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

[MR.Dis]

This is getting ridiculous. Disney lost control of the District, all the other words are trying to put a bow on a pig. There is a bigger picture that all of us are missing. NO one benefited by a dragged out legal battle. Disney is still the state of Florida's largest employer. WDW is the largest profit center for the Disney Corp. Some where within Disney and the State some grown ups took control and forged a truce so both could benefit. Florida wins with a large employer that supplies employment and tax revenue, Disney benefits with mega profits to support a company with some serious issues in other parts of their business. Let us not forget that Disney has some major head aches in other parts of their business, so the idea that they would at some latter date bring back a Federal lawsuit involving WDW is true fantasy and possibly suicidal (they need the income flow!!!). No need to poke a bear that is sleeping.

 

[mkt]

This is getting ridiculous. Disney lost control of the District, all the other words are trying to put a bow on a pig. There is a bigger picture that all of us are missing. NO one benefited by a dragged out legal battle. Disney is still the state of Florida's largest employer. WDW is the largest profit center for the Disney Corp. Some where within Disney and the State some grown ups took control and forged a truce so both could benefit. Florida wins with a large employer that supplies employment and tax revenue, Disney benefits with mega profits to support a company with some serious issues in other parts of their business. Let us not forget that Disney has some major head aches in other parts of their business, so the idea that they would at some latter date bring back a Federal lawsuit involving WDW is true fantasy and possibly suicidal (they need the income flow!!!). No need to poke a bear that is sleeping.

Respectfully, no one is arguing that Disney wants to bring back the federal case right now. The point is that they kept that door wide open. The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice. That is not fantasy. That is leverage. If the board or the state overreaches again, the option to return to court is already teed up.

And yes, Disney absolutely benefits from stability in Florida. That is exactly why they played this smart. They gave the state its PR win on paper, resumed political donations quietly, and got back to business. Meanwhile, the board stopped grandstanding, and Disney kept the keys to permits, planning, and projects.

Nobody’s poking the bear. The bear is on standby with the legal paperwork ready to go, just in case someone forgets who actually built Central Florida.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That is not how compliance works. Disney did not cave. They paused. The federal lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice. That is not the same as surrendering. It means they reserved the right to come back if the board or state oversteps again.

And let’s not pretend this was ever about governance. This was a shakedown. The moment Disney resumed contributions to the Florida GOP, the tone changed. The board stopped posturing. The conflict vanished from the headlines.

Iger did not comply. He defused the bomb, handed the state a few PR points, and went right back to building hotels and attractions without disruption. The court option is still on the table. It always has been.

It’s astounding how you paint the dots but don’t connect them. It was not just a shakedown. The District is not the only body that has been placed within more direct executive control.

That Disney could resume litigation is the PR fluff that lets them save face. By doing that they handed the District the ability to better fend off Disney. Disorganization and incompetence in the District was to Disney long term advantage.

Had Disney pushed the issue and the District escalated such that it interfered with development it would have required the District to commit to arguments that were specious at best. Even for the greenfield development like the new hotels/timeshares it would have required the District arguing that the development not be allowed because they want to maybe considering changing the zoning but haven’t actually started any of that. Hotel rooms somehow suddenly being incompatible with a resort area is already a ridiculous argument, it being based on a hunch is even worse. The ridiculousness would have been even greater for in-park development. Given the brazenness of it all, there’s a good chance they would have just admitted to the desire for censorship, even greater ammunition for Disney.

Disney is now no longer protected. The District can now has greater ability to set up the required pretenses. Disney has no standing to challenge any proposed changes to the zoning or development approval process because they’re “protected” by the development agreements. But while development agreements are supposed to be a form of protection against changing development regulations that’s also a reason to bring them back up for review. The District is now able to set up the pretense for harm that would hinder Disney’s development and provide them grounds to enjoin that development while the situation was litigated.

 

[Stripes]

It’s astounding how you paint the dots but don’t connect them. It was not just a shakedown. The District is not the only body that has been placed within more direct executive control.

That Disney could resume litigation is the PR fluff that lets them save face. By doing that they handed the District the ability to better fend off Disney. Disorganization and incompetence in the District was to Disney long term advantage.

Had Disney pushed the issue and the District escalated such that it interfered with development it would have required the District to commit to arguments that were specious at best. Even for the greenfield development like the new hotels/timeshares it would have required the District arguing that the development not be allowed because they want to maybe considering changing the zoning but haven’t actually started any of that. Hotel rooms somehow suddenly being incompatible with a resort area is already a ridiculous argument, it being based on a hunch is even worse. The ridiculousness would have been even greater for in-park development. Given the brazenness of it all, there’s a good chance they would have just admitted to the desire for censorship, even greater ammunition for Disney.

Disney is now no longer protected. The District can now has greater ability to set up the required pretenses. Disney has no standing to challenge any proposed changes to the zoning or development approval process because they’re “protected” by the development agreements. But while development agreements are supposed to be a form of protection against changing development regulations that’s also a reason to bring them back up for review. The District is now able to set up the pretense for harm that would hinder Disney’s development and provide them grounds to enjoin that development while the situation was litigated.

There’s a reason development agreements are considered necessary before a developer proceeds with multi-year $1 billion+ projects. It provides a great deal of regulatory certainty that would otherwise not exist.

Your concerns are all unrealistic hypotheticals.

For instance, the district is no longer disorganized and incompetent thanks to strong leadership changes, so it hardly plays into Disney’s long-term advantage.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There’s a reason development agreements are considered necessary before a developer proceeds with multi-year $1 billion+ projects. It provides a great deal of regulatory certainty that would otherwise not exist.

There’s only one reason uncertainty now exists.

Your concerns are all unrealistic hypotheticals.

The development agreement wouldn’t be so important if the district making changes was unrealistic.

For instance, the district is no longer disorganized and incompetent thanks to strong leadership changes, so it hardly plays into Disney’s long-term advantage.

That’s was point. Disney not only gave up an advantage, but put themselves at a disadvantage.

 

[mkt]

It’s astounding how you paint the dots but don’t connect them. It was not just a shakedown. The District is not the only body that has been placed within more direct executive control.

That Disney could resume litigation is the PR fluff that lets them save face. By doing that they handed the District the ability to better fend off Disney. Disorganization and incompetence in the District was to Disney long term advantage.

Had Disney pushed the issue and the District escalated such that it interfered with development it would have required the District to commit to arguments that were specious at best. Even for the greenfield development like the new hotels/timeshares it would have required the District arguing that the development not be allowed because they want to maybe considering changing the zoning but haven’t actually started any of that. Hotel rooms somehow suddenly being incompatible with a resort area is already a ridiculous argument, it being based on a hunch is even worse. The ridiculousness would have been even greater for in-park development. Given the brazenness of it all, there’s a good chance they would have just admitted to the desire for censorship, even greater ammunition for Disney.

Disney is now no longer protected. The District can now has greater ability to set up the required pretenses. Disney has no standing to challenge any proposed changes to the zoning or development approval process because they’re “protected” by the development agreements. But while development agreements are supposed to be a form of protection against changing development regulations that’s also a reason to bring them back up for review. The District is now able to set up the pretense for harm that would hinder Disney’s development and provide them grounds to enjoin that development while the situation was litigated.

You’re overcomplicating what was always simple. This was political theater. The state wanted Disney to shut up and start donating again. Once that happened, everything cooled off. The federal case was dismissed without prejudice, not for PR fluff, but as a loaded legal fallback. That is leverage, not surrender.

The District may technically have more tools now, but the second they try to use them in a hostile way, Disney is ready to pounce. That is why the board is cooperative. That is why development continues. Disney got back to business and let the state pretend it won.

You do not pull the pin on a grenade when you already got what you wanted. You just keep it close in case someone gets brave.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You’re overcomplicating what was always simple. This was political theater. The state wanted Disney to shut up and start donating again. Once that happened, everything cooled off. The federal case was dismissed without prejudice, not for PR fluff, but as a loaded legal fallback. That is leverage, not surrender.

The District may technically have more tools now, but the second they try to use them in a hostile way, Disney is ready to pounce. That is why the board is cooperative. That is why development continues. Disney got back to business and let the state pretend it won.

You do not pull the pin on a grenade when you already got what you wanted. You just keep it close in case someone gets brave.

It was not just political theater. It was not the only body consolidated under the governor’s purview. It was specifically sucked into something larger due to the theatrics, but that larger situation was and is still there.

The threat of the federal lawsuit resuming is completely empty. How would the District be hostile? By interfering with development. Resuming the federal lawsuit may resolve that in the long term by undoing the change to the District but nothing in the short term. Disney would have to either just voluntarily pause their development or fight the interference, but the District would now have much stronger grounds for enjoining the development.

 

[Stripes]

There’s only one reason uncertainty now exists.

Disney has zero development uncertainty, otherwise they wouldn’t be proceeding with billions of dollars worth of projects.

The development agreement wouldn’t be so important if the district making changes was unrealistic.

The development agreement ensures that the district is incapable of making changes that prevent Disney from developing their land however they see fit, while complying with existing regulations.

That’s was point. Disney not only gave up an advantage, but put themselves at a disadvantage.

The state was free to alter the district’s board and administration at any time.

If the incompetence at the district was significantly harming the state’s case, then the state would have made changes to the district. The ball here was never in Disney’s court.

 

[Stripes]

District would now have much stronger grounds for enjoining the development.

How??? On what grounds?

 

[mkt]

It was not just political theater. It was not the only body consolidated under the governor’s purview. It was specifically sucked into something larger due to the theatrics, but that larger situation was and is still there.

The threat of the federal lawsuit resuming is completely empty. How would the District be hostile? By interfering with development. Resuming the federal lawsuit may resolve that in the long term by undoing the change to the District but nothing in the short term. Disney would have to either just voluntarily pause their development or fight the interference, but the District would now have much stronger grounds for enjoining the development.

It was absolutely just political theater. The District was pulled into it as a prop. If the goal was real governance reform, this would not have started with a press conference and threats. It started with retaliation and ended when Disney resumed donations.

As for the federal case, the threat is not to reverse the new structure. The threat is to block interference. If the District tries to delay or deny active development on shaky legal grounds, that becomes a First Amendment issue again. That is not empty. That is exactly the kind of overreach that would revive the lawsuit with a stronger hand.

Disney does not need to stop construction. They need to wait for someone to make a bad move. That is how leverage works.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney has zero development uncertainty, otherwise they wouldn’t be proceeding with billions of dollars worth of projects.

The development agreement ensures that the district is incapable of making changes that prevent Disney from developing their land however they see fit, while complying with existing regulations.

Jurisdictions are allowed to reconsider development agreements that have come to be at odds with their comprehensive plan and development regulations. The District could also return to the argument it was using against the previous agreement to just tie things up in litigation. They even announced as part of their settlement to do things backwards and do the development agreement before a new comprehensive plan was developed.

The state was free to alter the district’s board and administration at any time.

If the incompetence at the district was significantly harming the state’s case, then the state would have made changes to the district. The ball here was never in Disney’s court.

How??? On what grounds?

Because the District is still free to alter the development regulations and approval process at any time.

Certain tasks take time and will also have an output that is a result of that work. The first board immediately declared desired conclusions and then didn’t even bother to start the work to justify them. They didn’t even bother to pretend to follow any sort of process. Changing out board members would not have fixed that because the immediate problem for the District would have been acting too quickly. Time has now elapsed and will continue to elapse. Even if the board decided to act very quickly and suddenly, they’d at least now have the colorable argument of having spent time dealing with the issues and being concerned about continuing forward.

 

[lazyboy97o]

As for the federal case, the threat is not to reverse the new structure. The threat is to block interference. If the District tries to delay or deny active development on shaky legal grounds, that becomes a First Amendment issue again. That is not empty. That is exactly the kind of overreach that would revive the lawsuit with a stronger hand.

It was discussed at length in this thread about how governments are given wide discretion to carry out their powers, especially if it is something they are specifically empowered to do. Regulating development is a core function of the District. So long as those involved were smart enough to not broadcast their intent then the courts would more likely refuse to infer motivation, and even less so to connect it to actions taken by others years earlier.

 

[Chi84]

It was discussed at length in this thread about how governments are given wide discretion to carry out their powers, especially if it is something they are specifically empowered to do. Regulating development is a core function of the District. So long as those involved were smart enough to not broadcast their intent then the courts would more likely refuse to infer motivation, and even less so to connect it to actions taken by others years earlier.

What motivation are you worried about?

 

[lazyboy97o]

What motivation are you worried about?

A coercive one.

 

[Chi84]

A coercive one.

Who is going to try to coerce Disney and to what end?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Who is going to try to coerce Disney and to what end?

Did you hit your head and are now under the impression that the district was reorganized due to a good faith disagreement over land use regulations?

 

[Chi84]

Did you hit your head and are now under the impression that the district was reorganized due to a good faith disagreement over land use regulations?

No, I was just wondering what you’re concerned about now. Has there been a new development?

If not, all this has been argued to death previously and unless something new has happened, I don’t see the point of doing it again.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, I was just wondering what you’re concerned about now. Has there been a new development?

If not, all this has been argued to death previously and unless something new has happened, I don’t see the point of doing it again.

There was never anny reason for the concern to go away. Especially with related developments involving Paramount.

 

[Stripes]

Jurisdictions are allowed to reconsider development agreements that have come to be at odds with their comprehensive plan and development regulations.

That’s simply not true. Please quote the specific Florida statute that states that.

The District could also return to the argument it was using against the previous agreement to just tie things up in litigation.

You and I both know that those arguments simply don’t hold any water whatsoever with regard to the new development agreement. A court would quickly side with Disney on an injunction preventing the district from stopping Disney’s development plans.

They even announced as part of their settlement to do things backwards and do the development agreement before a new comprehensive plan was developed.

The development agreement vested significant development rights in Disney that fully complied with the comprehensive plan that existed at the time. The settlement agreement included language that said, once the comprehensive plan was amended, the district would agree to amend the development agreement in order to vest in Disney even more development rights than the existing comprehensive plan allowed.

There is nothing problematic about any of this.

There were legitimate issues with the previous development agreement and Disney’s First Amendment case was always stronger than CFTOD v. WDW state court case.

Because the District is still free to alter the development regulations and approval process at any time.

Changes to the land development regulations do not apply to land covered by a development agreement. Changes can only be made to comply with state or federal law (which Disney would have to comply with regardless) and legitimate health and safety reasons.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That’s simply not true. Please quote the specific Florida statute that states that.

You and I both know that those arguments simply don’t hold any water whatsoever with regard to the new development agreement. A court would quickly side with Disney on an injunction preventing the district from stopping Disney’s development plans.

The development agreement vested significant development rights in Disney that fully complied with the comprehensive plan that existed at the time. The settlement agreement included language that said, once the comprehensive plan was amended, the district would agree to amend the development agreement in order to vest in Disney even more development rights than the existing comprehensive plan allowed.

There is nothing problematic about any of this.

There were legitimate issues with the previous development agreement and Disney’s First Amendment case was always stronger than CFTOD v. WDW state court case.

Changes to the land development regulations do not apply to land covered by a development agreement. Changes can only be made to comply with state or federal law (which Disney would have to comply with regardless) and legitimate health and safety reasons.

You don’t have to actually have legitimate concerns to tie things up in legislation. That’s the whole reason this thread exists.

Chapter 163 Section 3233 - 2018 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

www.flsenate.gov

This is how local laws and policies can impact a development agreement. I will admit to condensing the process. Developing a new comprehensive plan is in good practice how you would determine both health, safety and welfare issues; as well as changes in pertinent conditions.