You have a link for these?
And that is probably the driving force behind this motion. They longer the state delays the better and making this motion at this time is too good an opportunity to forgo
Any predictions on what a settlement between the two parties would actually look like?They updated it to change the wording
8.1 Board Consideration of Request from Stephanie Kopelousos to serve as District
Administrator.
They’ve also added a closed session to discuss the 3 court cases involving Disney.
(BTW: this version of the agenda doesn’t include the “Informational Reports” or any of the contracts and budget discussions that were in the other version.)
Also, they’ve finally removed Garcia from the list of Board Members on their website (although they forgot to remove him from the Planning Board list). Gilzean is still identified as the Administrator.
.
My (completely uninformed) guess is that the Governor and the District would never settle in the traditional sense. I'm watching for who DeS puts on the Board to replace Garcia, and how that person & his pick to replace Gilzean move forward. That pick is very much part of the DeS world, but apparently she's worked with Disney before plus she actually has some experience in municipal management.
So, is the intention to find new ways to inflict harm on Disney and the District (& Cities), or are they looking for an offramp toward normalcy?
Best case dream scenario that I could see as maybe marginally possible?: They continue to claim victory because they've supposedly addressed all the horrible things that Disney and the prior Board did; they signal a shift towards business as usual by running the district in a constructive manner and appointing a marginally competent Board member or two to actually run things properly and/or just stay out of the way of a competent administrator and the knowledgeable senior staff who haven't left; they sign a new development agreement that gives Disney sufficient assurance that they can get back to business as usual, but allows them to tout their moral victory of voiding the prior "egregious" agreement; *maybe* over time they start to talk about (1) legislation to gradually change the make-up of the Board somewhat, and (2) everyone abandoning their lawsuits.
Or: they're just switching out the players for their own reasons; the carnage and grift continues unabated; they find a way to sell off the utilities and generally hollow out the district's finances while also raising taxes; they try to grab Disney's land for development by friends & donors; the lawsuits (which also enrich their friends) proliferate.
Neither of these scenarios, or anything in-between, would surprise me in the slightest, because nothing about this has been rational in terms of actual governance. It's about grift and control (and catchphrases/misdirection for the public to obscure that).
n.b. Some of this is obviously political, but I've tried (successfully I hope?) to keep my comments within the bounds that mods have allowed as having direct relevance to these issues. PLEASE, if anyone wants to discuss, let's keep it civil so we don't lose chunks of what has generally been a wonderfully informative thread
Thank you for the response. You made good points in my opinion. I guess we will stay tuned regarding who they pick to fill Garcias seat. Also, it appears some board members terms expire the first half of 2025.My (completely uninformed) guess is that the Governor and the District would never settle in the traditional sense. I'm watching for who DeS puts on the Board to replace Garcia, and how that person & his pick to replace Gilzean move forward. That pick is very much part of the DeS world, but apparently she's worked with Disney before plus she actually has some experience in municipal management.
So, is the intention to find new ways to inflict harm on Disney and the District (& Cities), or are they looking for an offramp toward normalcy?
Best case dream scenario that I could see as maybe marginally possible?: They continue to claim victory because they've supposedly addressed all the horrible things that Disney and the prior Board did; they signal a shift towards business as usual by running the district in a constructive manner and appointing a marginally competent Board member or two to actually run things properly and/or just stay out of the way of a competent administrator and the knowledgeable senior staff who haven't left; they sign a new development agreement that gives Disney sufficient assurance that they can get back to business as usual, but allows them to tout their moral victory of voiding the prior "egregious" agreement; *maybe* over time they start to talk about (1) legislation to gradually change the make-up of the Board somewhat, and (2) everyone abandoning their lawsuits.
Or: they're just switching out the players for their own reasons; the carnage and grift continues unabated; they find a way to sell off the utilities and generally hollow out the district's finances while also raising taxes; they try to grab Disney's land for development by friends & donors; the lawsuits (which also enrich their friends) proliferate.
Neither of these scenarios, or anything in-between, would surprise me in the slightest, because nothing about this has been rational in terms of actual governance. It's about grift and control (and catchphrases/misdirection for the public to obscure that).
n.b. Some of this is obviously political, but I've tried (successfully I hope?) to keep my comments within the bounds that mods have allowed as having direct relevance to these issues. PLEASE, if anyone wants to discuss, let's keep it civil so we don't lose chunks of what has generally been a wonderfully informative thread
At a minimum it seems like a way to avoid providing funds where possible. It also seems like it could be evidence of shenanigans being played with the permitting process.
The utilities are already owned by the District. Reedy Creek Energy Services is just the contracted operator.