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

[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.

 

[WannaGoNow]

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.

He can believe Santa Claus divorced Mrs. Claus in order to be with the Easter Bunny if he wants.

He can believe Santa Claus violates all sorts of natural and legal laws if he wants.

But the concern at hand is whether Disney/Reedy Creek violated the Sunshine Law. That applies to specific situations re: communication, and the claims something is shady does not track with the actual law nor with how corporations behave as a matter of course.

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.

Of course the Sentinel copied the wording, because the Sentinel wants to have access to the exact same documents/response the state would receive!

And nothing fits the state’s narrative, because the state’s narrative is that Disney acted with malfeasance yet no malfeasance has been found by the state to date.

The reason why the state worded their request that way was to throw suspicion on Disney. The state’s wording is the equivalent of asking someone with a happy marriage “so when did you stop beating your wife?” It’s a loaded question. The state knew the media would pick up on the request, and that people would focus on the accusations of malfeasance. I am positive the state knew ahead of time nothing would be found - but in the meantime, their wording is out there. Look how many times it’s been repeated in this forum alone.

Again, the Reedy Creek board meetings were held in public. They were announced to the public. The public was invited to speak. The meetings were covered by the media. The state could have easily sent someone to those meetings and would have seen and been able to object to everything Reedy Creek was approving.

They did not. They fell asleep and were caught out, and now they are throwing a temper tantrum because of their own willful disregard.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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,

The land development agreement locks in established zoning, an outcome. It has nothing do with organization of the zoning commission, which is about the process. It has no bearing on the relationship between the cities and district. The land development agreement, by locking in the land development plan, does sort of negate the need for a distinct planning body.

The covenants restrict how the district is able to use its property. The composition of the zoning commission has no bearing on this. It has nothing to do with the relationship between the cities and district.

You’re so caught up in gotchas and phrases that trigger you that you’re jumbling information and positions all together. Superior authority has to do with the district’s authority over the cities, which is defined in the reconstitution legislation. That’s not something that can be defined in contracts and covenants. The same with the planning board now being the board of supervisors. The membership of the board was not going to remain static for 30 years, it was always going to change and no contract would be allowed to fix its membership. Who the members are doesn’t matter.

 

[WannaGoNow]

The land development agreement locks in established zoning, an outcome. It has nothing do with organization of the zoning commission, which is about the process. It has no bearing on the relationship between the cities and district. The land development agreement, by locking in the land development plan, does sort of negate the need for a distinct planning body.

The covenants restrict how the district is able to use its property. The composition of the zoning commission has no bearing on this. It has nothing to do with the relationship between the cities and district.

You’re so caught up in gotchas and phrases that trigger you that you’re jumbling information and positions all together. Superior authority has to do with the district’s authority over the cities, which is defined in the reconstitution legislation. That’s not something that can be defined in contracts and covenants. The same with the planning board now being the board of supervisors. The membership of the board was not going to remain static for 30 years, it was always going to change and no contract would be allowed to fix its membership. Who the members are doesn’t matter.

From the Restrictive Covenants:

BINDING EFFECT: ENFORCEMENT.
6.1. Covenants Running With RCID Properties and Benefits Running With the WDPR Properties. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in this Declaration are intended by both parties to, and shall, run with title to the RCID Properties and all portions thereof and shall be binding on RCID, its Tenants, and any successor owner of the RCID Properties or portions thereof. The benefits of this Declaration and the covenants, conditions, and restrictions hereof shall run with title to the WDPR Properties and all portions thereof and benefit only the WDPR Properties, WDPR and its Affiliates and each of their respective successors and assigns owning any portion of the WDPR Properties. There shall be no other beneficiaries of such provisions. Only WDPR and WDPR's Affiliates and each of their respective successors and assigns, by virtue of their ownership of any portion of the WDPR Properties, shall have the continuing right ot enforce this Declaration and the provisions, covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth in this Declaration. This Declaration cannot be modified, amended, terminated or canceled without the express written consent o f WDPR. WDPR (or its Affiliate, as applicable) may, at its sole option, elect to terminate the benefit of this Declaration as it applies to any WDPR Property.

6.2. Enforcement. If RCID shall violate or breach(or attempt to violate or breach) any of the provisions, covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or obligations set forth in this Declaration, and such breach or violation is not cured within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice (or ifsuch breach requires more than thirty (30 days to cure such longertime as reasonably necessary to complete such cure so long as RCID commences the cure of such default within such thirty (30) day period in good faith and thereafter diligently prosecutes al measures necessary or appropriate to cure such default not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days in the aggregate), then WDPR (and/or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable) shall be entitled to any of the following remedies, which remedies may be elected without excluding any other available remedies: (i) institute and prosecute proceedings for the recovery of actual damages against RID for such violation or breach; (ii) institute and prosecute proceedings for the purpose of preventing or enjoining any or all such violations or attempted violations or breaches or attempted breaches of the provisions, covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or obligations set forth in this Declaration; and/or (ill) bring a suit for specific performance of the same. Except as otherwise provided in this Declaration, such remedies shall be cumulative of and with any and all other remedies expressly provided in this Declaration or which otherwise may now or hereafter be available at law or in equity, separately, concurrently or in any combination. The failure of WDPR (or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable) to enforce any of the provisions, covenants, conditions, easements, restrictions, and/or obligations set forth in this Declaration, however long continued, shall in no event bedeemed to be or constitute a waiver of the right to thereafter enforce the same as to any continuing or subsequent violation or breach or attempted violation or breach of the same provision, covenant, condition, easement, restriction and/or obligation, whether occurring prior or subsequent thereto. Anything contained in this Declaration to the contrary notwithstanding, WDPR (and/or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable) may enforce this Declaration and the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions herein by injunctive relief, and, in addition, may seek damages and all other rights and remedies available to WDPR (and/or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable), at law or in equity.

From the Walt Disney World Chapter 163 Development Agreement:

IV. GOVERNING LAWS AND POLICIES. This Agreement establishes the standards that apply to the Property and the Project and if there is any conflict between the Agreement and the Comprehensive Plan or RCID LDRs this Agreement shall prevail. Furthermore, for Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies and RCID LDRs not in conflict with this Agreement, the version of the Comprehensive Plan, RCID LDRs and other local government laws and policies governing the development of the Property in effect at the time of execution of this Agreement shall govern the development of the Property and the Project for the duration of this Agreement. RCID may apply subsequently adopted laws and policies to the development subject to this Agreement, only if RCID has followed the procedures set forth in Chapter 163.3233, Florida Statutes.

V. MORATORIA. No moratorium, ordinance, resolution or other land development regulation or limitation on the rate, timing or sequencing of the development of the Project shall apply to or govern the development of the Project in accordance with the Master Development Program during the term hereof, whether affecting building permits, occupancy permits, or other entitlements to be issued by RCID. In the event of any such action, Master Developer shall continue to be entitled to apply for an receive development approvals in accordance with the RCID LDRs and other local government laws and policies governing the development of the Property and the Project in effect at the time of execution of this Agreement and the terms of this Agreement.



So riddle me this: what does it matter how they arrange the planning commission/grand high poo bahs if they still have to adhere to the restrictive covenants and developer agreement with regards to Disney/RCID lands? I can pass a resolution making myself Lord High Grand Duke of Epcot; unless I also have the contractual power with Disney to enforce my resolution over Epcot, doesn't mean diddly squat.

And riddle me this as well: if the new board can just wave a magic wand and give themselves all the power over Disney....why are they so upset and throwing a tantrum? Why are they trying to invalidate these agreements by looking for malfeasance if they can just pass a new resolution and wipe them out?

 

[lazyboy97o]

BINDING EFFECT: ENFORCEMENT.
6.1. Covenants Running With RCID Properties and Benefits Running With the WDPR Properties. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in this Declaration are intended by both parties to, and shall, run with title to the RCID Properties and all portions thereof and shall be binding on RCID, its Tenants, and any successor owner of the RCID Properties or portions thereof. The benefits of this Declaration and the covenants, conditions, and restrictions hereof shall run with title to the WDPR Properties and all portions thereof and benefit only the WDPR Properties, WDPR and its Affiliates and each of their respective successors and assigns owning any portion of the WDPR Properties. There shall be no other beneficiaries of such provisions. Only WDPR and WDPR's Affiliates and each of their respective successors and assigns, by virtue of their ownership of any portion of the WDPR Properties, shall have the continuing right ot enforce this Declaration and the provisions, covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth in this Declaration. This Declaration cannot be modified, amended, terminated or canceled without the express written consent o f WDPR. WDPR (or its Affiliate, as applicable) may, at its sole option, elect to terminate the benefit of this Declaration as it applies to any WDPR Property.

6.2. Enforcement. If RCID shall violate or breach(or attempt to violate or breach) any of the provisions, covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or obligations set forth in this Declaration, and such breach or violation is not cured within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice (or ifsuch breach requires more than thirty (30 days to cure such longertime as reasonably necessary to complete such cure so long as RCID commences the cure of such default within such thirty (30) day period in good faith and thereafter diligently prosecutes al measures necessary or appropriate to cure such default not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days in the aggregate), then WDPR (and/or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable) shall be entitled to any of the following remedies, which remedies may be elected without excluding any other available remedies: (i) institute and prosecute proceedings for the recovery of actual damages against RID for such violation or breach; (ii) institute and prosecute proceedings for the purpose of preventing or enjoining any or all such violations or attempted violations or breaches or attempted breaches of the provisions, covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or obligations set forth in this Declaration; and/or (ill) bring a suit for specific performance of the same. Except as otherwise provided in this Declaration, such remedies shall be cumulative of and with any and all other remedies expressly provided in this Declaration or which otherwise may now or hereafter be available at law or in equity, separately, concurrently or in any combination. The failure of WDPR (or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable) to enforce any of the provisions, covenants, conditions, easements, restrictions, and/or obligations set forth in this Declaration, however long continued, shall in no event bedeemed to be or constitute a waiver of the right to thereafter enforce the same as to any continuing or subsequent violation or breach or attempted violation or breach of the same provision, covenant, condition, easement, restriction and/or obligation, whether occurring prior or subsequent thereto. Anything contained in this Declaration to the contrary notwithstanding, WDPR (and/or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable) may enforce this Declaration and the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions herein by injunctive relief, and, in addition, may seek damages and all other rights and remedies available to WDPR (and/or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable), at law or in equity.

So riddle me this: what does it matter how they arrange the planning commission/grand high poo bahs if they still have to adhere to the restrictive covenants and developer agreement with regards to Disney/RCID lands? I can pass a resolution making myself Lord High Grand Duke of Epcot; unless I also have the contractual power with Disney to enforce my resolution over Epcot, doesn't mean diddly squat.

And riddle me this as well: if the new board can just wave a magic wand and give themselves all the power over Disney....why are they so upset and throwing a tantrum?

You call 'em gotchas; I call them logic.

As of right now, there has been no attempt to modify or violate the covenants.

You’re the one claiming that changing the planning board is a violation of the agreements, not me.

Once again, “superior authority“ is in regards to Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, not Disney.

 

[WannaGoNow]

As of right now, there has been no attempt to modify or violate the covenants.

You’re the one claiming that changing the planning board is a violation of the agreements, not me.

Once again, “superior authority“ is in regards to Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, not Disney.

No, I've clearly stated changing the planning board is rearranging deck chairs on the Titantic; it's a straw man and a distraction to make the board look like they are doing something that has teeth.

And the "superior authority" is over all WDW/Reedy Creek lands - but Bay Lake alone would would mean asserting "superior authority" over all four theme parks and most resorts. Asserting "superior authority" over Lake Buena Vista means asserting authority over Disney Springs, Typhoon Lagoon, Port Orleans both resorts, Saratoga Springs, Old Key West and the Team Disney buildings.

From the newspaper announcement: "the Board of Supervisors will conduct a reading and public hearing on and consider for adoption Resolution No. 638. A RESOLUTION OF CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT CREATING RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND GOVERNING PROCEDURES, CONDUCT AND DECORUM FOR MEETINGS OF THE BOARD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Board will also conduct a 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 resolution also makes the board the “final decision-making authority for the District and no further administrative appeal” would be available. That's also a violation of the developer agreement/covenants - should the resolution stand.

But most experts agree the resolution has no actual legal teeth.

 

[flynnibus]

From the Restrictive Covenants:

BINDING EFFECT: ENFORCEMENT.
6.1. Covenants Running With RCID Properties and Benefits Running With the WDPR Properties. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in this Declaration are intended by both parties to, and shall, run with title to the RCID Properties and all portions thereof and shall be binding on RCID, its Tenants, and any successor owner of the RCID Properties or portions thereof. The benefits of this Declaration and the covenants, conditions, and restrictions hereof shall run with title to the WDPR Properties and all portions thereof and benefit only the WDPR Properties, WDPR and its Affiliates and each of their respective successors and assigns owning any portion of the WDPR Properties. There shall be no other beneficiaries of such provisions. Only WDPR and WDPR's Affiliates and each of their respective successors and assigns, by virtue of their ownership of any portion of the WDPR Properties, shall have the continuing right ot enforce this Declaration and the provisions, covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth in this Declaration. This Declaration cannot be modified, amended, terminated or canceled without the express written consent o f WDPR. WDPR (or its Affiliate, as applicable) may, at its sole option, elect to terminate the benefit of this Declaration as it applies to any WDPR Property.

6.2. Enforcement. If RCID shall violate or breach(or attempt to violate or breach) any of the provisions, covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or obligations set forth in this Declaration, and such breach or violation is not cured within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice (or ifsuch breach requires more than thirty (30 days to cure such longertime as reasonably necessary to complete such cure so long as RCID commences the cure of such default within such thirty (30) day period in good faith and thereafter diligently prosecutes al measures necessary or appropriate to cure such default not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days in the aggregate), then WDPR (and/or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable) shall be entitled to any of the following remedies, which remedies may be elected without excluding any other available remedies: (i) institute and prosecute proceedings for the recovery of actual damages against RID for such violation or breach; (ii) institute and prosecute proceedings for the purpose of preventing or enjoining any or all such violations or attempted violations or breaches or attempted breaches of the provisions, covenants, conditions, restrictions and/or obligations set forth in this Declaration; and/or (ill) bring a suit for specific performance of the same. Except as otherwise provided in this Declaration, such remedies shall be cumulative of and with any and all other remedies expressly provided in this Declaration or which otherwise may now or hereafter be available at law or in equity, separately, concurrently or in any combination. The failure of WDPR (or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable) to enforce any of the provisions, covenants, conditions, easements, restrictions, and/or obligations set forth in this Declaration, however long continued, shall in no event bedeemed to be or constitute a waiver of the right to thereafter enforce the same as to any continuing or subsequent violation or breach or attempted violation or breach of the same provision, covenant, condition, easement, restriction and/or obligation, whether occurring prior or subsequent thereto. Anything contained in this Declaration to the contrary notwithstanding, WDPR (and/or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable) may enforce this Declaration and the terms, provisions, covenants and conditions herein by injunctive relief, and, in addition, may seek damages and all other rights and remedies available to WDPR (and/or its Affiliate(s) or Designee, as applicable), at law or in equity.

From the Walt Disney World Chapter 163 Development Agreement:

IV. GOVERNING LAWS AND POLICIES. This Agreement establishes the standards that apply to the Property and the Project and if there is any conflict between the Agreement and the Comprehensive Plan or RCID LDRs this Agreement shall prevail. Furthermore, for Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies and RCID LDRs not in conflict with this Agreement, the version of the Comprehensive Plan, RCID LDRs and other local government laws and policies governing the development of the Property in effect at the time of execution of this Agreement shall govern the development of the Property and the Project for the duration of this Agreement. RCID may apply subsequently adopted laws and policies to the development subject to this Agreement, only if RCID has followed the procedures set forth in Chapter 163.3233, Florida Statutes.

V. MORATORIA. No moratorium, ordinance, resolution or other land development regulation or limitation on the rate, timing or sequencing of the development of the Project shall apply to or govern the development of the Project in accordance with the Master Development Program during the term hereof, whether affecting building permits, occupancy permits, or other entitlements to be issued by RCID. In the event of any such action, Master Developer shall continue to be entitled to apply for an receive development approvals in accordance with the RCID LDRs and other local government laws and policies governing the development of the Property and the Project in effect at the time of execution of this Agreement and the terms of this Agreement.



So riddle me this: what does it matter how they arrange the planning commission/grand high poo bahs if they still have to adhere to the restrictive covenants and developer agreement with regards to Disney/RCID lands? I can pass a resolution making myself Lord High Grand Duke of Epcot; unless I also have the contractual power with Disney to enforce my resolution over Epcot, doesn't mean diddly squat.

And riddle me this as well: if the new board can just wave a magic wand and give themselves all the power over Disney....why are they so upset and throwing a tantrum? Why are they trying to invalidate these agreements by looking for malfeasance if they can just pass a new resolution and wipe them out?

6.1 and 6.2 are just about the contract elements.. aka who is who, survivability, disputes. It has nothing to do with redefining the district or it's authority granted by the state.

The Development Agreement cites are about setting constraints - it is in effect saying "both parties agree that the plan as it stands today will remain in force and can't be modified by RCID". This is RCID agreeing to limit change -- This is not conceding RCID's planning authority, nor does it have anything to do with that authority as granted by the state.

These cites have nothing to do with defining or contesting the state granted authority for the district to own and manage the land development planning. The new board's resolutions have to do with delaring who in the district's administration is responsible for this duty and establishing a heiarchy of resolution between the district and the cities.

These things are not trying to challenge each other - the board's resolution is about redefining who sits at the table on behalf of the district and codifying their intent to usurp the cities in this topic.

 

[flynnibus]

The resolution also makes the board the “final decision-making authority for the District and no further administrative appeal” would be available. That's also a violation of the developer agreement/covenants.

No - because just because the board is the final say - that doesn't make the board immune from their own constraints (aka the existing contract law and constitutions).

It's just saying within the district's administration - there is no other avenue and no mention of other agreed arbitration.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

You're the one making the assertion that some part of it creates conflict. So you lay out what you think does - because so far your other references have been completely misread. I can't predict what you think you read.

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

I've already been saying they are not overlapping - you are the one claiming they are. Which is what we keep pointing out to you as wrong.

 

[Stripes]

You're the one making the assertion that some part of it creates conflict. So you lay out what you think does - because so far your other references have been completely misread. I can't predict what you think you read.


I've already been saying they are not overlapping - you are the one claiming they are. Which is what we keep pointing out to you as wrong.

Here’s quote from the Development Agreement:

Furthermore, for Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies and RCID LDRs not in conflict with this Agreement, the version of the Comprehensive Plan, RCID LDRs and other local government laws and policies governing the development of the Property in effect at the time of execution of this Agreement shall govern the development of the Property and the Project for the duration of this Agreement. RCID may apply subsequently adopted laws and policies to the development subject to this Agreement, only if RCID has followed the procedures set forth in Chapter 163.3233, Florida Statutes.

Modifying the LDRs and terminating the existing planning board would be a change in policy governing the development of the Property (Disney’s land) and the Project (Walt Disney World), according to the agreement. Terminating the planning board would prevent compliance with the agreement.

Now, the new board may get around this by following the procedures in Chapter 163.3233 which allows new policies to apply to the development granted:

(a) They are not in conflict with the laws and policies governing the development agreement and do not prevent development of the land uses, intensities, or densities in the development agreement

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

This was the exact wording from the public records 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.

So based on what was actually requested nothing was found. They did not ask for any written communication on the contract but if they did there would at a minimum be the forwarding of the contract to the board to be read publicly (twice) and debated.

 

[flynnibus]

Here’s quote from the Development Agreement:

Modifying the LDRs and terminating the existing planning board would be a change in policy governing the development of the Property (Disney’s land) and the Project (Walt Disney World), according to the agreement. Terminating the planning board would prevent compliance with the agreement.

Now, the new board may get around this by following the procedures in Chapter 163.3233 which allows new policies to apply to the development granted:

The makeup of the planning board is being changed - I don't see how redefining the role equates to change in policy - no more than replacing a planning board member directly would. The "local planning agency" role of the district is still intact. The functions will still be performed. They aren't changing the policies regarding the development - only who the role is fulfilled by. Maybe that change is taken as a conflict, but I don't see it as the resolution trying to overthrow the prior agreement (as claimed by the other poster).

 

[Stripes]

Maybe that change is taken as a conflict, but I don't see it as the resolution trying to overthrow the prior agreement (as claimed by the other poster).

I don’t see it as trying to overthrow the prior agreement. I’m not 100% sure whether it would be in conflict with the agreement but it is certainly walking very close to the line.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Here’s quote from the Development Agreement:

Modifying the LDRs and terminating the existing planning board would be a change in policy governing the development of the Property (Disney’s land) and the Project (Walt Disney World), according to the agreement. Terminating the planning board would prevent compliance with the agreement.

Now, the new board may get around this by following the procedures in Chapter 163.3233 which allows new policies to apply to the development granted:

As stated, the body that makes the policies is not the policies themselves. If this were the case then the agreement would not have survived dissolution.

This prevents the board from doing something like rezoning Wide World of Sports as single family residential or requiring all projects to go through public development review.