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

[mikejs78]

My gut says that beginning in 2027 there will be legislation that slowly picks away at CFTOD and gradually returns control to Disney. It won't happen all at once - but I bet it will happen.

 

[Chi84]

My gut says that beginning in 2027 there will be legislation that slowly picks away at CFTOD and gradually returns control to Disney. It won't happen all at once - but I bet it will happen.

The State was happy with the way things were. For many, many years.

 

[JoeCamel]

The State was happy with the way things were. For many, many years.

Saved them a bunch of cash

 

[Bullseye1967]

Just to clarify, I think there may be some confusion between the federal and state cases.

The federal lawsuit was about retaliation. Disney argued that the state dissolved Reedy Creek and replaced it with a state-controlled board as punishment for Disney’s protected speech. That is a First Amendment issue. It was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it can be brought back if similar retaliation happens again.

The state case was about the development agreements Disney signed before the board was replaced. That was a separate legal fight over contracts and local governance. It was settled last year.

What Disney preserved in the federal case is not about zoning powers or board turnover. It is about motive. If the new board starts blocking projects and the reasoning lines up with past political pressure, that gives Disney grounds to revive the case. It is not about what the board is allowed to do. It is about why they are doing it.

I am not sure of the actual filing and I will admit that I am too lazy to look through all the filings you posted, Thank you, but I think it was a claim on FL law and not Federal. The Sol on "free speech" in FL is 3 years, but it is not limited in USC,

I am not confused.

The federal case resuming would be instigated by something related to how the district is exercising its power, a new local issue. They would be triggering a new state-level fight about something that would have the most near-term impact on development. A federal court would be limited in its ability to intervene in that new state-level case and might even let the state-level case play out first.

And if this is right, it was what I quoted above. The clock is ticking. A federal court can not take action on a state law case if SoL has expired.

 

[mikejs78]

And if this is right, it was what I quoted above. The clock is ticking. A federal court can not take action on a state law case if SoL has expired.

The federal case was not predicated on FL free speech law, it was based around 1st amendment jurisprudence and the US Constitution contract clause. The state case was based around state law but not speech state law.

 

[mkt]

I am not sure of the actual filing and I will admit that I am too lazy to look through all the filings you posted, Thank you, but I think it was a claim on FL law and not Federal. The Sol on "free speech" in FL is 3 years, but it is not limited in USC,

And if this is right, it was what I quoted above. The clock is ticking. A federal court can not take action on a state law case if SoL has expired.

The free speech claim was federal, the land use claim was state.

 

[flyakite]

In case anyone is curious, this Orlando Sentinel article discusses Craig Mateer, who is currently on the CFTOD Planning Board and was previously on the Board of Directors for 7 months.

At this Tallahassee hotel, the public isn’t invited. DeSantis advisers are.

Orlando entrepreneur Craig Mateer bought the Governor’s Inn in 2020, but has never opened it to the public.

www.orlandosentinel.com

If someone can attach a non-firewall link, that would be appreciated.

 

[JohnD]

In case anyone is curious, this Orlando Sentinel article discusses Craig Mateer, who is currently on the CFTOD Planning Board and was previously on the Board of Directors for 7 months.

At this Tallahassee hotel, the public isn’t invited. DeSantis advisers are.

Orlando entrepreneur Craig Mateer bought the Governor’s Inn in 2020, but has never opened it to the public.

www.orlandosentinel.com

Is there a non firewall version of the link?

 

[Batman'sParents]

Is there a non firewall version of the link?

There ya go: https://archive.ph/5rP8Z

 

[mkt]

In case anyone is curious, this Orlando Sentinel article discusses Craig Mateer, who is currently on the CFTOD Planning Board and was previously on the Board of Directors for 7 months.

At this Tallahassee hotel, the public isn’t invited. DeSantis advisers are.

Orlando entrepreneur Craig Mateer bought the Governor’s Inn in 2020, but has never opened it to the public.

www.orlandosentinel.com

If someone can attach a non-firewall link, that would be appreciated.

Sadly, nothing in that surprises me. What Florida has become unfortunately and sadly reminds me of my years and Latin America. And not in a good way.

 

[JohnD]

There ya go: https://archive.ph/5rP8Z

Maybe it's short-term or good for one day. Doesn't work. Just saw this on Monday. You shared on Friday.

 

[JohnD]

Disney Oversight District to Issue $175 Million in New Bonds for “Extremely Busy” Development at Walt Disney World (from BlogMickey)

Disney Oversight District to Issue $175 Million in New Bonds for "Extremely Busy" Development at Walt Disney World

The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District is exploring $175 million in new bond debt to support Walt Disney World expansions

blogmickey.com

 

[flyakite]

 

[Stripes]

The new Comprehensive Plan has been published by CFTOD! Some notable changes!

https://www.oversightdistrict.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/6-27-2025-BOS-Packet-FINAL.pdf

 

[MisterPenguin]

Is this an increase of three new gates allowed over 20 years, or just one more?...

 

[JoeCamel]

Is this an increase of three new gates allowed over 20 years, or just one more?...

View attachment 866467
View attachment 866468

Looks like three to me, guess they don't read this forum and fail to understand TDO cannot build another park in any case.....

 

[MisterPenguin]

Found the answer elsewhere in the document: Just one more major park/gate allowed by 2045...

Although Table 2-1 (Maximum Development 2025-2045) allows for development of one major and two minor theme parks there are no plans under review.​

​

Approximately 850 acres would be required for these uses. -p.262​

 

[Comped]

Found the answer elsewhere in the document: Just one more major park/gate allowed by 2045...

Although Table 2-1 (Maximum Development 2025-2045) allows for development of one major and two minor theme parks there are no plans under review.​

​

Approximately 850 acres would be required for these uses. -p.262​

Minor parks have to be MGM in size right?

 

[JoeCamel]

Minor parks have to be MGM in size right?

Minor in size or minor in amusements? They could do two boutique and one mega park with that description.
But I read this forum and know TDO can never build another park in WDW so all the speculation is just bytes in the wind

 

[MisterPenguin]

Well... this is new...

PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT​

Part A: Policies​

​

INTRODUCTION​

​

In accordance with the legislative intent expressed in Florida Statutes §§163.3161(10) and 187.101(3) that​

governmental entities respect judicially acknowledged and constitutionally protected private property rights;​

each local government shall include in its comprehensive plan a property rights element to ensure that​

private property rights are considered in local decision making. This element fulfills that requirement. It is​

divided into two major sections. The “Policies” component, Part A, contains goals, objectives, and policies.​

The “Supporting Data and Analysis”, Part B, provides background on the element.​

​

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES​

​

GOAL​

The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will respect judicially acknowledged and​

constitutionally protected private property rights.​

​

Objective 1​

In accordance with Florida Statues §163.3177(6)(i), the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District shall​

consider the following rights in local decision making:​

​

Policy 1.1: The right of a property owner to physically possess and control his or her interests in the​

property, including easements, leases, or mineral rights.​

​

Policy 1.2: The right of a property owner to use, maintain, develop, and improve his or her property​

for personal use or for the use of any other person, subject to state law and local​

ordinances.​

​

Policy 1.3: The right of the property owner to privacy and to exclude others from the property to protect​

the owner’s possessions and property.​

​

Policy 1.4: The right of a property owner to dispose of his or her property through sale or gift​