This is so ridiculous. We have an insurance crisis in this state along with other issues that need to be addressed and he keeps doing battle with the Mouse House. This clearly shows the true vindictiveness of our governor.
FU*K DeSantis. I mean it’s a small world after all.
This man will never be able ti take his grandchildren there. He’s a horrible governor (I live in FL) and person in general
Never again visit Disney ever nor will we visit Florida again. Florida has proven itself to be anti-human. They do not like people they do not like people who like people DeSantis has his own idea of how to become God and I want no part of it.
😂😂😂 Disney keeps delaying because they know the audit proves they broke the law, numerous times! They’ve lost every other case with the state, and eventually they will lose…again! Thank you DeSantis and CFTOD for exposing the massive corruption from Disney!
It’s a small world and DeSantis is a small man with a Napoleon complex. A little tough guy wanna be who was probably bullies his whole time when he was little in school.
Clearly, you didn’t read this article. The State of Florida is the one delaying documents. Why are you okay with the governor controlling speech? Is it because it’s not your speech?
The Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID), as a Florida-created Board and a subdivision of the state, is the sole entity responsible for any breach of contracts it has entered into. These contracts, notably, were formed without specific approval from the State of Florida, thereby limiting the state’s responsibility for actions taken by the RCID. Furthermore, it is crucial to underscore that the RCID, at the time of these contracts, was entirely under the control of appointees from the Disney Corporation, resulting in agreements that predominantly benefited Disney to the detriment of the State of Florida. This brief will articulate that the subsequent establishment of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board (CFTOD) and its inheritance of certain responsibilities and powers does not extend to liability for RCID’s prior contractual obligations, especially given the explicit statutory limitations of CFTOD’s authority and immunity provisions. Additionally, the Florida state courts’ lack of authority to amend legislation outside of constitutional violations further cements the position that legislative actions dissolving the RCID and establishing the CFTOD were both appropriate and binding, thereby negating any retrospective contractual obligations that might unjustly bind the State of Florida.
The autonomy and limited authority of the RCID:
The RCID, by design and statute, functions with a degree of autonomy specific to its charter, operating under the premise that it cannot bind the State of Florida without explicit authorization. This foundational principle is crucial when considering the contractual agreements entered into with the Disney Corporation. These agreements were orchestrated without direct state approval, delineating a clear boundary between RCID’s operational decisions and the State’s overarching governance.
The Specificity of RCID’s Appointees and Beneficiary Interests:
It is undisputed that the board governing RCID was composed solely of appointees by the Disney Corporation, inherently skewing its operational focus towards the interests of Disney rather than the broader welfare of the State of Florida. Contracts benefiting a single corporate entity, especially to the potential detriment of state interests, underscore a fundamental misuse of the RCID’s intended function and autonomy. This misalignment of interests directly contravenes the principles upon which the RCID was established, necessitating a strict interpretation of liability that does not extend beyond the RCID and its board members.
The Role and Limitations of the CFTOD:
The formation of the CFTOD, subsequent to the contracts in question, represents a legislative effort to reassert state oversight and rectify the operational imbalances instigated by the RCID’s previous governance structure. The CFTOD’s responsibilities and powers are explicitly defined by state legislation, which also provides immunity from liabilities arising from RCID’s prior contractual engagements. This legislative framework ensures that the CFTOD’s obligations are confined to its statutory mandate, thereby exempting it from the repercussions of RCID’s actions.
Judicial Authority and Legislative Actions:
The Florida state courts maintain a critical but circumscribed role in interpreting and enforcing laws within the constitutional framework. The courts do not possess the authority to modify or reinterpret legislative actions, including the dissolution of the RCID and the establishment of the CFTOD, except in instances where such actions are found to contravene the Florida State Constitution. This limitation is paramount in upholding the integrity of legislative decisions and preventing judicial overreach into legislative domains.
The Dissolution of RCID and Contractual Obligations:
The dissolution of the RCID, prompted by its prioritization of Disney’s interests over those of the state, was a lawful and necessary measure to realign state properties and interests with the public good. Contracts entered into subsequent to this dissolution, aimed at preserving Disney’s undue authority, are indicative of an attempt to circumvent the expressed legislative intent and should be recognized as such. The responsibility for these actions, both in an official and personal capacity, resides with the RCID and its board members, not the State of Florida or its subsequent legislative creations like the CFTOD.
Conclusion
The RCID, as an autonomous entity operating under the auspices of state-created statutes, is solely responsible for its contractual engagements, particularly those that have unjustly benefited the Disney Corporation to the detriment of state interests. The establishment of the CFTOD, with its clearly defined scope and immunity, does not extend liability to the state for RCID’s actions. Moreover, the judiciary’s role in respecting and enforcing the boundaries of legislative intent further solidifies the position that the state bears no undue burden for the contractual missteps of the RCID. Thus, the RCID and its board members, in their official and personal capacities, are the appropriate defendants in any legal action pertaining to these matters.
Florida is a beautiful state and DeSantis is the best governor around. Making Florida a place for American family values. Removing illegals, keeping the schools safe for children, etc. So with the big “win” by Disney will they be giving everyone big discounts on everything in the future. I can answer that. Nope.
Florida is not removing undocumented workers from Florida. The Florida farmers and contractors squashed that nonsense last year. The only thing he is doing is using Florida’s sales tax dollars and spending it in Texas to solve a problem that belongs to the Federal government that trump told them not to solve. You might want to keep up with the happenings of the God you worship.
Translation of above: The State can violate Disney’s contractual rights with impunity, but Disney can’t violate the State’s alleged rights to protect itself from the former.
Phil, That is not the translation. The translation is simple . A public board only has the authority to bind itself, not the state, county, municipalities, or other boards; unless specifically authorized. Furthermore, the board must put the state’s interests first.
In this case, the RCID Board had no authority to bind any entity other than the RCID and considering the contract in question ceded governmental power to the private entity that appointed the RCID Board just before the board was dissolved in order to prevent government regulatory oversight that would mean the RCID Board violated its mandate to put the state’s interests above Disney.
The state should inter plead the RCID Board in and demand the RCID BOARD members pay all state
Legal cost
Phil, That is not the translation. The translation is simple . A public board only has the authority to bind itself, not the state, county, municipalities, or other boards; unless specifically authorized. Furthermore, the board must put the state’s interests first.
In this case, the RCID Board had no authority to bind any entity other than the RCID and considering the contract in question ceded governmental power to the private entity that appointed the RCID Board just before the board was dissolved in order to prevent government regulatory oversight that would mean the RCID Board violated its mandate to put the state’s interests above Disney.
They have not bound the state. They have given authority to Disney to do Disney’s business without interference from the state. Also, why are you pretending this whole thing is not what it actually is? A violation of the first amendment.
It is a simple question. If you hire someone to manage your rental property , do they have the authority to give it someone else? Do they have the authority to give someone else the power to determine what the upkeep standards are without your consent?
What DeSantis and the Republican controlled sycophant legislature effectively did was exercise eminent domain in disguise without compensation when Disney was stripped of its ability to govern its own affairs in violation of its contract with the State. If you were the property owner in question, how would you like the State to take over your control of your property without compensation? What if the State enacted rent control on just you but not the other rental property owners in the State simply because you exercised your First Amendment rights? I’m guessing yuou wouldn’t be too happy. But, it’s o.k. with you when it happens to the other guy.
The truth is DeSantis’ sycophant state legislature effectively exercised eminent domain without compensation when it violated its contract with Disney that allowed Disney to manage its own property. Sort of like the State imposing rent control on only one landlord in the State of Florida.
Desantis is a moron. Republicans throw tantrums about freedom of Speech but yet is wanting to destroy Disney for their freedom of Speech. Desantis got his feelings hurt so he has to attack a corporation. Republicans are the new Democrats. Republicans are so triggered and it’s hilarious. Go cry to mommy and stfu!
The contention between Disney and the State of Florida regarding the dissolution of the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) has garnered significant attention, raising questions about the limits of state authority and the protections afforded by the First Amendment. In defense of Florida’s actions, this analysis seeks to elucidate the legal underpinnings that support the state’s authority to dissolve the RCID, arguing that such actions do not infringe upon Disney’s First Amendment rights.
**Statutory and Constitutional Authority**
States possess broad powers to create, regulate, and dissolve special governmental districts, including improvement districts like the RCID. This authority is grounded in the state’s police powers, which allow for the regulation of property, public welfare, safety, and health within its jurisdiction. The establishment and governance of special districts are typically legislated through state statutes, which delineate the state’s prerogative to modify or eliminate these entities as deemed necessary to serve the public interest.
Florida’s decision to dissolve the RCID can be seen as an exercise of these powers, predicated on the legislative judgment that such a dissolution serves the state’s regulatory, fiscal, or governance objectives. The state’s authority to regulate or dissolve special districts like the RCID is further supported by the principle of municipal corporation law, which holds that entities created by the state can be altered or abolished by the state.
**Non-Infringement on First Amendment Rights**
The argument posited is that Florida’s dissolution of the RCID does not constitute an infringement of Disney’s First Amendment rights. This perspective is predicated on the distinction between the RCID as a governmental entity subject to state regulation and Disney as a private corporation with constitutionally protected speech rights. The dissolution of the RCID targets the governance structure and regulatory framework within which Disney operates but does not directly regulate, limit, or censor Disney’s speech.
The First Amendment protects against governmental actions that restrict the content of speech, target speech based on its viewpoint, or impose burdens on the ability to express oneself. In this case, the action taken by the state—dissolving the RCID—does not inherently restrict Disney’s speech content, target Disney’s speech based on viewpoint, or prevent Disney from expressing itself. Instead, the action restructures the governance of the area in which Disney operates, which is within the state’s regulatory ambit.
**Operational Continuity and Speech**
It is also pertinent to note that despite the dissolution of the RCID, Disney retains the ability to continue its operations and exercise its free speech rights. The operational aspects of theme parks, resorts, and other facilities under Disney’s purview are distinct from the regulatory and governance framework provided by the RCID. As such, the dissolution does not impede Disney’s day-to-day operations or its broader corporate communications, marketing, or entertainment production activities.
**Conclusion**
In conclusion, the State of Florida’s dissolution of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, under its statutory and constitutional authority, does not infringe upon Disney’s First Amendment rights. This action, grounded in the state’s regulatory and governance prerogatives, does not directly target or limit Disney’s speech. Instead, it restructures the governance framework within which Disney operates, leaving intact Disney’s ability to express itself freely. Consequently, the argument that Disney has no legitimate free speech claim in the context of the RCID’s dissolution is supported by a nuanced understanding of state authority and constitutional protections.
Comments for Disney Steals Legal Win From DeSantis, Governing District, Gets New Court Date
Marie Jones
This is so ridiculous. We have an insurance crisis in this state along with other issues that need to be addressed and he keeps doing battle with the Mouse House. This clearly shows the true vindictiveness of our governor.
Jeff
FU*K DeSantis. I mean it’s a small world after all.
This man will never be able ti take his grandchildren there. He’s a horrible governor (I live in FL) and person in general
Rick
He is hurting his state. Word is out in Canada as in much of the rest of the world, avoid Florida whenever possible.
Jennie
Go away DeSantis. Leave Disney alone.
JR Ray
Never again visit Disney ever nor will we visit Florida again. Florida has proven itself to be anti-human. They do not like people they do not like people who like people DeSantis has his own idea of how to become God and I want no part of it.
Caroline
disantis is doing harm to the Florida tourism that means we will lose giant amount of money if Disney moves out of Florida
Christine
😂😂😂 Disney keeps delaying because they know the audit proves they broke the law, numerous times! They’ve lost every other case with the state, and eventually they will lose…again! Thank you DeSantis and CFTOD for exposing the massive corruption from Disney!
Erik
It’s a small world and DeSantis is a small man with a Napoleon complex. A little tough guy wanna be who was probably bullies his whole time when he was little in school.
Raymond Sweet
Clearly, you didn’t read this article. The State of Florida is the one delaying documents. Why are you okay with the governor controlling speech? Is it because it’s not your speech?
Jess
Can you explain what corruption? Thank you.
Don Marshall
The Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID), as a Florida-created Board and a subdivision of the state, is the sole entity responsible for any breach of contracts it has entered into. These contracts, notably, were formed without specific approval from the State of Florida, thereby limiting the state’s responsibility for actions taken by the RCID. Furthermore, it is crucial to underscore that the RCID, at the time of these contracts, was entirely under the control of appointees from the Disney Corporation, resulting in agreements that predominantly benefited Disney to the detriment of the State of Florida. This brief will articulate that the subsequent establishment of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board (CFTOD) and its inheritance of certain responsibilities and powers does not extend to liability for RCID’s prior contractual obligations, especially given the explicit statutory limitations of CFTOD’s authority and immunity provisions. Additionally, the Florida state courts’ lack of authority to amend legislation outside of constitutional violations further cements the position that legislative actions dissolving the RCID and establishing the CFTOD were both appropriate and binding, thereby negating any retrospective contractual obligations that might unjustly bind the State of Florida.
The autonomy and limited authority of the RCID:
The RCID, by design and statute, functions with a degree of autonomy specific to its charter, operating under the premise that it cannot bind the State of Florida without explicit authorization. This foundational principle is crucial when considering the contractual agreements entered into with the Disney Corporation. These agreements were orchestrated without direct state approval, delineating a clear boundary between RCID’s operational decisions and the State’s overarching governance.
The Specificity of RCID’s Appointees and Beneficiary Interests:
It is undisputed that the board governing RCID was composed solely of appointees by the Disney Corporation, inherently skewing its operational focus towards the interests of Disney rather than the broader welfare of the State of Florida. Contracts benefiting a single corporate entity, especially to the potential detriment of state interests, underscore a fundamental misuse of the RCID’s intended function and autonomy. This misalignment of interests directly contravenes the principles upon which the RCID was established, necessitating a strict interpretation of liability that does not extend beyond the RCID and its board members.
The Role and Limitations of the CFTOD:
The formation of the CFTOD, subsequent to the contracts in question, represents a legislative effort to reassert state oversight and rectify the operational imbalances instigated by the RCID’s previous governance structure. The CFTOD’s responsibilities and powers are explicitly defined by state legislation, which also provides immunity from liabilities arising from RCID’s prior contractual engagements. This legislative framework ensures that the CFTOD’s obligations are confined to its statutory mandate, thereby exempting it from the repercussions of RCID’s actions.
Judicial Authority and Legislative Actions:
The Florida state courts maintain a critical but circumscribed role in interpreting and enforcing laws within the constitutional framework. The courts do not possess the authority to modify or reinterpret legislative actions, including the dissolution of the RCID and the establishment of the CFTOD, except in instances where such actions are found to contravene the Florida State Constitution. This limitation is paramount in upholding the integrity of legislative decisions and preventing judicial overreach into legislative domains.
The Dissolution of RCID and Contractual Obligations:
The dissolution of the RCID, prompted by its prioritization of Disney’s interests over those of the state, was a lawful and necessary measure to realign state properties and interests with the public good. Contracts entered into subsequent to this dissolution, aimed at preserving Disney’s undue authority, are indicative of an attempt to circumvent the expressed legislative intent and should be recognized as such. The responsibility for these actions, both in an official and personal capacity, resides with the RCID and its board members, not the State of Florida or its subsequent legislative creations like the CFTOD.
Conclusion
The RCID, as an autonomous entity operating under the auspices of state-created statutes, is solely responsible for its contractual engagements, particularly those that have unjustly benefited the Disney Corporation to the detriment of state interests. The establishment of the CFTOD, with its clearly defined scope and immunity, does not extend liability to the state for RCID’s actions. Moreover, the judiciary’s role in respecting and enforcing the boundaries of legislative intent further solidifies the position that the state bears no undue burden for the contractual missteps of the RCID. Thus, the RCID and its board members, in their official and personal capacities, are the appropriate defendants in any legal action pertaining to these matters.
Raymond Sweet
Wrong. This is hogwash. Why are you okay with the governor regulating speech?
jodie
Florida is a beautiful state and DeSantis is the best governor around. Making Florida a place for American family values. Removing illegals, keeping the schools safe for children, etc. So with the big “win” by Disney will they be giving everyone big discounts on everything in the future. I can answer that. Nope.
Raymond Sweet
Florida is not removing undocumented workers from Florida. The Florida farmers and contractors squashed that nonsense last year. The only thing he is doing is using Florida’s sales tax dollars and spending it in Texas to solve a problem that belongs to the Federal government that trump told them not to solve. You might want to keep up with the happenings of the God you worship.
Phil
Translation of above: The State can violate Disney’s contractual rights with impunity, but Disney can’t violate the State’s alleged rights to protect itself from the former.
Don Marshall
Phil, That is not the translation. The translation is simple . A public board only has the authority to bind itself, not the state, county, municipalities, or other boards; unless specifically authorized. Furthermore, the board must put the state’s interests first.
In this case, the RCID Board had no authority to bind any entity other than the RCID and considering the contract in question ceded governmental power to the private entity that appointed the RCID Board just before the board was dissolved in order to prevent government regulatory oversight that would mean the RCID Board violated its mandate to put the state’s interests above Disney.
The state should inter plead the RCID Board in and demand the RCID BOARD members pay all state
Legal cost
Don Marshall
Phil, That is not the translation. The translation is simple . A public board only has the authority to bind itself, not the state, county, municipalities, or other boards; unless specifically authorized. Furthermore, the board must put the state’s interests first.
In this case, the RCID Board had no authority to bind any entity other than the RCID and considering the contract in question ceded governmental power to the private entity that appointed the RCID Board just before the board was dissolved in order to prevent government regulatory oversight that would mean the RCID Board violated its mandate to put the state’s interests above Disney.
Raymond Sweet
They have not bound the state. They have given authority to Disney to do Disney’s business without interference from the state. Also, why are you pretending this whole thing is not what it actually is? A violation of the first amendment.
Fortherealworld
Well and simply stated Phil! Thank you!
Don Marshall
It is a simple question. If you hire someone to manage your rental property , do they have the authority to give it someone else? Do they have the authority to give someone else the power to determine what the upkeep standards are without your consent?
Phil
What DeSantis and the Republican controlled sycophant legislature effectively did was exercise eminent domain in disguise without compensation when Disney was stripped of its ability to govern its own affairs in violation of its contract with the State. If you were the property owner in question, how would you like the State to take over your control of your property without compensation? What if the State enacted rent control on just you but not the other rental property owners in the State simply because you exercised your First Amendment rights? I’m guessing yuou wouldn’t be too happy. But, it’s o.k. with you when it happens to the other guy.
Phil
The truth is DeSantis’ sycophant state legislature effectively exercised eminent domain without compensation when it violated its contract with Disney that allowed Disney to manage its own property. Sort of like the State imposing rent control on only one landlord in the State of Florida.
CommonSenseFloridian
Desantis is a moron. Republicans throw tantrums about freedom of Speech but yet is wanting to destroy Disney for their freedom of Speech. Desantis got his feelings hurt so he has to attack a corporation. Republicans are the new Democrats. Republicans are so triggered and it’s hilarious. Go cry to mommy and stfu!
Burt
Common sense floridian? I think not.
Randall Maki
Rate governors, congressman and senators like the recently rated presidents and we’ll better know who to vote for. And maybe make them trading cards
Don Marshall
The contention between Disney and the State of Florida regarding the dissolution of the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) has garnered significant attention, raising questions about the limits of state authority and the protections afforded by the First Amendment. In defense of Florida’s actions, this analysis seeks to elucidate the legal underpinnings that support the state’s authority to dissolve the RCID, arguing that such actions do not infringe upon Disney’s First Amendment rights.
**Statutory and Constitutional Authority**
States possess broad powers to create, regulate, and dissolve special governmental districts, including improvement districts like the RCID. This authority is grounded in the state’s police powers, which allow for the regulation of property, public welfare, safety, and health within its jurisdiction. The establishment and governance of special districts are typically legislated through state statutes, which delineate the state’s prerogative to modify or eliminate these entities as deemed necessary to serve the public interest.
Florida’s decision to dissolve the RCID can be seen as an exercise of these powers, predicated on the legislative judgment that such a dissolution serves the state’s regulatory, fiscal, or governance objectives. The state’s authority to regulate or dissolve special districts like the RCID is further supported by the principle of municipal corporation law, which holds that entities created by the state can be altered or abolished by the state.
**Non-Infringement on First Amendment Rights**
The argument posited is that Florida’s dissolution of the RCID does not constitute an infringement of Disney’s First Amendment rights. This perspective is predicated on the distinction between the RCID as a governmental entity subject to state regulation and Disney as a private corporation with constitutionally protected speech rights. The dissolution of the RCID targets the governance structure and regulatory framework within which Disney operates but does not directly regulate, limit, or censor Disney’s speech.
The First Amendment protects against governmental actions that restrict the content of speech, target speech based on its viewpoint, or impose burdens on the ability to express oneself. In this case, the action taken by the state—dissolving the RCID—does not inherently restrict Disney’s speech content, target Disney’s speech based on viewpoint, or prevent Disney from expressing itself. Instead, the action restructures the governance of the area in which Disney operates, which is within the state’s regulatory ambit.
**Operational Continuity and Speech**
It is also pertinent to note that despite the dissolution of the RCID, Disney retains the ability to continue its operations and exercise its free speech rights. The operational aspects of theme parks, resorts, and other facilities under Disney’s purview are distinct from the regulatory and governance framework provided by the RCID. As such, the dissolution does not impede Disney’s day-to-day operations or its broader corporate communications, marketing, or entertainment production activities.
**Conclusion**
In conclusion, the State of Florida’s dissolution of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, under its statutory and constitutional authority, does not infringe upon Disney’s First Amendment rights. This action, grounded in the state’s regulatory and governance prerogatives, does not directly target or limit Disney’s speech. Instead, it restructures the governance framework within which Disney operates, leaving intact Disney’s ability to express itself freely. Consequently, the argument that Disney has no legitimate free speech claim in the context of the RCID’s dissolution is supported by a nuanced understanding of state authority and constitutional protections.
Comments are closed.