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

[Tha Realest]

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

You’re misquoting and misreading the statute.

“Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2)” (not “aggravated“) can seek enforcement

If it was limited to “aggrieved or adversely affected person” it would have read ”Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2).”

“Any party” inclusion can be viewed broadly as to include the CFTOD (as successor in interest to the RCID).

I don’t think that’s how this is going to play out. The CFTOD will assert that the contract is null and void and refuse to comply with it. I think it will be Disney/WDPR that, eventually, will seek to enforce the CFTOD’s compliance with the development agreement (likely under this section).

 

[maxairmike]

Which explains that spot. I'm referring to the others.

If you're not referring to the RIBs (which the chair was dumb to suggest removing if they want to develop more District land and as they continue to develop more in Celebration) and on the Hartzog side of 429, then it must be the utility work that is going on all along the Avalon corridor for the continuing buildout of all the Horizon West communities. I wish it was fast-tracking the Avalon expansion, but at least RCID has flags in the ground to fully build out the Western Way side of the intersection, so there's movement there that hopefully this board doesn't get the bright idea to interfere with.

 

[Heath]

Except, Disney can pay for it from the public. Sales can either go up or go down. However, this is the United States of America and our Constitution gives them the right to face those public repercussions. But it does not permit the state to add to those repercussions. Whether you agree with the stand Disney took or not or whether you agree with Disney's politics or not, the State of Florida is forbidden by the Constitution to apply repercussions to them.

I’m sorry I look at these threads and over and over people default to the government can’t attack free speech, or what Disney did is moral. I never opined on any of this. All I have said is businesses should politics. Which is challenging if not impossible, but let me be more specific…avoid identity politics. If Disney could get a mulligan, they would have avoided the mess.

 

[Tha Realest]

Correct. They have to demonstrate standing and harm.

Where is standing and harm required to show noncompliance with a public hearing requirement?

 

[James Alucobond]

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.

If your argument were that they shouldn’t wade into certain kinds of cultural politics because of how that would be viewed in the court of public opinion, then fine.

But we’re not talking about public opinion in this thread. We’re talking about the government of the state of Florida and how it responded to Disney exercising its right to free speech. You suggested that they should have anticipated this, that this is fruit they should have known they’d be reaping, but why should a company anticipate that a government will respond to them in an unlawful manner? This fruit should never have been born to reap in the first place.

 

[JoeCamel]

I own several small businesses. It’s unrealistic to stay out of politics altogether. This was identity politics, and this was the assumed understanding of context. We can debate in circles, but as a seasoned business owner that’s been through the school of hard knocks (not naive) , I try to stay out of politics in general. I’m not talking about my municipal and planning. I am involved in my downtown committee. Look the consensus with Disney executives is that if they could have avoided this situation with another approach, they would have.

You do realize they fired the guy who did what you object to?

 

[GoofGoof]

You’re misquoting and misreading the statute.

“Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2)” (not “aggravated“) can seek enforcement

If it was limited to “aggrieved or adversely affected person” it would have read ”Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2).”

“Any party” inclusion can be viewed broadly as to include the CFTOD (as successor in interest to the RCID).

I don’t think that’s how this is going to play out. The CFTOD will assert that the contract is null and void and refuse to comply with it. I think it will be Disney/WDPR that, eventually, will seek to enforce the CFTOD’s compliance with the development agreement (likely under this section).

Party means “party to the contract” not just anyone off the street

 

[LAKid53]

If you're not referring to the RIBs (which the chair was dumb to suggest removing if they want to develop more District land and as they continue to develop more in Celebration) and on the Hartzog side of 429, then it must be the utility work that is going on all along the Avalon corridor for the continuing buildout of all the Horizon West communities. I wish it was fast-tracking the Avalon expansion, but at least RCID has flags in the ground to fully build out the Western Way side of the intersection, so there's movement there that hopefully this board doesn't get the bright idea to interfere with.

Next time I drive to Flamingo Crossings I'll take a photo. As I said earlier, they remind me of dry storm water retention ponds, but the excavation is too shallow.

 

[Tha Realest]

Party means party to the contract not just anyone off the street

That’s why i said the CFTOD.

 

[SaucyBoy]

businesses should politics

I like when businesses make their politics known so I know which ones to avoid, particularly ones that hate people like me.

 

[GoofGoof]

That’s why i said the CFTOD.

They clearly received notice since they read the contract at the meeting

 

[LAKid53]

Party means party to the contract not just anyone off the street

Again, those with standing.

 

[Chi84]

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?

Isn’t that usually what happens in failure of notice cases? I don’t know about development agreements but it’s rare for a lack of notice to void other types of agreements.

 

[LAKid53]

Where is standing and harm required to show noncompliance with a public hearing requirement?

In order to convince a court of competent jurisdiction, the party will have to show that it has standing to bring such litigation and that it was harmed by a failure to receive said public notice.

Statute is clear what measures can be taken by affected parties.

 

[Heath]

You do realize they fired the guy who did what you object to?

Yes I do.

 

[Tha Realest]

Again, those with standing.

View attachment 711299

CFTOD has standing as a party. They don’t need to proceed as an aggrieved or adversely party.

 

[Tha Realest]

In order to convince a court of competent jurisdiction, the party will have to show that it has standing to bring such litigation and that it was harmed by a failure to receive said public notice.

Statute is clear what measures can be taken by affected parties.

There’s been no indication they’re seeking to invalidate this through the courts. They’re likely going to declare it null and void and let WDPR sue.

If they wanted to sue to “enforce” or challenge compliance, they could do so as a “[a]ny party” to the development agreement.

 

[LAKid53]

There’s been no indication they’re seeking to invalidate this through the courts. They’re likely going to declare it null and void and let WDPR sue.

If they wanted to sue to “enforce” or challenge compliance, they could do so as a “[a]ny party” to the development agreement.

The CFTOD Board isn't a party to the Agreement in contention. It would have to convince a court it is.

Edit: and the Board would have to convince a court that the Agreement in question meets the statutory definition of a Local Comprehensive Plan.

 

[MrPromey]

please educate me on how Disney is a bad investment then?

I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying their profits have little to do with what shareholders get out of it.

We used to get a dividend. We haven't for a while now. We might be again.

... But even if we do, it's never been anything particularly meaningful.

That's why the "think of the shareholders" argument a certain bunch always likes to bring up to justify certain things always leaves me scratching my head.

I'm still waiting for them to send me my cut of Genie+ and the Figment popcorn bucket.

I feel like I'll be waiting a while.

The value for a shareholder with a stock like Disney is in selling it at a profit. (or doing other more complex things that also have nothing really to do with Disney's profits)

If you compare the value of the stock to what it was a few years ago and you'd bought then, you'd be losing money selling it, now.

We're on the same side in this discussion, btw, but Disney is not currently making money for their shareholders

Money for executive bonuses?

Maybe.

I'm sure the stock will go up again some day but that day isn't today.

 

[Brian]

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

To be fair, I did say it was commentary.