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

[GrumpyFan]

Still seems like a HUGE overreach and abuse of power.
I expect this will wind up in court very soon and I hope Desantis gets smacked down on it.

 

[tissandtully]

That's hyperbole but it really feels that way. Every single stupid idea, like adding tolls or using health regulations to screw with operations, was mentioned about 200-400 pages ago.

It seemed stupid when you consider a baseline level of rationality or decorum in government, but I'm happy to admit I was wrong.

Wouldn't be surprise behavior from a registered foreign agent that's on Twitter all day.

 

[castlecake2.0]

Why would this be the thing that gets Disney to take action? As of now the planning board is rather useless.

What do you think will be the final straw in escalations?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'd have to go back and review the legislation that created the new district and the board. If the legislation set forth the terms of members and how they are placed on the board, which such legislation typically does, the board itself has no legal authority to change that. I'm beginning to wonder about the 3 attorneys who sit on the board...

Wonder if Disney lawyers are just bidding their time, waiting for all the nonsense pronouncements from the board and governor to cease and then using those public statements as justification for a filing.

Would love to attend the meeting on the 19th, but have other obligations. Be nice if one of the local channels broadcasted it. Would make a nice diversion from the circus in Tallahassee.

The law gives the Board of Supervisors power to create a zoning commission and define terms of membership. It is not required nor any aspects prescribed.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

I think Disney's play at this point should be to put in to build something small, have the board disapprove it, and then build it anyway - making the board sue them to stop it. Then all of the shenanigans from the board and their boss will come to light in court.

 

[tissandtully]

I think Disney's play at this point should be to put in to build something small, have the board disapprove it, and then build it anyway - making the board sue them to stop it. Then all of the shenanigans from the board and their boss will come to light in court.

Yeah, I feel like we've reached the point of "what are ya gonna do about it?"

 

[GoofGoof]

Can any lawyers/legal experts explain this one?

DeSantis' Handpicked Reedy Creek Board Continues Blatant Power Grab, Introduces "Superior Authority" Amendment

According to documents reviewed by BlogMickey.com, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will introduce "superior authority"

blogmickey.com

It was discussed a few pages back. I think the general conclusion was this shouldn’t impact the existing contracts which are still valid but was a preemptive way to ensure Disney didn’t use the planning board or cities as a plan B should the state succeed in voiding the original contracts somehow.

 

[castlecake2.0]

It was discussed a few pages back. I think the general conclusion was this shouldn’t impact the existing contracts which are still valid but was a preemptive way to ensure Disney didn’t use the planning board or cities as a plan B should the state succeed in voiding the original contracts somehow.

And the cities have no recourse?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think Disney's play at this point should be to put in to build something small, have the board disapprove it, and then build it anyway - making the board sue them to stop it. Then all of the shenanigans from the board and their boss will come to light in court.

Planning approval is not required for all projects. That would first have to change and be honored by Disney.

The chances of getting architects, engineers and contractors (all of whom are regulated by the state) to proceed without permits is incredibly unlikely.

 

[Stripes]

It was discussed a few pages back. I think the general conclusion was this shouldn’t impact the existing contracts which are still valid but was a preemptive way to ensure Disney didn’t use the planning board or cities as a plan B should the state succeed in voiding the original contracts somehow.

It also strips the planning board of their responsibilities. Now the board itself will make the planning decisions. So they’ve undermined the power of the bureaucracy that just follows the rules and placed it in their (political) hands. This is step one for denying approval on a project that is allowed under the contracts thereby prompting a lawsuit from Disney.

But, I think they would’ve done this regardless of the contracts.

 

[Kamikaze]

I think Disney's play at this point should be to put in to build something small, have the board disapprove it, and then build it anyway - making the board sue them to stop it. Then all of the shenanigans from the board and their boss will come to light in court.

They want the state to sue them, not the other way around.

 

[Kamikaze]

Disney lawyers will be earning their fee on this one.

Good thing they're on retainer or staff.

 

[Stripes]

They want the state to sue them, not the other way around.

I don’t think they care either way.

 

[Kamikaze]

I don’t think they care either way.

They do. Very much. They want to be on the defensive so they can say they are only defending from the government infringing on their rights and limiting the way they do business.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Planning approval is not required for all projects. That would first have to change and be honored by Disney.

The chances of getting architects, engineers and contractors (all of whom are regulated by the state) to proceed without permits is incredibly unlikely.

Except I thought that was the change made by Disney with the contract with RCID that gave Disney final approval authority, regardless of what the District says.

 

[Stripes]

They do. Very much. They want to be on the defensive so they can say they are only defending from the government infringing on their rights and limiting the way they do business.

They can argue that point as a plaintiff as well. Disney also has a lot of power in the press.

They can control how they are portrayed.

 

[GoofGoof]

It also strips the planning board of their responsibilities. Now the board itself will make the planning decisions. So they’ve undermined the power of the bureaucracy that just follows the rules and placed it in their (political) hands. This is step one for denying approval on a project that is allowed under the contracts thereby prompting a lawsuit from Disney.

But, I think they would’ve done this regardless of the contracts.

The board itself makes all future planning decisions, but that doesn’t mean they no longer need to honor the existing contract. Going forward it’s a problem if Disney either loses that agreement or desires to amend it in some way but it’s unlikely to change anything right now. The board can certainly attempt to deny something covered under the existing agreement and then it ends up in court, but it’s a simple contract matter with lots of precedent. Unlikely the board wins that.

I think the main thing that happens with this is the planning board is essentially dissolved and that board did require some level of experience. The powers go to the district board who collectively have no experience. How does that matter in practical terms? I don’t think we know but it seems unlikely the planning board would have gotten away with ignoring the wishes of the district.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What do you think will be the final straw in escalations?

I have no idea. I still think Disney has capitulated more than they have stood up. The contracts were a smart play but the immediate situation continues to escalate along with the bigger issues on which Disney remains mum. I’m not entirely convinced they wouldn’t be open to “compromises” on the agreements.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They do. Very much. They want to be on the defensive so they can say they are only defending from the government infringing on their rights and limiting the way they do business.

The district and state have options that would require Disney to respond.

 

[Kamikaze]

The district and state have options that would require Disney to respond.

Correct. Doesn't change what they want.

They can argue that point as a plaintiff as well. Disney also has a lot of power in the press.

They can control how they are portrayed.

Not as easily as if they are the defendant.