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

[Sir_Cliff]

So the Gov and his crew hoped there would be a smoking gun implicating Disney and the old board in some sort of collusion or fraud that could be used to void the contract so as a hail Mary they made a public record request. The request came back with no findings and now the spin is that a lack of findings is evidence of the fraud? Spin, spin, spin. Remember, this was the request:

“Please limit your search to documents discussing an intention or goal of circumventing, avoiding, frustrating, mitigating or otherwise attempting to avoid the effects of anticipated actions by the Florida governor and the Florida Legislature,” James Percival, Moody’s chief of staff, wrote in a public records request filed with the district on Thursday.

The request wasn’t asking for any correspondence at all so it’s likely Disney forwarded a copy of the contract to the board prior to the meetings….to be discussed at the meeting. That’s not illegal or a violation of Sunshine laws. The board cannot deliberate or debate the merits of the contract and definitely cannot reach a conclusion behind closed doors. Disney told us it was all done in public and in compliance with the required laws. It’s time some people acknowledge 1 side here was smart and planned ahead.

This is my reading of the situation. I feel like if I know enough never to use language even in private emails with work colleagues that I would be uncomfortable being read publicly, the people involved in this situation knew to keep their language as neutral as possible.

Is it even illegal to circumvent, avoid, etc "anticipated actions" of the governor or legislature? First, Disney didn't know what actions the state would actually end up taking. Second, can taking action that was legal at the time be considered malfeasance just because the law would be changing at a later date in some way?

I am certainly not an expert or even knowledgeable about Florida law, but surely not?!? I would have thought this was fairly standard practice when businesses anticipated a legislation or election result that they thought would be adverse to their interests. It's surely up to the people drafting the legislation to figure out how to deal with such preemptive actions rather than just freezing everyone in place as soon as the intention was outlined to introduce legislation on a specific topic and until they actually drafted and passed the legislation.

Wouldn't their only legal recourse really be to find a way to suggest the new agreement violated laws about transparency?

 

[flyakite]

more detailed notice in Orlando Sentinel today:

NOTICE OF MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 26 th at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at The Wyndham Resort (Horizons ballroom) 1850 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. At that time and in addition to other business on the agenda, the Board of Supervisors will conduct a 2nd reading and public hearing on and consider for adoption Resolution No. 639. A RESOLUTION OF THE CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT AMENDING ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 6-90 AND ARTICLE 7, CHAPTER 7-20 AND CHAPTER 7-30 OF THE RCID LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Proposed Resolution No. 639 has effects within the entire jurisdictional boundaries of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, including within the incorporated areas. The aforesaid resolution may be inspected by the public at the Planning & Engineering Department located at 1920 Buena Vista Drive, Suite A, Lake Buena Vista, Florida 32830. Interested parties may appear at the public meeting and hearing to be heard with respect to the proposed resolution. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of Supervisors with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.

 

[Kamikaze]

And if DeSantis decides it is better to wait until 2028 to run then what will happen if he decides to run for another term? His opponents can say that DeSantis systematically and without thought tried to destroy the economy of Central Florida and for what?

Florida has term limits for Gov, he can't seek another term.

 

[WannaGoNow]

Survey says… bzzzzt

Reality and the law say…ding ding ding winner!

Sorry, but those trump opinion surveys.

 

[WannaGoNow]

No - it’s just about changing the existing structure and delegation within the district. It is not a direct challenge to the last min disney agreements.

Delegation of final development approval powers is exactly what the developer agreement and restrictive covenants are about and what the new board thinks their nonsense resolution will change. You might want to read the documents and the resolution.

 

[WannaGoNow]

The question is when did the agreements first get discussed? The meeting minutes don’t suggest Disney just showing up and saying “Hey, how about this?” There was some point before the public hearings when the board was presented with the idea (or even potentially vice versa) and those documents were given to the board. There should be a record of someone sending the contracts to the board at the very minimum.

An Orlando law firm - which is the entity that drafted the contracts - emailing contracts to the board for discussion is legal and allowable.

There is no basement in the pizza parlor.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Delegation of final development approval powers is exactly what the developer agreement and restrictive covenants are about and what the new board thinks their nonsense resolution will change. You might want to read the documents and the resolution.

Then please do give us the text from the agreement that requires the district to maintain the planning board.

An Orlando law firm - which is the entity that drafted the contracts - emailing contracts to the board for discussion is legal and allowable.

There is no basement in the pizza parlor.

You are so completely lost. You’re arguing things not said and positions not taken.

 

[GoofGoof]

Is it even illegal to circumvent, avoid, etc "anticipated actions" of the governor or legislature? First, Disney didn't know what actions the state would actually end up taking. Second, can taking action that was legal at the time be considered malfeasance just because the law would be changing at a later date in some way?

This is what I was thinking... this likely happens (to some extent) after every election. If a business feels the current political makeup is more friendly than the one that just won an election they'd be crazy not to take advantage of the few months before the new regime takes over. That's just smart business.

It does happen all the time and it’s not illegal. If the action of the outgoing administration is passing legislation it’s usually just reversed when the new administration takes over so short term win at best, but in cases like this where a contract is involved you cannot just void a legally executed contract.

 

[flynnibus]

Delegation of final development approval powers is exactly what the developer agreement and restrictive covenants are about

No

 

[WannaGoNow]

Then please do give us the text from the agreement that requires the district to maintain the planning board

You are so completely lost. You’re arguing things not said and positions not taken.

Nah, I’ve got the map clearly in front of me. You keep arguing about the planning board. It’s immaterial and a straw man. The developer agreement and restrictive covenants already lay out the process for approving plans. The new board is basically trying to rearrange deck chairs on their personal Titanic and hoping people don’t notice they’ve already been sunk by Disney’s iceberg.

As for your second assertion, people were arguing there must have been malfeasance in how Disney presented the contracts to the old Reedy Creek board.

First, “Disney” didn’t present them. They came from a third party Orlando law firm. And contracts, whether from Disney or a law firm, may be emailed (or couriered, or whatever) without violating Sunshine Laws, which is the pretense for DeSantis going after Disney/the old board. So, nope, not lost at all.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Nope, I’ve got the map clearly in front of me. You keep arguing about the planning board. It’s immaterial and a straw man. The developer agreements and restrictive covenants already lay out the process for approving plans. The new board is basically trying to rearrange deck chairs on their personal Titanic and hoping people don’t notice they’ve already been sunk by Disney’s iceberg.

As for your second assertion, people were arguing there must have been malfeasance is how Disney presented the contracts to the old Reedy Creek board.

“Disney” didn’t present them. They came from an outside lawyer. And contracts, whether from Disney or a law firm, may be emailed ( or courier, or whatever) without violating the Sunshine Law, which is the pretense for DeSantis going after Disney/the old board. So, no, not lost at all.

Give us the text that backs up your claims.

You have completely missed a lot of nuance.

 

[WannaGoNow]

Give us the text that backs up your claims.

You have completely missed a lot of nuance.

I provided earlier a link to the BOD packet of materials, which contain the developer agreement and restrictive covenants. You might want to read them.

On the other hand, would love to see your link proving Disney committed malfeasance, and would also love to see your legal reasoning how a nonsense resolution trumps signed contracts to which the new board is beholden by federal and state law.

 

[WannaGoNow]

No

Yes.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I provided earlier a link to the BOD packet of materials, which contain the developer agreement and restrictive covenants. You might want to read them.

On the other hand, would love to see your link proving Disney committed malfeasance, and would also love to see your legal reasoning how a nonsense resolution trumps signed contracts to which the new board is beholden by federal and state law.

Read them awhile ago. You’re the one making the claim that they impact the proposed resolutions. You. Array the burden to provide the evidence.

I never said anything about Disney committing malfeasance. Try again.

 

[Tha Realest]

I think @lazyboy97o isnt suggesting Disney malfeasance (but maybe RCID malfeasance), but perhaps the notion that there are *no* responsive documents at all to the inquiry is troublesome to him. I don’t want to mischaracterize his position so trying to catch up on things, but I am guessing his expressed concern is that whoever did the review and is claiming no communications exist is functionally creating smoke where there is no fire. That is to say, there had to be some written communications setting out the submission and consideration of the agreements (which were quite lengthy and detailed) and to assert there were not seems intellectually dishonest and opens up RCID (and collaterally, Disney) with some sort of exposure or obstruction type argument.

 

[peter11435]

I think @lazyboy97o isnt suggesting Disney malfeasance (but maybe RCID malfeasance), but perhaps the notion that there are *no* responsive documents at all to the inquiry is troublesome to him. I don’t want to mischaracterize his position so trying to catch up on things, but I am guessing his expressed concern is that whoever did the review and is claiming no communications exist is functionally creating smoke where there is no fire. That is to say, there had to be some written communications setting out the submission and consideration of the agreements (which were quite lengthy and detailed) and to assert there were not seems intellectually dishonest and opens up RCID (and collaterally, Disney) with some sort of exposure or obstruction type argument.

They didn’t say there were no communications. They said there were no communications meeting the specified criteria. The AG didn’t ask for any communications. They specifically requested they limit their search to specific criteria. It would be unlikely any communication would exist that meets that criteria.

 

[Serpico Jones]

I think Iger will have one of his lieutenants, possibly Josh D’Amaro, call DeSantis to de-escalate this. Chapek will get thrown under the bus and both sides will agree to move on.

 

[flynnibus]

Nah, I’ve got the map clearly in front of me

Then cite the specific text you believe the developer agreement is changing the district's planning authority by charter.

 

[WannaGoNow]

Then cite the specific text you believe the developer agreement is changing the district's planning authority by charter.

It’s called the restrictive covenants with regards to the developer agreement. I could cite the entire thing, but it’s easily available on the internet.

Please provide your legal basis for your belief that a nonsense resolution supersedes the language in the signed contracts,

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think @lazyboy97o isnt suggesting Disney malfeasance (but maybe RCID malfeasance), but perhaps the notion that there are *no* responsive documents at all to the inquiry is troublesome to him. I don’t want to mischaracterize his position so trying to catch up on things, but I am guessing his expressed concern is that whoever did the review and is claiming no communications exist is functionally creating smoke where there is no fire. That is to say, there had to be some written communications setting out the submission and consideration of the agreements (which were quite lengthy and detailed) and to assert there were not seems intellectually dishonest and opens up RCID (and collaterally, Disney) with some sort of exposure or obstruction type argument.

I find it odd that something that so perfectly fits the state’s narrative has occurred. It is entirely possible that it is because of the very specific nature of the request, and that the Sentinel lazily copied that wording.