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

[LAKid53]

The state has not yet sued, the District has. They also are not demanding a jury trial.

Yes, thanks for correcting me. That does not mean Disney won't.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Interesting Article from Puck: https://puck.news/iger-vs-desantis-the-next-steps/?_cio_id=f6c6060ec7a601e8f71a&utm_campaign=The+Daily+Courant+-+SUBSCRIBERS+(5/2/23)&utm_content=The+Daily+Courant+-+SUBSCRIBERS+(5/2/23)&utm_medium=email_action&utm_source=customer.io

And for those that don't have a subscription:

Iger vs. DeSantis: The Next Steps​

Last week, Disney sued Ron DeSantis over control of some very valuable swampland. The decision to go to court was predictable, of course: C.E.O. Bob Iger wants wide discretion on land use around Disney World, which covers some 43 square miles of Central Florida. And DeSantis, who says he doesn’t believe in “old-guard corporate Republicanism,” won’t stop yapping about “woke ideology.” Now comes a case over the voiding of Disney’s developmental contracts—a reflection, the company claims, of how DeSantis is waging a “relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain State officials.” (Here’s the complaint.)

One thing about Disney’s legal action that has escaped commentary—even though it’s likely to become the center of attention—is how O’Melveny litigation superstar Daniel Petrocelli has managed to file this case in federal court. Disney’s move makes tactical sense. The company, after all, surely wanted to bypass DeSantis-appointed judges, eventually at Florida’s Supreme Court. But can it?

Here’s where the 11th Amendment may come up. This constitutional addendum restricts the ability of citizens to bring suits against states in federal court. This bar, enacted at a time when states had debt problems and sovereignty was a paramount concern, can be puzzling. Four years ago, for instance, the Supreme Court wrestled with the hard-to-fathom yet evidently correct notion that states have immunity for their intellectual property thievery. “One might think that Walt Disney Pictures could sue a state for hosting an unlicensed screening of the studio’s blockbuster film Pirates of the Caribbean (or any of its many sequels),” wrote now retired Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer, marveling at the unanimous ruling by his colleagues. “Yet the court holds otherwise.”



Of course, the 11th Amendment isn’t impenetrable. There are ways around it, and Disney is steering its case towards the most legally famous (and most controversial) path by citing the Ex Parte Young doctrine, which dates back to a 1908 case that held that state officials could be sued in federal court to prevent them from enforcing unconstitutional laws. Notably, Disney isn’t shooting for damages in its power battle with DeSantis. That would be a sure loser under sovereign immunity precedent. Instead, the corporation aims for declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure that local officials honor previously recognized contracts.

DeSantis will probably respond that this stretches the Ex Parte Young doctrine beyond what’s permissible. He’ll likely argue that land use is a local issue—and that despite the fact that the governor now appoints members to the oversight board, he has no real enforcement authority over these contracts. If that’s the DeSantis administration’s initial move to beat a First Amendment claim in federal court (while pushing a parallel suit in state court), it won’t be the first time. In fact, that’s pretty similar to what DeSantis tried in Dream Defenders, a 2021 case that dealt with a DeSantis-era anti-rioting law that came in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests. There, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker rejected the governor’s challenge to being hauled into federal court, pointing out that DeSantis has the authority to call the state militia to respond to a “riot” and had actually done so. Walker wrote, “Does Governor DeSantis really contend that no plaintiff in any case could ever have standing to sue him?”

Disney v. DeSantis, of course, has just been assigned to the very same Judge Walker, who also once called the Stop WOKE Act “positively dystopian.” (By filing in Tallahassee, Disney had a 35 percent chance at landing its case with Walker, the same probability of being stuck with Trump appointee Allen Winsor. Some magical fairy dust, I guess.)

Still, don’t shrug off this sovereign immunity issue just because of the judge. Anyone inclined to do so would be well-advised to heed DeSantis’s battle with Andrew Warren, the Tampa-area district attorney whom the governor suspended, ostensibly for pledging not to prosecute certain low-level offenses. Warren went to federal court, claiming, like Disney, that the governor retaliated against him for speaking up on social issues (in his case, on abortion and transgender issues). In January, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle—a Clinton appointee—agreed that DeSantis was wrong to oust Warren yet nevertheless ruled the 11th Amendment tied his hands. (Incidentally, Warren is scheduled to argue his appeal tomorrow at the 11th Circuit.)

If this situation starts going badly for Disney, the company may lean on its alternative claim that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents citizens from being deprived of property without just compensation. The Supreme Court recently held that a Takings Clause claim can be brought against a local government in federal court so it’s not a surprise to see Disney trot it out as a secondary legal theory in its complaint. Although, on further thought, is Disney really suggesting that DeSantis stole Disney World? Now that’d be some villainy in the Magic Kingdom.

I’m always confused by articles like this. You have some interesting thoughts but then at the very end you get a paragraph that suggests the author didn’t do the basic reading of Disney’s complaint which explains what they say is being taken.

 

[diminnie]

And it was just on a few months ago…

I can’t say I’m entirely sure. My sense is that it’s a third party who serves as a go-between between board members. So, for instance, if Person A is on a board and wants to tell Person B her position on an upcoming issue without going public, Person A might have Person C — who’s not on the board — send the message to Person B. My sense is that, in that case, Person C is being a conduit.

I agree. That board looks mildly interested during those meetings, as if they heard these topics prior.

 

[LittleBuford]

In the abstract, and in isolation, I would agree with this. However, context matters.

If this thread was titled something like:
"Reasons to boycott Disney!"
"Dangers to Disney stock price."
"Has Disney gone to woke?"
"Is Disney management competent?"

All very possible threads you could run into on this site. Discussion that Disney should or should not have made the comments it did would all fit in very nicely. Was it a good business choice, should they have made a different statement, should it have been private employee communication instead of public. Should consumers change Disney spending. Lots of discussion points about what actions Disney should or should not have taken.

However, none of that is the context of this thread.

This thread is clearly about changes to RCID. What is being changed. How, why, by whom, the impacts, reasons for the change, if it is legal, Disney's response to the changes. Everything in this thread is in the context of what is happening to RCID.

Within that context, as related to the changes to RCID, saying Disney shouldn't have said anything isn't in isolation. It is read by everyone as "Disney shouldn't have said anything and then nothing would have happened to RCID".

The context matters and that context is victim blaming and that if only they had kept their mouth shut nothing would have happened to RCID. There's going to be pushback against this opinion every time. No amount of "but I don't agree with the governor" is going to change that. As, in the context of what is going on with RCID, no amount of extra text is going to change how people read it, in this context. This thread, as has been pointed out many times, is supposed to be about what is going on related to RCID not about general political thoughts.

Thank you for articulating so well exactly what I was trying to say!

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Well, of course there's no upside to the state.

This is all for Ron and his own aspirations.

And the state may suffer for it. He doesn't care. Yet, his local supporters will no doubt continue to support him.

 

[LittleBuford]

I was going to say some stuff, but in the interest of the thread, I'll abstain and simply ask: Did you see the video from Taylor Swift's documentary making the rounds today? It is relevant to this subject.

No. I’ll have to check it out.

ETA: Mad props to her! Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

 

[Notypeo]

Sounds like in the end he/his office just wanted to spook Worrell and make her look bad, at least for now.

That’s a good point. Even without taking any action, he is putting pressure on her.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Florida and Disney used to be magical for me. Now I don't care to do either.

"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded." - Yogi Berra

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The state has not yet sued, the District has. They also are not demanding a jury trial.

I’m always confused by articles like this. You have some interesting thoughts but then at the very end you get a paragraph that suggests the author didn’t do the basic reading of Disney’s complaint which explains what they say is being taken.

…might need some fresh air on this one

 

[disneylandtour]

>>but what this Board will do to the value of our points.

In terms of a Board's policies directly causing devaluation, that sounds extremely difficult to prove.

 

[GoofGoof]

In terms of a Board's policies directly causing devaluation, that sounds extremely difficult to prove.

There would have to be a significant drop in popularity at WDW which could be tied directly back to the board that then leads to a decline in DVC value which also would be difficult to prove. There’s no way an increase in real estate taxes results in a drop in value of DVC resales. It’s just not a large enough driver of maintenance fees. Right now the board hasn’t done enough to impact value.

If the lawsuit fails and If the board sells off district land that is developed into something negative….like a prison, changes up park safety making the place less safe, shuts down the monorail (especially negative to the monorail DVC resorts), takes over pool inspections and has random pool shut downs, goes more extreme and bans restrictions on firearms in the parks or revokes liquor licenses maybe a different story. I would think some combination of that stuff could directly impact WDW popularity and cause the DVC points to lose value. Of course if Disney already lost a pretty air tight case I don’t see how a DVC suit against the district would win anyway.

 

[ParentsOf4]

The company taking a political position has nothing to do with the fiduciary duties of the shareholders. You don’t like the position they took so you are implying it hurt business. Someone else who likes the position they took may have felt that not speaking out would have hurt business. Management of the company has to decide how to run the company. You may not like their decisions but that doesn’t mean they breached their fiduciary duties. People act like the company stopped doing business to focus on this situation but that’s the furthest thing from the truth.

Every public statement made by a company, political or not, has a potential impact on shareholders.

Ask Bud Light.

I miss the days when companies were heartless bastards who only cared about money.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Nope. Wouldn't matter.

…what if I told you they both started working out?

 

[Disstevefan1]

I miss the days when companies were heartless bastards who only cared about money.

 

[LAKid53]

Interesting Article from Puck: https://puck.news/iger-vs-desantis-the-next-steps/?_cio_id=f6c6060ec7a601e8f71a&utm_campaign=The+Daily+Courant+-+SUBSCRIBERS+(5/2/23)&utm_content=The+Daily+Courant+-+SUBSCRIBERS+(5/2/23)&utm_medium=email_action&utm_source=customer.io

And for those that don't have a subscription:

Iger vs. DeSantis: The Next Steps​

Last week, Disney sued Ron DeSantis over control of some very valuable swampland. The decision to go to court was predictable, of course: C.E.O. Bob Iger wants wide discretion on land use around Disney World, which covers some 43 square miles of Central Florida. And DeSantis, who says he doesn’t believe in “old-guard corporate Republicanism,” won’t stop yapping about “woke ideology.” Now comes a case over the voiding of Disney’s developmental contracts—a reflection, the company claims, of how DeSantis is waging a “relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain State officials.” (Here’s the complaint.)

One thing about Disney’s legal action that has escaped commentary—even though it’s likely to become the center of attention—is how O’Melveny litigation superstar Daniel Petrocelli has managed to file this case in federal court. Disney’s move makes tactical sense. The company, after all, surely wanted to bypass DeSantis-appointed judges, eventually at Florida’s Supreme Court. But can it?

Here’s where the 11th Amendment may come up. This constitutional addendum restricts the ability of citizens to bring suits against states in federal court. This bar, enacted at a time when states had debt problems and sovereignty was a paramount concern, can be puzzling. Four years ago, for instance, the Supreme Court wrestled with the hard-to-fathom yet evidently correct notion that states have immunity for their intellectual property thievery. “One might think that Walt Disney Pictures could sue a state for hosting an unlicensed screening of the studio’s blockbuster film Pirates of the Caribbean (or any of its many sequels),” wrote now retired Supreme Court justice Stephen Breyer, marveling at the unanimous ruling by his colleagues. “Yet the court holds otherwise.”



Of course, the 11th Amendment isn’t impenetrable. There are ways around it, and Disney is steering its case towards the most legally famous (and most controversial) path by citing the Ex Parte Young doctrine, which dates back to a 1908 case that held that state officials could be sued in federal court to prevent them from enforcing unconstitutional laws. Notably, Disney isn’t shooting for damages in its power battle with DeSantis. That would be a sure loser under sovereign immunity precedent. Instead, the corporation aims for declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure that local officials honor previously recognized contracts.

DeSantis will probably respond that this stretches the Ex Parte Young doctrine beyond what’s permissible. He’ll likely argue that land use is a local issue—and that despite the fact that the governor now appoints members to the oversight board, he has no real enforcement authority over these contracts. If that’s the DeSantis administration’s initial move to beat a First Amendment claim in federal court (while pushing a parallel suit in state court), it won’t be the first time. In fact, that’s pretty similar to what DeSantis tried in Dream Defenders, a 2021 case that dealt with a DeSantis-era anti-rioting law that came in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests. There, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker rejected the governor’s challenge to being hauled into federal court, pointing out that DeSantis has the authority to call the state militia to respond to a “riot” and had actually done so. Walker wrote, “Does Governor DeSantis really contend that no plaintiff in any case could ever have standing to sue him?”

Disney v. DeSantis, of course, has just been assigned to the very same Judge Walker, who also once called the Stop WOKE Act “positively dystopian.” (By filing in Tallahassee, Disney had a 35 percent chance at landing its case with Walker, the same probability of being stuck with Trump appointee Allen Winsor. Some magical fairy dust, I guess.)

Still, don’t shrug off this sovereign immunity issue just because of the judge. Anyone inclined to do so would be well-advised to heed DeSantis’s battle with Andrew Warren, the Tampa-area district attorney whom the governor suspended, ostensibly for pledging not to prosecute certain low-level offenses. Warren went to federal court, claiming, like Disney, that the governor retaliated against him for speaking up on social issues (in his case, on abortion and transgender issues). In January, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hinkle—a Clinton appointee—agreed that DeSantis was wrong to oust Warren yet nevertheless ruled the 11th Amendment tied his hands. (Incidentally, Warren is scheduled to argue his appeal tomorrow at the 11th Circuit.)

If this situation starts going badly for Disney, the company may lean on its alternative claim that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prevents citizens from being deprived of property without just compensation. The Supreme Court recently held that a Takings Clause claim can be brought against a local government in federal court so it’s not a surprise to see Disney trot it out as a secondary legal theory in its complaint. Although, on further thought, is Disney really suggesting that DeSantis stole Disney World? Now that’d be some villainy in the Magic Kingdom.

I would think "taking" with regards to property could also include impacting the property owner's right to manage their property as deemed necessary to conduct business. As long as in doing so, the property owner did not violate either state or federal law.

 

[LAKid53]

And they also drew a Rick Scott appointed federalist society member.

This will go straight to appeal, where they're all DeSantis appointees and federalist society members.

It's gonna be fun times.

At some point in time, state court judges are going to have to realize they are JUDGES, not the governor's minions. There is a judicial ethics advisory committee in the state ..

 

[Disstevefan1]

I miss the days when companies were heartless bastards who only cared about money.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I was going to say some stuff, but in the interest of the thread, I'll abstain and simply ask: Did you see the video from Taylor Swift's documentary making the rounds today? It is relevant to this subject.

You best save you streaming…this writers strike is gonna last a LONG time

 

[LAKid53]

"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded." - Yogi Berra

Yogi, always a source of insight and wisdom.

 

[Disstevefan1]

You best save you streaming…this writers strike is gonna last a LONG time

Disney should take advantage of this strike.

Get all the Star Wars Geeks all do a zoom call from their parents' basements to collaborate on a Star Wars film.

Guaranteed Box Office Hit!