Florida residents denied the lawsuit for Ron DeSantis’ decision on Disney World

UpdatedA judge today dismissed a Florida taxpayer lawsuit contesting Governor Ron Desantis’ decision to abolish the Walt Disney World Special Reedy Creek Tax District, which allowed Walt Disney World to self-govern and self-finance its operations and local infrastructure to Orlando. The contenders feared that local taxpayers would have to pay taxes like the road maintenance and firefighters that Disney has dealt with for the past 55 years.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court and also alleged that the landing move was an alleged response from Disney to the state’s so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law. Such retaliation is said to violate Disney’s First Amendment rights. The landing move also violates the constitutional rights of taxpayers, according to the lawsuit.

US District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga reportedly wrote in her ruling, “They argue that what is essential is a first amendment revenge lawsuit on Disney’s behalf. And First Amendment claims of revenge do not meet the humiliated standards of third parties. “

It also concluded that the matter is a matter for the state.

Before May 4thA group of Florida residents is suing the state governor and other officials for the abolition of a special tax district that allowed Walt Disney World to do business 55 years ago.

DeSantis signed a law repealing the Reedy Creek Improvement District after Disney announced its opposition to the state’s new parental rights law, also known to naysayers as the Don’t Say Gay bill.

Plaintiffs, Michael Foronda, Edward Foronda, and Vivian Gorsky, argue that the district’s repeal violates their federal constitutional rights, both taxpayers and state rights. They cite reports that the abolition of the district will leave taxpayers responsible for the district’s debt, estimated by some experts to reach $ 1 billion. But they also argue that taxpayers will bear a responsible regulatory burden for district oversight, as well as for similar services to firefighters.

“The stated and undisputed motive for the bill is to punish Walt Disney World and, subsequently, Florida taxpayers,” the plaintiffs in the lawsuit said. “Governor Landing has made it clear that he is deliberately punishing Disney, but insists that the removal of Disney’s central district will not affect central taxpayers.”

According to the lawsuit, the applicants are owners in neighboring countries. Asks the judge to revoke the revocation and issue an enforcement benefit to avoid enforcement.

Disney hasn’t commented on DeSantis’ decision to repeal the area, which won’t take effect until next year. But last month Reed Creek issued a statement to investors proposing a challenge and citing a provision in 1967 that created an electoral district that suggested it could not be dismantled until the bonds were paid.

Spokeswoman for the governor, Christina Push, said she had no comment on the specific cause.

But he said in an email that the details of the Reed Creek plan have not yet been released.

“They will be soon. Residents of the Orange and Oceola districts will not have to bear the brunt of Disney’s debt, the governor said. “And there’s no scenario where the state inherits a debt from Disney, that’s misinformation,” he said.

“In general, advocates from the opportunities available here are their preferred prediction. That is, they hope – without any foundation indeed – that it will end up on taxpayers or a state burden that partisan critics can use against the governor. Indeed, this opportunity can and should be used to collect more taxes from Disney, the Governor said. “