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.
-
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
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.
mikejs78
Premium Member
They aren't insignificant, but I don't think they are even close to a majority of any voting block. In issue polling during the primaries, fighting "woke corporations" was pretty far down the list.
My guess is it will have a few cosmetic changes just to declare that it is different, which they will overemphasize and claim as more material than they really are.
mikejs78
Premium Member
Another thing to keep in mind. The only thing Disney stipulated to in dropping the suits is that the old developer agreement was invalid. Besides the federal suit, there is nothing precluding them from initiating new lawsuits on other matters if things don't go the way they expect.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It doesn’t have to be a winning issue and ignores its place as part of a larger philosophy that is actively being enacted at multiple levels. The mechanisms are in place and they are now open for use when desired.
That then starts the long clock again but now they have less protection. If anything, injunctions would prevent Disney from moving forward and not the District from enforcing changes to their regulations. It’s a lot easier to build something later than it is to tear it down.
Disney never wanted to be in that fight. They didn't fight the change to CFTOD on day one, just went with some mitigation measures. Disney isn't out to fight any larger philosophic battle. They are clearly perfectly happy to have some mitigation in place and then accept the loss of representation and the implications of that.
This is disappointing on both a general policy level and seems like a short sighted business level. From the Disney actions, they were only prepared to fight if they both lost representation and were unable to have any mitigations around the items they felt were important.
When they did bring the fight, it was reserved, in court, and understated. All of that was a business decision. Disney as a multi national entertainment and news corporation could have engaged in a much more public burn it all down leave no trace, salt the fields, ensure no one else ever tries again, public battle along with the court battle. That second one would have addressed the philosophic battle that governments don't come for the mouse this way. It would have been much more "interesting" to watch play out too.
As a person who doesn't have the same resources, it would have been nice to see Disney fight it that way, as it would stand up for everyone else too who doesn't have the same resources. They never did it though.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Wanna be more specific? Because the 2023 developer agreement basically forbid the district from doing any changes period from the existing Comprehensive Plan for everything it owned. There isn't much 'process' or input room there.. it basically just locked the district into what they already had.
What will happen now is a new Comprehensive Plan will be done (with likely lots of heavy handed input from Disney). But we don't know how far they will be willing to go with some additional developer agreement on top of it. Maybe Disney gets the DA to cover 'key' areas to be protected while leaving the rest of the District hands off. That would be very different from what the 2023 agreement was.
flynnibus
Premium Member
There was more than that. They waved everything with the prior suites including claims that COULD have been part of that suit. It was in a lot of ways a blanket immunity for both sides for the time period in question.
They not only gave up their developer agreement and restriced covenants... but also gave up the RCES contract lock up AND rolled back the 2022 changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
Disney gave up all the changes they pushed through leading up to the RCID takeover, drew an immunity box around the time period, and is promised a new Developer Agreement and accepts there will be a new Comprehensive Plan that is developed by the district.
Teleostei35
New Member
Nice summary
Chi84
Premium Member
That type of waiver is meant to prevent piecemeal litigation. It would only bar related claims that existed at the time and could have been raised in the suit. How are you thinking Disney would be harmed by this?
flynnibus
Premium Member
I only was responding to the comment "The only thing Disney stipulated to in dropping the suits is that the old developer agreement was invalid"
Chi84
Premium Member
Oh okay. I was asking in reference to your comment about it being a type of blanket immunity.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The development agreement didn’t prevent changes to the comprehensive plan. It just made them pointless since Disney is the overwhelming landowner.
Most of the district’s land is either infrastructure and/or conservation lands. Having that land developed would be a negative.
To what end does the district need to change the plan? This is still an unspecified end without an identified purpose. And no, just being something routine isn’t a good reason. It was just updated and is now rejected for unspecified reasons. Changes are also not arbitrary but supposed to reflect how a defined area has changed and is expected to change. The district is still going to be Walt Disney World and little else.
flynnibus
Premium Member
It should be evaluated and updated as the long range plans for the area evolve…. Which is why it’s basically their responsibility to do so and why it’s normal to do so on the long range timeline.
The 2022 version maybe incompatible with the new strategy. The 2022 version unlikely has anything worth dying on that hill for.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Yes, you evaluate first and then make changes. Not decide to make undisclosed changes and then work up a rationalization. There is nothing normal about chucking a very new plan for unspecified reasons. It’s a decade timeline that had just started, not a whenever there are new people timeline.
What new strategy? That’s the problem. The district has never actually identified what was wrong with the 2032 Comprehensive Plan other than they didn’t create it, they wanted to change the development regulations to use them as a censorship tool and their big public non-issue (lie) of affordable housing.
Think they’ll ever change the district name back?
flynnibus
Premium Member
We also know the 2022 version was kinda out of order in its timing to. Again, if its not worth clenching to and you have a deal in motion… this isn’t a fight. That’s why one should assume there are deals already in flight.
A disney and cftod collaboration that didn’t exist in 2022… a corporate long range plan that has changed in the last few years… maybe even an approach to how things are done since the players have changed too.
Things certainly aren’t the same as they once were. They are signaling both sides are ready to write a new baseline between them.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Why are you calling it the 2022 plan? There was a 2020 Comprehensive Plan and a 2032 Comprehensive Plan.
The actual work of the 2032 Comprehensive Plan was not just rushed through. It was finalized to ensure the area had an actual zoning plan lest the area suddenly find itself without.
Assuming deals are in place means there are serious issues. One, comprehensive plans are not supposed to be secret. Two, they are not something that should be completed so quickly. The assumption is that recent personnel changes were actually part of settlement but any new planning changes would have included those very persons who were removed.
Nothing about Disney’s corporate strategy changes requires a change to the comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plans aren’t that specific. Disney isn’t changing Walt Disney World to something other than a theme park resort. This is further evident that Disney is able to move forward in the mean time under the 2020 plan.
Again, the district has not identified what has changed or what was problematic with the 2032 Plan. Just having different leadership is not supposed to change a comprehensive plan. Do they not intend to be a tourism district? They’re okay with the 2020 Plan and much of that was retained with the 2032 Plan. It should be incredibly easy to point to one of the few changes that is so egregious that it requires chucking the whole thing. The original board hated the plan for illegitimate purposes and you’re trying to whitewash that same desired outcome as totally normal when it is not.