They are. The governor has the attorney general to represent the state.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
They are. The governor has the attorney general to represent the state.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
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
mikejs78
Premium Member
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.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
Jeez. Please stop with the who has a lawyer and who does not. It is fair to say everyone, in anyway associated with this, has secured legal representation (lawyered up). The lawyers are billing everyone diligently. It has gotten to the point where a program is needed to understand what lawyers and legal firms are representing what clients.
mikejs78
Premium Member
It's interesting that Belloti was decided by the liberal bloc of justices and Citizens by the conservative block. In any case, stare decisis would fall back to both of these as precident unless there was an overwhelming desire by a majority of justices to overturn both of these, and I don't see that with the current Supreme Court. At most I would see a likely 7-2 decision here in Disney's favor.
Can someone translate this?
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.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
“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.
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).
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
“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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
I’m skeptical the evidence exists or that it withstand scrutiny. But the provision of the law does not require Disney’s assent.
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
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.
No but Disney can sue as it potentially is an affected party by any changes to the Plan.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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