News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[RamblinWreck]

"...eleventh-hour deals with its soon-to-be-replaced puppet government."
"...quietly contrived with its puppet Board..."

The sheer hypocrisy of a group of people with absolutely no municipal administration qualifications who were hand-picked by the Governor specifically to do his bidding in his war against Disney calling RCID "puppets" is mind-boggling.

The irony was not lost on me either

But also it’s just pointless and embarrassing language. It doesn’t help the case at all.

 

[MrPromey]

Disney better hurry up and get those DeSantis popcorn buckets ready, they're going to need lightning lane for this one.

I know he's a republican but I'm pretty sure we all know what animal they'll pick to represent him for the caricature.

 

[mikejs78]

I realize that courts don't get involved in determining relative value but in this case, CFTOD is claiming it received nothing that it didn't already have. CFTOD is claiming the district received no consideration.

For those who have read the development agreement, are there other considerations?

Couldn't Disney argue that they will provide lands at fair market value without the bar needed for eminent domain? And does a development agreement *need* consideration?

 

[MrPromey]

I have no way of knowing, and I realise my own biases are at play in what I'm about to say, but I suspect Disney will come off looking much better in the long-run because of all this than Universal. I'm somewhat surprised that Florida's other themeparks are apparently content to watch what's happening from the sidelines, even though Disney's fight is, ultimately, their fight also.

I don't think it's a bias - just maybe a little naivety.

Disney's only fighting this because they are the one that was targeted.

You can be assured that if the tables were turned, Disney wouldn't be stepping in the line of fire, risking their own economic well being to protect one of their competitors, either.

Disney's arguing this on 1st amendment rights and people are cynically saying things like "yeah, because Disney's so concerned about the first amendment - lolz!"

Truth is, they really are. They're very concerned about their own first amendment rights. They aren't trying to protect you or me or Sea World.

Them prevailing will, hopefully, have that side effect but their interests in this are purely to protect themselves.

And to be clear, I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

In the long run, I don't think how this pans out is going to do anything for or against Universal or Sea World's (or Legoland's) reputations at all for the vast majority of the general public.

Privately, I imagine many (if not most) executives for large businesses in the state would like to see Disney prevail on this, though.

 

[Stripes]

I realize that courts don't get involved in determining relative value but in this case, CFTOD is claiming it received nothing that it didn't already have. CFTOD is claiming the district received no consideration.

For those who have read the development agreement, are there other considerations?

The development itself would be consideration. The district would receive more visitors, more economic activity, and more tax revenue due to the development pursued under the development agreement.

 

[GoofGoof]

I realize that courts don't get involved in determining relative value but in this case, CFTOD is claiming it received nothing that it didn't already have. CFTOD is claiming the district received no consideration.

For those who have read the development agreement, are there other considerations?

Isn’t the consideration for the development agreement that they will develop the land for a specific use? Take away the politics. Why would a local government sign a development agreement with anyone? If I own a piece of land and I say I want to build a theme park on it and I ask the county to sign a development agreement to streamline the process. Why would the county agree to it? If the county decides the development I want is good for the county because it adds jobs and tax revenue they want to encourage me to do it. The development agreement wouldn’t allow me to then build a bunch of townhomes or a trash dump instead. So the consideration given is the limitation on what I can do with my property going forward.

 

[GoofGoof]

Is that in the contract?

Sure it is. The contract lays out what they can develop. It’s limited to Disney World stuff. They can’t build homes or a factory.

 

[Henry Mystic]

"...eleventh-hour deals with its soon-to-be-replaced puppet government."
"...quietly contrived with its puppet Board..."

The sheer hypocrisy of a group of people with absolutely no municipal administration qualifications who were hand-picked by the Governor specifically to do his bidding in his war against Disney calling RCID "puppets" is mind-boggling.

In many cases, the ones accusing someone else of doing something are the ones actually doing it.

 

[mikejs78]

After Kelo v. City of New London (another terrible decision by the Supreme Court), the bar for eminent domain is pretty low.

After Kelo, Florida passed a constitutional amendment to restrict eminent domain much more than Kelo allows.

 

[Stripes]

Is that in the contract?

It’s not directly stated, but it doesn‘t need to be because it is self-evident.

The lack of consideration claim doesn’t hold any water. There are others that do, but not that one.

 

[Notypeo]

Isn’t the consideration for the development agreement that they will develop the land for a specific use? Take away the politics. Why would a local government sign a development agreement with anyone?

I can’t speak to Florida law or practice specifically. But my hunch is that countless projects statewide depend on development agreements where the consideration given by the developer is “you get a nice development in accordance with the plan.” And this is one of the places where things get tricky for the DeSantisites. Are they sure that the Villages made a discrete community benefit payment for every development agreement it struck? Do they really want every developer from now on needing to do so in order to be confident their agreement is enforceable? Do they want to argue for throwing out developer agreements left and right? And do conservative state court judges want anything to do with any of this?

 

[seascape]

A contract needs consideration - it’s the essential part of a contract.

If it’s not a contract, then all the discussions we’ve had about Disney having a strong contract case get thrown out the window.

After Kelo v. City of New London (another terrible decision by the Supreme Court), the bar for eminent domain is pretty low.

17 billion in investments is certainly consideration. Further since the 17 billion was talked about in the yearly stockholders meeting it has to be true
It was also talked about in their legal filing. The new board is full of it.

 

[Chi84]

Couldn't Disney argue that they will provide lands at fair market value without the bar needed for eminent domain? And does a development agreement *need* consideration?

Forgoing condemnation proceedings would likely be enough because very little is needed in the way of consideration. But if people here really believe judges just decide things according to political affiliation, why worry about it?

 

[gorillaball]

I can't speak for the fanboys, personally, I am a fan of WDW, Universal and Seaworld and want none to fail; I want all of them work to be better; and it's the tourist who wins.

My commentary was really that Universal is able to focus on guest experience better while TWDC need to focus elsewhere.

It’s not as if the people dealing with legal matters would deal with the guest experience. Also, this could drag for years and years and the “cost” wouldn’t equate to popcorn buckets sold over any period of time.

 

[mikejs78]

DeSantis is claiming that existing Florida law allows for the legislature to void a development agreement.

Chapter 163 Section 3241 - 2022 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

flsenate.gov

I mean, that statute reads to me like if the government passes a  general law that contradicts a developer agreement (example: something like the ADA) or if a change in party happened and a gun store law was passed that only allowed 1 gun store per 10 square miles, and a development agreement had several gun stores in it.. in any case that section seems to say that development agreements are amended to account for the new law, not that they can just be voided. I don't think a law to allow voiding of development agreements after the fact would be allowed.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

It’s not as if the people dealing with legal matters would deal with the guest experience. Also, this could drag for years and years and the “cost” wouldn’t equate to popcorn buckets sold over any period of time.

Very true, thankfully Disney has deep pockets and can handle this in their legal department without it affecting the guest experience. Spending millions to fight this is peanuts for them, it would bankrupt a smaller business though. DeSantis picked a fight with probably the worst company he could have chosen, deep pockets and beloved by many, kind of a no win situation.

 

[Lilofan]

Very true, thankfully Disney has deep pockets and can handle this in their legal department without it affecting the guest experience. Spending millions to fight this is peanuts for them, it would bankrupt a smaller business though. DeSantis picked a fight with probably the worst company he could have chosen, deep pockets and beloved by many, kind of a no win situation.

Who knows if the legal team and their spouse and little ones flies down to Orlando and meets with Disney legal with lawyer burning the midnight oil while the families soak up the guest experience VIP style escorted by cast tour guides to the parks courtesy of Mickey? Now that would be a great guest experience for the lucky ones! Savannah view suite at AK Lodge would be sweet!

 

[LittleBuford]

You can be assured that if the tables were turned, Disney wouldn't be stepping in the line of fire, risking their own economic well being to protect one of their competitors, either.

You’re probably right. Still, I suppose I would have expected some amount of industry solidarity in the face of such an assault. I guess I really am naively idealistic.

 

[BrianLo]

 

[MrPromey]

You’re probably right. Still, I suppose I would have expected some amount of industry solidarity in the face of such an assault. I guess I really am naively idealistic.

If we all were, this would be a much easier world to navigate and things like this wouldn't happen.

Don't say it like it's a bad thing.