I really appreciated your input, but I do have a couple of questions for clarification. I am lost on the first amendment complaint as Desantis effectively reorganized the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which is supposed to be wholly independent of Disney. Last time I checked, private corporations could not issue Municipal Bonds, but Reedy Creek has about 1 billion of outstanding municipal bonds. So, if Reedy Creek is an independent "government" entity, how is Florida targeting Disney? We all know it is an open secret that Disney controls the Board, but statutorily and when filing with the State of Florida, I believe Reedy Creek claimed independence even when re-certifying in 2022. Hence, the municipal bond debt. It is also important to note the original vision for Epcot and much of the reasoning behind granting Disney the extraordinary ability to establish Reedy Creek was that Epcot was to be a city and not a theme park. I think an important distinction between the two suits that were not brought up was that Florida vs. Disney is a state suit. If Florida prevails in the state suit, nullifying any of the restrictive covenants that Disney and Reedy Creek passed before the establishment of the CFTOD, does that not nullify any standing Disney has to proceed in the Federal Suit?
Thanks again
Sorry, I had paying work that had to get done today.
If you want to read the Florida Supreme Court decision, here is a link to an unofficial but normally reliable reprint of it
https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/1968/37569-0.html
You can see the state challenged RCID's authority to issue bonds as violating the state constitution because, the state argued, the bonds would primarily benefit the "private enterprise" (WDW) as the largest landowner in RCID. The court found the argument "untenable" because the "general welfare and continued prosperity of Florida depends in a large measure upon tourism, recreation and the conservation of natural resources" and promoting tourism is a valid public purpose. The court also rejected the argument that the statute creating RCID was an "unlawful attempt to delegate the taxing power of the state." I don't think frequent posters to this discussion board would contest the importance of tourism to Florida.
Given this finding, I'm not sure RCID "independence" from WDW is all that crucial. I'm willing to assume that when Disney informed Florida officials that it wanted to build a theme park in Florida, Disney's lawyers insisted that Disney have the control over development that RCID provided. (To be clear, I don't know.) Whatever the reason for RCID, the arrangement was valid enough for the FSC in its 1968 decision. I don't think anyone can reasonably doubt the impact Disney has had on Florida tourism. The FSC's reasoning - that RCID could issue bonds to promote tourism - is also why I don't think it is accurate to say Walt's vision for Epcot as a city was the reason for RCID but if you have something to support this statement, please provide it.
There's a lot that could be said about state v federal lawsuits. I think one important point to remember is that even if the state court were to side with CFTOD on one attempt to invalidate the two agreements, the question of an impermissible motive still remains. First, was the creation of CFTOD improperly motivated by Disney's protected speech. But also, was CFTOD's decision to "void" the two agreements motivated by Disney's protected speech. Even if RCID hadn't dotted all of its i's and crossed it t's on the agreements (and that is hard to believe), would the state have even noticed much less taken the action it did to void those two agreements if Disney hadn't opposed the parental education bill?
Finally, I don't mean to pick on you but, like a lot of other people, you used the word "standing." Standing is a very technical term which simply means federal courts want to make sure the plaintiff has a sufficient stake in the outcome. No harm, no foul. Even if the state court were to agree with CFTOD, that wouldn't affect Disney's standing to proceed in federal court. It might affect the relief Disney obtains, but not its standing.
