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

[el_super]

DeSantis did NOT kill Lake Nona. The project died completely on it's own internal factors.

Both things can be true. Disney didn't cancel Lake Nona because of their current legal fight with the governor.

But did 90% of the people asked saying no to moving, have something to do with the recent laws enacted in Florida? Probably.

Did the relocation costs increasing because of housing issues and insurance play a part? Probably.

Did construction delays seem imminent because of the exodus of construction workers in the state? Probably.

Did a sudden glut of office space causes by layoffs make the expense redundant and unnecessary? Yeah probably.

Will Disney continue to invest in Florida? Yep.

 

[ParentsOf4]

A more subtle analysis from CNN:

Disney’s fight with DeSantis masks a bigger problem: Its business is struggling​

There are a couple ways to read that news. For Team Disney, the move is just the latest in which the company is relentlessly dunking on a relatively inexperienced politician who picked a fight with the wrong conglomerate. If you’re on Team DeSantis, shutting down Lake Nona reflects the desperation of a company whose stock is tanking and whose core businesses face serious headwinds.​

​

There’s a bit of truth on both sides.​

 

[LAKid53]

Disneyland fights Anaheim all the time. Maybe its time to move Disneyland to another place where the local government wont tell them "no"??

The relationship between the City and TWDC has improved.

 

[GoofGoof]

Both things can be true. Disney didn't cancel Lake Nona because of their current legal fight with the governor.

But did 90% of the people asked saying no to moving, have something to do with the recent laws enacted in Florida? Probably.

Did the relocation costs increasing because of housing issues and insurance play a part? Probably.

Did construction delays seem imminent because of the exodus of construction workers in the state? Probably.

Did a sudden glut of office space causes by layoffs make the expense redundant and unnecessary? Yeah probably.

Will Disney continue to invest in Florida? Yep.

I agree with this. The RCID lawsuits was certainly not the only reason for Disney cancelling, but I do think it played a part. There were certainly other factors. The hostile climate in the state and the issues related to housing and insurance are all directly related to the Governor. He bares some of the blame for that. The current layoffs at TWDC means less of a need for more office space. Certainly a factor. So it wasn’t that the move never made sense at all it’s that some of the cost savings are gone. The original proposition was rent/buy space in CA or add space in FL and the FL plan was cheaper long term especially with the tax credits. Now that plan makes less sense since they have some excess space in CA. Long term they will likely need the space again but I suppose then they can redo the math and see if it makes sense then.

The fact that the CMs don’t want to go is at least somewhat related to the fight with DeSantis. There’s no way to deny that. Not the only factor but still a part of it.

 

[DCBaker]

DeSantis has filed a motion to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
CHIEF JUDGE MARK E. WALKER

Defendants move to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker (the Court) under
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because the Court’s impartiality in this matter might reasonably
be questioned. This case involves claims that Defendants retaliated against Walt Dis-
ney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. based on Disney’s viewpoints. Yet two previous
times, in two unrelated cases, the Court sua sponte offered “Disney” as an example
of state retaliation. Those remarks—each derived from extrajudicial sources—were
on the record, in open court, and could reasonably imply that the Court has prejudged
the retaliation question here. Because that question is now before this Court, and
because that question involves highly publicized matters of great interest to Florida’s
citizens, the Court should disqualify itself to prevent even the appearance of impro-
priety.

Here's the full motion.

 

[GoofGoof]

A more subtle analysis from CNN:

Disney’s fight with DeSantis masks a bigger problem: Its business is struggling​

There are a couple ways to read that news. For Team Disney, the move is just the latest in which the company is relentlessly dunking on a relatively inexperienced politician who picked a fight with the wrong conglomerate. If you’re on Team DeSantis, shutting down Lake Nona reflects the desperation of a company whose stock is tanking and whose core businesses face serious headwinds.​

​

There’s a bit of truth on both sides.​

If Disney’s fight with DeSantis was their biggest problem I would think Iger would be thrilled right now. It’s small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. We care, but the company has bigger fish to fry for sure.

 

[GrumpyFan]

DeSantis has filed a motion to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
CHIEF JUDGE MARK E. WALKER

Defendants move to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker (the Court) under
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because the Court’s impartiality in this matter might reasonably
be questioned. This case involves claims that Defendants retaliated against Walt Dis-
ney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. based on Disney’s viewpoints. Yet two previous
times, in two unrelated cases, the Court sua sponte offered “Disney” as an example
of state retaliation. Those remarks—each derived from extrajudicial sources—were
on the record, in open court, and could reasonably imply that the Court has prejudged
the retaliation question here. Because that question is now before this Court, and
because that question involves highly publicized matters of great interest to Florida’s
citizens, the Court should disqualify itself to prevent even the appearance of impro-
priety.

Sounds desperate.
Does it have any merit?

 

[flynnibus]

Why would Disney spend years developing a 200 million dollar Nightime Spectacular...only to say "woops...we screwed up" and yank it all out just one year later? They even made a "live" Disney + show to help promote it...just one month before they axed the whole thing!!

You're trying to compare decision making after a project that was launched - and failed... to a decision making for future workplace strategy that was a plan. Once again.. you make zero sense and are just grasping at things that kinda look alike.

 

[GoofGoof]

Sounds desperate.
Does it have any merit?

I’ll let the lawyers answer on merit. This seems to me to be more about PR. He’s setting the groundwork for the spin when they lose. He can point to a woke, corrupt judge and blame the verdict on that.

 

[flynnibus]

No...im pretty clear. Here is what I say in one simple sentence:

"The Lake Nona Campus died because it had no strong profit/loss/savings business model combined with the fact that there was deep, internal Disney staff hatred for it."

It did have a business model and why it was launched in the first place. You've yet to present a reason Disney would have even begin the process except to argue it was a bad idea all along.

What makes you think such a bad idea managed to get through all the layers of review, including finance and probably even board of directors oversight, if it was an idea that never made sense to start?

 

[GrumpyFan]

I’ll let the lawyers answer on merit. This seems to me to be more about PR. He’s setting the groundwork for the spin when they lose. He can point to a woke, corrupt judge and blame the verdict on that.

So, instead of arguing against the claims of the case, and dismissing those, they file for the judge to be disqualified. That sounds quite desperate, and vacuous.
Is this the best they've got? Will there be more to follow, or is this just a stalling maneuver?

 

[flynnibus]

Why would any company green light a project like this if it had no strong profit/loss/savings associated with it?

Because Disney just wanted to screw with 1000+ employees for the hell of it... duh!! Next we'll hear that it was really some kickback scheme... and that's why it was done... or maybe we'll hear they thought it actually somewhere else, and only now they realized it was in podunk.

 

[Andrew C]

So, instead of arguing against the claims of the case, and dismissing those, they file for the judge to be disqualified. That sounds quite desperate, and vacuous.
Is this the best they've got? Will there be more to follow, or is this just a stalling maneuver?

You do what you can to win, and I imagine this is just one of the many maneuvers both sides will continue to take. If you can get a judge that may see you in a more favorable light, makes sense to try.

Also, they will make their arguments in court when the time comes.

 

[Chi84]

Sounds desperate.
Does it have any merit?

I’m not familiar with federal law concerning disqualification, but I don’t see much merit in the motion. Judges are presumed to be well-informed, intelligent people who have some idea of what’s going on in the world.

In both examples, the judge was questioning whether the alleged retaliation was something concrete or merely speculative. As opposed to a vague, unspoken threat for speaking out, he used the example of the the governor threatening to take away Disney’s special status as an example of a specific threat. (If you do this, then it will have a specified consequence.) He didn’t make any statements concerning whether the governor’s action against Disney was in fact retaliatory.

It’s a high bar to show personal bias or prejudice, or personal knowledge of evidentiary facts sufficient to require disqualification.

If anyone is familiar with how routine or successful these motions are in federal court, maybe they can weigh in.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Why would any company green light a project like this if it had no strong profit/loss/savings associated with it?

Well, to be fair, they green lit the Galactic Starcruiser, so...

 

[lazyboy97o]

So, instead of arguing against the claims of the case, and dismissing those, they file for the judge to be disqualified. That sounds quite desperate, and vacuous.
Is this the best they've got? Will there be more to follow, or is this just a stalling maneuver?

This doesn’t get the state out of having to make their arguments. At best it might be a slight delay, which is probably what they wanted and why they waited to file this motion.

 

[celluloid]

Well, to be fair, they green lit the Galactic Starcruiser, so...

Well there is that too.

They will also PR spin anything other than they are avoiding spending the money.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I’m not familiar with federal law concerning disqualification, but I don’t see much merit in the motion. Judges are presumed to be well-informed, intelligent people who have some idea of what’s going on in the world.

In both examples, the judge was questioning whether the alleged retaliation was something concrete or merely speculative. As opposed to a vague, unspoken threat for speaking out, he used the example of the the governor threatening to take away Disney’s special status as an example of a specific threat. (If you do this, then it will have a specified consequence.) He didn’t make any statements concerning whether the governor’s action against Disney was in fact retaliatory.

It’s a high bar to show personal bias or prejudice, or personal knowledge of evidentiary facts sufficient to require disqualification.

If anyone is familiar with how routine or successful these motions are in federal court, maybe they can weigh in.

It would be impossible to find a judge unfamiliar with this spat and who doesn’t have opinions on it. I presume the judge will decline this. They just want to slow the process but the judge can call them on this nonsense and move things along.

 

[mikejs78]

I’m not familiar with federal law concerning disqualification, but I don’t see much merit in the motion. Judges are presumed to be well-informed, intelligent people who have some idea of what’s going on in the world.

In both examples, the judge was questioning whether the alleged retaliation was something concrete or merely speculative. As opposed to a vague, unspoken threat for speaking out, he used the example of the the governor threatening to take away Disney’s special status as an example of a specific threat. (If you do this, then it will have a specified consequence.) He didn’t make any statements concerning whether the governor’s action against Disney was in fact retaliatory.

It’s a high bar to show personal bias or prejudice, or personal knowledge of evidentiary facts sufficient to require disqualification.

If anyone is familiar with how routine or successful these motions are in federal court, maybe they can weigh in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't bias claims usually involve when there's a financial interest or personal relationship?

 

[Chi84]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't bias claims usually involve when there's a financial interest or personal relationship?

Yes, but I just read the motion and personal bias or prejudice or personal knowledge of extrajudicial facts can be a basis. But in my experience that usually means “personal” in the narrowest sense, not just something the judge knows from reading the news.