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

[flynnibus]

To be fair, I did say it was commentary.

But when it’s objectivity was questioned and the source’s position challenged you went on to defend against the criticism. Instead of just acknowledging its “for entertainment purposes”

 

[Chip Chipperson]

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.

Correct. In my rush to post from my phone I didn't clarify what I meant. The CFTOD board members weren't a party to the contract at the time it was approved and signed. They are a party to it now because they inherited the obligations of the previous board, but that doesn't give them the ability to unilaterally void the contract based on the previous board's alleged failures.

 

[Touchdown]

So let me get this straight, the successor district to RICD is going to sue itself for entering into a contract and that will somehow void the contract. You can’t sue yourself, they will need to prove Disney did something wrong. Not RICD, you can’t sue yourself. You need a landowner to be party to this.

Many people have quoted the agreement that states mailing or not mailing something can not void an agreement unless the meeting was not properly publicly noticed. Also any lawsuit will lead to discovery for both sides and if there exists records all of this was over Disney exercising their free speech rights (and public comments do not count for politicians, they are allowed to stretch the truth in order to win over the public) then a free speech case is more likely. And due to FL law all this becomes public.

 

[Heath]

But you said half of Disney’s customers…. I’m gonna guess that a majority are for LGBT rights.

If it’s “bad business” then the Disney company wouldn’t be selling Pride Merch and hosting a pride night with pride specific character outfits!

But see I could ask you to source how a majority of customers are for gay rights but you said it’s a guess which is fair. My “half” is also a guess. My guess is Disney customers are more a mirror of the entire country which could be a majority as you guess, but seems more to me about half. Politely I don’t know where what I said “bad business” exactly I have l posted so many threads. But I did say in various ways that it’s treacherous to wqde into political waters.

 

[durangojim]

I know this question isn’t to me but the answer is it’s based on partisanship. I partially blame social media for this. Before social media we were all forced to interact with people who had different opinions more. With social media you can carve out who you interact with and live in the echo chamber. As a result people have become more and more intolerant of opposing views. Now we have this new wave of cancel culture where if a company won’t follow the way I think I cancel them. Disney and Budweiser right now but others as well. In the past people had less issues with interacting with people and companies with opposing views. Now not so much. In this case I suspect most of the people saying Disney should stay out of politics want them to because they like the products but disagree with their stance on this issue. If their politics lined up they would have no issue with it.

This is 100% correct. It’s the reason why we have Trump and Biden. Politics who can vilify the other side the best. Regan and Tip O’Neil sitting down together for a drink at the end of the day are sadly from a bygone era. Social media echoes our own thoughts and allows those who want to be offended or looking for a fight to have easy access. Arguments last indefinitely and anyone can participate. It’s one of the reasons why mental health in our young people has declined so severely. Add the pandemic to that and you have a lot of folks who need help but not many resources to turn to.

 

[flynnibus]

A municipal board cannot just declare a contract void

Sure they can… and will. There is no force to stop them but their own legal counsel.

The point isn’t what they can, but what will stand a legal challenge.

Basically disney is gonna have to sue to get them to acknowledge the deal… because the district is just going to ignore it and will resort to fines and other enforcement measures if disney tries to proceed without the district (which they would not do I believe).

Disney is going to have to sue or walk away from that deal after next week’s meeting

 

[LAKid53]

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.

You're misinterpreting both statutes.

Section 286.011(1) says, "...meetings with or attended by any person elected to such board or commission, but who has not yet taken office, at which official acts are to be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, and no resolution, rule, or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at such meeting." In other words, ONLY those actions which occur at a PUBLIC meeting are "binding". Chapter 286 is the "Government in Sunshine" statute. That section of 286 states that all entities of the state must hold public meetings if official acts will be taken by that entity. It's to insure that no agency can adopt rules or regulations in secret. As the last sentence in that section states, "The board or commission must provide reasonable notice of all such meetings." Both meetings were noticed. The minutes to both include copies of the notices in the Orlando Sentinel AND a notarized statement from a representative of the newspaper stating the required notices had been published.

Section 163.3235, F.S., says, "If the local government finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of the development agreement, the agreement may be revoked or modified by the local government." Not comply with noticing a meeting, but with the terms and conditions of the Agreement itself.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think there’s a much smaller Dosney deserves this crowd than people would have you think. Most conservatives are appalled that a government would interfere with business in such a way. It’s like we’re all living in The Upside Down

This for sure. Even a lot of the people who support the Governor and wanted to see him move up the ranks are not so happy with this. Some are trying to justify it somehow, but even they are probably not real thrilled.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

It really wouldn’t matter if ninety percent of Disney’s customers opposed their stance. The company is free to take whatever position it wants without fear of government retaliation.

Love this post... I‘m one of those people that wishes Disney would stay out of politics but there‘s a world of difference between wishing they’d stay out of politics and advocating for the government to punish them if they do.

Disney should absolutely be ”punished“ by guests (withholding their business) if they take a political side and alienate them, they should never have to worry about the Gov punishing them for speaking out though.

 

[Heath]

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.

Ok. I’ll own it. ( I’m so confused)

 

[LittleBuford]

But see I could ask you to source how a majority of customers are for gay rights but you said it’s a guess which is fair. My “half” is also a guess. My guess is Disney customers are more a mirror of the entire country which could be a majority as you guess, but seems more to me about half. Politely I don’t know where what I said “bad business” exactly I have l posted so many threads. But I did say in various ways that it’s treacherous to wqde into political waters.

This is all beside the point. Bad business or PR decisions (if those are indeed what Disney is making) are an entirely separate matter from government retaliation. Customers can retaliate by spending their dollars elsewhere; politicians, however, are not supposed to use the law to punish a company for disagreeing with them.

 

[LAKid53]

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.

Section 520.72 provided a 3 day "cooling off" period in which either party can rescind the agreement. However, the statute wouldn't apply in this instance.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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

It has a merit, but not one that typically completely negates a process on its own. There are other situations where this has even been specified by the legislature. The issue would still have to be raised by a property owner who feels they are affected and should have been notified. The board declaring after the fact that they missed relevant parties is a hypothetical.

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’??

Government officials can be held personally liable for failure to comply with the Sunshine Law.

But also there are a lot ways in which not following the rules results in exactly what you describe. The legislators and governor will not be punished if they pass the agreement voided legislation and it is found that they didn’t follow the rules prevent the impairment of contracts. This would be after breaking the rule that you can’t use the government to punish speech.

 

[Heath]

This is all beside the point. Bad business or PR decisions (if those are indeed what Disney is making) are an entirely separate matter from government retaliation. Customers can retaliate by spending their dollars elsewhere; politicians, however, are not supposed to use the law to punish a company for disagreeing with them.

My post is replying specially to another persons post to me. In its context it has its own point to that specific message. I don’t think I understand how these threads work,

 

[LAKid53]

Correct. In my rush to post from my phone I didn't clarify what I meant. The CFTOD board members weren't a party to the contract at the time it was approved and signed. They are a party to it now because they inherited the obligations of the previous board, but that doesn't give them the ability to unilaterally void the contract based on the previous board's alleged failures.

Agree

 

[peter11435]

Section 520.72 provided a 3 day "cooling off" period in which either party can rescind the agreement. However, the statute wouldn't apply in this instance.

Not what I’m referring to any you know it

 

[flynnibus]

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?

Same way the state sued over the district’s bond authority even tho the state is the one that granted it?

The agency can conflict with its own past actions.

 

[MrPromey]

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.

You know what a party can get, though?

...

OUT OF HAND!

check that it isn't muted - sound is very important

... Had to take a break from reading your link but still working through it.

 

[flynnibus]

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

Yes but what your position ignores and why it’s garnered so many responses… is the stuff on their shoe is from the government… not the public.

That’s the difference here. Disney isn’t being singled out by individuals- but by the florida gop using their office

 

[lazyboy97o]

Sure they can… and will. There is no force to stop them but their own legal counsel.

The point isn’t what they can, but what will stand a legal challenge.

Basically disney is gonna have to sue to get them to acknowledge the deal… because the district is just going to ignore it and will resort to fines and other enforcement measures if disney tries to proceed without the district (which they would not do I believe).

Disney is going to have to sue or walk away from that deal after next week’s meeting

Could Disney challenge right away? The board can say things, and that’s really all their declaration will be, just them saying something. Would Disney have to wait until after land development regulations are modified and then prohibited from acting by the district? It seems if the Board was smart they could actually delay Disney’s ability to act.