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

[Tha Realest]

It wasn't until the board did something (I don't remember what) that Disney filed its federal lawsuit raising every challenge and requesting every type of relief possible under law (that's what lawsuits do).

The “did something” was declare the 2023 developer agreements null and void. Which Disney and the CFTOD agreed to do in the settlement agreement.

 

[Chi84]

The “did something” was declare the 2023 developer agreements null and void. Which Disney and the CFTOD agreed to do in the settlement agreement.

Right. What’s changed is any motivation to hurt Disney. Those are the developer agreements to be negotiated before Disney agrees to abandon its appeal.

 

[drnilescrane]

The “did something” was declare the 2023 developer agreements null and void. Which Disney and the CFTOD agreed to do in the settlement agreement.

Which the developer agreements did exactly what they were meant to do - at best, lock in the existing development rights. At worst, muddy up the waters so much it tied the districts hands until cooler heads prevailed.

 

[mmascari]

The “did something” was declare the 2023 developer agreements null and void. Which Disney and the CFTOD agreed to do in the settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement also included negotiating a new developer agreement. Presumably one that Disney will be happy with and that hasn't been declared invalid by the legislature.

Disney might not have been happy with the change to CFTOD, but they were willing to accept it with the developer agreement in place. One presumes they'll get their concerns addressed in the new agreement and be willing to accept CFTOD under those conditions.

I disagree with that business decision, as I think it leaves to much always in a state of possible change and uncertainty. Of course, I don't run Disney. Clearly Disney expected the now invalid agreement and the new agreement being negotiated to be good enough to accept CFTOD replacing the old RCID representation structure. This feels like a short sighted decision to me.

 

[MR.Dis]

Right. What’s changed is any motivation to hurt Disney. Those are the developer agreements to be negotiated before Disney agrees to abandon its appeal.

Do you not believe that an announcement would of been made if not an understanding of what those new developer agreements would state? It seems in your posts that you want to desperately believe that Disney won in all this. Like in most compromises, both parties Lost--and both parties won. Only time will tell how all this pans out. Remember, it was not that long ago that Disney and the State of California were at odds. Disney did a lot of hard work to get on Newsome's good side and now they are working together on a major expansion.

 

[Chi84]

Do you not believe that an announcement would of been made if not an understanding of what those new developer agreements would state? It seems in your posts that you want to desperately believe that Disney won in all this. Like in most compromises, both parties Lost--and both parties won. Only time will tell how all this pans out. Remember, it was not that long ago that Disney and the State of California were at odds. Disney did a lot of hard work to get on Newsome's good side and now they are working together on a major expansion.

The parties likely saw no benefit in making an announcement about the content of yet-to-be-negotiated developer agreements. Why would they do so other than providing more grist for the mill of people determined to argue over who won a settlement.

I'm not sure what posts you're referring to but I'm well aware of the nature and limitations of settlement agreements. There are some people who believe they know how the settlement is going to work out for Disney in the future, but I'm not one of them.

What specific "hard work" did Disney do to get on Newsome's good side. I'm not familiar with the subject.

 

[Dcgc28]

The parties likely saw no benefit in making an announcement about the content of yet-to-be-negotiated developer agreements. Why would they do so other than providing more grist for the mill of people determined to argue over who won a settlement.

I'm not sure what posts you're referring to but I'm well aware of the nature and limitations of settlement agreements. There are some people who believe they know how the settlement is going to work out for Disney in the future, but I'm not one of them.

What specific "hard work" did Disney do to get on Newsome's good side. I'm not familiar with the subject.

I'm curious too because they definitely wanted to pull corporate jobs to Florida, until all this happened

 

[flynnibus]

Why does the Comprehensive Plan still need to be changed?

Because it is done so regularly anyway.. and is overdue.

 

[flynnibus]

All kinds of stuff happened until the reason for the fiasco no longer existed.

The parties settled, which is what happens in the vast majority of civil lawsuits. As in any settlement, the cases are not resolved on their merits. People can speculate til the end of time on what could/would have happened, but no one knows.

I still say you are glossing over it the reality that it was two different fights.

The Don't Say Gay response is what drew Disney to the front... It's not what they were actually fighting over or settled over. So the Don't Say Gay law isn't really what Disney was staying in the fight for, nor a reason for them to settle.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Right. What’s changed is any motivation to hurt Disney. Those are the developer agreements to be negotiated before Disney agrees to abandon its appeal.

Only if you want to pretend that DeSantis was the singular source of motivation. He was not. He was merely a single instance of a broader philosophy. There are plenty of true believers out there and they have been given the single that Disney will comply and thus should not remain a target. DeSantis thought it was a winning strategy because there is actually a growing audience for this type of government action.

Because it is done so regularly anyway.. and is overdue.

It is done through a process of review and evaluation. Simply stating up front that it needs unspecified change was the problem and remains an unanswered question. It is also contrary to the idea of a development agreement that locks in what exists.

 

[Chi84]

I still say you are glossing over it the reality that it was two different fights.

The Don't Say Gay response is what drew Disney to the front... It's not what they were actually fighting over or settled over. So the Don't Say Gay law isn't really what Disney was staying in the fight for, nor a reason for them to settle.

I 100% agree, except for the statement that the response “drew” Disney to the front. It was the MacGuffin.

 

[Chi84]

Only if you want to pretend that DeSantis was the singular source of motivation. He was not. He was merely a single instance of a broader philosophy. There are plenty of true believers out there and they have been given the single that Disney will comply and thus should not remain a target. DeSantis thought it was a winning strategy because there is actually a growing audience for this type of government action.

Seems like a win all the way around then. The believers no longer see any reason to target Disney and DeSantis won‘t try that again. He needs the money as well as the believers and the money doesn’t like this strategy.

 

[Dranth]

Do you not believe that an announcement would of been made if not an understanding of what those new developer agreements would state? It seems in your posts that you want to desperately believe that Disney won in all this. Like in most compromises, both parties Lost--and both parties won. Only time will tell how all this pans out. Remember, it was not that long ago that Disney and the State of California were at odds. Disney did a lot of hard work to get on Newsome's good side and now they are working together on a major expansion.

We already have history in this case where an agreement was reached and when the news broke the deal fell apart because it looked like the state was caving and that is political poison. There can be no agreement without the state looking like it won. With that in mind why would Disney say anything other than there was a settlement and they are happy to move on, win or lose.

We'll know for sure once the new agreements are in place but would anyone really be surprised if the new ones are basically the same as the old?

 

[Disstevefan1]

Move on and Make Walt Disney World Great Again!!

 

[Tha Realest]

Do you not believe that an announcement would have been made if not an understanding of what those new developer agreements would state? It seems in your posts that you want to desperately believe that Disney won in all this. Like in most compromises, both parties Lost--and both parties won. Only time will tell how all this pans out. Remember, it was not that long ago that Disney and the State of California were at odds. Disney did a lot of hard work to get on Newsome's good side and now they are working together on a major expansion.

If I had to guess, the new DA will look a lot like the 2023 version, with the exception that CFTOD will have more input in the process.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Seems like a win all the way around then. The believers no longer see any reason to target Disney and DeSantis won‘t try that again. He needs the money as well as the believers and the money doesn’t like this strategy.

The true believers believe in using the power of government to forcible shape culture. They will have every reason to return to Disney.

 

[Chi84]

The true believers believe in using the power of government to forcible shape culture. They will have every reason to return to Disney.

I think that fight will have to wait until it takes place. What are you specifically foreseeing?

 

[mkt]

Right. What’s changed is any motivation to hurt Disney. Those are the developer agreements to be negotiated before Disney agrees to abandon its appeal.

Clearly the state and governor believe that they will lose on appeal, so it's in their best interest to sign a new developer agreement with Disney, paint it as a "victory against woke corporations, and move on with this.

 

[Chi84]

Clearly the state and governor believe that they will lose on appeal, so it's in their best interest to sign a new developer agreement with Disney, paint it as a "victory against woke corporations, and move on with this.

I agree except I don’t think either party is sure of what will happen on appeal. It’s just in the interest of both to be done with this.

 

[mkt]

I agree except I don’t think either party is sure of what will happen on appeal. It’s just in the interest of both to be done with this.

Clearly they think there's a big chance of losing, otherwise they would let it go to trial and win there.

It's not like the state is paying the legal bills.