It's the South, things happen in a slower laid back pace, y'all.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
The Florida Legislature always waits until the last 2 weeks to finalize the budget. However, there's been little progress reported on, which is somewhat surprising.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
And why do you believe those claims are true? Do you have any evidence that wasn't just what was said at the meeting?
Thanks Mike, I'll hang up and listen.
Them the state has no operating budget and all non-essential operations cease and non-essential employees are sent home. Happened only once in recent history, but that was when session ran from April to June.
Stripes
Premium Member
Because I get the sense that the governments didn’t cross their Ts and dot their Is.
Take the requirement that Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista were supposed to have one of their public hearings after 5pm when they adopted the ordinance amending the land development regulations. Now there was a simple fix for this. A majority of the city’s board of supervisors could have voted to hold it at another time. But that vote never happened.
Now, only a person that should have been noticed can challenge compliance with this requirement. Unknown whether that will happen. But still. A simple vote would’ve completely satisfied that requirement but it didn’t happen.
Do I know for sure whether the claims are true? Not yet. But, I don’t get the sense that RCID/BL/LBV made sure that this was done in full compliance with the law.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
What allegation?
The only allegation that could be concerning is the failure to mail notices. But they would have to first show that there are other affected landowners requiring notice, they would then also need to prove that those landowners weren’t noticed. And then there is the question of standing and how such an oversight would be addressed by a judge.
I see no reason at the point to believe their claim over Disneys. Neither has provided any more evidence than the other.
Chi84
Premium Member
It might be better to wait for Disney's response before making that prediction. It's amazing how much one's perspective can change upon hearing the other side.
Stripes
Premium Member
True. I hope we get something from Disney tomorrow or Thursday.
Agree. Other than Bob Iger's comments last week, Disney has been relatively mute about the situation. Going about its business while the other side continues to make negative comments and threats.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
How do these requirements square with the District’s enabling legislation that was state law at the time? Unless the legislation providing for these procedural requirements specifically amended the District charter, then the charter’s procedures took precedent.
Have Reedy Creek, Bay Lake or Lake Buena Vista failed to comply in the past with the requisite legal notices? If not, I highly doubt they would choose THIS time to fail to do so.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
How many occurred under such a compressed timeframe?
When was the last development agreement they entered into with WDPR?
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
While some view these as allegations, they’re stylized as “legislative findings” in the current document on the website. Finding suggests an evidentiary basis. Whether they’ll be viewed as such or given such deference by a later court is anyone’s guess, but that’s how it’s being propounded.
Staff, as in administrative, are assigned this task. Notice was provided in the local paper. I doubt that part of the requisite notice would be skipped but the media notice wasn't.
"Legislative findings" is the preamble in a piece of legislation that explains the purpose of the bill. It's not evidence as in evidence obtained during discovery, a deposition or presented in court.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
The property described in the media notice encompasses all property owners in the district, including the non-WDPR owners; the Ex 1 carveouts are absent. Why does the published notice operate with a seemingly different universe of affected property (RCID in its entirety) than the presumptive mailing recipients (just WDPR)?
Lastly…has anyone produced any evidence that WDPR itself was mailed this notice?
Because Florida statute requires said amendments to be noticed in that manner. The notice to be mailed to affected property owners is required just for the 1st public meeting, which would have been the one in January.
Has the current Board provided proof it wasn't? Notarized statements from affected property owners saying they weren't mailed the notice? Something other than a tweet? Unless someone commenting in this thread works for TDO in a position that would have knowledge of the receipt of said notice, no one knows.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
They’re the findings of the Board of Supervisors, a legislative body.