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

[Tha Realest]

They can declare.it a failure, but I don't think they can do anything to change it without Disney's approval. It's a report, nothing more.

I’m not so sure of that. It seems to be within the CFTOD’s purview under state law to amend or revoke the developer agreement if they deem it a “failure.”

2021 Florida Statutes :: Title XI - County Organization and Intergovernmental Relations :: Chapter 163 - Intergovernmental Programs :: Part II - Growth Policy; County and Municipal Planning; Land Development Regulation (Ss. 163.2511-163.3253) :: 163.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

“Periodic review of a development agreement.—A local government shall review land subject to a development agreement at least once every 12 months to determine if there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. If the local government finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of the development agreement, the agreement may be revoked or modified by the local government.”

None of that language on its face requires input by Disney. Now, it’s a questionable proposition at best that there will be substantial competent evidence that Disney has failed to comply with the agreement, or that these moves won’t be viewed as pretextual. It’s also unclear that the CFTOD can unilaterally modify the agreement, or what happens if the agreement is revoked - do they default to the previous agreement? Lots of unknowns.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

I’m not so sure of that. It seems to be within the CFTOD’s purview under state law to amend or revoke the developer agreement if they deem it a “failure.”

2021 Florida Statutes :: Title XI - County Organization and Intergovernmental Relations :: Chapter 163 - Intergovernmental Programs :: Part II - Growth Policy; County and Municipal Planning; Land Development Regulation (Ss. 163.2511-163.3253) :: 163.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

“Periodic review of a development agreement.—A local government shall review land subject to a development agreement at least once every 12 months to determine if there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. If the local government finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of the development agreement, the agreement may be revoked or modified by the local government.”

None of that language on its face requires input by Disney. Now, it’s a questionable proposition at best that there will be substantial competent evidence that Disney has failed to comply with the agreement, or that these moves won’t be viewed as pretextual. It’s also unclear that the CFTOD can unilaterally modify the agreement, or what happens if the agreement is revoked - do they default to the previous agreement? Lots of unknowns.

I think any judge worth his or her salt would not agree that the agreement can be deemed a failure by either party before anything has even happened. I do think that if this does stand, they will play this card the moment a single thing goes awry.

 

[LAKid53]

Right. Has the AG retained outside counsel? I’m not sure where the state of FL is on the hook for the outside legal fees

If the attorney general decided that her staff doesn't have sufficient legal knowledge or experience to handle such a case, then the state would hire outside counsel. I can't remember if professional services are required to be obtained by bids. If so, then that RFP will be noticed, most likely in several major papers in the state and possibly others outside.

If the state hires the outside counsel, then the state, i.e., the attorney general's office, would pay. Which means Florida taxpayers (and visitors).

 

[LAKid53]

I’m not so sure of that. It seems to be within the CFTOD’s purview under state law to amend or revoke the developer agreement if they deem it a “failure.”

2021 Florida Statutes :: Title XI - County Organization and Intergovernmental Relations :: Chapter 163 - Intergovernmental Programs :: Part II - Growth Policy; County and Municipal Planning; Land Development Regulation (Ss. 163.2511-163.3253) :: 163.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

“Periodic review of a development agreement.—A local government shall review land subject to a development agreement at least once every 12 months to determine if there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. If the local government finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of the development agreement, the agreement may be revoked or modified by the local government.”

None of that language on its face requires input by Disney. Now, it’s a questionable proposition at best that there will be substantial competent evidence that Disney has failed to comply with the agreement, or that these moves won’t be viewed as pretextual. It’s also unclear that the CFTOD can unilaterally modify the agreement, or what happens if the agreement is revoked - do they default to the previous agreement? Lots of unknowns.

A tad difficult to deem a development agreement a failure prior to any of the work covered by the agreement happening.

 

[Tha Realest]

If the attorney general decided that her staff doesn't have sufficient legal knowledge or experience to handle such a case, then the state would hire outside counsel. I can't remember if professional services are required to be obtained by bids. If so, then that RFP will be noticed, most likely in several major papers in the state and possibly others outside.

If the state hires the outside counsel, then the state, i.e., the attorney general's office, would pay. Which means Florida taxpayers (and visitors).

The OP wrote, “DeSantis charging the state $1.9K per hour for his lawyers…”

None of us have seen any evidence of retention by the Governor or AG, certainly not to that specific amount. We know CFTOD has retained outside counsel, but 1) that’s not the Governor, and 2) that’s paid by the CFTOD.

 

[Tha Realest]

A tad difficult to deem a development agreement a failure prior to any of the work covered by the agreement happening.

I’m skeptical the evidence exists or that it withstand scrutiny. But the provision of the law does not require Disney’s assent.

 

[LAKid53]

Can someone translate this?View attachment 709474

Part of the meeting will be establishing rules on how the Board will conduct business within the parameters of the legislation creating it and outlining its duties and responsibilities. Very common after a new oversight board is established. And required by the Administrative Code.

Wonder if staff from either SFWMD or DEP's Orlando district office will attend. Any actions on the Comprehensive Plan would be of interest to either agency. And their staff will be experts on how rule making is conducted.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

DeSantis charging the state $1.9K per hour for his lawyers to investigate Disney who he called a "joke". The Yale undergrad/ Harvard MBA educated lawyer still upset by being outsmarted by Mickey Mouse is still trying to punish Disney. FL tax dollars hard at work. He seems clueless to realize that his two biggest and low paying industries- agriculture and tourism are the biggest drivers of income for the Sunshine State.

The guy went to Harvard and Yale yet recently claimed in an interview that he didn't know what 'sanctimonious' meant.

Another sign that he may play well in Florida state politics, but will likely get eaten alive once he gets to the big leagues when his opponents may push him on these kinds of statements. A taste of that seems to be playing out in this case, though unfortunately he can inflict a significant amount of damage on a business (or citizen) in Florida from his position as governor in retaliation for being made to look stupid.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Bellotti represents the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' attempt to limit corporate speech on a matter of public policy. In this case, it was the state legislature's desire to get a state personal income tax approved by referendum. These corporations very much were expressing their opinions on a matter that did not directly affect them.

Quoting from the first sentence of Wiki's article on Bellotti:

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time.​

Yes, I know, Wiki is not the best source but it tends to do a reasonably well job of explaining legal decisions in laymen's terms.

Disney not only stated their opposition to the law but also stated their intention to use company resources to oppose the law, similar to what happened in Bellotti.

Bellotti directly applies to what happened to Disney.

That same article discussed how it was a narrow case with a narrow ruling. There weren’t general, across the board bans on speech.

In the first half of the 20th century many cities and towns had at least two newspapers, typically with one being the Republican newspaper and another being the Democratic newspaper. In larger cities there’s be even more newspapers advocating for different groups and ideologies. Elias Disney was a reader of Appeal to Reason, a socialist newspaper.

Even Disney and its now subsidiaries engaged in political speech during this time you claim it was prohibited. Captain America Comics #1 somewhat shockingly featured Captain America punching Adolf Hitler on its cover in March 1941, months before Germany declared war on the US. Disney themselves, of their own accord, produced a number of cartoons related to the war, and the feature Victory Through Air Power which advocated for a very specific way of conducting the war. Later in the 50s, the Disneyland television show openly advocated for a US space program in its Tomorrowland series of episodes that began with “Man in Space.” These all occurred when you claim they would have been prohibited.

 

[LAKid53]

The OP wrote, “DeSantis charging the state $1.9K per hour for his lawyers…”

None of us have seen any evidence of retention by the Governor or AG, certainly not to that specific amount. We know CFTOD has retained outside counsel, but 1) that’s not the Governor, and 2) that’s paid by the CFTOD.

Normally, "his lawyers" is the attorney general's office as the AG represents the state in legal matters that the state would be a party to. I don't remember then governor Rick Scott hiring outside counsel in litigation regarding legislation requiring both social services recipients and state employees be drug tested. I know the governor's office does have counsel, but in matters like this, the AG is "the lawyer". Or it has been in the past.

 

[LAKid53]

I’m skeptical the evidence exists or that it withstand scrutiny. But the provision of the law does not require Disney’s assent.

No but Disney can sue as it potentially is an affected party by any changes to the Plan.

 

[Tha Realest]

No but Disney can sue as it potentially is an affected party by any changes to the Plan.

I think it can and would, especially if they’re not permitted to introduce evidence during any hearing where a finding of substantial evidence shows a failure to comply.

But the statute as written does not contemplate that Disney make such a finding, only that the local government does

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Why? They already have the structure....


View attachment 709462

Close 1 lane at a time to install the transponders/tag readers and plate readers…a day per lane…trust me, to make $$$, even in New Jersey, you’ll be surprised at how fast they can get it done…

 

[peter11435]

I think it can and would, especially if they’re not permitted to introduce evidence during any hearing where a finding of substantial evidence shows a failure to comply.

But the statute as written does not contemplate that Disney make such a finding, only that the local government does

They can, would, and should. And if there was not substantial evidence of failure they would win. I think you’re misunderstanding why that statute exists in the first place

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m not so sure of that. It seems to be within the CFTOD’s purview under state law to amend or revoke the developer agreement if they deem it a “failure.”

2021 Florida Statutes :: Title XI - County Organization and Intergovernmental Relations :: Chapter 163 - Intergovernmental Programs :: Part II - Growth Policy; County and Municipal Planning; Land Development Regulation (Ss. 163.2511-163.3253) :: 163.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

“Periodic review of a development agreement.—A local government shall review land subject to a development agreement at least once every 12 months to determine if there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. If the local government finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of the development agreement, the agreement may be revoked or modified by the local government.”

None of that language on its face requires input by Disney. Now, it’s a questionable proposition at best that there will be substantial competent evidence that Disney has failed to comply with the agreement, or that these moves won’t be viewed as pretextual. It’s also unclear that the CFTOD can unilaterally modify the agreement, or what happens if the agreement is revoked - do they default to the previous agreement? Lots of unknowns.

This doesn’t allow the local government to just decide that it no longer likes the agreement. The government has to determine that Disney isn’t doing what it agreed, which basically means that Disney isn’t building theme park and hotel type stuff and is instead building something completely different. They have to wait until Disney starts a new project and then determine that something like a new ride at an existing theme park is inappropriate and inconsistent with the agreement.

SB 102 also isn’t a way into reviewing the agreement. It doesn’t give local governments that sort of power. It would only potentially come into play if a developer (Disney in this case) decided they wanted to use the incentives to building housing in the zoning areas where it is now allowed (which would be most of Walt Disney World). It doesn’t provide for local governments to force housing to be built much less allow development agreements to be rescinded to implement such requirements.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They can declare.it a failure, but I don't think they can do anything to change it without Disney's approval. It's a report, nothing more.

It’s more than just a report. A comprehensive plan is the basis of zoning and land development regulations.

The big challenge though with declaring it problematic is that it was at least reviewed by DeSantis’ government. I’d have to double check, but I believe the comprehensive plan is a state requirement that the Reedy Creek Improvement District argued they were not required to follow but chose to do since they pretty much have to do the work anyway. This means it could be argued that approval was more a formality. Not really the best argument as it means DeSantis has to say his government wasn’t paying attention at the time.

 

[LAKid53]

It’s more than just a report. A comprehensive plan is the basis of zoning and land development regulations.

The big challenge though with declaring it problematic is that it was at least reviewed by DeSantis’ government. I’d have to double check, but I believe the comprehensive plan is a state requirement that the Reedy Creek Improvement District argued they were not required to follow but chose to do since they pretty much have to do the work anyway. This means it could be argued that approval was more a formality. Not really the best argument as it means DeSantis has to say his government wasn’t paying attention at the time.

A Comprehensive Plan is reviewed and signed off by cognizant state agencies. At the very least SFWMD & DEP. And possibly DACS and maybe even the counties.

If that's the tact DeSantis is going to take, then he's saying a large swath of HIS state government is incompetent. Furthermore, the EPA and Interior would be interested.

 

[Lilofan]

Close 1 lane at a time to install the transponders/tag readers and plate readers…a day per lane…trust me, to make $$$, even in New Jersey, you’ll be surprised at how fast they can get it done…

I’m not sure of toll transponder reader systems in FL. It can’t be worse than Maryland toll transponder systems. I drove thru the Baltimore MD tunnel on I-95 and I did not know all toll booths are no longer manned. I received a bill in the mail 5 months later. I mailed my check to PA who handled Baltimore toll payments? It took another 6 months until my check was cashed to pay my bill driving through the Baltimore tunnel.

 

[LAKid53]

Would anyone like to swing by? Know a journalist that might?

View attachment 709499

You don't have to "swing by". You can request the documents be emailed.

 

[Stripes]

You don't have to "swing by". You can request the documents be emailed.

I hoped so.