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

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Remember that little side discussion about sides? This is it in action. I don’t have anything so I’m going to misrepresent what happened and make up a bunch of stuff to validate the idea that something improper happened. I’m not saying it as fact, I’m just exploring hypotheticals and “asking questions”.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Having worked in large corporations that would often do dirty deals like this appears to be, I can assure you that they would have also left a trail of emails and texts between the folks on the board and Disney's folks. If Florida starts digging I'm betting money it wouldn't take long to find some smoking texts and emails that they colluding together which could open both Disney and the board members to criminal prosecution. I expect Florida to now start going over everything with a fine tooth comb. Sometimes corporations forget that even if they have great lawyers, when they off the government they are fighting an adversary that can also change the rules and make any victory you have worthless. It is always best to stay on good terms with any government you have to deal with... Disney is only going to cause themselves more headaches than they already have.
There is absolutely nothing illegal or dirty about a corporation proposing a contract to the local government. The board had every right to reject the contract. It was approved by the board in a public meeting. Nothing hidden. Nothing dirty about it. Someone will probably suggest that the board was controlled by Disney, which is true, but that was done by design and passed by the legislature 50+ years ago and not seriously challenged for 50+ years. So there’s no way to accuse Disney of wrongdoing over that point. The board is no longer controlled by Disney so I’m sure the new board will not sign any similar type contracts. Problem solved there ( if there even was one). In contract law you can’t go back and invalidate previous contracts signed by the government every time someone new takes control. That’s not how it works. The new government must honor the old contracts. Happens all the time in every level of government.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
I'm assuming that the actions taken by the board would not have been taken had the change of the law in Florida not scared the hell out of Disney. I'm betting that now that the AG of Florida has started digging, that they won't stop until they find something.
That doesn’t matter. It’s not illegal to take advantage of laws and loopholes before they are changed. Even if you are only doing so because you know the law will soon be changed.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
It depends. If one of those board members asked or hinted at needing a job then it could be considered a bribe depending on the response from Disney. Never underestimate the stupidity of people to say the wrong thing. I've seen a manager in a company I represented flat out brag about how successful he had been at paying doctors to prescribe the companies new medication. He thought the company would be pleased with him, he didn't realize that some of the doctors had patients that were reimbursed by the federal government through medicare which meant he was violating federal law. His boasting to get a raise in the annual review gave the feds more evidence against the company that cost him his job and the company several million in fines. When you have more laws on the books than anyone could ever hope to know you can be sure that most everyone even lawyers and judges break some and if a the government decides they are going to get you they will probably find something if they look hard enough.
This sounds like wishful thinking. If something comes out that proves Disney paid a bride to a board member to get them to sign the contract then I’m sure it could be investigated and the contract may be overturned, but why would they need to bribe a board they controlled?
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
You honestly think there is a chance in hell that Disney with all its in-house legal firepower, and the bankroll of a Forture 50 company and access to the beat outside counsel on the planet, and months of time to plan given the time from when this moronic endeavor was started to when when they were going to implement it, missed a timing/notice requirement?
no, the OP asked what was left presuming the contracts won’t be stricken:

“1) the contracts themselves are unenforceable, or 2) that the district exceeded their authority to enter into them, what is the most likely challenge path forward.”

I said “possibly” would be if there was some deficiency in the proper notices or whatnot. I don’t think that’s likely at all, but assuming the contracts are air tight - and they appear to be - that’s the only play left given known (or unknown) facts.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
This sounds like wishful thinking. If something comes out that proves Disney paid a bride to a board member to get them to sign the contract then I’m sure it could be investigated and the contract may be overturned, but why would they need to bribe a board they controlled?
Exactly. Plus it’s not exactly like the soon to be unemployed board members would exactly be on DeSantis side to begin with. It wouldn’t take a bribe to get them to vote in Disneys favor.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Someone will probably suggest that the board was controlled by Disney, which is true
Lots of people like to say this as if it is something bad. Based on the rest of the context in those stories.

However, that’s effectively designed to mislead by removing the nuance.

The RCID board was controlled by those who elected them. Representing the will of the voters that they govern. That just happened to almost exclusively be Disney.

It’s funny when the new board says they represent the voters, when clearly the do not represent the voters they have governance over.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I'm also not saying anything about ex post facto rules or laws. I'm saying that Florida can come up with new laws and rules that would hurt Disney going forward.
I agree with this. While I think overturning the contract itself is going to be very challenging at best there are other ways to try to hurt Disney.

The bigger question is how far will the legislation want to take it. You’ve seen the quote here from some members of the legislature which lead me to believe they would like to move on from this or at least table the issue until later:

“I think we’re going to take a look at it, I’m sure … to see what they actually did,” Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, a Naples Republican, told reporters. “It’s too early to do anything right now and we’ve got a lot on our plate for the rest of this Session so I don’t anticipate doing anything in the near term.”

Disney is still the largest single sight employer and the catalyst for the state‘s most important industry. The company just increased its minimum wage to $18/hr which is 65% above the state minimum wage and more than double the Federal rate. The legislature should be concerned with more important things than DeSantis’s personal grudges. So while the RCID thing wasn’t directly detrimental to the state economy, going after Disney in other ways could be. Disney is still moving forward with moving thousands of higher paying jobs to the state (avg salary a lot higher than $18/hr) so there’s much to risk by attacking the company further.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
That's the humor in it. What they did may be completely legal, but if their was anything that could be construed as a bribe or payoff by Disney to any board member voting on it, then you just broke the law.
Said another way….what Disney did with this contract was perfectly legal based on contracts law so the only Hail Mary attempt to invalidate it is to find some smoking gun that Disney bribed a board member to approve the contract. So yes, if they find that hypothetical smoking gun then sure it could be invalidated. So let the AG request public records and let them investigate and if/when they find nothing then move on.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Lots of people like to say this as if it is something bad. Based on the rest of the context in those stories.

However, that’s effectively designed to mislead by removing the nuance.

The RCID board was controlled by those who elected them. Representing the will of the voters that they govern. That just happened to almost exclusively be Disney.

It’s funny when the new board says they represent the voters, when clearly the do not represent the voters they have governance over.
And at the time everything was done, the state’s position was that Reedy Creek Improvement District was going to be dissolved. Land development regulation would have then become the purview of the cities, which were involved in this process. The cities set to inherit the land development agreement knew about it and helped craft it. And of course board members have now expressed a desire to not just undo the work of the cities and their elected officials, but go further and dissolve the cities.

The covenants are a bit different since they would have been assumed by the counties, maybe. The state had spend months failing to clarify how the dissolution they desired would work which cast serious doubt on the continuity of services.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
Again, you are assuming things you don’t really know anything about

With this subject that’s probably true of 99.9% of us, even those of us who are assuming Disney did everything right.

Outside a couple lawyers I don’t think any of us really understands the complexities of contract laws.

I’m hoping Disney did everything right but I’m not a lawyer so it’s a hope, not a fact.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
Said another way….what Disney did with this contract was perfectly legal based on contracts law so the only Hail Mary attempt to invalidate it is to find some smoking gun that Disney bribed a board member to approve the contract. So yes, if they find that hypothetical smoking gun then sure it could be invalidated. So let the AG request public records and let them investigate and if/when they find nothing then move on.
It would be great if the same attorney who suggested the royal lives clause left a “smoking gun” memo saying “everything we do must be in total compliance with the law and done with due notice to all parties involved.”
 

Dranth

Well-Known Member
Never say never, but they will likely find nothing. However, I still expect them to try and claim some out of context statement in some random email is “proof” of some wrong doing they will never truly be able to define. It is the standard playbook of late, make stuff up and confuse the issue because being honest about it would force them to backtrack and admit to all the mistakes and BS leading up to this.
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
Is he really “serving” his base when he knowingly, deliberately, and continually lies to them for profit? Pandering, sure, but I don’t think that’s serving. I certainly wouldn’t want Disney to adopt that model.
One customer bases’ lie is another customers bases’ truth.

Reality is somewhere in between.

And TWDC learning to serve its customer base has nothing to do with this.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
One customer bases’ lie is another customers bases’ truth.

Reality is somewhere in between.

And TWDC learning to serve its customer base has nothing to do with this.
Except in this case the lies can be proven to be lies. There’s really no room for debate on most of them. So it’s one customer bases lies and the other customer base is choosing to believe lies and ignore facts.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
The BBC isn't impartial, it only seems that way to people that agree with it. That is pretty much the way all news is. Whether it is done well or not, if you believed the narrative before they gave it you'll think it was impartial. Even when news claims to give both sides of a story they always present one side in a better light. Remember when they pull up those sound bites from experts or whoever, you never know how many others that went the other way were left on the cutting room floor.

The BBC does better than others, but I agree - there really as no such thing as unbiased media, and "better than others" is still no where near good enough.

Though with all media outlets, it goes deeper than just how they report on stories - anyone with an even slightly independent mind can at least detect the bias, whichever direction it goes. The really insidious thing right now is the selection of the stories to tell, period. It's what they choose not to report on that is often the most divisive - because instead of multiple biased takes to pick through, many people aren't hearing anything about it at all - and if they do come across it - "oh, that's from a (insert your bias) outlet" and it's completely dismissed.

It's happening across the board across the entire political spectrum, and it's why people feel like they live in two different worlds, because both are at the mercy of biased news. And then you have those of us who live in yet another third world - where we look at both worlds that are full of bias, think both are crazy in their own ways, and are largely just stepping back because, frankly, it's a full time occupation to keep up with it all. There is so much garbage everywhere, almost no one is addressing the actual day to day problems of most peoples lives, it's easier just to let them duke it out because unless you are lockstep 100% with either one, it's generally a futile waste of time as neither side wants anyone who isn't 100% committed to their ideology.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Never say never, but they will likely find nothing. However, I still expect them to try and claim some out of context statement in some random email is “proof” of some wrong doing they will never truly be able to define. It is the standard playbook of late, make stuff up and confuse the issue because being honest about it would force them to backtrack and admit to all the mistakes and BS leading up to this.
Proof that holds up in court is very different than proof in the court of public opinion. Even if there’s no actual proof it’s easy to say there was wrong doing and a portion of people will blindly believe it. A lot of people mostly believe what they want to believe
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Perhaps the only weakness on Disney's side is how RCID board of supervisors were elected. With RCID's original charter and the "one vote per acre" rule to elect board members, Disney fully controlled who served on the RCID board. All RCID board members had close ties to Disney. Effectively, Disney entered into a development agreement with themselves.

But all a scheme that is legal and proven. The Board is the board until invalidated otherwise.. so they are always going to be that legal entity... no matter who influences them or got them elected. So the fact it doesn't look like 'every other' election doesn't matter. What's next, the GOP controls a majority of constituents in a district, so any deals between government and a republican are now invaid because they made a deal with themselves?
 

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

Back
Top Bottom