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

[sblank]

I hadn't considered this before. A bit hyperbolic, but looking past that, it's an interesting possibility to consider.

lol, they commissioned a $100K+ "report" to paint Reedy Creek as a corrupt cesspool. There's no way they would sit on something like that.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Some of Mr. Vahle’s comments were rather dark and unexpected:

"We are pleased to put an end to all litigation pending in state court in Florida between Disney and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. I hate Figment. This agreement opens a new chapter of constructive engagement with the new leadership of the district and serves the interests of all parties (I hate the Imagination pavilion) by enabling significant continued investment and the creation of thousands of direct and indirect jobs and economic opportunity in the State."
Jeff Vahle
President of Walt Disney World

Not sure why he needed to air personal grievances like that.

 

[wdwmagic]

DeSantis points to Universal's expansion as catalyst for Disney's future expansion in Florida​

DeSantis points to Universal's expansion as catalyst for Disney's future expansion in Florida

DeSantis points to Universal's expansion as catalyst for Disney's future expansion in Florida

www.wdwmagic.com

 

[UNCgolf]

Going to try and keep this more general this time so as to avoid the great cleansing but it all depends on what they got on the back end of this.

What we do know:
- A new head of the board was suddenly brought in who, while still a doner, at least has more in-depth knowledge to how a district like this should be run and has a history of working with Disney.
- Changes were made to the bill that started this fight to begin with.
- Disney is not dropping the federal appeal which, despite the belief of some on here, they had a good chance to win given how the appeals courts have treated decisions coming from that judge of late. Anyone who doesn't think the state was looking at that trend when thinking about negotiating is just wrong.

I wouldn't call it a win for Disney but if they get a slightly altered version of the development agreement pushed through, they will take that as it locks down the board in a pretty significant way. If the new agreement isn't to their liking, then the lawsuit gets picked back up. If the board breaks the new agreement after it is signed, a new lawsuit is filled.

I also wouldn't call if much of a win for the state either. They get to brag about a win publicly but don't get anything they claimed to have wanted when they started all this. The only thing they are ending up with is a governor appointed board that is bound by an agreement Disney must approve or we are back in court.

It's not satisfying to any of us who think what happened was an abuse of power but from a business and political perspective, it makes sense for both sides to move on as it wasn't helping either side.

The problem is that the development agreement doesn't exist in perpetuity. Even if they negotiate something they like re: the agreement, there's nothing stopping a future version of the CFTOD from significantly interfering with Disney's plans whenever it's time for a new development agreement (from what's been revealed thus far, at least).

 

[UNCgolf]

I hadn't considered this before. A bit hyperbolic, but looking past that, it's an interesting possibility to consider.

If Disney was afraid of that they would have never filed a lawsuit in the first place -- it's not like discovery is something that would be sprung on them out of the blue. You know it's coming.

 

[Drdcm]

Some of Mr. Vahle’s comments were rather dark and unexpected:

"We are pleased to put an end to all litigation pending in state court in Florida between Disney and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. I hate Figment. This agreement opens a new chapter of constructive engagement with the new leadership of the district and serves the interests of all parties (I hate the Imagination pavilion) by enabling significant continued investment and the creation of thousands of direct and indirect jobs and economic opportunity in the State."
Jeff Vahle
President of Walt Disney World

Not sure why he needed to air personal grievances like that.

He just sort of slipped those in there didn’t he lol

 

[Unbanshee]

I hadn't considered this before. A bit hyperbolic, but looking past that, it's an interesting possibility to consider.

How about the opposite? This settlement was reached right before depositions were scheduled for the CFTOD board

 

[Brian]

If Disney was afraid of that they would have never filed a lawsuit in the first place -- it's not like discovery is something that would be sprung on them out of the blue. You know it's coming.

Good point.

How about the opposite? This settlement was reached right before depositions were scheduled for the CFTOD board

Could be! It might have been the final push CFTOD needed to settle.

 

[lazyboy97o]

On that issue it’s much more near term and likely where the real concessions are. My guess is disney gets to write the new plan with the behind the scenes folks and the puppet board just pushes it through. But by making it all look like normal vs contested… both sides get some win.

Florida wants ghe business and looks like the victor… they can claim they are the basis for all this growth potential… and disney gets what they need to drive the corporate engine.

That’s just busywork then with no purpose while opening up the development regulations and processes to change.

No, I don't mean the actions of the board. I mean the negotiations leading up to and implementing the settlement agreements as well as possibly the terms of the settlements themselves.

My comment was about the comprehensive plan. They can’t have future changes to that be a secret part of the settlement.

 

[flynnibus]

I wouldn't call it a win for Disney but if they get a slightly altered version of the development agreement pushed through, they will take that as it locks down the board in a pretty significant way. If the new agreement isn't to their liking, then the lawsuit gets picked back up. If the board breaks the new agreement after it is signed, a new lawsuit is filled.

The comprehensive plan is not like the developer agreement that was in contention here. The Comprehensive Plan is the outline of the development and land management of the property for a period of time. It is not untouchable, nor immune for regular modifications and or exceptions. There is no basis to sue over the board just doing normal board things.

The developer agreement on the other hand was a modification (through overlay) to the process to constrain changes and who would have to consent to them. That was tight, and why it was such a point of contention.

The Comprehensive Plan is more like long term planning for zoning, development, and land management. A framework.. an outline. It's more of a hurdle to do things if it conflicts with an ask, it's not necessarily a commitment to do anything.

I don't subscribe at all to Disney can somehow reneg on a settlement agreement for the board failing to meet secret objectives that are not on paper with the public government.

 

[lentesta]

I'm surprised Disney is doing this, and I think it's a mistake.

This feels close to Disney just throwing in the towel on the whole issue. We obviously don't know the specific details of the proposed settlement yet -- so there could be mechanisms in place that protect Disney -- but from what's been revealed thus far DeSantis/CFTOD are getting just about everything they'd want and Disney is getting almost nothing.

I can't imagine recommending this if I was part of Disney's legal team, absent underlying issues we don't know about (which is certainly possible).

Shareholders care about revenue, not the Constitution. So even if Disney was on the right side of the issue and the law, a large-enough government can delay longer than management can stay elected.

 

[lentesta]

…everybody knows she does her best work as part of team

I'll get the t-shirts printed.

 

[Dranth]

The problem is that the development agreement doesn't exist in perpetuity. Even if they negotiate something they like re: the agreement, there's nothing stopping a future version of the CFTOD from significantly interfering with Disney's plans whenever it's time for a new development agreement (from what's been revealed thus far, at least).

True, but if they can get one that covers the next 10-20 years then I am sure they will take that and work through back channels between now and then to secure a better setup for the board, including reinstating a local vote. If they can't secure it for long enough or leaves too much room for interference, they say no thanks and resume the appeal.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The problem is that the development agreement doesn't exist in perpetuity. Even if they negotiate something they like re: the agreement, there's nothing stopping a future version of the CFTOD from significantly interfering with Disney's plans whenever it's time for a new development agreement (from what's been revealed thus far, at least).

They last for decades but any new board can make the same baseless claim that the situation has changed and seek to have the agreements voided. The whole reason the board went with the ab initio argument is because they never officially identified any actual issues with the comprehensive plan or new policy goals that required changing the plan. The board didn’t like the agreements because they prevented development review which they are now free to initiate whenever they desire.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'll get the t-shirts printed.

I’ll pay top dollar

 

[lazyboy97o]

The comprehensive plan is not like the developer agreement that was in contention here. The Comprehensive Plan is the outline of the development and land management of the property for a period of time. It is not untouchable, nor immune for regular modifications and or exceptions. There is no basis to sue over the board just doing normal board things.

The developer agreement on the other hand was a modification (through overlay) to the process to constrain changes and who would have to consent to them. That was tight, and why it was such a point of contention.

The Comprehensive Plan is more like long term planning for zoning, development, and land management. A framework.. an outline. It's more of a hurdle to do things if it conflicts with an ask, it's not necessarily a commitment to do anything.

I don't subscribe at all to Disney can somehow reneg on a settlement agreement for the board failing to meet secret objectives that are not on paper with the public government.

The development agreement locked in the development regulations that were based on the comprehensive plan. The development agreement did not change processes, it prevented them from being changed. Now they can be changed.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Shareholders care about revenue, not the Constitution. So even if Disney was on the right side of the issue and the law, a large-enough government can delay longer than management can stay elected.

And yet it seems Disney didn’t even get the district to stop being part of the property assessment suits.

 

[flynnibus]

That’s just busywork then with no purpose while opening up the development regulations and processes to change.

Which is why I don't think there this is a win or a significant reason to settle for Disney. I'm trying to see how you can find any win they are after. Maybe top down they were told to get out of the fight and focus on the near term only. Maybe getting the next 10yrs lined up for the comp plan and a gentleman's agreement is all they could get while meeting the mandate to get out of the fight. It's the only area right now where motivations line up from both sides... of course DeSantis wants major expansion of business, and so does Disney. But by giving DeSantis the cosmetic win, they get DeSantis to back off the pressure and let him choose the narrative.

Iger didn't appear to be in this for the victory for corporations or America... he's got near term issues to deal with. Getting this off the table, even in an imperfect way, may just have been the concession a short-timer is willing to make so he can fight the bigger fires.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Shareholders care about revenue, not the Constitution. So even if Disney was on the right side of the issue and the law, a large-enough government can delay longer than management can stay elected.

Yeah…and I’m starting to wonder if we’ve really misread what “shareholders” are gonna do next week also?

This was settled now because of that…make zero mistake

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Unless I’m missing something here…they lost those development agreements…for all intents and purposes?