-
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
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
So there was no general requirement to mail notice to all property holders. That language specifies that any party wanting the 10 day advance notice must have previously requested it. It also goes on to say that the lack of such notice does not constitute a valid objection to the proceedings anyways.
Barring some other guidance that isn't included in those sections, I don't see how the mailing of notice or lack thereof has any bearing whatsoever on anything done by the prior board. They were only "required" (in quotations since it's a toothless requirement) to mail notice to parties who specifically requested it, and failing to do so has no effect.
To put it in casual language, that essentially says, "Hey, make a list of anyone who asks for notice. If you're doing something, send notice to the people on the list. But if you don't mail them notice, or even if you don't ever keep a list of names at all, oh well, it doesn't matter in the slightest."
Barring some other guidance that isn't included in those sections, I don't see how the mailing of notice or lack thereof has any bearing whatsoever on anything done by the prior board. They were only "required" (in quotations since it's a toothless requirement) to mail notice to parties who specifically requested it, and failing to do so has no effect.
To put it in casual language, that essentially says, "Hey, make a list of anyone who asks for notice. If you're doing something, send notice to the people on the list. But if you don't mail them notice, or even if you don't ever keep a list of names at all, oh well, it doesn't matter in the slightest."
Last edited:
There goes that argument of the new board....
lentesta
Premium Member
Here's the previous section, Section (2), which contains language about exemption from State and local laws.
The "notwithstanding" thing always confuses me. I think this says RCID was meant to be exempt from any laws related to this section, including future laws.
Since "notices" is part of this section (it's the next section, Section 3), it might be covered. I'm sure we need lawyers to examine this.
lentesta
Premium Member
It's almost as if they're doing highly-paid public relations work.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
So I think at this point we can put to bed the idea that the contract is invalid due to lack of notice. It was an easy Hail Mary to throw out there for the board and Governor but as many people said when it was initially discussed, why would Disney follow such a meticulous approach to this situation all along and then miss something so obvious? Based on this evidence, they did not. It’s also obvious that the state knew this as well and that is why they added the amendment to the bill being considered as an attempt to go back and void the contract. The courts will likely have to decide if that’s legal or not but based on Federal and State contract law it doesn’t seem likely to hold up either. I think the amendment as structured might be legal prospectively. Anyone signing a contract would know that this provision exists now, but you cannot apply it retroactively to existing contracts. That’s my opinion anyway.
I read a quote somewhere that perfectly described this situation: “while DeSantis was busy bragging about laying traps the mouse ate all the cheese.” That new sheriff in town boast is really not aging well.
Last edited:
lentesta
Premium Member
US Trust Co vs New Jersey suggested a three-part test for a state to invalidate a contract to which it's a party:
- The state has to identify a specific, compelling public interest
- There has to be no other "less drastic" way for the state to achieve the same goal
- Only the smallest part of the contract that conflicts with that specific goal can be voided
It's worth asking if SB 1604 contains all three of the elements identified in US Trust. I've read it and I don't think it addresses any of them.
I think parts of US Trust were re-examined later in the 2nd Circuit, but we're in the 11th, and I don't think there's been a later case that took up US Trust in the 11th. I could be wrong.
Here's the YouTube livestream link to watch the Board of Supervisors meeting this morning.
Zummi Gummi
Pioneering the Universe Within!
Michael Sasso, " from the CFTODB spent the weekend at the Magic Kingdom. This will surely annoy dear old Bridget.
Last edited by a moderator:
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I think it will be interesting to see what the public interest would be that they identify. Since development agreements are not uncommon it’s difficult to argue that the existence of the development agreement itself is against public interest. If they somehow won that argument then I would think 2 and 3 would result in the whole contract being void. If they more narrowly define the issue with this particular contract then when you get to 2 that could be a problem and even if they get to step 3 it would likely only lead to a partial cancel of the contract.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wonder if he paid for a full priced 1 day ticket.
Last edited by a moderator:
Conducting monorail research
Sure hope he knows the difference between a steam engine railroad and an electric powered train.
If he didn't, he's going to need to declare that gift.
Zummi Gummi
Pioneering the Universe Within!
Nah, he bought his new Pirate Pass last week!
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
In all seriousness, this is probably a good thing.
We know that the reason these people were appointed was for political gamesmanship, but it would be a good thing if any of them decided that they should ACTUALLY do a good job with the responsibility they've been given.
