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

[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.

 

[Tha Realest]

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.

If you’re arguing one party to a contract no longer exists and there is no successor in interest to said party….

….you’re arguing you no longer have a contract.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

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.

Exactly. That would give any government entity in a similar situation a way to build themselves a way out of any contract just in case they later decide they don't like it. "Your honor, void this contract because we failed to notify property owners who might have been affected even though none of them have complained."

 

[flynnibus]

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.

So its not a ‘stay out of politics’ belief… it’s a ‘stay out of that conversation’ belief. Own your real meaning.

Well you clearly are making case by case decisions on what to be involved with… respect that others can too.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

Yeah I’m out on that one. I posted a joke. Never intended to actually engage in that discussion.

 

[flynnibus]

Which, since that appeared to be a point of contention at this meeting for members of the Board, they should have had some proof the requisite mailings weren't done. A list of eligible property owners that included up-to-date addresses. A simple phone call or email asking if the property owner received the mailed notice prior to the January 2023 meeting.

A point of contention here… and maybe in court… but not in the meeting. Their hired gun told them what… and they take it as fact

 

[LittleBuford]

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.

Not really. As a pixie duster, I often feel in the minority here. But on this particular issue, even those who are most critical of Disney are throwing their weight behind the company, because the vast majority of us agree that what DeSantis is doing is beyond the pale and has much wider implications that should concern everyone.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Simple question for everyone that thinks Disney deserves this because Chapek spoke out against a bill in Florida they didn’t like… do you also support liberal boards (schools, airports) punishing Chick Fil A because they spoke out against bills they didn‘t like?

Curious if the ”Disney deserves it crowd” really believes companies should be punished for voicing an opinion or if their support is purely based on partisanship.

 

[GoofGoof]

A point of contention here… and maybe in court… but not in the meeting. Their hired gun told them what… and they take it as fact

Remember too that the meeting today was more about PR than action. They wanted to put the Governor’s talking points out there because he’s taking a beating on this. Look around here and other places and you can see the Governor’s supporters parroting the statement that the contract is declared void.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They weren't a parry 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 R ID board, would they argue that RCID didn't notify itself?

Central Florida Tourism Oversight District is the Reedy Creek Improvement District. They are the same thing. The district was renamed and its powers amended, but it is the same legal entity.

Even if they were separate entities, as the inheritor of the agreement, the CFTOD would now be a party to the contract.

MCA, Inc. and Marvel Entertainment Group have not existed in years, but Disney and Universal are still the parties to their agreement.

 

[flynnibus]

Exactly. That would give any government entity in a similar situation a way to build themselves a way out of any contract just in case they later decide they don't like it.

Well they may find themselves civilly liable for the mistake… but I can’t see how a change of management results in a pass on their requirements for everyone else. That would be an ever bigger loophole.

Don’t follow the rules… so that if caught… you just say ‘well it didn’t hurt anyone so who cares about the rules’??

 

[Heath]

Not really. As a pixie duster, I often feel in the minority here. But on this particular issue, even those who are most critical of Disney are throwing their weight behind the company, because the vast majority of us agree that what DeSantis is doing is beyond the pale and has much wider implications that should concern everyone.

That was a succinct and polite response. Thank you

 

[flynnibus]

Remember too that the meeting today was more about PR than action.

Nah … their hired lawyers to find dirt.. and those hounds reported what they think they should fight on. Not PR… just next step in their process. This isn’t a staged meeting for the cameras… its a step to progress towards their end game.