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

 

[mikejs78]

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.

Do you know how she's ruled in cases involving Disney?

View attachment 717104

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.

Yes, they seized RCID (but that's somewhat hyperbolic language), but not from Disney as Disney and RCID are seperate entities.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

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.

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

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]

I don't see how - their arguments re the takings clause are centered around the contract.

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.

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.

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,

https://oppaga.fl.gov/Documents/Reports/04-81.pdf

RCID wasn't nullified, it was modified and renamed.

I should have used dissolved vs nullified.

Why would they have to start emintent domain proceedings against public land? Eminent domain is about taking of private land for public purpose.

Refer back to the map of who owns what land.

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.

I refer back to United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey.

What DIsney is trying to avoid is having the contract declared faulty from the outset by another court.

Context is key in this matter and the background facts don't lie.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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."
So if we were to follow your logic, there is no need for a prayer of relief on the takings clause and yet here we are. 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.

We know what Disney considers the property that was taken, the contracts.

Refer back to the map of who owns what land.

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]

When do the Defendants in Disney's Federal case against CFTOD et al have to reply?

The 22nd.

 

[mikejs78]

The takings clause literally is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment

Which private property are you alleging has been taken? Disney isn't even making this argument.

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.

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.

Refer back to the map of who owns what land.

I'm still not sure of your point. None of the legislation or contract voiding seized Disney's land.

Context is key in this matter and the background facts don't lie.

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.