Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
…I was wondering if anyone was awake?
-
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
Is this the fight Disney was waiting for? Isn’t the Districts job to manage water canals and garbage trucks? If the district starts getting crazy does this give Disney the legal battle they want? *edit* What a mess.
Ayla
Well-Known Member
And now the real fight begins...Disney better pin those (non-censored word edited out by mod) to the wall.
Last edited:
I feel like this is what they were waiting for. @Sirwalterraleigh thoughts?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ayla
Well-Known Member
I sincerely hope you're right.
Figgy1
Premium Member
A serious question. If all they're supposed to/going to do is run a municipal district (fix roads, issue permits, provide safety) why would they need that type of preemptive fire power?
That’s my question too, shouldn’t they be worrying about what they’re actually responsible for and not “big bad Disney”?
Figgy1
Premium Member
Another question: Are they planning on going outside of their scope? What can they actually do according to the new charter that they would need that type of representation?
Just a guess. They probably want full control over all aspects of the district, including the aforementioned Developer Agreement that guaranteed rights of Disney to land in the District.
Tweet for reference:
flynnibus
Premium Member
Well to be honest.. we don't know exactly what these prior agreements cover. It's not a stretch to assume the agreements are setup to usurp the things the district does have in their domain... hence the reason for them.
Or maybe they are carte blanche handoffs... that are a superset of everything the district has in scope, etc.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I haven’t had a chance to look at the agreements beyond the bit shared by Bob Hazen.
It looks like we now know why there was a sudden urgency regarding the long delayed Comprehensive Plan. It seems Disney and the District essentially entered into a contract to lock down that plan. If so, this seriously blunts the best avenue of the Board to interfere in Disney’s content. Requiring development review (zoning review) would have been the most normal, backed by precedent way for the Board to get involved in what Disney is doing at Walt Disney World. Development review is the process at the Disneyland Resort that killed the Eastern Gateway. Yes the District controls building approval and code officials do technically have wide latitude, but “This doesn’t fit the character of our community” is not considered a valid reason to deny a building permit.
Again, without know the specifics, I find the claim of the agreements being illegal dubious. This was done over months, all well before the District was reconstituted and the previous board likely prohibited from entering into such agreements. This was done when the state’s position was that the District was going to be dissolved. I don’t know what would have prohibited the District from entering such an agreement. Master development agreements are not unusual. We don’t see attractions at Universal Orlando Resort and SeaWorld Orlando go through development review because of such agreements. Even at the Disneyland Resort, projects that have come since the Eastern Gateway was killed such as Avenger’s Campus, Mickey and Minnie’s Runaway Railroad, Downtown Disney redevelopment and the new Disneyland Hotel DVC tower did not go through development review because they were within the boundaries of Disney’s agreement with the city where Disney has wide latitude to develop as they desire without city review. The argument would have to be that the District sidestepped the counties’ future authority, but it’s a process that was done in the open and the counties didn’t object. It could definitely be interesting litigation see an argument that something done in public was actually secret because it didn’t involve people involved in a secret, rushed process.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
While it seems like something that can be described as a clever trap, I really don’t think that was the case. I think it was just a hedge to lock down the status quo as a wide reaching contingency plan. District goes poof? The counties inherent an agreement and don’t have to spend resources on the matter. District changes in some unpredictable way and they can’t just pull the rug. District is apathetic and disfunction and there’s a plan. It covers bases and secured what Disney wants, development control.
The threatened litigation is not a good fight for Disney. The Board is going on a spending spree and using Disney’s money. A win for Disney also doesn’t undo the underlying problem. Right off the bat this new Board has shown that they are up for big, expensive fights. The escalation is continuing.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Except it was done before. If it was setup to usurp anyone it was Orange and Osceola Counties.
Last edited:
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I don’t know the legal angles available…plenty of older, wiser members here can do that (but not NEARLY as funny…)
But given company history, their place in todays entertainment market, and Bob iger’s 100% board unchecked, carte Blanche ego…
…they have to respond.
Now…I wouldn’t be shocked if Bob thinks he can dodge if - like Slaphead - because he doesn’t want blame and can skate (fans have allowed him never to account for clear errors for 20 years…cause it’s all Eisners fault…to this day
)…but I bet it isn’t gonna break that way.
But what do I know? Nothing. Justice has spoken (after they got done taking a show show this morning with their Minnie’s Bowtique Loofa
)
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Directly, it should have none. It’s more a question of how aggressive the Board wishes to be as there are ways they can impact the process.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
They kinda' did and that's what started the ball rolling for the subject of this thread.
See the problem?