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

[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.

 

[Heath]

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.

Because when businesses wade into political activism, especially identify politics, the court of public opinion (aka the customer base) will be split in half. No business wants to irk half its customers! It’s a no win scenario, Once you madden a big faction, then negative consequences.will come. While Disney could not have anticipated what they view as gross government overreach, it would never have happened if Disney would not have backed legislators. It was the wrong move from a fiscal management perspective. Then people who don’t default to the “unlawful government” issue go the moral route. “Disney did the morally right thing !” they say..Ok again half the customers disagree. But you know who agrees with me? The Disney executives who are focused on the business of profiting off making people happy. They would certainly like a mulligan. This discussion would be better debated with them

 

[Stripes]

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.

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.

The problem is that, as a party to the contract, according to the development agreement legislation RCID/CFTOD does not have to be an “aggrieved party.” As a party to the contract itself, they have standing to challenge the contract’s compliance with the notice requirements regardless of whether they are aggrieved or not.

 

[JD80]

This whole thread is a nice little collection of people learning for the first time how local and municipal governments work.

Special tax allowances? Gasp.

 

[Chi84]

The problem is that, as a party to the contract, according to the development agreement legislation RCID/CFTOD does not have to be an “aggrieved party.” As a party to the contract itself, they have standing to challenge the contract’s compliance with the notice requirements regardless of whether they are aggrieved or not.

But if the board itself entered into the agreement how could it challenge its own lack of compliance? Who was required to send the notices?

 

[Tha Realest]

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.


And what gives the Board this supra-constitional authority?

The statute allows the RCID (now CFTOD) to sue if they so choose. They could seek to enforce the agreement or challenge the compliance of the agreement under the statutes.

“Any party …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. 163.3220-163.3243.”

 

[Heath]

We must just have a different understanding of what politics means, to put it lightly.

There are so many threads I have no idea what this response is for.

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.

ok. People on here have said this over and over, yet nobody has asked if I agree with government overreach. I do not. It’s kinda weird. All I ever said is that wading in politics, especially identity politics, is a no win situation that Disney wishes they could redo.

 

[Heath]

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

No I did not say they are “getting what they deserve.” I only said Disney stepped in it.

 

[GoofGoof]

The problem is that, as a party to the contract, according to the development agreement legislation RCID/CFTOD does not have to be an “aggrieved party.” As a party to the contract itself, they have standing to challenge the contract’s compliance with the notice requirements regardless of whether they are aggrieved or not.

But they were the party required to send the notifications as the government entity signing the agreement. I can’t see a judge saying they can void the contract because they failed to notify property owners.

 

[James Alucobond]

Because when businesses wade into political activism, especially identify politics, the court of public opinion (aka the customer base) will be split in half. No business wants to irk half its customers! It’s a no win scenario, Once you madden a big faction, then negative consequences.will come. While Disney could not have anticipated what they view as gross government overreach, it would never have happened if Disney would not have backed legislators. It was the wrong move from a fiscal management perspective. Then people who don’t default to the “unlawful government” issue go the moral route. “Disney did the morally right thing !” they say..Ok again half the customers disagree. But you know who agrees with me? The Disney executives who are focused on the business of profiting off making people happy. They would certainly like a mulligan. This discussion would be better debated with them

Okay, but what you've expressed is just a random thought that is, at best, only tangentially related to this thread and not at all reflective of what you originally posted. This topic is specifically about the government overreach; the title describes what the Florida legislature is doing.

ok. People on here have said this over and over, yet nobody has asked if I agree with government overreach. I do not. It’s kinda weird. All I ever said is that wading in politics, especially identity politics, is a no win situation that Disney wishes they could redo.

What's kind of weird is that you would come into a topic about government overreach, post vague things, and not expect people to view it in the context into which you interjected your commentary.

 

[LAKid53]

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

The OCTOD Board did not exist at the time of the execution of the Agreement. It was created on February 27, 2023. The Agreement was approved and executed on February 8, 2023.

HB 9B, now Chapter 2023-5, Laws of Florida, repealed Chapter 67-764, the Act which created Reedy Creek Improvement District. Unless the statute specifically stated it is the successor to the RCID Board of Supervisors, it is not. And I saw nothing in the law specifically stating it is.

 

[James Alucobond]

No I did not say they are “getting what they deserve.”

That's literally what "you reap what you sow" means. It means you get back in equal measure what you put out into the world, i.e. what you deserve.

 

[Chi84]

The statute allows the RCID (now CFTOD) to sue if they so choose. They could seek to enforce the agreement or challenge the compliance of the agreement under the statutes.

“Any party …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. 163.3220-163.3243.”

Well sure, but does that mean they can challenge the agreement based on their own failure to provide the required notices? Wouldn’t some sort of estoppel or unclean hands theory apply? That could lead to all kinds of nonsense.