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

[JAB]

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.

 

[GoofGoof]

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?

 

[mkt]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

 

[mkt]

Good afternoon all, nothing new on Disney v DeSantis, but we have proof of Disney being served in CFTOD v Disney.

Have a good day!

 

[scottieRoss]

The 22nd.

Does their time limit run from the Complaint or the First Amended Complaint?

 

[ToTBellHop]

Lake Nona canceled. No surprise there…

 

[mikejs78]

Lake Nona canceled. No surprise there…

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

 

[MisterPenguin]

Separate Nona discussion...

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...

forums.wdwmagic.com

 

[JAB]

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

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.

 

[Figgy1]

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.

I hope so with a clean slate with the company

 

[Lilofan]

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.

The 200 CA cast who already relocated from CA to Orlando to start up the Lake Nona project - find them jobs at WDW, relocate them back to CA or lay them off.

 

[mkt]

Lake Nona canceled. No surprise there…

 

[mkt]

The 200 CA cast who already relocated from CA to Orlando to start up the Lake Nona project - find them jobs at WDW, relocate them back to CA or lay them off.

My money's on them being reclassified as fully remote and they can work from wherever they want.

 

[Lilofan]

My money's on them being reclassified as fully remote and they can work from wherever they want.

I read third round of layoffs of TWDC will occur early summer. Iger directive to remote cast to come in office 4x a week. If these cast looking to work remote , going against CEO Iger directive.

 

[Figgy1]

My money's on them being reclassified as fully remote and they can work from wherever they want.

My guess is a combination of that and an offer to move back to Ca with a few nice incentives thrown in to do so to rub salt in the wound.
For a company the size of Disney it would cost peanuts and prove a point