Disney sues DeSantis for using government to retaliate against the company

Don't watch random YouTubers, read the complaints. The most "Mickey Mouse" of the two is not the one written by Disney. Literally nothing the board says or does matters if the law to reorg the district gets tossed. The board's suit tries to cite technicalities that I'm confident lack context. RCID, I'm sure, followed things to the letter for decades given the status that they enjoyed.

Thank you for that clarification. I, too, want to believe that Reedy Creek upheld their responsibilities under law because, honestly, it seems more plausible than a reality where they just blatantly ignored the laws. I acknowledge that that’s a possibility, and I’d like to believe that the state has some solid evidence of this happening on at least a limited basis to drive them to the point of a lawsuit, but given the obvious emotional intent behind literally all of their actions, it’s a bit easier to believe that they’re the sloppy ones and not Disney.

One of the motivations behind what DeSantis is doing has to be the fact the he knows Disney isn't going anywhere. It would cost Disney 10s if not 100s of billions of dollars to try to relocate the park, so DeSantis figures he can do whatever he wants, and Disney is going to take it.

However, the way DeSantis is acting, it seems like he doesn't really want the ~$1 to 5 billion dollars a year (depending on what site I look at) in tax revenue. There have to be 49 other states in the country that would love to have even a small fraction of the tax revenue that Disney generates. While I know it would never happen, part of me wishes that Disney would just play hard ball with DeSantis, and just say "fine. We'll close the parks and take all that tax money with us." See what happens when the state has a $5 billion dollar budget deficit. Now that I think about it again, that would probably be far more punishing for all the employees that would lose their jobs, so I guess it's a pretty darn bad idea.

I talked to a Florida city manager, and looked at the suit again. The contention in the second count over this bit shows how terrible their lawyers are:

49. This Act provides that any local government may, by ordinance, establish procedures and requirements ... to consider and enter into a development agreement." § 163.3223, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added).
50. Absent the enactment of such an ordinance, a local government is not authorized to enter a development agreement...

Guess what they left out in the ellipses?

Any local government may, by ordinance, establish procedures and requirements, as provided in ss. 163.3220-163.3243, to consider and enter into a development agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property located within its jurisdiction.

I don't think you have to be a lawyer to understand that the intent of the law is to make sure the local government has "procedures and requirements" to enter into agreements. They don't need to pass an ordinance. You pass ordinances to update your code, not enter into agreements. Section 21 of the district charter has exactly this.

Even the first part about noticing land owners is dumb, because it says you have to notice "affected" property owners, not all of them. The county I live in does this all of the time, but I only get a notice in the mail when it's a property that's next door to mine.

I'm not a lawyer, obvs, but I spent a lot of years working in municipal government, and I guess I'm a local law enthusiast (we need a website for that!). I'm just amazed at how bad this suit is, and can't believe that someone billed hours for it.

Jeff:

we need a website for that!

Zoningbuzz?

billb7581:

This guy was a FL special district lawyer for 10 years. He seems to think Disney is going to get destroyed

A quick perusal of "this guy's" YT page:

• "Bud Light and the DELUSION of Woke Marketing"
• "Biden's Next HUGE Fail...US Dominance in Trouble"
• "Rick & Morty Creator Justin Roland BEATS #MeToo"
• "Based Black Dude WRECKS Fauci & DC Mayor"
• "US Banks FAIL...Biden's Next Blunder"
• "'Insurrection': Fact v. Fiction" - in which they just straight up spread blatant misinformation straight from Tucker Carlson's GOP propaganda show and also Free Speech Champion Elon Musk. I regret giving him this click.

That anyone would consider this guy a source of objective information demonstrates a staggering lack of critical thinking skills.

I mean, does he even know about the laptop?

Jeff:

and I guess I'm a local law enthusiast (we need a website for that!).

If you are looking for hits and clicks, you may want to look elsewhere. I'm involved in local law on a daily basis and I'm not sure I'd be visiting that website.

Our best venue for local government used to be twitter, but the people who covered city politics have mostly left the platform (and I'm not really interested in either twitter or any of its nascent competitors). There were a few other patronage-style news sites that tried to make a go of it, but none of them lasted very long.

Our local newspaper is a shell of its former self, but might still be the best option left.

Disney's "cause of action" under the contracts clause would only be valid if the contract included a "unmistakable clause". It would have to state that future legislation would not affect the contract.

You cant sue the legislature for legislating

We shall see. That Andrew guy pointed out that the RCID contract had no consideration involved days before CFTOB even filed their lawsuit. Not even a token 1 dollar.

There is another CA attorney on Twitter Dilan Esper (who seems to be progressive skimming his twitter) who while not well versed in all the municipal intricacies believes, that the only complaint that MAY hold any water in the Disney is their equal protection claim. He seems to think everything else gets laughed out of court.

djDaemon:

That anyone would consider this guy a source of objective information demonstrates a staggering lack of critical thinking skills.

So ignoring sources who don't align perfectly with our own views demonstrates critical thinking skills?

LOL I also provided a progressive Lawyer who seems to think Disney is all wet here in their federal case.

At the end of the day that Andrew Podlaski guy is probably correct.

1. Meeting was not notified properly
2. Govt cannot bargain away its powers to a private entity
3. There was no consideration, usually lawyers will just throw 1 dollar in to get around this
4. Same lawyer represented RDIC and Disney (self dealing)
5. RDIC powers flow from FL statue, legislatures can change statutes unless there was an express clause in the 1967 agreement that they couldnt
6. Disney never built the city they were supposed to. The people that sat on the RDIC board had to own 1 acre of land in the district, since no one does, Disney got around this by deeding the acre to their hand picked board members with the understanding that they give it back when they left or were removed. Again self dealing.
7. Thats just off the top of my head.

njbill:

So ignoring sources who don't align perfectly with our own views demonstrates critical thinking skills?

I didn't ignore "this guy". I checked the "this guy's" other claims to get perspective on their credibility. Someone, for example, parroting the falsehood that January 6th was a peaceful protest either is colossally ignorant or is lying, full stop. In either case this shows "this guy" has no credibility. Further, anyone promoting "this guy" has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, because they either agree with "this guy" on these other topics, which demonstrates ignorance, or failed to vet "this guy", which demonstrates a lack of critical thinking ability.

I'm not taking a position on the legal merits of the case, because I'm about as far from an expert on this as one can get. I'm just saying, consider the source. Good advice for everyone, but especially billb7581 in this case.

And with "this guy," a new CoasterBuzz meme is born.

Remember, a .gov press release is legit, but not if it's from the CDC.

Brandon didn't even comment on or debate the source, he took inventory of the guy's credibility, and, surprise, he has none. Maybe you don't think that there's a difference between bona fide, fact driven research, and nonsense, but there is.

djDaemon:

I didn't ignore "this guy". I checked the "this guy's" other claims to get perspective on their credibility. Someone, for example, parroting the falsehood that January 6th was a peaceful protest either is colossally ignorant or is lying, full stop. In either case this shows "this guy" has no credibility. Further, anyone promoting "this guy" has no credibility as far as I'm concerned, because they either agree with "this guy" on these other topics, which demonstrates ignorance, or failed to vet "this guy", which demonstrates a lack of critical thinking ability.

I'm not taking a position on the legal merits of the case, because I'm about as far from an expert on this as one can get. I'm just saying, consider the source. Good advice for everyone, but especially billb7581 in this case.

You don't agree with him, ergo you discount his opinion. That is what masquerades as "critical thinking" on your planet?

The man practiced law for 10 years in that area dealing with special districts and real property. There isn't a lot of analysis on the merits of this case online mostly people in mouse ears masquerading as attorneys.

For example if the Contracts Clause claim was so airtight, why is the most recent cite from 1902? This case is almost entirely based in state law.

TWDWC is trying to overturn a state law because their feelings were hurt. Unless they can demonstrate the law was "arbitrary and capricious" they have no case. Florida just needs to demonstrate a compelling state interest.

So is it just a preposterous coincidence that two lowercase "bills" are debating the same side, or is njbill and billb7581 the same person? If the latter, consider my mind blown, as the inconceivable theory we have been trying to wrap our heads around all these years has now been proven:

If there was a need for a Bill from NJ on CoasterBuzz, there would already be one.

And there is! Yet...now there are two? Zounds!

What has happened to CoasterBuzz?

njbill:

You don't agree with him, ergo you discount his opinion.

You don't seem to understand that opinions do not trump facts, and the two are not, in fact, of equal value.

To be fair, a good portion of the population doesn't believe facts trump opinions. I wonder how that happened?

Jeff:

You don't seem to understand that opinions do not trump facts, and the two are not, in fact, of equal value.

Exactly your opinion carries far less weight than a FL municipal attorney.

Andrew Esquire basically rattled off every count of the countersuit before it was even filed