Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
Legally, the letters only have to go to the parties of the land that's being rezoned. That's only Disney. And maybe the District itself. They didn't change any zoning for land other landowners have.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
Riviera Rita
Well-Known Member
I'm off, the cat needs feeding and I'll just await Bridget Zeigler's overwrought interview on Wesh2 instead.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
Legal notification of the Development Agreement is required under FL's Sunshine Law. One of the Districts attorneys stated that it didn't happen.
So, you're saying if the current special district was eliminated and the counties needed to pay for all the services handled by the current special district, they would be forced to create new special districts to raise the funds necessary to pay for them?
Out with the old, in with the new special districts? I guess.
I assume anyone who will be within a special district gets a say in the creation of the district. Assuming the CRA Universal is in, that Universal had some say in its creation.
So, does anyone really think that if we create a new special district to replace the current one and fund it, that Disney would agree to a worse deal then they have today? Wouldn't today's deal be a floor for what Disney is willing to agree to? Any replacement district requiring Disney to agree to it would need to be better for Disney in some way. Whatever way that is, to remain equal to today would shift some burden to the counties then.
A better theoretical might be, if we magically dissolve the current district and eliminate its current debts. Without creating a new special district, what would happen to the counties then?
Stripes
Premium Member
Absolutely. And Disney/RCID absolutely knew about this requirement.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Ohhhh…week got a big problem now 
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
it’s required by the law that allows development agreements.
But again, I’m not sure the failure to notify non affected parties gives the District standing. They weren’t harmed by not telling others. There’s also the procedures for action outlined in the original charter that may have technically had precedence over subsequent state law.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I don't really trust what the state side says
Stripes
Premium Member
That pertains to the development agreement, not RCID itself.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Most of the responsibility would fall to the municipalities. The problem with the dissolution plan was that it dropped assets and liabilities onto the pre-existing jurisdictions. Because the Reedy Creek Drainage District was create before the cities, that made the counties the pre-existing jurisdictions. The existence of the cities then prevented the counties from doing things like setting up taxing districts to generate the funds. Powers like land use, building oversight and emergency services would have still been held by the cities.
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
It’s only proof that disney was involved- which was already known
The point about optics is not in itself anything actionable. Even the presenter noted this and was only using it to support another argument.
Lobbyists write most bills which are rebranded in the same way by staff.
My biggest take away was they outlined several vectors they would attack the soundness of the deal… but without much ranking of which are actually winnable.
But now disney lawyers have a nice list of points to prepare for
Mr. Stay Puft
Well-Known Member
But even not doing so doesn't necessarily mean the contract becomes null and void. I'd think a reasonable judge would allow RCID/Disney to remedy that oversight in good faith.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
They never claimed it was on the charter.
The charter says "pursuant to [statute XYZ]," and that statute is what had the 30 year term.
If you have a law that says "every charter of this nature has a term of 30 years" then it doesn't matter if the charter itself says anything about 30 years.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
Which is something we already knew - 30 years minimum, but Royal Lives Clause and/or perpetuity maximum.
Batman'sParents
Active Member
At what point will Disney and the new District Board start to work behind the scenes on crafting a compromise package between both sides? Surely this has already started?
Ligation is an option, but wouldn't both sides prefer to try to work out their issues to get this out of the news cycle? The RCID was boring for 50 years, I like to go back to that.
Ligation is an option, but wouldn't both sides prefer to try to work out their issues to get this out of the news cycle? The RCID was boring for 50 years, I like to go back to that.
That sounds like a personal issue. You might want to get checked out.
I do not want to know how you get through the Rise or Guardians lines...........
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
Its actually from the Dev Agreement: https://blogmickey.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-02-08-RCID-BOS-Package-FINAL_v2.pdf
So - not sure what that guys point was, 30 years from Feb is fine for this situation for now.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
DeSantis wants it *in* the news cycle, he doesn't want it resolved. I don't think he actually cares about the ultimate outcome (which will be years from now), but he wants the fight to be ongoing until the primary begins.
I think the people on this board really do care about the outcome and they actually want to screw Disney. They're doing it for their pound of flesh, they're not just doing it as a stunt.
Mr. Stay Puft
Well-Known Member
Now they're talking about regulating Disney's pools, another tool they'll use to extort Disney into making concessions to the state.
They're weaponizing regulation of business by the state to force Disney into complying with DeSantis/Republicans views. They want to force right wing social engineering on Disney using regulatory oversight. It couldn't be more obvious.
They're weaponizing regulation of business by the state to force Disney into complying with DeSantis/Republicans views. They want to force right wing social engineering on Disney using regulatory oversight. It couldn't be more obvious.