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

[TrainsOfDisney]

Ok again half the customers disagree.

Source?

 

[Heath]

Source?

Please

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.”

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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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HB 9B, now Chapter 2023-5, Laws of Florida, repealed Chapter 67-764, the Act which created Reedy Creek Improvement District.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.

No. The Board was created back in 1967. It was renamed and its criteria for membership were reorganized in February. HB 9B renamed and reorganized the district, it did not dissolve it and create a new district.

 

[LAKid53]

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.

HB-9B repealed Chapter 67-764, the Act creating Reedy Creek Improvement District.

At the time of notice of the January 25, 2023, neither the OCTOD nor its Board of Supervisors had been created. That is the relevant notice time because under Section 163.3225(2)(a), F.S., "Notice of intent to consider a development agreement shall also be mailed to all affected property owners before the first public hearing." There is no statutory requirement to mail notice to "all affected property owners" for the requisite 2nd public meeting because "The day, time, and place at which the second public hearing will be held shall be announced at the first public hearing." And it was. It's in the minutes of the January 25, 2023 RCID Board of Supervisors meeting.

 

[Heath]

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

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

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.

 

[LAKid53]

No. The Board was created back in 1967. It was renamed and its criteria for membership were reorganized in February. HB 9B renamed and reorganized the district, it did not dissolve it and create a new district.

HB-9B repealed Chapter 67-764.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

 

[Chi84]

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.

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.

 

[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?