I think the district was designated to deal with planning for all 3 entities. IIRC this was referenced in the cities’ amendments to conform to the new Comprehensive Plan.Some of the facts are obvious on their face but it’s not clear how the district has standing to bring such claims. For instance, clearly the district and Disney signed a contract giving Disney development rights within the cities of BL and LBV. Those development rights, at the time, were not under the district’s control. They were under the control of cities (however the development rights are now under the control of the district).
The cities were harmed by the contract, not the district. It is unclear how the district has standing to challenge the contracts because the cities were harmed.
One of the district’s arguments is that the cities didn’t agree to the DA, but I can’t remember how Disney responded to that point. Disney did, however, point out that the district was required to join the cities in the lawsuit.
IMO the most interesting question in the “who can sue who” debate is the reality that the district now is legally the same entity as the district then. Many of their arguments boil down to accusing themselves of sloppy/negligent/corrupt conduct. (There’s also the side issue of other “affected property owners” but it seems unlikely that they’d have a viable argument there, even if they had standing to sue on behalf of those owners.)