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

[mikejs78]

HB-9B did replace the entirety of the previous charter, but it was not law at the time the agreements were entered into. A number of the legislative findings are in reference to HB-9B which suggests they are trying to apply it instead of the previous charter.

Exactly. The development agreement was entered into while the old charter was still in effect, so that law is the controlling law in this case. Any references to HB-9B in regards to the development charter are irrelevant.

 

[mikejs78]

And the Board hasn't argued this point?

It would hurt their case to void the agreement.

My suspicion is that this is argument #1 in Disney's eventual lawsuit.

 

[LAKid53]

Exactly. The development agreement was entered into while the old charter was still in effect, so that law is the controlling law in this case. Any references to HB-9B in regards to the development charter are irrelevant.

I cannot believe the $795/hour lawyers the Board hired missed this critical fact.

 

[GoofGoof]

Exactly. The development agreement was entered into while the old charter was still in effect, so that law is the controlling law in this case. Any references to HB-9B in regards to the development charter are irrelevant.

And that’s why they are looking to pass new legislation that allows a new board to retroactively void contracts entered into by the old board. If they could just void the contract due to issues with notice there would be no need for new legislation. I think the board already knows this is likely going to fail.

 

[LAKid53]

It would hurt their case to void the agreement.

My suspicion is that this is argument #1 in Disney's eventual lawsuit.

I would agree.

What a mess the state created...for itself.

 

[LAKid53]

And that’s why they are looking to pass new legislation that allows a new board to retroactively void contracts entered into by the old board.

That won't fly...or it shouldn't.

 

[mikejs78]

And that’s why they are looking to pass new legislation that allows a new board to retroactively void contracts entered into by the old board.

Too bad for them there are those pesky state and federal constitutions that should stand in the way of that.

 

[Tha Realest]

View attachment 712524

Did FL have a mechanism under state law for the enactment of a development agreement in 1967? IIRC the agreement cited to section 163, which has specific notification provisions.

 

[GoofGoof]

That won't fly...or it shouldn't.

I agree, but it looks like that is the plan they are going to follow. Unless the legislature stands up to the guy having a tantrum and refuses to vote on the bill.

 

[peter11435]

I agree, but it looks like that is the plan they are going to follow. Unless the legislature stands up to the guy having a tantrum and refuses to vote on the bill.

The legislature is just as responsible if not more so for this tantrum.

 

[mikejs78]

Did FL have a mechanism under state law for the enactment of a development agreement in 1967? IIRC the agreement cited to section 163, which has specific notification provisions.

It doesn't matter based on this provision.

 

[LAKid53]

Did FL have a mechanism under state law for the enactment of a development agreement in 1967? IIRC the agreement cited to section 163, which has specific notification provisions.

Yes, there are other provisions in Chapter 163 that address development agreements as part of a governmental comprehensive plan. It would be in Part II of the Chapter.

 

[LAKid53]

It doesn't matter based on this provision.

Which provision?

 

[GoofGoof]

Did FL have a mechanism under state law for the enactment of a development agreement in 1967? IIRC the agreement cited to section 163, which has specific notification provisions.

It doesn’t matter if it was passed before or after RCID charter was passed. Both are covered here:

Florida Statutes, and amendments thereto, shall not be applicable to the Reedy Creek Improvement District. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any other law, now existing or hereafter enacted, the provisions of this Act shall control to the extent of any such conflict unless such enactment shall specifically repeal or
amend the provisions of this Act.

So if RCID notification requirements conflict with another statute (existing or hereafter enacted), the RCID statute controls unless the other statute repealed or amended the RCID act.

From what Len posted earlier the RCID charter did not require notice. From the original RCID charter:

(d) To provide for the manner in which such comprehensive general plans, codes, regulations and restrictions shall be determined, established and enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented, changed or repealed, with or without notice and public hearing, as the Board of Supervisors may

 

[mikejs78]

Which provision?

It doesn’t matter if it was passed before or after RCID charter was passed. Both are covered here:

Florida Statutes, and amendments thereto, shall not be applicable to the Reedy Creek Improvement District. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any other law, now existing or hereafter enacted, the provisions of this Act shall control to the extent of any such conflict unless such enactment shall specifically repeal or
amend the provisions of this Act.

So if RCID notification requirements conflict with another statute (existing or hereafter enacted), the RCID statute controls unless the other statute repealed or amended the RCID act.

From what Len posted earlier the RCID charter did not require notice. From the original RCID charter:

(d) To provide for the manner in which such comprehensive general plans, codes, regulations and restrictions shall be determined, established and enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented, changed or repealed, with or without notice and public hearing, as the Board of Supervisors may

 

[lazyboy97o]

I've argued that HB-9B repealed the entirety of Chapter 67, but have been shot down. And that at the time of the execution of the Development Agreement on February 8, 2023, neither the OCTOD or its Board of Supervisors existed, so they could not have been a party to the Agreement at the time of its execution.

Chapter 163 didn't create RCID. It was done under the provisions of Chapter 298.

It replaced the language but it reconfigured the actual district. The board did exist. They had to keep the district to not infringe on the bonds.

I cannot believe the $795/hour lawyers the Board hired missed this critical fact.

I don’t think they missed it.

 

[GoofGoof]

The legislature is just as responsible if not more so for this tantrum.

Agreed, but they may be more likely to give up. For DeSantis it’s personal and he already said he won’t let it go, ever….until he wins.

 

[mikejs78]

Agreed, but they may be more likely to give up. For DeSantis it’s personal and he already said he won’t let it go, ever….until he wins.

I think many in the legislature would just like to be done with this, but they are scared of DeSantis.

 

[LAKid53]

It doesn’t matter if it was passed before or after RCID charter was passed. Both are covered here:

Florida Statutes, and amendments thereto, shall not be applicable to the Reedy Creek Improvement District. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of any other law, now existing or hereafter enacted, the provisions of this Act shall control to the extent of any such conflict unless such enactment shall specifically repeal or
amend the provisions of this Act.

So if RCID notification requirements conflict with another statute (existing or hereafter enacted), the RCID statute controls unless the other statute repealed or amended the RCID act.

From what Len posted earlier the RCID charter did not require notice. From the original RCID charter:

(d) To provide for the manner in which such comprehensive general plans, codes, regulations and restrictions shall be determined, established and enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented, changed or repealed, with or without notice and public hearing, as the Board of Supervisors may

Notice requirement

 

[peter11435]

I think many in the legislature would just like to be done with this, but they are scared of DeSantis.

Which is ironic since they are enabling him