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

[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.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

I think you guys are saying the same thing. If the proper mailings didn’t occur and if a landowner emerges with a complaint then a judge would decide whether they qualify as adversely impacted based on the reasons they give.

 

[LAKid53]

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.

Florida's Sunshine law applies only to government.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

Sorry, thread moves fast…..carry on

 

[peter11435]

Presumably at today's board meeting.

And yet they provided no proof. I wonder why?

 

[LAKid53]

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.

Correct. They have to demonstrate standing and harm.

 

[GoofGoof]

And yet they provided no proof. I wonder why?

Yeah seems very odd. If this notice issue is a slam dunk to void the contract and if they had proof of a person who was harmed objecting they 100% would have presented that, probably lead with it.

 

[flynnibus]

My original premise, like many others, is businesses need to stay out of politics as much as possible.

And this is a naive perspective… or one abused by people willingly distorting it to fit their purpose.

You don’t think businesses should get involved in local planning? Like i dunno… thr interstate that stands to bypass their town? Or hoe about ghe new reporting requirements that will cause them undue burden? Or how about regulations in general? Or how about how they jnteract with their employees and customers?

Just stay out of everything? These businesses don’t exist ina vacuum- nor are make up of non-humans.

Every business owner who has broken their back to be a success would tell you to gfys if you told them they should stay out of politics that impact them

 

[Vacationeer]

Florida's Sunshine law applies only to government.

Shouldn’t it be public if the CFTOD grants development for that area?