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

[Stripes]

I've heard some rumblings that because those affected are Disney Employees, it may not matter or they may have been sent direct notice another way?

Unsure.

Also heard some say the only people that could speak out ARE those properties affected (Disney employees), so unless one of them rises and complains they didn't get a mailed noticed... the board can't do much.

I don’t buy those arguments. “Affected property owners” is generally understood to be property owners adjacent to the property subject to the development agreement or relatively close by (within 300 feet).

The property owners don’t necessarily have to live there. And could even be property owners outside the boundaries of the district. There are several properties owned by other entities that are adjacent to Disney and RCID land including the Florida Department of Transportation (who would obviously be willing to sue).

Disney had a golden opportunity here and it seems they took their shot and missed just like DeSantis on his first and second round.

To say that I’m profoundly disappointed would be a gross understatement.

I truly hope something comes to light to explain how or why this happened, but as I see it now things do not look good at all for the development agreement.

 

[MisterPenguin]

As a reminder, this isn't the thread for "woke" and movie discussion. Thanks

As I catch up in this thread and put posts I want to respond to later in a separate tab once I get to the end, I've learned that before I spend time typing up a reply, to refresh the tab first to see if the post still exists.

 

[rio]

How can they acquire the land? Doesnt Disney own it all?

Eminent domain. No, Disney doesn’t own all the land, but this is a power the new board does have.

 

[BuddyThomas]

He's louder, sometimes a quiet measured response is the right one

I don’t know how he is being covered on the right wing networks but they are humiliating him everywhere else.

 

[LAKid53]

Question for those familiar with the area around Hartzog. Are the excavated areas planned for an extension of the solar farm along 429 that Duke installed for Reedy Creek?

They're too shallow to be storm water retention ponds. The reason I'm asking is because one has a vertical culvert that's releasing water, like a fountain.

 

[LAKid53]

Perq, from 'perquisite.'​

1. A payment, profit, or benefit received in addition to a regular wage or salary, especially when due or expected.​

The RCID did *NOT* give WDW a perq in having their local governing district cater to their wants.

DISNEY PAID FOR IT.

It didn't come free 'as a perq.' All the infrastructure around WDW (roads, water, sewage, power, landscaping, etc....) was paid for by Disney, and not the county. Disney paid taxes to the county, and taxes to their RCID so that they could have that infrastructure that a swamp-filled county couldn't possible afford... until it became wealthy decades later... thanks to WDW.

BTW, Universal got this non-perq perq, too. They're paying for part of the new roads surrounding Epic Universe so they can have extra nice roads with dedicated bus lanes where they want it and when they want it.

Funny, if you pay your local government enough -- beyond your local tax bill -- they do stuff for you... what a perq!!

And Universal also resides in a special district.

 

[GoofGoof]

Since you asked....

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

www.leg.state.fl.us

Enforcement.—Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2) may file an action for injunctive relief in the circuit court where the local government is located to enforce the terms of a development agreement or to challenge compliance of the agreement with ss

As used in this section, the term “aggrieved or adversely affected party” means any person or local government that will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the local government comprehensive plan, including interests related to health and safety, police and fire protection service systems, densities or intensities of development, transportation facilities, health care facilities, equipment or services, and environmental or natural resources. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large but must exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The term includes the owner, developer, or applicant for a development order.

Based on this definition it seems like only an aggrieved or adversely affected person may file an action for relief. So I assume that means another land owner within the district who didn’t receive proper notice would need to object.

 

[MandaM]

A North Carolina lawmaker has introduced the "'Mickey’s Freedom Restoration Act," to encourage Disney to move its operations there. Great name for a bill!

 

[Stripes]

I've heard some rumblings that because those affected are Disney Employees, it may not matter or they may have been sent direct notice another way?

Unsure.

Maybe Disney or the district sent the property owners a copy of the Orlando Sentinel that had the notice in it? Fingers crossed.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

A North Carolina lawmaker has introduced the "'Mickey’s Freedom Restoration Act," to encourage Disney to move its operations there. Great name for a bill!

I'll contribute to any gofundme

 

[MisterPenguin]

Eminent domain. No, Disney doesn’t own all the land, but this is a power the new board does have.

Didn't the new contract between RCID and WDW limit the new board's ability to use eminent domain?

 

[LAKid53]

It’s clear to me that the people gushing over that e-mail have never been involved in a negotiating a contract. If any company wanted to enter into a development agreement for their land with the local government who else would be drafting the agreement other than the company asking for it and/or the lawyers involved. The Ed Milgrim the e-mail was sent to is a lawyer. He obviously sent the draft to Disney first. McGowan who is Disney’s Chief Legal Counsel is obviously going to review the contract before having Disney sign it. MCGowan asked the lawyer to take his own name off as the drafter of the agreement and make the drafter Milgrim himself instead. He also mentions that the Vogel legal team won’t put their name on it since they do work for the state and fear retribution from the Governor (geez I wonder why ). So, so far what we’ve established is 2 law firms and Disney were involved in preparing and reviewing the agreement before sending to the district for public comment and debate.

What the email does not show is a board member involved in any way. So how is it self dealing? Wouldn’t the real smoking gun be a board member saying that they drafted the agreement but wanted their name removed for optics? Disney and some lawyers crafted up an agreement. It was forwarded to the board for review. All perfectly legal and ethical.

On the edits to the talking points for John C, it’s hard to say what that tells us without seeing the talking points and the edits. Either way John C is the district administrator not one of the board members voting on approving the agreement so again, not a smoking gun. It’s not possible for a company to craft a development agreement without discussing it with members of the government first.

I've written well over 50 contracts. Little, if any, input beyond processes, from the other party. But then we were awarding them thousands of dollars, so we had the upper hand.

And yes, a development agreement definitely would involve not just review, but input, especially revisions and amendments, from the governmental body...and not just their legal counsel.

 

[JKick95]

During todays board meeting, the board mentioned something about Disney controlling the prices for energy services. From my understanding Disney owns the Reedy Creek Energy Services which gives utilities to this area.

Can someone explain what the issue here is? If Disney owns the utilities then it only makes sense they would set the price.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Based on this definition it seems like only an aggrieved or adversely affected person may file an action for relief. So I assume that means another land owner within the district who didn’t receive proper notice would need to object.

This is what I've been hearing, the new board cannot be the aggrieved party, so it would be up to someone on an affected property to object / show damages.

 

[maxairmike]

Question for those familiar with the area around Hartzog. Are the excavated areas planned for an extension of the solar farm along 429 that Duke installed for Reedy Creek?

They're too shallow to be storm water retention ponds. The reason I'm asking is because one has a vertical culvert that's releasing water, like a fountain.

Can you be a little more specific? I drive through there daily and I’m blanking at what you’re referring to. I’m not aware of an extension of the existing solar farm, just a lot of utility work, road widening, and housing development.

 

[LAKid53]

Enforcement.—Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2) may file an action for injunctive relief in the circuit court where the local government is located to enforce the terms of a development agreement or to challenge compliance of the agreement with ss

As used in this section, the term “aggrieved or adversely affected party” means any person or local government that will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the local government comprehensive plan, including interests related to health and safety, police and fire protection service systems, densities or intensities of development, transportation facilities, health care facilities, equipment or services, and environmental or natural resources. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large but must exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The term includes the owner, developer, or applicant for a development order.

Based on this definition it seems like only an aggrieved or adversely affected person may file an action for relief. So I assume that means another land owner within the district who didn’t receive proper notice would need to object.

Here's who the statute defines as "aggrieved".

Theoretically, as a property owner close enough to be environmentally impacted by acts of the District, I could sue.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Didn't the new contract between RCID and WDW limit the new board's ability to use eminent domain?

I thought so. But honestly at this point I don’t remember. I can’t believe this insanity is still going on

 

[JAB]

Based on prior Florida case law, it would likely be fatal to the development agreement if it was determined that the mailed notices were required and RCID failed to do so.

Now the restrictive covenants are another matter, but I personally view the development agreement as far more important to the future of WDW.

I haven't read any references beyond the statute that says failure to mail notices is not, in and of itself, grounds for voiding an agreement that was publicly noticed per "Sunshine," so I'm curious to know what the case law is that makes the notices a "fatal" issue.

 

[LAKid53]

Can you be a little more specific? I drive through there daily and I’m blanking at what you’re referring to. I’m not aware of an extension of the existing solar farm, just a lot of utility work, road widening, and housing development.

If driving north on Hartzog past the hotels, on the left side of the road. Before Hartzog curves and meets Avalon at Four Corners.

 

[Stripes]

IIRC, Len posted something the other day that showed that failure to do the mailings does not void a development contract that was publicly noticed (which it was).

From other discussions, it sounds like the only consequence if they somehow didn't send out the necessary mailings might simply be that they would have to send them out and wait for any RCID landowners to object to the contracts (which I highly doubt any would). If no one objects, the agreements are still valid. There was also discussion about the statute only requiring the mailings go to "affected landowners," so there's an argument to be made that the only landowners affected by the agreements were Disney and RCID and therefore no one else required a mailed notice.

Florida DOT is a landowner in the district. Rest assured, they would object.