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

[GoofGoof]

I’m sorry but you are incorrect. “Reap what you sow” does not mean one deserves consequences. It means one eventually have to face up to the consequences of your actions. For ex I could argue that Disney should have anticipated negative fallout, but that does not mean that they deserve government overreach.

My post was a joke. You are free to believe whatever you want.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

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.

It's simple to say "avoid politics" but when government is targeting a specific minority group, it's not so much political as it morally imperative for Disney to stand up for their employees and customers. Note that Disney stood up for equal and fair treatment, they didn't stand against anyone.

It's impossible to be "neutral" when it comes to this sort of issue because silence itself is a statement, and not neutral.

 

[lazyboy97o]

HB-9B repealed Chapter 67-764. It's in the bill's preamble and now law.

“An act relating to the Reedy Creek Improvement District, Orange and Osceola Counties; reenacting, amending, and repealing chapter 67-764, Laws of Florida, and the decree in chancery No. 66-1061 entered by the Circuit Court in and for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida on May 13, 1966, relating to the district; providing legislative intent; providing for continuation of authority for revenue collection and powers to meet outstanding obligations; renaming the district; providing the boundaries for the district; revising the manner of selection of the board of supervisors; providing term limits; revising board member compensation; providing a process for selecting certain staff; revising the powers of the board; revising the powers of the district; providing severability; providing for transition; providing construction; providing for continued effect of stipulation between the district and Orange County; providing an exception to general law; providing an effective date.l

This preamble? It’s right there. The district was renamed. How the board of supervisors is selected was revised.

 

[James Alucobond]

I’m sorry but you are incorrect. “Reap what you sow” does not mean one deserves consequences. It means one eventually have to face up to the consequences of your actions. For ex I could argue that Disney should have anticipated negative fallout, but that does not mean that they deserve government overreach.

You're splitting hairs, and not even in a way that agrees with the most commonly referenced Biblical source in Galatians nor makes much of a difference. When you apply that saying to the situation this thread is about, you imply that the consequences Disney is facing are the natural fruit of the seeds they have sown, but government overreach is not what should issue forth when one exercises a right to free speech, ever.

 

[peter11435]

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.

Imagine if we allowed anyone to sign a contract and then get out of it because they claim they made a mistake when doing so.

 

[lazyboy97o]

As far as I know a party can’t get out of its own contract by proving that it didn’t comply with its terms.

As a pure hypothetical, I guess it is theoretically possible that a government, upon learning that they failed to provide notice to concerns citizens who would have convinced them not to enter into the agreement decides to own up to their error and pursue the challenge on behalf of their citizens. But you’d still have aggrieved persons.

 

[GoofGoof]

Imagine if we allowed anyone to sign a contract and then get out of it because they claim they made a mistake when doing so.

And in this case not just anyone…..but the government. So any time government control changed from one party to the other they could just void all contracts previously entered into. The rules are in place to protect people from the government not the other way around.

 

[LAKid53]

“An act relating to the Reedy Creek Improvement District, Orange and Osceola Counties; reenacting, amending, and repealing chapter 67-764, Laws of Florida, and the decree in chancery No. 66-1061 entered by the Circuit Court in and for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida on May 13, 1966, relating to the district; providing legislative intent; providing for continuation of authority for revenue collection and powers to meet outstanding obligations; renaming the district; providing the boundaries for the district; revising the manner of selection of the board of supervisors; providing term limits; revising board member compensation; providing a process for selecting certain staff; revising the powers of the board; revising the powers of the district; providing severability; providing for transition; providing construction; providing for continued effect of stipulation between the district and Orange County; providing an exception to general law; providing an effective date.l

This preamble? It’s right there. The district was renamed. How the board of supervisors is selected was revised.

Again, neither the Orange County Tourism Oversight District nor its Board of Supervisors existed when the January 25th meeting - the one requiring notice be provided to the affected property owners or the February 8th meeting when the Agreement was finalized and adopted.

I've been through the merger of 2 state agencies. Language in the bill was very clear that DEP's ERC (the agency's "governing board" for rule & regulation promulgation) was the successor to DER's ERC.

 

[Heath]

It's simple to say "avoid politics" but when government is targeting a specific minority group, it's not so much political as it morally imperative for Disney to stand up for their employees and customers. Note that Disney stood up for equal and fair treatment, they didn't stand against anyone.

It's impossible to be "neutral" when it comes to this sort of issue because silence itself is a statement, and not neutral.

It is my understanding that Disney paid over $250k to legislatures.you

You're splitting hairs, and not even in a way that agrees with the most commonly referenced Biblical source in Galatians nor makes much of a difference. When you apply that saying to the situation this thread is about, you imply that the consequences Disney is facing are the natural fruit of the seeds they have sown, but government overreach is not what should issue forth when one exercises a right to free speech, ever.

Hey James, politely, I was specifically answering somebody called goofgood who accused me of saying that Disney “deserves” consequences because I wrote “you reap what you sow” living ago. Goodgoid said that the saying “literally” means you get why you deserve. And I disagreed. I was defending my use if it, and it’s not splitting hairs. It’s defining exactly as I intended it to mean. I never said Disney “ deserves” anything

 

[lazyboy97o]

Again, neither the Orange County Tourism Oversight District nor its Board of Supervisors existed when the January 25th meeting - the one requiring notice be provided to the affected property owners or the February 8th meeting when the Agreement was finalized and adopted.

I've been through the merger of 2 state agencies. Language in the bill was very clear that DEP's ERC (the agency's "governing board" for rule & regulation promulgation) was the successor to DER's ERC.

A first draft is not a revision. The board of supervisors could not be revised if it was being created. The district could not be renamed if it was being created.

 

[Tha Realest]

Enforcement and compliance relate the to the terms of the agreement. They can force Disney to do something or argue that Disney isn’t doing what they are supposed to be doing. The District’s own failure to provide notice is not an issue of enforcement or compliance with the terms of the agreement.

And as you point out, even if that were the case, the avenue to do so is through the courts. There is no provision that allows a party to unilaterally declare the agreement null and void, and 163.3237 specifically requires mutual consent to cancel an agreement. There is no statute that gives special districts the power to cancel contracts. In fact, the power to cancel contracts is specifically prohibited by the state and federal constitutions.

They don’t need to do anything. If the agreement was entered into in violation of the state’s open meetings laws, the contract is not binding. They can take an official action to deem the agreement null and void, and force WDPR to sue.

Section 286.011, provides that no resolution, rule, regulation or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at an open meeting. They can find, and self-assert, that the agreement was entered into in violation of the open meeting act. The correction, if they so choose, is a curative attempt to have the meetings appropriately publicly noticed.

163.3235 even enables them to unilaterally revoke a development agreement If they find competent evidence of failure to comply.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

That’s why i said the CFTOD.

They weren't a party to the contract and there was literally no way for Disney or RCID to notify them since nobody even k ew that they would be appointed at that time. What would they argue? And since they're replacing the old RCID board, would they argue that RCID didn't notify itself?

 

[flynnibus]

A development deal being trashed because someone who does not object to it was not told at the correct time is a bit of a nonsense scenario

Or… a procedural issue - doesn’t negate it… but would a court support acting on it?

I guess we shall see…

 

[Heath]

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.

Getting back in equal measure what you put into world has zero to do with “deserve.” If i plant 10 seeds and get back 10 trees, I got back what I planted, not what iI deserved.

 

[flynnibus]

I have always been talking about the interplay between notice and how it relates to action going forward.

And conveniently obscuring point #1 by your conclusions on point #2

Point #1 has merit on its own as well…. So stop trying to declare it immaterial because of your point#2 interpretation. #1 (notice) has its own requirements and interpretation of those

 

[James Alucobond]

Hey James, politely, I was specifically answering somebody called goofgood who accused me of saying that Disney “deserves” consequences because I wrote “you reap what you sow” living ago. Goodgoid said that the saying “literally” means you get why you deserve. And I disagreed. I was defending my use if it, and it’s not splitting hairs. It’s defining exactly as I intended it to mean. I never said Disney “ deserves” anything

Politely, that was my post. You misquoted and used something you'd previously quoted in another post by accident, unless you meant to respond to the same thing twice.

And it is absolutely splitting hairs, because it means you reap the known result of the thing you planted. If you sow wheat in spring, you reap wheat in autumn. If you plant plentifully, you get bounty in return. Again, government retaliation is not the known byproduct of free speech. It's the exact opposite of what you should be reaping. But have fun eating the eggplant your mustard seeds bear this fall, I guess.

 

[Tha Realest]

As a pure hypothetical, I guess it is theoretically possible that a government, upon learning that they failed to provide notice to concerns citizens who would have convinced them not to enter into the agreement decides to own up to their error and pursue the challenge on behalf of their citizens. But you’d still have aggrieved persons.

it’s not hypothetical. It’s recommended the local government hold rehearings to fix the failure to provide notice
From the state’s Sunshine Law guide:

Where, however, a public board or commission does not merely perfunctorily ratify or ceremoniously accept at a later open meeting those decisions which were made at an earlier secret meeting but rather takes “independent final action in the sunshine,” the decision of the board or commission will not be disturbed. Tolar v. School Board of Liberty County, 398 So. 2d 427, 429 (Fla. 1981). Accord Bruckner v. City of Dania Beach, 823 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (Sunshine violations “can be cured by independent, final action completely in the Sunshine”). And see Monroe County v. Pigeon Key Historical Park, Inc., 647 So. 2d 857, 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (adoption of the open government constitutional amendment, Art. I, s. 24, Fla. Const., did not overrule the Tolar “standard of remediation”). Cf. Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota County v. Webber, 658 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (no evidence suggesting that board members met in secret during a recess to reconsider and deny a variance and then perfunctorily ratified this decision at the public hearing held a few minutes later); B.M.Z. Corporation v. City of Oakland Park, 415 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (where no evidence that any decision was made in private, subsequent formal action in sunshine was not merely perfunctory ratification of secret decisions or ceremonial acceptance of secret actions).
Thus, in a case involving the validity of a lease approved by a board of county commissioners after an advisory committee held two unnoticed meetings regarding the lease, a court held that the Sunshine Law violations were cured when the board of county commissioners held open public hearings after the unnoticed meetings, an effort was made to make available to the public the minutes of the unnoticed meetings, the board approved a lease that was markedly different from that recommended by the advisory committee, and most of the lease negotiations were conducted after the advisory committee had concluded its work. Monroe County v. Pigeon Key Historical Park, Inc., 647 So. 2d 857, 860-861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Similarly, a school board remedied an inadvertent violation of the Sunshine Law when it subsequently held full, open and independent public hearings prior to adopting a redistricting plan. Finch v. Seminole County School Board, 995 So. 2d 1068, 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). And see Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Sarasota, 48 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 2010) (any possible violations that occurred when county commissioners circulated e-mails among each other were cured by four subsequent public meetings involving discussion of multiple proposals); Jackson v. City of Tallahassee, 265 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (public city commission meeting to fill a vacancy on the commission, which included a full discussion of the appointment, candidate presentations, more than an hour of public comment, and numerous speakers, cured any purported violation that may have occurred during the application process). Cf. Anderson v. City of St. Pete Beach, 161 So. 3d 548, 553-554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), noting that “even when an illicit action is ‘cured’ it does not absolve a public body of its responsibility for violating the Sunshine Law in the first instance; it simply provides a way to salvage a void act by reconsidering it in Sunshine.”
It must be emphasized, however, that only a full open hearing will cure the defect; a violation of the Sunshine Law will not be cured by a perfunctory ratification of the action taken outside of the sunshine. Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc. v. Centrust Savings Bank, 535 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). See also Anderson v. City of St. Pete Beach, 161 So. 3d at 553 (city failed to cure Sunshine Law violation since it merely perfunctorily ratified in public session what had already been decided in closed meetings).

 

[LAKid53]

A first draft is not a revision. The board of supervisors could not be revised if it was being created. The district could not be renamed if it was being created.

163.3225, F.S., requires at the minimum 2 meetings. Notice of intent to consider a development agreement must be given 7 days prior to each public hearing. Only the 1st public hearing requires affected property owners be notified by mail. The date and time of the 2nd public hearing is to be announced at the first. Which RCID did - it's in the minutes I've read.

Again, it is impossible to notify a body that did not exist, by law, at the time of two public meetings or adoption of a development agreement. If that's what the OCTOD Board is insisting should have happen, the members are nuts.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They don’t need to do anything. If the agreement was entered into in violation of the state’s open meetings laws, the contract is not binding. They can take an official action to deem the agreement null and void, and force WDPR to sue.

Section 286.011, provides that no resolution, rule, regulation or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at an open meeting. They can find, and self-assert, that the agreement was entered into in violation of the open meeting act. The correction, if they so choose, is a curative attempt to have the meetings appropriately publicly noticed.

163.3235 even enables them to unilaterally revoke a development agreement If they find competent evidence of failure to comply.

Where does 286.011 provide for self assertion? I see references to court determinations. Self assertion would allow any government to just undo all of the prior officials’ decisions by declaring the void. That’s nonsense.

Again, compliance relates to Disney’s actions. They have to find that Disney is not complying with the terms, not that they failed a prior procedural requirement.

 

[GoofGoof]

Or… a procedural issue - doesn’t negate it… but would a court support acting on it?

I guess we shall see…

I’m not sure we will actually see for a while. Ultimately Disney believes they have a valid contract. They have no reason to sue anyone over it. The district is going to publicly claim the contract is void. That’s as meaningless as me publicly declaring it’s valid, but it will get DeSantis the headlines he desperately wants since he’s getting killed over this from both sides. Until the board takes an action that is in violation of the agreement or Disney attempts to do something allowed under the agreement and the board attempts to stop them this may not see a court room. If Disney continues to run their business and develop their property as they want who cares if the blowhards on the board “declare” the contract void. It only matters if they try to act as if it’s void.