After a state judge denied Disney’s request to dismiss the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board’s complaint, the entertainment giant filed a countersuit.
“A dismissal would arguably mean kicking the can down the road when the need for judicial intervention is certain,” Orange County Judge Margaret H. Schreiber wrote in her July 28 order.
Filed nearly three weeks later on Aug. 17 in the same state court, Disney’s counter complaint alleges breach of two contracts that allegedly entitle the theme park to benefits that include developing and maintaining control over a special tax district called the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) board.
Bambauer
| https://www.jou.ufl.edu
As previously reported in the Florida Record, the Reedy Creek Improvement District was created in 1967 to make decisions independent of the state about land use, improvements, development, and governance related to the Orlando theme park.
“My understanding is that it freed up Disney World from having to go through a lot of red tape when they want to expand or develop or do something differently,” said Jane Bambauer, Brechner Eminent Scholar in Free Speech Law at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “There's basically no one that's outside of their control that they need to go to, to get zoning, to get rezoned or to get whatever permits they would require.”
However, the RCID was replaced by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board whose members are appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board sued Disney Parks & Resorts in May to nullify agreements signed in February under the former RCID board that the legislature dismantled.
The suit alleges that the RCID board failed to provide notice of public hearings, unlawfully delegated governmental authority to a private entity, lacked authority to enter into a development agreement and violated the Florida Constitution and state law.
Disney accuses the board of violating the First Amendment, according to media reports.
Underlying the complaints is the argument that Florida officials intended to punish Disney by phasing out the tax district due to Disney’s disagreement with recently approved House Bill 1557, also known as the 'Don’t Say Gay' bill, which restricts discussions of gender and sexuality issues in public schools.
“The way it’s sometimes characterized is whether Disney is more or less being treated the same as every other company even after this law and if so, then maybe a court would say it's not really retaliatory but that you're just losing a benefit because you're in a spat,” Bambauer told the Florida Record.