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

[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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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

Yes they do. That’s a basic point of contract law. You can’t just get out of a contract because of your own failure.

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.

And what gives the Board this supra-constitional authority?

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

It doesn’t work that way either. A municipal board cannot just declare a contract void. If they want to void the contract due to failed notice an actual aggrieved party needs to first challenge it in court. Then a judge decides the merit of their claim.

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

The municipal entity Reedy Creek Improvement District signed the contract and is a party to the contract. That legal entity had a name change, nothing more, and is still party to the contract. The board is irrelevant. Board members are not parties in the contract. The district has zero claim that they were not properly notified.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

What? They absolutely are a party to the contract. There is no need to define it as a comprehensive plan.

 

[GoofGoof]

To be fair, I did say it was commentary.

Yeah it was definitely more opinion which is fine. I was disappointed he didn’t actually talk more about the legal aspect. Maybe more to come.

 

[Brian]

Yeah it was definitely more opinion which is fine. I was disappointed he didn’t actually talk more about the legal aspect. Maybe more to come.

Agreed, especially given that he is a vaunted first amendment scholar. It would have been nice to hear his thoughts on the free speech issue.

 

[GoofGoof]

What? They absolutely are a party to the contract. There is no need to define it as a comprehensive plan.

The district is a party to the contract but the board members themselves are not. So the fact that the board turned over doesn’t mean the new board not being properly notified is an issue. When the contract was approved the new board didn’t exist making it impossible to notify them anyway.

 

[No Name]

Then perhaps you should not join in the discussion. Other posters seem to be able to do it.

Do what? We must just have a different understanding of what politics means, to put it lightly. Know that in general I appreciate everything you do here!

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

umm, no. Where is this “Local Comprehensive Plan“ stuff coming from? There’s an entire subsection dealing explictly with development agreements, which includes this:

163.3239 Recording and effectiveness of a development agreement.—Within 14 days after a local government enters into a development agreement, the local government shall record the agreement with the clerk of the circuit court in the county where the local government is located. A development agreement is not effective until it is properly recorded in the public records of the county. The burdens of the development agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of the agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to the agreement.