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

[Tha Realest]

I think it’d be a pretty week argument to claim that a mailed notice, and a mailed notice alone, is what would have stirred action. Not other public notices. Not national news coverage. Just that one piece of mail is what would have made you act in a timely manner.

These disputes are usually “You didn’t tell me you were changing something.” This is, “You didn’t tell me things were staying the same” and as time moves forward it becomes “You didn’t tell me things were staying the same and even after I found out I still waited a much longer time than the notice provided to get around to voice my objection to things staying the same.”

You’re adding requirements that don’t exist in the statute.

Did they comply with public notice requirements or not? Where does it require those entitled to notice to show harm?

 

[Chi84]

the legal counsel to the successors to the RCID, which would presumptively have ready access to previous communications, are asserting that notices weren’t provided to the affected property owners.

I understand. But there may be facts we don’t know that impact upon the ultimate effect of lack of notice.

 

[James Alucobond]

My example only meant that Disney should try to avoid politics. Sometimes it’s tough to avoid politics, but it’s best business practice to try. Disney did not, whether they couldn’t, or intentionally inserted themselves for their moral cause, they stepped in it. Big time.

First, it's actually irresponsible to the shareholders not to be involved in politics as you should certainly be lobbying with your company's best interests in mind. That is how Disney got into the position they enjoyed for decades in the first place.

Second, it is not about whether or not what they said was stupid or offended someone in the state government. It is about the fact that the government legally cannot retaliate against anything they say. Why are you defending the government for passing legislation to punish someone for committing what you consider a flub?

 

[Brian]

Some commentary on the situation from GW Law professor, Jonathan Turley:

Disney’s Wild Ride: DeSantis-Appointed Board Set to Declare Disney’s Unchecked Authority Null and Void

This weekend, I contributed to an article for the New York Post with an exclusive on a move by the new board governing Disney properties to declare the recent transfers of power to the company to b…

jonathanturley.org

 

[Heath]

No its based on the premise we have protected speech in this country and when anyone tramples that people get worried. Especially when people JUSTIFY it

Ok that’s your premise. Mine was Disney backed legislatures making their own bed. That’s all.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don’t think there is an argument that because the agreement doesn’t cause change that it no longer needs the same notice.

The notice is for an agreement period - not it’s contents

It’s not that it negates the need for notice, but that it changes the ability to claim a valid concern of potential harm from the agreement. Examples have been shared of lack of notice not being sufficient to completely kill the deal. If that holds, then you need someone who not only should have been notified but has a concern they would have brought forward for consideration.

 

[TheGuyThatMakesSwords]

How are you going to lose cash visiting WDW?

Aside from the obvious spending of it.

DVC investment - about $40K. One contact gifted, one sold. We are out.
Dues : about $2.5K per year.
Air Fair: about $4K per year, two trips.
Dinning: About $2K per trip, times two.

All gone. We are taking that apx $12K per year, two vacations, and putting the cash into that which is no longer a Political War.
My dear 2nd son needed a great GENERAC for his home.... we're taking care of that .

We will return, when WDW has a functioning park system. It's a vacation - not the War in Ukraine.

 

[Tha Realest]

After all of the other openly stated misinformation we have recieved from the governor, the legislature, and the new board…. Why are you so quick to believe them. They have openly lied to you repeatedly already.

The existence (or Nonexistence) of notice is a very easy thing to prove or disprove. It’s really a very simple question. We’ve yet to see any evidence of mailed notice. You can hand waive against its import or allege bad faith all you want, but no one has yet to produce evidence these notices were mailed as required by law.

 

[LAKid53]

Not sure what you mean. Why does the mailing deadline matter if they didn't mail the notices? I'm not saying they didn't, just considering "if."

Because the relevant statute says "all affected landowners". I'd have to go back and read the Agreement, but I believe not every single landowner in the District was affected by it, therefore no requirement to mail them a copy before the January meeting.

 

[peter11435]

The existence (or Nonexistence) of notice is a very easy thing to prove or disprove. It’s really a very simple question. We’ve yet to see any evidence of mailed notice. You can hand waive against its import or allege bad faith all you want, but no one has yet to produce evidence these notices were mailed as required by law.

And who provided evidence that they were not. Did the new board point out a single effected landowner today that was not noticed? Why not?

 

[lazyboy97o]

You’re adding requirements that don’t exist in the statute.

Did they comply with public notice requirements or not? Where does it require those entitled to notice to show harm?

It’s in 163.3243. One must be aggravated or adversely affected to challenge the validity of the agreement.

 

[LAKid53]

Look at a map of the Florida water management districts. The South Florida Water Management District noodles up the middle of the state for a reason, because systems like Reedy Creek are part of the Everglades hydrological system.

Someone would have to prove they've got standing. In other words, hire a hydrogeologist to determine that the quality of groundwater on their property was directly impacted by the underground injection wells Reedy Creek uses to dispose of wastewater.

 

[peter11435]

DVC investment - about $40K. One contact gifted, one sold. We are out.
Dues : about $2.5K per year.
Air Fair: about $4K per year, two trips.
Dinning: About $2K per trip, times two.

All gone. We are taking that apx $12K per year, two vacations, and putting the cash into that which is no longer a Political War.
My dear 2nd son needed a great GENERAC for his home.... we're taking care of that .

We will return, when WDW has a functioning park system. It's a vacation - not the War in Ukraine.

This is called spending money on a vacation. You aren’t losing money on an investment.

 

[flynnibus]

It’s not that it negates the need for notice, but that it changes the ability to claim a valid concern of potential harm from the agreement. Examples have been shared of lack of notice not being sufficient to completely kill the deal. If that holds, then you need someone who not only should have been notified but has a concern they would have brought forward for consideration.

Finding a surrogate in this environment probably won’t be hard. And they haven’t needed to already experienced harm. The whole point is advance notice - not venue to report.

I don’t think people arr going to dismiss a notice requirement based on the parties subjectivly deciding themselves who is impacted or not. It’s going to boil down to an objective standard that appeases the law or precedent

 

[GoofGoof]

You’re adding requirements that don’t exist in the statute.

Did they comply with public notice requirements or not? Where does it require those entitled to notice to show harm?

It’s literally in the FL statute. I posted it earlier:

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.

Remember this wasn’t designed to be a gotcha or a catch all for the Governor to invalidate a contract that’s inconvenient. It’s basic contract law, pretty boring stuff. A party has to be aggrieved or adversely affected to object to not being properly notified and they will have to say why. This requirement is designed to make sure people who could actually be impacted have a chance to object publicly while the board is deciding on approval. It’s not designed to allow any person in the public to object.

So if the proper mailing didn’t happen the number of people who could claim to be adversely affected by that is limited. It’s basically the landowners of the district and possibly some adjacent landowners if they can show how they would be adversely impacted. The contract is not automatically void if the mailings didn’t occur. That’s just spin from people hoping it would be true.

 

[Disney Analyst]

And who provided evidence that they were not. Did the new board point out a single effected landowner today that was not noticed? Why not?

Exactly. And when would they present that evidence?

 

[flynnibus]

The existence (or Nonexistence) of notice is a very easy thing to prove or disprove.

There is still room for interpretation- which is why its not so ‘easy’

You’re trying to pin down on a point… but it’s not the only dimension of concern. So it’s not the booyah moment you want it go be

 

[MrPromey]

Birds eye for the Disney inmates - view of MK and Epcot nightly fireworks !

You'll have to do something extra bad for those views - double-homicide or worse.

Regular prisnors will be subject to courtyard and entrance views, only.

 

[LAKid53]

First, it's actually irresponsible to the shareholders not to be involved in politics as you should certainly be lobbying with your company's best interests in mind. That is how Disney got into the position they enjoyed for decades in the first place.

Second, it is not about whether or not what they said was stupid or offended someone in the state government. It is about the fact that the government legally cannot retaliate against anything they say. Why are you defending the government for passing legislation to punish someone for committing what you consider a flub?

If some don't think TWDC doesn't lobby the Florida Legislature or governor, I highly recommend hanging out at the Capitol Complex from March through May. Moat of those in suits will be lobbyists.

 

[Vacationeer]

If WDW area land ends up getting developed as a result of this state appointed special district, I hope developers and the Florida government adhere to Gov-in-the-Sunshine.