lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
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.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 & Statuteslaw.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.
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 It doesn’t provide for local governments to force housing to be built much less allow development agreements to be rescinded to implement such requirements.