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

JKick95

JKick95

Active Member
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

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
M

maxairmike

Well-Known Member
LAKid53 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
GoofGoof said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Screenshot_20230419-180843.png
 
JAB

JAB

Well-Known Member
Stripes said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
maxairmike said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Stripes

Premium Member
JAB said:
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.
Click to expand...
Florida DOT is a landowner in the district. Rest assured, they would object.
 
Patcheslee

Patcheslee

Well-Known Member
JKick95 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Caught on that as well, from what I could find the Board still had to approve the rates and asked if that was still the case. Ones like Duke have to seek approval through the state for rate increases, so assume the new board wants to do similar.
 
mkt

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
Heath said:
Yep I don’t like government. They punish me everyday with unrelenting taxes. I wouldn’t go roll my tax accessor’s yard. That’s what Disney did when they tried to appease political activists instead of stock holders.
Click to expand...

Not even close. In your case it would be like you saying you don't like paying taxes (as your post made clear), and as a result they punish you with more taxes and the loss of ability to do what you want with your property, while at the same time making you pay for an investigation. against you.

What Disney did was speak against the governor, who is the HEAD of government in the state of Florida, due to legislation that they didn't like. And as a result, by exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech, the governor took action specifically against them.

Oh, and political activists ARE stockholders. As a shareholder I'm plenty happy to see Disney take a stand for what's right.
 
J

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
Heath said:
Of course they did. They backed and funded legislatures. Some keep trying to make the debate, Disney good, Governor bad. The original premise is businesses need to stay out of politics and none of this would happen. It’s not smart business.
Click to expand...
Regardless, your analogy makes no sense. If you roll your assessor’s yard, you are retaliating and causing actual property damage (unlawful). Disney did not respond in a retaliatory or unlawful way. They simply stated their disagreement with and intent to oppose legislation via whatever legal means are available to them. Then the state retaliated against them in an unlawful way.
 
LAKid53

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
LAKid53

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
George said:
Bull. Businesses always get involved in politics. It’s very smart business.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. When FPL failed to get a constitutional amendment passed that would adversely impact residential solar in the state, they resorted to the old fashioned method - drafted the legislation and greased the hands of a few members of the Legislature.
 
JAB

JAB

Well-Known Member
Stripes said:
Florida DOT is a landowner in the district. Rest assured, they would object.
Click to expand...
Ah got it; didn't realize there was a state agency in the mix. So basically, if somehow RCID didn't actually mail notices to *all* landowners, then it will come down to a legal battle over whether any objecting landowners are considered "affected." 😬
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom