DeSantis-appointed board votes to declare Disney agreement void
Jack Birle
Video Embed
The board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, which governs the district encompassing the Walt Disney World Resort, unanimously approved a resolution to declare an agreement designed to undercut its power as void.
The resolution declared the agreement between Disney and the previous board as void ab initio, meaning it is void from the beginning, at a meeting on Wednesday.
DISNEY SUES DESANTIS OVER ALLEGED ‘CAMPAIGN TO WEAPONIZE GOVERNMENT POWER’ AGAINST COMPANY
Lawyers for the board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District have said the agreement is void because no notices were sent to other property owners within the district. They also argued the agreements are “unconstitutional” because governments within the state may not “confer their own powers onto private parties.”
The agreement between the prior board and Disney was made on Feb. 8, and the legislation restructuring the district was signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) on Feb. 27.
Under the terms of the Feb. 8 agreement, the prior board was barred from making most changes without permission from the Walt Disney Company. The “King Charles clause” ensured Disney had autonomy over the district, which includes the Walt Disney World Resort, until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England, living as of the date of this declaration.”
Shortly after the board approved the resolution, Disney filed a lawsuit against DeSantis and members of the board in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, alleging a “relentless campaign to weaponize government power against Disney in retaliation for expressing a political viewpoint unpopular with certain state officials.”
The lawsuit specifically cited the resolution to void the agreement as the “latest strike” in the state’s string of “retaliatory” and “unconstitutional” actions.
“Today’s action is the latest strike: At the governor’s bidding, the state’s oversight board has purported to ‘void’ publicly noticed and duly agreed development contracts, which had laid the foundation for billions of Disney’s investment dollars and thousands of jobs,” according to the lawsuit. “This government action was patently retaliatory, patently anti-business, and patently unconstitutional.”
Also at its meeting Wednesday, the board held a second reading of a measure asserting “superior authority” over the two cities within the district.
During the public comment period of the meeting, several business owners who operate restaurants in the Disney Springs shopping district and the EPCOT theme park expressed their concerns over the tension between Disney and the state of Florida.
Mark Gibson, who operates Splitsville Luxury Lanes, the restaurant Homecomin’, and Everglazed Donuts and Cold Brew at Disney Springs, urged the board to keep businesses in mind and seek a resolution with Disney.
“Disney, the state of Florida, and this board could be a powerful coalition with its power and resources” Gibson said. “We should do great things. Therefore I urge the executive team at Disney, the governor’s office, and this board to try to find a resolution that works for everyone. Let’s get the two sides talking, and let’s get back to business.”
Gibson also praised both the state of Florida and Disney for remaining most open during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.
Chairman Martin Garcia was receptive to Gibson’s concerns, saying that the board “will take all your comments to heart.”
With the lawsuit Disney filed shortly after the meeting, however, a quick resolution to the hostility appears unlikely.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The entertainment giant had maintained full autonomy over the district since its creation in 1967, but legislation signed into law in February gave the state power over the district.
The battle between DeSantis and the company, which began last year, stemmed from Disney denouncing DeSantis’s push for the Parental Rights in Education Act.