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

[Chi84]

I haven't dug into the details here so (seeing your occupation as well), I'm talking high level. But, while they normally would never carry weight outside of padding out your arguments in the initial claim/motions/briefs, we are starting to get into bad faith contracting, conflicts of interest, and (remote but possible) even tortious interference (assuming there was anything pending - not likely).

The most likely, rather, is a public policy argument. If there is a change pending of this nature with that level of attempted insulation and removal of power without ability to modify would set that up more than usual. Especially for development, as this could have much wider sweeping implications for other development situations. A court (especially one sympathetic to Desantis) could easily find the chilling effect there grounds on public policy to at least invalidate the term of this contract and inability for the future board to reclaim powers it would rightfully have via the establishment of the district.

Again, not saying these are likely to win. Rather, this is a tough ball (speaking nicely) usage of legal loopholes and capabilities. And, if those cases are decided in favor of "creativity" by big companies with major legal departments, I tend to find that does not benefit society at large very well down the line when that case law becomes precedence. And, while this would normally settle out of court 100% guaranteed, I wonder if this one may go all the way through given the public eye.

Legal nerding over. Please feel free to DM me if you'd like to chat more, without everyone else glazing over.

No I think you clarified what you meant. I would be surprised if much more comes of this but who knows.

 

[BrianLo]

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.

Absolutely. I am/was mostly being facetious in my comment.

It is however a large and frankly hilarious gotcha. It will probably agitate an already overly aggressive board, but at least the true goal of content moderation is more of a financial and/or minor nuisance than an actual inevitability.

 

[castlecake2.0]

I want to know what the board wanted to control so bad. In the end, the main point of the district was provide municipal services to the area, which it will still be doing. So why are they so against this?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I want to know what the board wanted to control so bad. In the end, the main point of the district was provide municipal services to the area, which it will still be doing. So why are they so against this?

There were open statements that they wanted to control Disney’s content. Development review would have been a powerful tool to achieve those goals, at least at Walt Disney World.

Other terms also constrain how the District acts regarding those services.

 

[Mr. Stay Puft]

I want to know what the board wanted to control so bad. In the end, the main point of the district was provide municipal services to the area, which it will still be doing. So why are they so against this?

Exactly, and the statements about them wanting to regulate Disney's entertainment content and what they do in the parks is telling. It could be that plus development on land that technically isn't Disney owned or forcing through land purchases via eminent domain. I suspected the board might want to do things like try to force Disney to allow guest to bring guns on property (being the board is stacked with conservatives). Disney must have thought so too, hence the language in the contract about gun stores and such.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It should probably be mentioned that Disney having aesthetic control over government projects around Walt Disney World is not new or unique. Even the Army needs Disney’s permission to change the look of Shades of Green. That’s right, the US Army, operating on land owned by the Department of Defense, needs to seek Disney’s permission to do certain things.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

How is this creative or novel? What loopholes were used? These types of agreements are specifically authorized by state law.

To say it a different way - to use very strong deference of contracting to insulate powers for a private institution in an effort to limit the powers rightfully given to a district's leadership. It simply sets up a potential legislative intent argument for the statute.

I'm not saying that is the right or wrong interpretation. Rather, there are facts here to set up that argument, should a party with standing want to advance it.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Hey, everyone. I think it's important we all take a breather and reflect on the one thing that has been revealed today. In fact, it's the only thing that I take away from this thread with over fifty thousand posts, and it's this:

England doesn't have a king.

 

[Brian]

Hey, everyone. I think it's important we all take a breather and reflect on the one thing that has been revealed today. In fact, it's the only thing that I take away from this thread with over fifty thousand posts, and it's this:

England doesn't have a king.

The CFTOD board would like a word with you.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Hey, everyone. I think it's important we all take a breather and reflect on the one thing that has been revealed today. In fact, it's the only thing that I take away from this thread with over fifty thousand posts, and it's this:

England doesn't have a king.

Long live the King of Canada!

 

[mikejs78]

solely about the circumstances of a pseudo-public entity intentionally abandoning its authority and rights to a private organization, where there was an arguable (meaning you could make the argument) demonstrable conflict of interest between the parties involved.

Except this type of arrangement is common in FL, specifically enabled by FL law, and is something that is in place for other theme park operators in the state.

 

[castlecake2.0]

Long live the King of Canada!

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Except this type of arrangement is common in FL, specifically enabled by FL law, and is something that is in place for other theme park operators in the state.

Yes. But it's important to remember - a court is not typically in the business of determining if the arrangement itself is good or bad. They can get involved if the circumstances around the formation of the arrangement are sufficiently problematic enough to challenge the contract's enforceability. That (obviously) gets very complicated based on many, many circumstances. But, if a court says it's ok to enter into an agreement in xyz circumstances (in decided case law), it means, in theory, that can be done in the future in similar circumstances. And, judges will look to that "legacy".

 

[LittleBuford]

View attachment 707300

Despite my earlier pedantry, even I have to acknowledge that the long-obsolete title (now misnomer) "King of England" somehow sounds much more natural than the current and actual title "King of Canada" (at least to non-Canadians).

 

[Zummi Gummi]

 

[UNCgolf]

It depends on the case. When I say public policy, I mean the legal theory of interfering with something that would normally be handled between private parties. You are 100% right that there are many laws that are more dangerous. I'm talking solely about the circumstances of a pseudo-public entity intentionally abandoning its authority and rights to a private organization, where there was an arguable (meaning you could make the argument) demonstrable conflict of interest between the parties involved.

A court would never decide whether the terms of the agreement were in the public's interest. Rather, if the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement would be significantly suspect enough that the court would need to step in to limit or invalidate the contract as a matter of pubic policy - such that other similar situations would not be incentivized in all circumstances.

They could find either way. They could also do a very narrow opinion saying it's ok in this exact circumstance, but not generally (or vice versa). I'm simply saying the circumstances and involvement of the public agencies like this could open the door - especially for a judge that is sympathetic to it. Rather than it being a clear and decisive win for Disney with no chance of a challenge.

I'm also an attorney.

My thinking here is that it's such a unique situation that it's not applicable to basically any other municipality (and thus really has no overarching public policy concerns), and it would be easy to narrowly tailor an opinion.

That said, you can never truly know how a judge will decide until it's issued.

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I'm also an attorney.

My thinking here is that it's such a unique situation that it's not applicable to really any other municipality (and thus really has no overarching public policy concerns), and it would be easy to narrowly tailor an opinion.

That said, you can never truly know how a judge will decide until it's issued.

Totally. I think we're talking past each other.

I'm arguing that there is a pathway here, especially if a judge wants to. Your argument that this could be easily tailored (or even dismissed) is equally possible, if not more probable. It's just not a shut case, should someone choose to make something of it with a potentially sympathetic judge (as you were saying here).

 

[drnilescrane]

Totally. I think we're talking past each other.

I'm arguing that there is a pathway here, especially if a judge wants to. Your argument that this could be easily tailored (or even dismissed) is equally possible, if not more probable. It's just not a shut case, should someone choose to make something of it with a potentially sympathetic judge (as you were saying here).

The good news is the CFTOD just hired Guliani level talent that bills at Avenatti rates.

 

[Rich Brownn]

All I can think of is Elenor in "The Lion In Winter" saying 'Now I've got you, got you' (If you've seen the film you can hear it in Katherine Hepburns voice. If you've never seen it --- do!)

 

[Rob562]

All of this reminded me of the end of Mad Men season 3. Stuck with employment contracts in a situation they don't want to be in, the partners convince Lane Pryce to fire them. He uses the fact that their head office is in London to their advantage by sending the telegram after close of business Friday there. That way they fly under the radar until someone finds out on Monday morning.



-Rob