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

[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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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

I said potential harm. I think the district needs to produce a landowner who will claim they are potentially harmed by maintaining the status quo. That’s your objective criteria, someone claiming potential harm actually existing.

The District claiming there is possibly a property owner who might be harmed by the status quo is not an objective criteria. It’s a hypothetical. And unless the net for affected property owners is stretched very wide, that’s not necessarily a large number of property owners. Even at 300’ from property lines you could still only have a handful of affected property owners who should have been notified, so it’s not like you’re dealing an issue of scale in trying to find those who may be concerned.

 

[MrPromey]

Who have you invested in? And last I checked Disney is still very much profitable.

That's really not how owning stock in Disney works, I'm afraid.

 

[flynnibus]

said potential harm. I think the district needs to produce a landowner who will claim they are potentially harmed by maintaining the status quo. That’s your objective criteria, someone claiming potential harm actually existing.

I think you are crossing separate subjects. The point about raising an objection is not part of the notice requirements.

So your whole potentially harmed thing is not about who theh must provide notice too

 

[LAKid53]

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

Here's the relevant section of the statute, along with the statutory definition of "aggrieved or affected party"..

 

[Heath]

What do you mean they have to pay for it? You think the government has a right to punish people for taking moral positions the government doesn’t like?

See this is what happens on these threads… I make a comment that Disney has to “pay for it” and that turns into mind readers speculating on what I think, What I said is that Disney does not want to be in this media and cultural battle, and they don’t want to be in this Reedy Creek battle, and they prefer to be investing money and energy in creative things that make money. That’s what I mean by “pay for it.” And you turned this into the debate of what you speculate I think about government rights.
My original premise, like many others, is businesses need to stay out of politics as much as possible.
I’ve noticed that this is a mostly pro-Disney forum, and if one says anything that’s a different perspective, one gets ganged up on here, with fallacies and emotional responses.
I do NOT support government over reach. All I did was say Disney stepped in it. I also said they could have better avoided it. Then that turned into “that’s not moral!l Then I said I’m not debating morality, all I said is many Disney executives regret stepping into this poop, and would have made more effort to avoid the situation. if they could get a redo.

 

[GoofGoof]

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

I don’t think that’s how it works. A judge has to decide if a party is adversely impacted. it’s not enough for the the new board to just say the mailing wasn’t done so the contract is void. There could be a landowner out there who claims harm and is in close enough proximity to the district to qualify but they have to file suit and argue why the agreement will harm them.

 

[JAB]

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.

I'm really confused. How is that any different than what I stated in the post you quoted? If any landowner didn't get a mailing and chooses to object, it becomes a question of whether that landowner is legally considered "affected." We're saying the same thing, so I'm still confused why you chose to point out the mailing deadline in response to my post.

 

[flynnibus]

The contributors don't necessarily "work in that environment."

I read that piece and clearly its not written from a legal review perspective but something written to just be an article- with it’s own freedoms.

I mean we don’t need to look beyond Desantis himself to prove that credentials alone do not make an author authentic or credible…. Especially when self publishing an obvious “news” piece

Leg us know when he publishes it in a journal

 

[GoofGoof]

See this is what happens on these threads… I make a comment that Disney has to “pay for it” and that turns into mind readers speculating on what I think, What I said is that Disney does not want to be in this media and cultural battle, and they don’t want to be in this Reedy Creek battle, and they don’t want to be investing money and energy in creative things that make money. That’s what I mean by “pay for it.” And you turned this into the debate of what you speculate I think about government rights.
My original premise, like many others, is businesses need to stay out of politics as much as possible.
I’ve noticed that this is a mostly pro-Disney forum, and if one says anything that’s a different perspective, one gets ganged up on here, with fallacies and emotional responses.
I do NOT support government over reach. All I did was say Disney stepped in it. I also said they could have better avoided it. Then that turned into “that’s not moral!l Then I said I’m not debating morality, all I said is many Disney executives regret stepping into this poop, and would have made more effort to avoid the situation. if they could get a redo.

So what you are saying is Disney stepped in it and is getting what they deserve now

 

[LAKid53]

Exactly. And when would they present that evidence?

Presumably at today's board meeting.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

I'd like to see the situation end as well, but I can tell you that this is still playing well with much of the ideological right. I listen to between three and five conservative podcasts per day, and they are all eating this up like it's chocolate pudding without a spoon.

I don’t doubt you’re right, but as someone who considers themselves “conservative”/Libertarian in the pro-free market sense, I wince at the thought that the majority political party using the full throated regulatory power of the state to impose a punitive response for speaking out against the majority political party’s legislation is in any way politically “conservative” in the traditional sense (regardless of the perceived merits of said legislation). This is just a very slippery slope these so called conservatives in their thirst for power are advocating, and I’d be saying the same thing if the left wing in California tried to specifically regulate Chick-fil-A, In-N-Out or Hobby Lobby for regulatory scrutiny or taxation.

Milton Friedman and Adam Smith would be spinning in their graves. Maybe right-wing wannabe authoritarian opportunist. But if this is what passes as free market constitutional conservatism then I’m 6’11” and play for the Lakers.

 

[flynnibus]

I don’t think that’s how it works. A judge has to decide if a party is adversely impacted. it’s not enough for the the new board to just say the mailing wasn’t done so the contract is void.

Two different sentences- two different discussions.

I’m not talking about the board’s conclusions that they can void the contract… we were talking anout the notice requirements. Not what cones next.