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

CentralFLlife

CentralFLlife

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
They can also still do things like fire plan reviewers to drag out the permitting process.
Click to expand...
They could do this to a point. If they don't provide a level of service above & beyond what the local building departments do, then the CFTOD's building department could be absorbed by the local departments. This is why RCID had such a strict building code & inspection/permitting process, they had to set it at a level beyond what Orange County's building department could operate at.
lazyboy97o said:
Or send in the fire department to aggressively enforce the Florida Fire Prevention Code.
Click to expand...
They already do this & have for years.


All this is just a way for Disney to extend the fight until Desantis is gone & a friendlier governor is in place. Then RCID will be reinstated and everything will be back to the status quo.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
I think they still very much deserve the criticism. Disney remains silent on the supposed instigating issue which the state is set to expand through rule making authority.


I really don’t think they were. This agreement would have kept things in place if the District was devolved to the counties.
Click to expand...

lazyboy97o said:
This still isn’t necessarily a happy ending. The Board currently seems willing to spend Disney’s money litigating the land development agreements. They can also still do things like fire plan reviewers to drag out the permitting process. Or send in the fire department to aggressively enforce the Florida Fire Prevention Code. Or exercising their new powers regarding ride safety.

This agreement would have committed the counties to a level of service they were likely to not want to maintain. It would have staved off the apathy or disfunction of a split board. It impairs but does not stop a hostile board.
Click to expand...

I think you're reading this one wrong. This was a major move for Disney and really strips a lot of leverage that the new board had, and prevents some of the worst outcomes.

You're correct that the board can still make things unpleasant, but now anything they do will appear petty and Disney will have a lot more ammo for proving harm.
 
J

jpeden

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
lazyboy97o said:
This still isn’t necessarily a happy ending. The Board currently seems willing to spend Disney’s money litigating the land development agreements. They can also still do things like fire plan reviewers to drag out the permitting process. Or send in the fire department to aggressively enforce the Florida Fire Prevention Code. Or exercising their new powers regarding ride safety.

This agreement would have committed the counties to a level of service they were likely to not want to maintain. It would have staved off the apathy or disfunction of a split board. It impairs but does not stop a hostile board.
Click to expand...

Disney is spending this money with or without the lawsuit since it’s based on taxes and fees levied by the district. That money is gone from their balance sheet - it doesn’t matter what’s done with it and I promise you they don’t care if the district gets drawn into a legal battle they’re (the district) going to lose.

I imagine (although I could be wrong) this becomes the back door lawsuit they need to invalidate the entire takeover.
 
J

jpeden

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Bob Iger today btw:

everything emperor GIF
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
jpeden said:
Does this give Disney a legal back door to invalidate the entire law? Basically the lawsuit or contract would have been unnecessary if the district hadn’t been dissolved. The dissolution of the district can now be shown to cause actual, tangible potential harm to the Walt Disney Company.
Click to expand...
No, it is not a way to invalidate the change to the district. The contract was entered into before the law existed. That the district was not dissolved means there was no harm created by dissolution. Disney winning an ensuing legal battle with the district just results in the contracts being upheld as valid. The state is not a party to the litigation and the issue is not the law, it somehow being declared invalid would almost certainly be a prime example of inappropriate judicial overreach.

These types of agreements are not unusual or unique. The chances of getting them declared a harm to the landowner who entered into the agreement not only of their own accord, but often at their request, would be almost nonexist. This is why another try at a legislative solution would be so challenging as the potential collateral damage would be enormous.

If anything, these agreements do what state lawmakers and leaders have claimed as their goal. Disney is now on a more even footing like Universal and SeaWorld who have similar agreements that allow them to also avoid development review in their respective jurisdictions.
 
Kamikaze

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
LittleBuford said:
From the article:

Among other things, the agreement spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or “fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.”​
​
That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document.​

Is this intended as trolling? Doesn’t such obvious mockery (I assume that’s what it is) weaken Disney’s case if the agreement is challenged in court?
Click to expand...
Its actually a thing - really only used by old school lawyers & the Bar Exam:

Royal lives clause - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Which I see someone has updated.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
CentralFLlife said:
They could do this to a point. If they don't provide a level of service above & beyond what the local building departments do, then the CFTOD's building department could be absorbed by the local departments. This is why RCID had such a strict building code & inspection/permitting process, they had to set it at a level beyond what Orange County's building department could operate at.
Click to expand...
That is not true. Reedy Creek Improvement District’s authority over building was not delegated from the counties. There was absolutely no way it could be devolved to the counties as the municipalities also had that authority over their incorporated land.

There was also nothing that tied the EPCOT Building Code to whatever code was being enforced by Orange County. At the time of the District’s creation, the state of Florida did not require local governments to adopt or enforce a building code. When the state did require local governments to adopt a building code in 1974 one of the model codes they could adopt was the EPCOT Building Code.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
jpeden said:
I imagine (although I could be wrong) this becomes the back door lawsuit they need to invalidate the entire takeover.
Click to expand...
How? The state would not be a party to the litigation. Disney would also be the defendant, not the state. In order to get the law overturned means someone with standing needs to challenge the validity of the law. The District seeking to nullify a contract doesn’t do that.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Kamikaze said:
Don't mince around semantics. It would be DeathSantis ordering anything. The 'board' are his puppets.
Click to expand...
It’s not just semantics. The actual specifics of who is what and differences between de facto and de jure have been important to this subject the entire time. It’s important to understanding how Reedy Creek Improvement District was originally conceived and worked. Now it is important to understanding who would be taking action against whom.
 
LittleBuford

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Kamikaze said:
Sorry, I meant edited the wiki. Looks like one person 'The Inedible Bulk'.
Click to expand...
Interesting! The self-appointed editors of Wikipedia move fast!

Something I've noticed is that the version of the clause in the RCID agreement goes much further than the version described in the Wikipedia article and the piece shared earlier by @Chi84. The RCID agreement gives the timeframe as "(21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III" (emphasis added), whereas the usual form of the clause refers to the last living descendent alive at the time of the document's drafting. Does anyone know if the RCID version, which could in practice mean forever, is an accepted variant?
 
CastAStone

CastAStone

5th gate? Just build a new resort Bob.
LittleBuford said:
Interesting! The self-appointed editors of Wikipedia move fast!

Something I've noticed is that the version of the clause in the RCID agreement goes much further than the version described in the Wikipedia article and the piece shared earlier by @Chi84. The RCID agreement gives the timeframe as "(21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III" (emphasis added), whereas the usual form of the clause refers to the last living descendent alive at the time of the document's drafting. Does anyone know if the RCID version, which could in practice mean forever, is an accepted variant?
Click to expand...
So the first clause says it’s valid in perpetuity. The backup clause says in case that’s ruled invalid, then the Royal thing. If the rule against perpetuities is found to apply here, it would be in the form of how it’s always applied, which is a living person’s death plus 21 years. The way you’re reading it IS a perpetuity, or at least likely to be one.
 
UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
LittleBuford said:
Interesting! The self-appointed editors of Wikipedia move fast!

Something I've noticed is that the version of the clause in the RCID agreement goes much further than the version described in the Wikipedia article and the piece shared earlier by @Chi84. The RCID agreement gives the timeframe as "(21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III" (emphasis added), whereas the usual form of the clause refers to the last living descendent alive at the time of the document's drafting. Does anyone know if the RCID version, which could in practice mean forever, is an accepted variant?
Click to expand...

It is worded a bit strangely, but I assume they meant for it to have the same effect as the usual form.

Otherwise it's a clear violation of the Rule Against Perpetuities and would be unenforceable.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom