mikejs78
Well-Known Member
No. My wife can't ride the skyliner, makes her motion sick.
-
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
I know that. Current Florida law provides an exemption from state performed inspections that both Disney and Uni meet. So, yes, the current proposed bill singles out Disney by the description of which entity would fall under state inspection. Got news for the Legislature...Uni also resides in a special district...one created by the City of Orlando.
The state is inching close to bill of attainder territory.
How much of that $17B would be eaten up by this?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Are we ignoring what Len Testa posted a few days back from the RCID charter? It seems like the only findings in that write up are related to notice, but the original Charter may in fact exempt the district from having to provide that notice. Here is the post in case anyone missed it:
Smiley/OCD
Well-Known Member
Again, this SAME story about the door…it happened in 2018…if it’s such a problem, where are ALL the press reports about the chronic poor conditions of the monorails…if I had 10 thousand dollars for every time a monorail door fell off, you know what? I’d be just as poor as I am right now…
The question would then be does a special district charter have the power to supercede state statute?
There is no silver lining. This will given the excuse to boot the monorail, at least the Epcot extension, if this becomes reality. I give Disney credit that they are playing it cool and not saying "we re-evaluating our future 17 billion Cappex in Florida."
What I am most disgusted by is that the legislators are just following lock step behind DeSantis. Then again Trump went after Harley Davidson with the tariffs and they have Been struggling since.
I don't doubt that TDC is re-evaluating future plans. If you look at the trend for new sport stadiums, it's for "less capacity." They can make a larger ROI with a smaller footprint. Something I think could be applied to theme parks, boutique small parks at more than one location and charge a hell of a price.
What I am most disgusted by is that the legislators are just following lock step behind DeSantis. Then again Trump went after Harley Davidson with the tariffs and they have Been struggling since.
I don't doubt that TDC is re-evaluating future plans. If you look at the trend for new sport stadiums, it's for "less capacity." They can make a larger ROI with a smaller footprint. Something I think could be applied to theme parks, boutique small parks at more than one location and charge a hell of a price.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
A special district charter is a state statute.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Why would we assume state inspectors would be more thorough than Disney hired inspectors? Doesn’t Disney have the most to lose if there is any sort of accident with the monorail? This isn’t a fly by night amusement park which might cut corners to save a few bucks. It would be far more costly if there was an accident.
Skyliner vs monorail is a valid debate, but that should be Disney’s call based on guest feedback and/or their own plan. it shouldn’t be decided by a guy looking for vengeance over a failed career move. With that being said I actually think a skyliner could be a better replacement for the MK ferry. A short route over the lake and it could funnel guests in more quickly and efficiently.
No, FDOT will send the inspectors that work the midnight to 8AM shift.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Didn‘t RCID already have a form of development agreement with Disney? Wasn‘t there already a comprehensive plan approved by the board?
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
The Reedy Creek charter was state statute, wasn't it? Regardless the charter said it was exempt from any new laws that conflicted with the charter, unless the charter was specifically called out of repealed in the new law.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There was a comprehensive plan but I don’t believe there were development agreements since Disney didn’t really need one.
If statute exists at the time of the charter execution, does the charter have the power to supercede existing state statute? Only the Florida Legislature.. and the courts...can amend existing statute. The charter would have to contain language that would specifically exempt the entity created.
Smiley/OCD
Well-Known Member
They’re probably checking elevators in Miami…all two of them…I’m sure their sole focus is to respond to emergencies not routine inspections, but ok
So, in essence, the charter said "no ex post facto law" can affect its terms and conditions.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when someone realizes that.
Road construction on major highways in the state, especially construction that would close most of the lanes or on/off ramps, is conducted at night. If construction progress that evening needs inspection before the next step, I'm sure an inspector is available. The state doesn't want to amend contracts to add days to completion due to delays. And yes, I know delays are written into the contract. But it costs $$$.
I believe we're talking about the charter that created the district, not the development agreement.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The charter is a statute written by the legislature and signed by the governor. The original charter did have language exempting it from certain existing laws. It also had a provision exempting it from future laws that created conflict with the charter, unless the charter/statute was specifically amended or repealed.
In this case, the original district charter had its own requirements for public notices, public hearings and how the Board of Supervisors were to conduct their business. If Chapter 163 doesn’t amend the charter, then it seems that it’s public notice requirements may conflict with the charter’s and per the charter it’s rules are the ones to be follow.
This is why I find it curious that the legislative findings don’t seem to make a lot of reference to the original enabling legislation.
I believe the bone of contention with the new board is the development plan adopted at the February 8th meeting. It was the last item on the agenda for that meeting.