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

flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
This is just more 'decoupling' of the District's activities from Disney's interests. District gets to make noise about it (just like they made noise about creating 'missing' policies the district didn't have)... but it's not really all that foul or vengeful. It's tearing up the cozy relationship between the company and the district under the guise of 'fairness'.

What benefit did the District really have to be the conduit for those services?
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
Eh?

This makes no sense. The county still has jurisdiction here as they always have had.
Click to expand...
The counties do not just provide services within municipalities. They have to be contracted to provide those services.

Here’s an example from last year where a town’s police force quit. The city wasn’t able to just expect the county to show up and do their policing for them. They had to pay for the service.

www.clickorlando.com

Officer resignations leave this Florida town without a police force

All six members of the Melbourne Village police force resigned this week, leaving the town without an effective agency starting Friday, officials said.
www.clickorlando.com www.clickorlando.com
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
mmascari said:
Is that who reponsds today then?

Why doesn't the county simply repond to all police calls everywhere then? Couldn't they already do that?
Click to expand...
Yes, the counties respond today within the cities because they are contracted to provide that service. They don’t just provide those services within Orlando or Kissimmee or any other municipal entity responsible for policing.

In practice this doesn’t really mean they won’t show up because the different entities all tend to have various assistance agreements.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
They paid for the service - but it's not a service they the District is obligated to offer.

Don't confuse "they paid the bill" with "they were owed it"
Click to expand...
The municipalities are obligated to provide the service. It was one of their municipal responsibilities the District handled on their behalf.

CaptainAmerica said:
I think(?) the complaint isn't so much about the number, but that the police were used exclusively at Walt Disney World and not other locations in the district?
Click to expand...
What other locations? Services contracted for by the District covered the entire District.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
Yes, the counties respond today within the cities because they are contracted to provide that service. They don’t just provide those services within Orlando or Kissimmee or any other municipal entity responsible for policing.

In practice this doesn’t really mean they won’t show up because the different entities all tend to have various assistance agreements.
Click to expand...
If they repond because of the contract and the contract is cannceled, wouldn't that mean they'll no longer repond?

My understanding of mutual assistance agreements is that they need to actually be mutual. That someone with a police force isn't going to maintain a mutual assistance agreement with someone who doesn't have a police force. Since that's not mutual anymore, that's just providing a free service.

lazyboy97o said:
The counties do not just provide services within municipalities. They have to be contracted to provide those services.
Click to expand...
So, how much (if any) of the district is NOT within a municipality?
Is CFTOD talking about cancelling all police contracts or just some?
Is it correct that today, neither municipality has a police force or contract?
That the district handles providing police service for all the area within the district?

Assuming they're cancelling all police contracting for the area within the district, that sounds like the district abandoning that responsibility. Assuming they can make that decision unilaterally, the adjustment would be for another entity to pick up that responsibilty. Since we've said that the county will not provide policing within a municipality for free, there's only two options left. Each municipality could form it's own police force. Each municipality could contract for a police force. The second just shifts the payer from the district to the municipalities.

If the district is abanding responsibilty and pushing it back onto the municipalities, that just shifts it around within things that while technically matter, in the abstract they're all still Disney. Important from a legal and cash flow stand point, not so much in the grand scheme of things.

If they do it haphazardly with no real plan and just a hard cutoff, it'll create some lawless chaos as the municipalities scramble to sign their own contracts for service.
 
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
castlecake2.0 said:
Side note, the blessing of the board members every meeting feels inappropriate at a government meeting
Click to expand...

It is common and legal for board meetings throughout the US. Antidisestablishmentarianism does not go over freedom of speech is the reason. Oddly as it may seem to some.
Paritcularly because as a teacher I am not trusted to allow/endorse, or practice that free speech in a classroom, but board meetings typically begin with them.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
mmascari said:
Is that who reponsds today then?

Why doesn't the county simply repond to all police calls everywhere then? Couldn't they already do that?
Click to expand...

Who responds is a different topic vs "Is that just a lawless intersection?" - The law of the city, county, state all still apply, and the state and county still have jurisdiction to enforce their laws.

Who "services" the area is a function of the delegation of responsibility and funding of it. When a municipality with policing responsibility is created (like a city), the city takes that responsibility, funds it, and services it with either its own resources or contracting it out.

Because the city is chartered to do it, the county doesn't intend to provide those services by default, because that first line of responsibility has been assigned to the city. This doesn't mean the county doesn't work there or doesn't have any jurisdiction, it just means the county isn't going to scope its work to cover an area someone else is already tasked to cover.

TLDR - all that is just about who feeds the budget that the police rely on.
 
Surferboy567

Surferboy567

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
There it is! The District contracts with the counties for law enforcement because the cities having their own police departments would be incredibly unpopular. Disney isn’t going to go without a police presence and that municipal police forces are essentially a non starter. Well played.

Also have to love that they’re literally “defund[ing] the police” and even calling it waste.
Click to expand...
Can they just “do“ this without Disney’s approval? How would something like this even work? I imagine this could be added to the suit and also highlights the need for an injunction.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
The counties do not just provide services within municipalities. They have to be contracted to provide those services.
Click to expand...

To clarify - the county has authority to enforce the law and does - the county doesn't default to provide services for an area that has already been delegated to a municipality. The post was "is this a lawless intersection" -- No its not.

Will the county expect to be paid over time if a chartered city doesn't meet it's obligation and tries to free load on the county? Yes
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Surferboy567 said:
Can they just “do“ this without Disney’s approval? How would something like this even work? I imagine this could be added to the suit and also highlights the need for an injunction.
Click to expand...
Yes they get to manage the affairs of the District as they decide.

Again, a temporary injunction is to prevent harms likely to occur in the very near term and which cannot be easily remedied after the fact. Disney and/or the cities covering a bill can be remedied later.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
Who responds is a different topic vs "Is that just a lawless intersection?" - The law of the city, county, state all still apply, and the state and county still have jurisdiction to enforce their laws.
Click to expand...
They're related though. The whole thing is a huge social contract that we all agree too, mostly.

Something being against the law only matters if someone actually enforces that law. If nobody enforces it, only the social contract of everyone following it volunteerily is left to enforce it. Depending on the thing they'll turn out differently with no enforcement or even with who steps in to enforce it.

With no district and no municipality funding and servicing the area, and the county not wanting to provide services for free since they are not budgeted and set up to provide them. What's enforced will become murky.

If someone were to go on a violent rampage in Disney Springs, I'm sure the county police force would respond. Funding or not, they're not going to just ignore that.

If someone is driving recklessly or causes a minor accident with no injuries, the stakes are signifigantly lower. The county could easily ignore that.

The effect of a "no turn on red" sign is almost exclusively based on the social contract, with some amount of enforcement encouraging that. Remove that enforcment by not funding it, and the social contrct will decline quickly, as a right on red is legal in many many instances. Likewise, the infraction isn't going to rise to the level that unfunded unplanned police force is going to go out of their way to deal with it.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom