-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
SourcererMark79
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Amusing, yes. Priority....?
Oh I definitely agree that it is not a priority. Right now the priority seems to be staying in the press while disparaging Disney and the old district.
SourcererMark79
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
And having Florida taxpayers pay for the lawyers, its truly a zero win situation in that regard.
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
Maybe they know something
Can someone explain these to us?
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
From a strictly lay person point of view it looks like a combination of what the........... and pulled from their collective behinds, then throwing it all against the wall to see what sticks. Hopefully one of our legal eagles can shed some light on it
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Thoughts on the District’s response:
- In their argument for a stay they state the outcome of no other cases would depend on the federal case proceeding. This seems to contradict their reasoning for the state case, that this is an issue that is likely to reoccur.
- They point to the forum selection clause of the restrictive covenants, which they claim has never legally existed.
- They claim public interest should not factor after highlighting it as a reason for why the state case is continuing.
- They seem unprepared to deal with the RCID’s original charter and how it provided for certain unique processes. That’s less important here but it’s likely important to Disney’s defense in the state case.
- They imply the development agreement rezones the District which isn’t true as the Development agreements locked in the established zoning, zoning that remains largely the same from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and still has not been changed by the District.
- As in so many of their statements, there is just complete denial that for all intents and purposes Disney is their constituent.
- The actual timeline regarding the agreements and HB 9B is predictably absent.
- They sure weren’t acting like their legislative declaration was just an opinion with no actual validity when they passed it.
- Now SB 1604 is just fine and dandy. They weren’t so sure in state court. If the law is valid as they argue then there is no need for the state case.
- “purported retaliatory motive”
- They point out that SB 4C applied to other districts but conveniently ignore that they were reconstituted largely as-is which of course also undermines the argument that SB 1604 has general application.
Thank youThoughts on the District’s response:
- In their argument for a stay they state the outcome of no other cases would depend on the federal case proceeding. This seems to contradict their reasoning for the state case, that this is an issue that is likely to reoccur.
- They point to the forum selection clause of the restrictive covenants, which they claim has never legally existed.
- They claim public interest should not factor after highlighting it as a reason for why the state case is continuing.
- They seem unprepared to deal with the RCID’s original charter and how it provided for certain unique processes. That’s less important here but it’s likely important to Disney’s defense in the state case.
- They imply the development agreement rezones the District which isn’t true as the Development agreements locked in the established zoning, zoning that remains largely the same from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and still has not been changed by the District.
- As in so many of their statements, there is just complete denial that for all intents and purposes Disney is their constituent.
- The actual timeline regarding the agreements and HB 9B is predictably absent.
- They sure weren’t acting like their legislative declaration was just an opinion with no actual validity when they passed it.
- Now SB 1604 is just fine and dandy. They weren’t so sure in state court. If the law is valid as they argue then there is no need for the state case.
- “purported retaliatory motive”
- They point out that SB 4C applied to other districts but conveniently ignore that they were reconstituted largely as-is which of course also undermines the argument that SB 1604 has general application.
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
I mean, it should be pretty easy to prove this right? We have so many statements of them basically digging their own grave and flat out admitting to it.
“purported retaliatory motive”
Surferboy567
Well-Known Member
“The governor welcomes Disney’s surrender on all of its claims challenging his legislative acts. As for the claims Disney continues to press, Disney lacks standing to sue the governor for those actions and has not overcome his sovereign immunity for the reasons discussed above.”
Source: Paragraph directly above the conclusion.
Source: Paragraph directly above the conclusion.
flyakite
Well-Known Member
NOTICE OF MEETING
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 23, 2023 at 9.30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at 1900 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. At that time and in addition to other business on the agenda, the Board of Supervisors will conduct a reading and public hearing on and consider for adoption Resolution No. 647. A RESOLUTION OF THE CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT ADOPTING A PROCUREMENT POLICY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear at the public meeting and hearing to be heard with respect to the proposed resolutions. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of Supervisors with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
BY: Rocky Haag, Clerk
Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
(I guess Rocky is a new clerk)
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 23, 2023 at 9.30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at 1900 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. At that time and in addition to other business on the agenda, the Board of Supervisors will conduct a reading and public hearing on and consider for adoption Resolution No. 647. A RESOLUTION OF THE CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT ADOPTING A PROCUREMENT POLICY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear at the public meeting and hearing to be heard with respect to the proposed resolutions. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of Supervisors with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
BY: Rocky Haag, Clerk
Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
(I guess Rocky is a new clerk)
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Thoughts on the State’s response:
TL;DR:
- Interesting to learn that the executive branch of Florida apparently does not enforce state laws.
- HB 9B repealing portions of the old structure being completely and totally separate from the new structure it enacts seems trying to have your cake and eat it too.
- Claims the governor’s ability to suspend and remove board members is not really a formal power over the Board, which is quite the claim given the governor’s willingness to replace other officials as recently as this week
- The governor’s own statements and published words are now “allegations”
TL;DR:
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
What's your take on the state claiming that enjoining them from enforcing 9B (and potentially 4C) doesn't mean a rollback to a pre-4C state?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That’s a question better asked of someone else.
Thankfully, being completely uninformed doesn’t stop people from opining. If true, it seems like that’s de facto dissolution and the nightmare that comes with it.
And now for my thoughts on early Icelandic literature…
pdude81
Well-Known Member
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
Seems quite ironic (if not moronic) them trying to deny any responsibility to enforce state laws while also citing laws that would enforce state laws. It's quite laughable and I hope a judge will rule accordingly. Seems he's trying to parse the law and re-define his duty?
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Umm, seems to be the basis of an indictment defense this week? I'm not confident it will prevail in the final judgement
I believed it so it was real to me and OK to do?
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Probably, but the truth is real whereas misleading thoughts spoken as if it were fact, is still incorrect. The part that settles all that is that the burden is on the state to prove that the person knew it was wrong but said it anyway. We've had a lot of that around lately. Evidence is the key here in determining the truth along with common sense. What if I woke up one morning and was positive that I was the King of Egypt, that alone wouldn't make me the King of Egypt, proof and evidence would determine that.
GCTales
Well-Known Member
True.
Going down a rabbit hole and somewhat off topic, so I will drop after this.
In your example. If you truly believed you were the king of Egypt, it may not be perjury but would be factually Inaccurate.