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

lentesta

lentesta

Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
It’s not uncommon for laws to conflict with each other - this happens more than you might think. Most of the time, no one notices or cares.

When conflicts are identified in court cases, judges have to unwind these based on precedent and legislative intent.

Remember, judges don’t make law. They are supposed to interpret them based on legislative intent. Court precedent (a.k.a. stare decisis) is used to guide judges in interpreting this intent.

As I have shown before on this thread, sometimes the legal interpretation of the law is far removed from the literal text.

Sometimes you have to not focus on the text of the law and look at the guiding legal principle that governs the law.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The lawyers I've spoken to said this one argument does highlight a gray area and is not one of the arguments that's likely doomed from the start. (Count VIII, "Void as Unconscionable", is probably doomed from the start. Every lawyer I talked to recited the same multi-part test for that.)

I've read statute 163.3191 that the state references, and all the statutes that it references. I think the state has to explain two things:

One) Reassessment of plans seems to be triggered only by changes to law that affects the state's important public resources, facilities, or services. Special Districts can have public facilities (defined as buildings, roads, etc.). So the state makes sense here.

But: (A) if the scenario is "The state passes a law that requires the CFTOB to do something different with its public resources, facilities, or services", it's not clear how that triggers a re-evaluation of the other parts of the developer agreement that deal with Disney's private property.

The most direct thing the judge can do here is to say "if the state can make an argument that an important resource is affected, the existing DA has to cover the re-review possibility there." That would address the state's concerns without having to throw out the entire DA. (And let's remember that the DA's severability clause both explicity anticipates things like this, and this resolution comports with it. I think lots of judges would like that.)

(B) If Disney wins its "We're being targeted" argument, then this position by the state becomes harder to defend ("We only need an amendment because you passed a law triggering it for us specifically"). Disingenous arguments are tough to defend.

Two) I think some of the language in 163.3245, which is referred to in 163.3191 that the state included in its argument, seems to give a lot of deference to property owners and to both sides making long-term "committments" to each other, when explaning how these statutes are to be applied. Disney's fallback argument of "We own this" has a lot of power in Florida law.

As you say, this is going to come down to making nuanced arguments in front of a judge. I think it would help the state's case if they had a specific example of a legislative authority or enforcement that was explictly delegated in the agreement.
 
MrPromey

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Brian

Brian

Well-Known Member
RamblinWreck said:
This is how I’ve felt about it.

If Disney loses, doesn’t that essentially mean there is no first amendment anymore?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, but no matter which way you slice it, the first amendment would be curtailed (unless they lose on procedural issues); it just depends to what extent. Does it create a distinction between the speech of corporations and individuals? Do they (the judges) create a "reasonable interest" standard? It's not an all or nothing proposition.

I'm not necessarily advocating for the latter (reasonable interest standard), I'm merely speculating as to what the judges may come up with in a scenario where Disney loses the first amendment violation argument.
 
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
RamblinWreck said:
This is how I’ve felt about it.

If Disney loses, doesn’t that essentially mean there is no first amendment anymore?
Click to expand...
I guess that will depend on the reasoning given for going in favor of Ron rather than Disney...I am under the current assumption that while I think this looks really good for Disney, and they have a good case, I am no expert and can only guess how the case will be interpreted by the courts based on what is presented.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Premium Member
CaptainAmerica said:
They could lose on the facts. They could lose on standing. Either of those wouldn't really carry too much 1A implications.

Losing on the law would be drastic.
Click to expand...

  • I think it's unlikely they lose on facts. The case is pretty straightforward, and DeSantis did nothing to help his case with his book, his repeated statements, etc.
  • I also think it's unlikely they lose on standing. Maybe if it were just the dissolution of RCID like the original bill was, but with the whole set of facts
    • The creation of a new governor-appointed board with taxing authority, which there is no president for in the state
    • The bill to void the contracts, which applies only to Disney
    • The bill to inspect monorails, which also applies only to Disney (unless it applies to no one at all based on the mistake made)
    • The statements of the board members that they intend to influence Disney's content
    • The statements about building a prison, etc.
  • I think Disney could partially lose the 1A portion of the case on the law in one potential issue - legislative intent. Courts have been hesitant to infer legislative intent in past cases due to the number of individuals involved in passing legislation, etc. This is the one area that makes me nervous. Still, there has never been a case with so many blatant statements from many legislators on how they were punishing "woke" Disney.
  • Even if Disney loses on that part on those grounds regarding the passage of the law, I think they win on the execution of the law by the executive. It's abundantly clear that DeSantis, who has the power over the board, is targeting Disney for speech. So I could see a scenario where the court upholds the law, but throws out the board or severely constrians the board, or puts them under a judicial watchdog..
  • I still think the most likely scenario given the facts is that the whole set of laws is tossed, we go back to the pre-2022 state, and a consent agreement is required to not touch things for a period of 10 years or so...
 
CaptainAmerica

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
mikejs78 said:
  • I think it's unlikely they lose on facts. The case is pretty straightforward, and DeSantis did nothing to help his case with his book, his repeated statements, etc.
  • I also think it's unlikely they lose on standing. Maybe if it were just the dissolution of RCID like the original bill was, but with the whole set of facts
    • The creation of a new governor-appointed board with taxing authority, which there is no president for in the state
    • The bill to void the contracts, which applies only to Disney
    • The bill to inspect monorails, which also applies only to Disney (unless it applies to no one at all based on the mistake made)
    • The statements of the board members that they intend to influence Disney's content
    • The statements about building a prison, etc.
  • I think Disney could partially lose the 1A portion of the case on the law in one potential issue - legislative intent. Courts have been hesitant to infer legislative intent in past cases due to the number of individuals involved in passing legislation, etc. This is the one area that makes me nervous. Still, there has never been a case with so many blatant statements from many legislators on how they were punishing "woke" Disney.
  • Even if Disney loses on that part on those grounds regarding the passage of the law, I think they win on the execution of the law by the executive. It's abundantly clear that DeSantis, who has the power over the board, is targeting Disney for speech. So I could see a scenario where the court upholds the law, but throws out the board or severely constrians the board, or puts them under a judicial watchdog..
  • I still think the most likely scenario given the facts is that the whole set of laws is tossed, we go back to the pre-2022 state, and a consent agreement is required to not touch things for a period of 10 years or so...
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this.

Legislative intent will be interesting. DeSantis' motivations were clear. Some legislators' intent was clear. But the intent of the legislaTORS isn't the same thing as the intent of the legisltaTURE.
 
GrumpyFan

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
MrPromey said:
Queue the new accounts and restarting of old arguments in 3, 2, 1. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I wish we could start a new thread on this, and only allow "Well-Known Members" or those with certain Reaction Score or Points to discuss. That would cut down on some of the riff-raff, repetitiveness, and off-topic side trails that happen so frequently. I might even consider paying for something like that.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom