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

[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.

 

[mmascari]

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

Based on the new development agreement, and assuming all the proposed changes go through as-is in the next meeting. Where does that leave the process of who needs to sign off on what requests for Disney to build something? Between planning and building or any other things Disney would need to submit for sign off by the district.

Say Disney wants to build a lemonade stand on Epcot Center Dr south of E Buena Vista Dr, north of I4, just outside the Bonnet Creek land. About here: https://goo.gl/maps/QqS7oyKPMzDuFfEM6

With the changes (and probably even before), it's hard to tell exactly which steps still exist where conflict can be created.

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

Building without the approvals, forcing the district to sue to stop or send in the sheriff does sound exciting from this viewpoint. All those liability, insurance, and other groups involved not being wiling to be put in that position is a very real road block to it occurring. The only way it would even be remotely possible would be for Disney to do all the work internally and self insure. Even a lemonade stand might be to large to do that.

Maybe they just want to put up billboard, a really small one, done by one guy, who is self insured, and "flexible" with approvals. Just your local handyman who is always willing to do the work without any permit.

 

[drnilescrane]

Maybe just stalling till a more agreeable governor comes in?

I agree that this is the plan. Desantis will be gone one way or another eventually.

The immediate needs are locked in - contracts are signed on the World Dr expansion. The primary effect of the developers agreement and covenants is it buys time while everybody works through the process.

A few years later, they get new appointees on the board and things quietly go back to normal. I think in the long run they prefer having the board be arms length, as long as they can influence appointees. Even through all of this, the governor's office is still taking Adam Babington's calls.

Are the culture wars going away? No. But there's more people in FL that like Disney than the state government. Even the City of Anaheim has learnt that lesson the hard way.

 

[GrumpyFan]

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.

I don't know about that. I think they've been playing this very smartly, exercising their legal rights in the way they did, then with Iger's calling out of Desantis' anti-business policies. I consider Iger to be very keen in these kinds of matters and will seek out the counsel of those he has around him as well as other industry leaders who he has an ear with. Disney has the capability of waging a very powerful battle against Desanits and the state that could hurt him badly. Don't underestimate their quiet for complacency. Just because you don't see them right now, doesn't mean they're not up to something.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

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.

I’d love for Disney to sue (and end this) but worry how a court will rule, common sense says they should win but if it ends up before the wrong judge(s) it could set a horrible precedent.

For this reason I agree they’d probably be open to a compromise, or at least are hoping to maintain the status quo rather than going to court. I think it’ll inevitably end up before the courts but I’m terrified it will embolden other politicians to do similar retaliatory stunts if they somehow lose. They probably also know it’ll likely go all the way up to the Supreme Court, Disney can’t afford to let this type of action become legal so they’d have to appeal and DeSantis is too stubborn to give up if he loses.

 

[Florida Man]

I agree that this is the plan. Desantis will be gone one way or another eventually.

The immediate needs are locked in - contracts are signed on the World Dr expansion. The primary effect of the developers agreement and covenants is it buys time while everybody works through the process.

A few years later, they get new appointees on the board and things quietly go back to normal. I think in the long run they prefer having the board be arms length, as long as they can influence appointees. Even through all of this, the governor's office is still taking Adam Babington's calls.

Are the culture wars going away? No. But there's more people in FL that like Disney than the state government. Even the City of Anaheim has learnt that lesson the hard way.

Do I want to know who Adam Babington is? I purposely haven’t watched the news in about three weeks. Am I missing anything?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Based on the new development agreement, and assuming all the proposed changes go through as-is in the next meeting. Where does that leave the process of who needs to sign off on what requests for Disney to build something? Between planning and building or any other things Disney would need to submit for sign off by the district.

Say Disney wants to build a lemonade stand on Epcot Center Dr south of E Buena Vista Dr, north of I4, just outside the Bonnet Creek land. About here: https://goo.gl/maps/QqS7oyKPMzDuFfEM6

With the changes (and probably even before), it's hard to tell exactly which steps still exist where conflict can be created.

A small project will often just go straight to the building department for a building permit. Things like alterations to water management are processed through the planning department and not submitted directly to the South Florida Water Management District.

Building without the approvals, forcing the district to sue to stop or send in the sheriff does sound exciting from this viewpoint. All those liability, insurance, and other groups involved not being wiling to be put in that position is a very real road block to it occurring. The only way it would even be remotely possible would be for Disney to do all the work internally and self insure. Even a lemonade stand might be too large to do that.

Maybe they just want to put up billboard, a really small one, done by one guy, who is self insured, and "flexible" with approvals. Just your local handyman who is always willing to do the work without any permit.

A registered contractor has to apply for the building permit. Just not applying at all is not really a good position to defend.

 

[mikejs78]

A small project will often just go straight to the building department for a building permit. Things like alterations to water management are processed through the planning department and not submitted directly to the South Florida Water Management District.

A registered contractor has to apply for the building permit. Just not applying at all is not really a good position to defend.

So what does the comprehensive plan in effect do? What does it guaruntee Disney for 30 years?

 

[mikejs78]

The Land development regulations have a process defined on how to amend them. Will be interesting to see if the new board follows that process, but it requires a study and recommendation by the planning committee to begin with. But even then, all amendments have to:

(1) The amendment is consistent with and promotes the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan;
(2) The amendment will not adversely affect other implementation programs for
elements of the Comprehensive Plan; and
(3) The amendment promotes the public health, safety, and welfare within the District.

I'm not sure how the new board justifies these moves given these criteria, and I imagine this will open up plenty of room for a challenge if Disney decides to.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So what does the comprehensive plan in effect do? What does it guaruntee Disney for 30 years?

The comprehensive plan is the study of the district’s land that serves as the basis of the land use regulations (the zoning). The land development agreement locks that in place. Disney is basically free to build theme park, hotel and other entertainment stuff at Walt Disney World as they desire because that’s how the district is zoned.

 

[JohnD]

You’ll note I apologised for jumping to conclusions. I should have taken the poster at his word instead of reading anything deeper into his post.

I'll admit I think Chapek leaped when he should have looked. He should have stopped at disagreeing with the parental rights law and not gone further. But he did and the Gov. and Legislature responded with the replacement district.

You may be surprised when I say this but you have to tip your ear hat to Disney's perpetual agreement. It was properly noticed although apparently the incoming board didn't notice it. Is it any wonder Disney was silent about the RCID repeal. You think Disney is going to sit back and take it? Of course not.

Then DeSantis threatens tolls and hotel fees. Why? I get he wants a fight with Disney but all would do is punish the tourists visiting Florida.

Now, it seems the new board has a new superior agreement to the planning board or whatever. All I can do now is sit back and watch. I have nothing more to add to this tit for tat.

 

[GoofGoof]

100% this. Mine went up from $1997 to $2617..... In ONE year! I'm not in a flood plane. I have a small three bedroom 2 bath single family home. With a new roof. And State farm. You know a solvent insurance company.

Governor DeSantis, I have other things on my mind besides your battle with Disney. I wish you did too.

I have not been registered Republican or Democrat in forever but I'll tell you what gets my vote.... what hurts my wallet the least or helps it the most and right now you're looking bad in both those categories.

(This is probably borderline political and should be deleted. No argument from me of the mods choose to do so. )

There’s a reason why the law was put in place that a person running for POTUS needs to resign as Governor. It’s hard to focus on the actual needs of your constituents from Iowa and SC and PA and that’s even before the campaign fully kicked off. I’m not sure there’s much to be done at this point to avoid an insurance crisis but he could refocus his and the state’s energies on at least stopping the bleeding.

 

[GoofGoof]

Now, it seems the new board has a new superior agreement to the planning board or whatever. All I can do now is sit back and watch. I have nothing more to add to this tit for tat.

As discussed earlier the “superior authority“ amendment doesn‘t change the contract Disney signed with the old district board. It just changes future authority going forward. That contract isn’t going anywhere unless they dissolve the whole district and then we’re back to last year and all the issues that created.

 

[lazyboy97o]

As discussed earlier the “superior authority“ amendment doesn‘t change the contract Disney signed with the old district board. It just changes future authority going forward. That contract isn’t going anywhere unless they dissolve the whole district and then we’re back to last year and all the issues that created.

The contracts don’t go away if the district is dissolved. At the time they were enacted they would have been inherited by the cities and counties.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

The contracts don’t go away if the district is dissolved. At the time they were enacted they would have been inherited by the cities and counties.

Yeah, the thing about contracts is they don't just go away haha