The residents of Reedy Creek were told by the court that they have no legal right to prohibit Governor DeSantis' administration from dissolving governmental entities that Florida created.
Disney's Reedy Creek Improvement District residents attempted to challenge Governor Ron DeSantis' dissolution of their county, but the court dismissed the motion.
The residents claimed that Florida lawmakers were "threatening to take thousands of jobs" from the state residents. In a coverage by The Hollywood Reporter, claimants also added that the state was infringing on Disney's constitutional rights.
When dismissing the motion, the judge said in his ruling:
Plaintiffs have no legal right to prohibit the State of Florida from dissolving governmental entities created by state law."
When embarking on this legal battle, Reedy Creek residents claimed Governor Ron DeSantis violated their rights when signing the proclamation to dissolve the special tax district.
The residents had explicitly argued that if the state follows through on its plan to dissolve the Reedy Creek Improvement District, they and other taxpayers will be saddled with at least $1 billion in Disney bond debt.
The district is expected to be decommissioned by June 2023, leaving many residents wondering what this means for them and prompting some to take legal action.
Apart from this worry, maintenance costs -- potentially exceeding $1 billion in debt and costs -- related to the dissolution of Reedy Creek were alleged to be at the expense of Florida taxpayers.
Experts speculated that tax burdens in Orange and Osceola counties might fall on residents in Orange and Osceola counties, an Orlando Business Journal article has alleged.
However, a spokesperson for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' office, Bryan Griffin, said debts for Reedy Creek would not be borne by local residents, and they will contribute more in the future.
The state pushed back on the idea that they have deprived taxpayers of the right to due process, stating that no tax increase related to SB 4-C had been proposed or imposed on residents.
"Their complaint utterly fails to identify sufficient ultimate facts showing how the potential dissolution of the district pursuant to state law could plausibly infringe on their rights as taxpayers," the state said.