Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
I just had a thought let’s say the bill is passed. The developer contract is then null and void until this is brought up in the courts.
In the time that it takes for this legal case to run its course. Can the board cause some serious damage as a last ditch effort to mess with things in the district? Or is there some kind of freeze in place when a suit is filed?
In the time that it takes for this legal case to run its course. Can the board cause some serious damage as a last ditch effort to mess with things in the district? Or is there some kind of freeze in place when a suit is filed?
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Injunction, junction, what’s your function?
…I Would be surprised if it isn’t today. RCID will be frozen. Or whatever they renamed it?
Heppenheimer
Well-Known Member
To be fair, that would only apply to Central Florida. Coastal Florida had been a tourist destination since the 1920s. See "Land Boom of the 1920s, Florida".
A preliminary injunction will probably be the next move, to preserve the status-quo while the judicial process runs.
While additional laws/restrictions are placed, Disney will probably file amendments to the original complaint, and injunctions will continue to be granted.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I think you got the point…
But if you really want to do an economic deep dive…wdw is the single thing most responsible for how modern Florida was built. It’s actually a simple case to make…at least as far as the tourism industry is concerned.
V.i.n.c.e.n.t.
Member
There are numerous instances of locations that were popular vacation destinations in the early 1900s but have lost their charm over time. The Catskills resorts come to mind.
It's many issues, including the First Amendment.
And the state isn't subsidizing "the profit center". TWDC is paying property taxes to the two counties, an assessment to Reedy Creek for the services it provides and corporate state income tax. Paid $780 million in state and local taxes in FY 2021.
WDW generates $72.5 BILLION in economic impact for the area - $1000 for every tourist. And that was in 2019.
The Florida Constitution prohibits laws impairing obligations of contract. Passing legislation to void a legal agreement, after the fact, does that very thing. The state supreme court has ruled in the past that a government impairing a corporation's right to contract and deprive said corporation "substantive due process" is unconstitutional. See SEARS v FORBES/COHEN FLORIDA PROPERTIES, L.P., a Michigan Limited Partnership, and CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA (2017).
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
If by "the same rules as everybody else" he means "having a vindictive unelected board setting their tax rates and trying to abuse their limited power in order to control their content and silence their protected speech" then I guess the rest of the state now knows what's in store for them.
The filing includes a request for an injunction.
Got bored and did the math.
If appealed, it goes to 11th District, which leans conservative by a large margin. However, the liberal judges and pre-Trump era judges are a majority, so they have a good chance of winning there as well or having it remanded.
If appealed, it goes to 11th District, which leans conservative by a large margin. However, the liberal judges and pre-Trump era judges are a majority, so they have a good chance of winning there as well or having it remanded.
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
danlb_2000
Premium Member
What would an injunction actually look like in this case?
I've been looking at their histories, and it seems that about half of the Trump ones will rule in favor of Disney, and the other half give me Aileen Cannon vibes.
From the Sears case (wish I could figure out how to link a PDF file)
"Sears, Roebuck has a lease with Forbes/Cohen for a store within the Gardens Mall. It attempted to sublease part of its store to Dick’s Sporting Goods. However, the landlord disapproved of the sublease and collaborated with the City of Palm Beach Gardens, unbeknownst to Sears, to enact a resolution to now require both the landlord and the City to agree to any subdivision of space within the Gardens Mall. The issues presented in this case are whether the City’s resolution unconstitutionally impairs Sears’s contract rights and whether that resolution violates substantive due process because it has no criteria stating when approval to subdivide Sears’s leased space may be granted or denied. As a related issue, we consider whether Sears is owed attorney’s fees as a result of the City’s alleged violation of substantive due process. Finally, we consider whether Sears has a contractual right to sublease."
Sound familiar?
"We conclude the City’s resolution is unconstitutional both because it impairs Sears’s right to contract—and the contract rights emanating from the lease between Sears and Forbes/Cohen—and deprives Sears of its substantive due process rights. Consequently, we find Sears is a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988 and is owed attorney’s fees. We further conclude that Sears has the contractual right to sublease without authorization from Forbes."
"Sears, Roebuck has a lease with Forbes/Cohen for a store within the Gardens Mall. It attempted to sublease part of its store to Dick’s Sporting Goods. However, the landlord disapproved of the sublease and collaborated with the City of Palm Beach Gardens, unbeknownst to Sears, to enact a resolution to now require both the landlord and the City to agree to any subdivision of space within the Gardens Mall. The issues presented in this case are whether the City’s resolution unconstitutionally impairs Sears’s contract rights and whether that resolution violates substantive due process because it has no criteria stating when approval to subdivide Sears’s leased space may be granted or denied. As a related issue, we consider whether Sears is owed attorney’s fees as a result of the City’s alleged violation of substantive due process. Finally, we consider whether Sears has a contractual right to sublease."
Sound familiar?
"We conclude the City’s resolution is unconstitutional both because it impairs Sears’s right to contract—and the contract rights emanating from the lease between Sears and Forbes/Cohen—and deprives Sears of its substantive due process rights. Consequently, we find Sears is a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988 and is owed attorney’s fees. We further conclude that Sears has the contractual right to sublease without authorization from Forbes."
you should be able to upload it.
Prohibit the voiding of the Development Agreement, I'd think for starters. And if SB 1604 passes the House as sent over by the Senate yesterday and signed into law by the governor, stay any acts of the state authorized in the now law.
Last edited: