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

[lewisc]

Just a wild theory but as you say, if that step wasn’t taken it was most likely skipped on purpose.

Also possible Disney was considered to be the only impacted landowner and written notification wasn't necessary.

 

[Fordlover]

These are all legitimately solid questions.

For sure. Disney is supposed to have a fiduciary responsibility to the share holders. Making business decisions that aren't in the interest (long or short term) of returning value for the shareholders is a violation of that responsibility.

 

[GoofGoof]

Also possible Disney was considered to be the only impacted landowner and written notification wasn't necessary.

That was my initial conclusion but others here convinced me that’s probably not the case. It is still possible that was their conclusion. They also have 50+ years of actions to point to so they could argue the agreement changes nothing for adjacent landowners since Disney has been doing this activity for years.

I am no lawyer and don’t have the case history to know who would typically qualify. I would bet good money that the FL firm Disney hired has extensive experience with these types of development agreements and would have those facts.

 

[UNCgolf]

Don't they have a legislative GOP supermajority that effectively makes the governor a lame duck?

Serious question.

They didn't until recently, when someone who was elected as a Democrat switched parties. I think it remains to be seen if that person is going to vote party line with Republicans, though -- she'll certainly lose her seat next election because she came from a heavily Democratic district in Charlotte.

I actually wonder if she will be sued by constituents, considering they elected her on the basis of a very different platform.

 

[Heppenheimer]

I meant to respond to this earlier but got distracted. Back on topic.

This is just a wild theory with no actual facts to support it and assumes no notices were sent which we don’t know to be true but hear me out. Someone mentioned pages ago that FDOT technically owns some land adjacent to the district. If the lawyers determined that FDOT would qualify as an impacted landowner that would be problematic. If RCID sent notice to multiple other land owners but skipped FDOT that may seem really suspect too. Is it possible that’s the reason they didn’t send notices out? FDOT would obviously inform the Governor and they could accelerate passing the bill to seize control of the district before the agreement was officially done. I would assume if they did that they would have looked at precedent in past cases and looked at the risks associated with the contract being voided over failure to notice. Just a wild theory but as you say, if that step wasn’t taken it was most likely skipped on purpose.

Maybe I missed the details in the hundreds of responses and sidelines, but if the land FDOT owns is outside the district, how can they be an affected party?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Devil’s advocate: could you argue that the more time they’ve given for Gov. DeSantis and his cronies to bury themselves with both public statements and in the court of public opinion the more this is favorable for TWDC in the long term? If nothing else the land use contract with the outgoing RCID has bought them more time and further shown the motivation Governor and his appointees.

Ultimately I just feel TWDC at least historically is a large public company that despite all the “woke” criticism that gets thrown around tries desperately to appeal to the broadest audience possible in a mostly apolitical fashion. So it’s difficult for them to go scorched earth and look like the aggressor in the eyes of the general public. They don’t have the benefit of appealing to a narrow part of a partisan base like the governor and unlike DeSantis - who gets political mileage out of this from folks that see “wokeness” as the gravest national threat since bubonic plague - from a business perspective keeping this going is not advantageous to TWDC writ large, this is also broadly embarrassing to the state of Florida as a tourist destination or any companies residing there and probably the Florida Chamber/AFLCIO/etc. Disney doesn’t want to be blamed for fanning the flames of a temper tantrum.

That said I agree that this risk averse strategy (appeasement, as you call it) hasn’t obviously cooled tensions.

It’s definitely possible that Disney had a better long view of the situation than I did. It definitely would have been a very wise call that this would end up backfiring on DeSantis back when he was very much riding high on the situation.

But, I’m not sure how someone would have predicted that. What’s really been egg on DeSantis’ face was the land development agreement and restrictive covenants. Yeah, people had lost interest by February but the reconstitution itself wasn’t really an embarrassment. Had DeSantis called the special session just one week earlier and not waited around to sign, the reconstitution could have been done before the second public hearing and approval. So either Disney had fantastic intelligence on when the special session would be called and recklessly timed it to the wire or they got incredibly lucky.

 

[mf1972]

this thread has turned into a hydra. i cut myself away from reading it after getting caught up & 5 more pages pop up shortly after

 

[JusticeDisney]

Wait wait wait.

I was assured that they had an ironclad First Amendment claim because these actions were INDSISPUTABLY retaliatory for their speech?

You are simply not comprehending. Whether that ultimately proves to be the case or not is irrelevant at this point. Until and unless the state does something to actually "void" the agreement, there is no basis for Disney to go to court. Hyperbole and false bravado are not actionable in this instance.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Hyperbole and false bravado are not actionable in this instance.

That's LITERALLY my point.

I wasn't saying "Disney is obviously going to sue and win summary judgment within hours." I was mocking the people who were saying that.

 

[SirLink]

this thread has turned into a hydra. i cut myself away from reading it after getting caught up & 5 more pages pop up shortly after

Same especially at work and get annoyed at everything I read

 

[MR.Dis]

Disney has not acted because they are risk averse cowards. That’s it. Plenty of actual harms have occurred. They thought appeasement would work. They wrongly assumed that if they just sulked away then that would be enough and it would go away. The assessment wasn’t one of right or wrong, it was about what assumed to be the easiest.

Even now, with clear attempts to impair contracts, Disney might not act. They might again convince themselves that “this time they’ll actually stop.”

If I am reading you correctly, do you believe that Disney is not going to pursue any legal law suites? It appears that both the board and the Florida Legislature/Gov are going to do everything possible to void contracts-- whether what they do is legal or not. Stepping back, I believe a whole bunch of pages ago you stated that no construction will start without first getting permits--which the new board now controls. So why fight this in courts if the end result is you are going to still have to go thru the board? Am I reading this wrong? As a moderate republican, I am really disappointed on how Florida has totally mishandled this whole situation. And while I initially hoped that Disney could learn to work with the new board, those Covenants now have escalated this to a personal vendetta. Legal or not, in your opinion how do you see this working out?

 

[lentesta]

You know, going back and reading the original RCID charter, Section 23(3)(d) , which deals with zoning laws and comprehensive plans, might say the Board isn’t required to give notice.

 

[JusticeDisney]

Litigation isn't that fast. If you're really sure that your case is ironclad, you file for temporary injunctive relief now, before any potentially irreversible damage is done.

DeSantis would be long gone before any litigation here made its way through the courts.

Again, you clearly do not understand how the law works. You cannot file for an injunction on an anticipatory basis.

 

[flynnibus]

I am moving on to #2. I‘m assuming if the contract was illegal anyway there would be no need to bring up the notice issue. I guess it’s a throw a bunch of poo at the wall and see what sticks scenario. The only evidence the presented that the contract could be illegal was that e-mail screen shot which IMHO proves nothing legally. Again more of a PR stunt as they new the images would get tweeted out in an attempt to put doubt in people’s minds.

Again I object to the 'PR stunt' label. This is what lawyers do... start with the largest land grab you can because you can't generally expand/change your complaints w/o merit. It's better to get an idea defeated then it is to not take the shot. That's why I noted what I found interesting from their legal review was the substance of advising on what is strong/weak. Instead they asked for 'what can we do' and got the typical 'heres everything we could concievably attack it with' response.

AKA they asked for ammo, and the lawyers stretched to find as much as they could.. even if of doubtful quality.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Again, you clearly do not understand how the law works. You cant not file for an injunction on an anticipatory basis.

That's my point.

I'm saying Disney's case isn't ironclad. When I say "this is what you do when your case is ironclad," and Disney isn't doing that thing, it means their case isn't ironclad.

 

[JusticeDisney]

That's LITERALLY my point.

I wasn't saying "Disney is obviously going to sue and win summary judgment within hours." I was mocking the people who were saying that.

We are not talking about the same thing. You keep questioning why Disney hasn't taken any legal action at this point, and I am trying to explain to you that they cannot because nothing has actually occurred yet.

 

[JusticeDisney]

That's my point.

I'm saying Disney's case isn't ironclad. When I say "this is what you do when your case is ironclad," and Disney isn't doing that thing, it means their case isn't ironclad.

No. You said that if they really think that their case is so ironclad, they don't wait and instead take legal action right now. That statement by you demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of how the law works.

 

[TeriofTerror]

this thread has turned into a hydra. i cut myself away from reading it after getting caught up & 5 more pages pop up shortly after

I just had a comment deleted from this thread, and I swear to whomever's diety of choice that I have no idea why it merited that action. I've been trying really hard to behave myself!

 

[flynnibus]

You know, going back and reading the original RCID charter, Section 23(3)(d) , which deals with zoning laws and comprehensive plans, might say the Board isn’t required to give notice.

I gotta imagine though if you are leveraging something defined in another statute (the developer agreement one) that those standards apply to. This action wasn't in the normal course of the district's granted activities (covered by the RCID act), it's a concept pulled from the other law.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Part of me thinks this is a bump in the road in the 50 plus history of WDW.

Another part of me says it's a turning point.

The ultimate loser in all of this in my opinion are the people of central Florida, maybe people of the whole state.