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

[flyakite]

This is what the WESH reporter said on television during his newscast:

THE AGREEMENTS WERE MADE IN THE WEEKS RIGHT BEFORE MEMBERS WERE REPLACED BY THE PEOPLE PICKED BY GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS BECAUSE OF THE NEW LAW PASSED LAST YEAR. BOTTOM LINE, THE AGREEMENTS PUT DISNEY IN CHARGE OF ALMOST ALL DECISIONS ON THE TERRITORY IN REEDY CREEK FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE BOARD CAN DO ABOUT IT.

 

[mmascari]

I’m trying to piece together a map of what land the District actually owns.

The GIS link from the RCID website shows exactly who owns what stuff. You probably need to zoom in to see. If you look at the parking garages in Disney Springs, you can see they are on District land. You can also see most of the major roads are District land.

The District can’t just all of a sudden decide they want to build a Desantisland Motor Inn on the side of World Drive.

Maybe not "on the side", but if they're really careful, they could build Desantisland Motor Inn elevated directly over World Drive. They could even change the road to build nice custom on and off ramps for it too. At least for parts of World Drive the District owns.

Presumably, they could also build it on top of those Disney Springs parking garages. Maybe tear down one and replace it with a hotel. Confined to the same footprint.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think I know what they are really after. Its not control of the utilities. Its the development rights. Disney currently has for all intents and purposes a monopoly on just about everything in that district. Their hope is to force Disney to slowly pull back its control of the region thus opening it for outside companies to build on former disney property without having an agreement with disney. Those who would wish to build in that region will have to go thru the district and in turn thru DeSantis who will likely be offered generous campaign contributions for access. For all intents and purposes, he is attempting to create a revenue stream to fund his run for the presidency. This may seem like a win at first as there will be closer hotels to disney as well as restaurants and other things but anything outside this new commercial district will likely just lose money as now they have to compete with new companies right in the heart of disney itself. Of course this could be just speculation on my part but it makes sense that the one thing disney fears losing most is land rights. They have tons of untapped property just waiting to be used but they just leave it empty where is DeSantis is more than happy to build on that if it will bring in jobs temporarily.

I don’t think this is what you describe. The District doesn’t really have significant land holders as an owner that it could sell to developers. Even if they did, or intended to use eminent domain to acquire the land for such a scheme, it seems like that would still be possible so long as the new development fit within the established zoning framework.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If the state controls RC district does that mean they can allow commercial/residential development there?

The district already allowed commercial and residential development. The District doesn’t have large undeveloped holdings it could sell to developers, it would have to first acquire such land.

 

[mikejs78]

This is what the WESH reporter said on television during his newscast:

THE AGREEMENTS WERE MADE IN THE WEEKS RIGHT BEFORE MEMBERS WERE REPLACED BY THE PEOPLE PICKED BY GOVERNOR RON DESANTIS BECAUSE OF THE NEW LAW PASSED LAST YEAR. BOTTOM LINE, THE AGREEMENTS PUT DISNEY IN CHARGE OF ALMOST ALL DECISIONS ON THE TERRITORY IN REEDY CREEK FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE BOARD CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Well played Disney, well played.

 

[Stripes]

Is the agreement online? I’d love to read through it.

 

[mikejs78]

I struggle to see what standing the new board has to sue and on what grounds they would try to sue on. There's essentially a contract in place and contract law puts the burden of proof on someone trying to avoid a contract. Essentially the only way they could do it is if the contract was not legal at the time it was signed, or if there was a breach of contract.

In this case, the agreement looks to be legal according to Florida law. As was said earlier, these types of agreements are common, and are specifically called out in Florida law.

As far as breach of contract, they would have to show that Disney did not live up to any provisions in the contract that place constraints around Disney.

Other than PR, making a lot of noise, and wasting a lot of money ( which is probably the point ), I don't see this having any teeth.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

In one way I’m thinking Disney was waiting for the board to do something malicious so they would have better grounds to sue.

 

[ToTBellHop]

I struggle to see what standing the new board has to sue and on what grounds they would try to sue on. There's essentially a contract in place and contract law puts the burden of proof on someone trying to avoid a contract. Essentially the only way they could do it is if the contract was not legal at the time it was signed, or if there was a breach of contract.

In this case, the agreement looks to be legal according to Florida law. As was said earlier, these types of agreements are common, and are specifically called out in Florida law.

As far as breach of contract, they would have to show that Disney did not live up to any provisions in the contract that place constraints around Disney.

Other than PR, making a lot of noise, and wasting a lot of money ( which is probably the point ), I don't see this having any teeth.

Isn’t what is legal according to Florida law now decided by partisans?

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Isn’t what is legal according to Florida law now decided by partisans?

Very much so.

 

[flyakite]

After looking at the information in the updated BOS package on the Reedy Creek site, I am wondering where the money is coming from to pay these attorney firms. Those are some significant costs based on their quotes.

 

[Stripes]

After looking at the information in the updated BOS package on the Reedy Creek site, I am wondering where the money is coming from to pay these attorney firms. Those are some significant costs based on their quotes.

The money is coming from Disney. Disney is now paying to sue themselves. And they have no say in how that money is spent.

It’s disgusting.

 

[lazyboy97o]

In one way I’m thinking Disney was waiting for the board to do something malicious so they would have better grounds to sue.

Which doesn’t fix anything. It just means you’re paying to be both plaintiff and defendant. The Board seeking to get back authority in a way that was not considered by their expensive Special Counsel when drafting the legislation is not necessarily grounds for Disney to sue and doesn’t undo the source of the problem. The Board is free to engage in malicious act after malicious act.

 

[pal w]

Can I say I told you so... In a nother vlog site I been saying this could cost Disney billions... I said they ( a rubber stamp from the new board) could pull eminent domain on undeveloped land, start out by saying it for a new roads for traffic from off property like over near AK lodge then sell the area beside to road for development under fair value clause and before Disney knows it a strip mall or worst could be across the road to the AK area...

 

[mmascari]

I am wondering where the money is coming from to pay these attorney firms.

Out of the RCID budget and cash reserves obviously.

They can offset this new spending by collecting additional money (based on whatever is possible via taxes or fees), spending less elsewhere (reducing quality or level of other services to reduce costs), or borrow more money.

Those firefighters think they're getting a better contract with higher pay. Little do they know, they might reduce staffing instead to free up cash for lawyers. At least, that's one option that could happen.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Which doesn’t fix anything. It just means you’re paying to be both plaintiff and defendant. The Board seeking to get back authority in a way that was not considered by their expensive Special Counsel when drafting the legislation is not necessarily grounds for Disney to sue and doesn’t undo the source of the problem. The Board is free to engage in malicious act after malicious act.

I guess more or less of what I meant was, if Disney wants to sue on the grounds that the act of the legislature and this new Board is a violation/retaliation of their free speech, this is just giving them more ammunition.

 

[Stripes]

Buckle up.

 

[Vacationeer]

Page 41 of 563 from https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2020_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

Grey Public Facilities - could some be sold off to pay bonds?

 

[drnilescrane]

Disney also put in place restrictive covenants preventing the district from using district landholdings in any way that isn't consistent with their present use.

 

[lazyboy97o]

After looking at the information in the updated BOS package on the Reedy Creek site, I am wondering where the money is coming from to pay these attorney firms. Those are some significant costs based on their quotes.

And the Board is free to prioritize the use of funds. They can take funds intended for other uses and use them for litigation.