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

BuzzedPotatoHead89

BuzzedPotatoHead89

Well-Known Member
LAKid53 said:
But how much of the increased safety regulations are solely his responsibility or that of a liberal California Assembly which passed laws prior to his term as governor?
Click to expand...
If we’re talking about state-specific add-on requirements to federal law like Cal OSHA, ADA, etc.? A lot. And unlike most folks I’m thankful for it as it’s a necessary function even if it has contributed to the closure of my childhood favorites like Skyway and Peoplemover.

On the COVID front, some of this was done by temporary emergency EO/decree from the Newsom Administration and through the state Department of Health but much of this was similarly peeled in time back even if California was a bit overly aggressive by some folks standards.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
GrumpyFan said:
I could not be in further disagreement with you on that. But, you're entitled to your opinion.

"All conflict can be traced back to someone’s feelings getting hurt, don’t you think?" — Liane Moriarty, Big Little Lies
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." — Winston Churchill
"Arguments drag out because one is too stubborn to forgive and the other is too proud to apologise." — Unknown

In most cases, it costs MUCH less to try and sit down to find a compromise than fight a prolonged battle.
Good leaders understand this. Insecure and immature ones always like to escalate a fight beyond what's necessary and to the point that it often hurts others in the process.

The Disney RCID agreement, while not perfect, and maybe questionable in some regards, has been a tremendous benefit to Florida, and of course their own business interests.
Click to expand...
The disagreement and conflict was not about the district. It was about entities engaging in political speech. The District was roped in because the state knows there is nothing to compromise with regards to free speech. They made up another issue as an alternative. Compromise requires rational actions operating in good faith.
 
GrumpyFan

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
flynnibus said:
There could have been compromise... in both greedy elements and token wins.

Disney could have agreed to bind their efforts against the state and quietly returned to donations.. and in turn the Gov could have backed off with just acknowledging Disney's right to disagree without any efforts to silence it... and basically each walk away

Disney could have given up some token seats on the district board as an appeasement so the gov could claim he broke down the old status quo in exchange for limiting the takeover attempt

Both sides could have drafted a new charter that give some token victories (like taking out the stupid nuke and airport lines), while modernizing different parts and maybe giving up some other lesser carve-outs Disney had... so DeSantis could claim he fixed up the corporate perks while both sides call a truce on the law, etc.

There is lots of ways they could have appeased the Gov without really giving up anything of actual value to them. The Gov was never going to give up his already passed law... nor could he.. so concessions from the Gov would be more about limiting the engagement and getting him to back off.
Click to expand...
BRAVO! Well stated and all very good ideas.
I think Iger would have been agreeable to most of this, at least he expressed as much.
Highly doubtful that Chapek would, and based on the response, I doubt Desantis would either. He seems to have taken this personally and fighting them like a child who was told "no".
 
Heppenheimer

Heppenheimer

Well-Known Member
LAKid53 said:
Other than the statement issued AFTER HB 1557 was passed into law, what other statements did Chapek issue? My understanding is that he privately spoke to DeSantis about the bill and concerns of Disney CMs before a statement was released. And that he only issued a statement after CMs threatened to strike over Disney not publicly objecting to the bill.
Click to expand...
More of a general observation on Chapek's style of leadership than a comment how he may or may not have responded to this issue in private. Iger seems like the kind who can go on a charm offensive. Chapek had all the charm of a pile of rocks.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
GrumpyFan said:
BRAVO! Well stated and all very good ideas.
I think Iger would have been agreeable to most of this, at least he expressed as much.
Highly doubtful that Chapek would, and based on the response, I doubt Desantis would either. He seems to have taken this personally and fighting them like a child who was told "no".
Click to expand...
My point was more that there IS middle ground possible. De-escalating and compromising doesn't necessarily mean you get the end-game you set out for. Often sides have to realize the end result maybe worse.. so what point can we retreat to that both parties can agree on.

As Mick says... You can't always get what you want...

And when you've been thrown into the #$@er... you can't cling onto perfection as the only path you'll consider.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Premium Member
Stripes said:
At minimum, points 9, 18, 21, 34, 35, 36(c), 36(d), and 74, are issues of great concern.

Click to expand...

Ok these are assertions. There hasn't been any evidence provided to substantiate them, it's and its unlikely that the board has standing to challenge on any of them.

Well, 9 we know for a fact happened. The fact they included it puts everything else they assert into question.

On 18, Disney asserted in its lawsuit that this was done in 2022 and the cities did in fact approve.

If 21 is the case, all development agreements in the state of FL are void.

For 34, 166.041 doesn't apply to Reedy Creek. It has its own procedures that override the state procedures.

35 is the same as the above.

36c is silly on its face

36d - they did per the Disney lawsuit.

72 - I don't see how that is relevant.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Stripes said:
At minimum, points 9, 18, 21, 34, 35, 36(c), 36(d), and 74, are issues of great concern.
Click to expand...
Except that contract law is not like a computer program. Finding an issue with something (assuming there actually is one) doesn't automatically negate the whole.

lazyboy97o said:
They’re pointing out that there is a series of potential remedies that exist if a contract has deficiencies that all come before tossing out the whole thing, much less doing so unilaterally.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.

If this was a smart contract on some block chain, that acted at the whim of the contract coding, finding even the smallest of things could trigger some impact to the whole thing.

However, in the actual court system, that doesn't happen. If there is a problem with an item, a solution to that specific item is used. There would need to be a significant quantity of issues large enough to bring the entire agreement into question, or a significant issue that is core to the contract without any other possible solution.

If we pretend the cities were not notified correctly or at all. Resolution is more likely to notify them after the fact and determine if they now agree and would have agreed before or if they have an issue. Correcting the specific problem. If the cities are all good and say there were before too, there is likely no further resolution. Conversely, if the cities say they have an issue and would have acted differently if they had been notified, then further action is likely necessary to resolve the problem. It is possible it could expand all the way out to negating the entire thing, but that is certainly not the staring point. That would be the last solution once any other more targeted resolution of the specific problem was tried.

Pressing that example even further, someone could argue that the city administration cannot make that determination and that it requires input from the city residents. Something that would be logistically impossible in a city with a real population to do after the fact. But, for these specific cities, the entire city government and every impacted resident individually could all be asked directly to resolve any notification problem. If none of them have any problems and are made whole, the issue is likely solved.

This is just an example. The details could all play out differently. The point is that any contract deficiency would attempt to be solved directly prior to invalidating the whole.
 
Vacationeer

Vacationeer

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
lazyboy97o said:
No, it could not have been resolved with a sit down and “compromise”. There is no legitimate disagreement to discuss in good faith. Compromise involves mutual concessions, but Disney was the only party with things to give up because the District issue has always been a means to other illegitimate ends.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s hard to compromise with something still bent on escalation.

To me it seemed Disney’s compromise was not blocking RCID board change and figuring out a middle road they could work with* so Ron could still have his ‘win’, while at the same time publicly explain they consider HB1557 a humanitarian issue. They were giving something to both sides.

We’ll never know but maybe Disney wouldn’t have pushed any further at that point if the other side didn’t push any further either. Would Disney have brought the suit if they were allowed to keep *Ordinance 132 and Ron redirected his energy elsewhere? Or at least been much closer to smoothing things over if the new board wasn’t intentionally hostile.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Stripes said:
At minimum, points 9, 18, 21, 34, 35, 36(c), 36(d), and 74, are issues of great concern.

Click to expand...
9. We’ve hashed this out several times. Even if it applies and not the district charter, the typical remedy is not to void the entire contract.

18. Even with its superior authority. The District doesn’t have standing. If the cities have an issue or conflict then they are the ones to take up the matter. It’s also now moot because the District does have superior authority.

21. The agreement itself is not a debt. Agreements to provide services to large developments are not unusual and they’re not redone every year.

34. - 36. Notice they don’t reference the Charter that was law at the time and it’s own requirements.

74. Maybe, but it requires the whole thing to be void.

As Disney stated, the solution to issues with contracts isn’t to go right to tossing the whole thing out. In issues of notice, the remedy is often to provide it and see if anyone objects. If the land development regulations were not properly updated, then a remedy would be to just undo those changes, essentially setting the agreement to the 2020 Plan instead of the 2032 Plan.

You yourself noted some of the lack of thoroughness in the legislative findings. They don’t reference the original charter which was law at the time and try to instead retroactively apply subsequent law.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
mmascari said:
Except that contract law is not like a computer program. Finding an issue with something (assuming there actually is one) doesn't automatically negate the whole.


Exactly this.

If this was a smart contract on some block chain, that acted at the whim of the contract coding, finding even the smallest of things could trigger some impact to the whole thing.

However, in the actual court system, that doesn't happen. If there is a problem with an item, a solution to that specific item is used. There would need to be a significant quantity of issues large enough to bring the entire agreement into question, or a significant issue that is core to the contract without any other possible solution.

If we pretend the cities were not notified correctly or at all. Resolution is more likely to notify them after the fact and determine if they now agree and would have agreed before or if they have an issue. Correcting the specific problem. If the cities are all good and say there were before too, there is likely no further resolution. Conversely, if the cities say they have an issue and would have acted differently if they had been notified, then further action is likely necessary to resolve the problem. It is possible it could expand all the way out to negating the entire thing, but that is certainly not the staring point. That would be the last solution once any other more targeted resolution of the specific problem was tried.

Pressing that example even further, someone could argue that the city administration cannot make that determination and that it requires input from the city residents. Something that would be logistically impossible in a city with a real population to do after the fact. But, for these specific cities, the entire city government and every impacted resident individually could all be asked directly to resolve any notification problem. If none of them have any problems and are made whole, the issue is likely solved.

This is just an example. The details could all play out differently. The point is that any contract deficiency would attempt to be solved directly prior to invalidating the whole.
Click to expand...
What’s weird though about the city issues is that they’re now moot. The state resolved any issues by giving the District superior authority. So in the same meeting where the Board amended the land development regulations to formalize their superior authority they are complaining that the cities were not consulted and are now subject to their authority.
 
Andrew C

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
ParentsOf4 said:
Keeping in mind that Judge Mark Walker has been assigned to the Disney/DeSantis case, this CNN article potentially signals bad news for Disney:

Federal appeals court upholds several voter restrictions enacted by Florida Republicans

Quoting in part:

US District Judge Mark Walker’s ruling, the appeals court said Thursday, was legally and factually flawed. The 11th Circuit also reversed a holding by Walker that would have required Florida to seek federal approval for any future election rule changes that are similar to the provisions he had struck down.​

The Bush/Trump appointees ruled against Walker; the Obama appointee ruled for Walker.

This is why who hears the Disney case on appeal is important.
Click to expand...
Election law case a bit different than this though, no?
 
tissandtully

tissandtully

Well-Known Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Keeping in mind that Judge Mark Walker has been assigned to the Disney/DeSantis case, this CNN article potentially signals bad news for Disney:

Federal appeals court upholds several voter restrictions enacted by Florida Republicans

Quoting in part:

US District Judge Mark Walker’s ruling, the appeals court said Thursday, was legally and factually flawed. The 11th Circuit also reversed a holding by Walker that would have required Florida to seek federal approval for any future election rule changes that are similar to the provisions he had struck down.​

The Bush/Trump appointees ruled against Walker; the Obama appointee ruled for Walker.

This is why who hears the Disney case on appeal is important.
Click to expand...
Eh, conservatives trying to stay in power a bit different than this, which could have the opposite effect, in my uneducated opinion
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Keeping in mind that Judge Mark Walker has been assigned to the Disney/DeSantis case, this CNN article potentially signals bad news for Disney:

Federal appeals court upholds several voter restrictions enacted by Florida Republicans

Quoting in part:

US District Judge Mark Walker’s ruling, the appeals court said Thursday, was legally and factually flawed. The 11th Circuit also reversed a holding by Walker that would have required Florida to seek federal approval for any future election rule changes that are similar to the provisions he had struck down.​

The Bush/Trump appointees ruled against Walker; the Obama appointee ruled for Walker.

This is why who hears the Disney case on appeal is important.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. First, just because they overruled him in this case (an election law case, where liberal and conservative judges have very different ideas), it doesn't mean they will on a contracts law case or a 1A case, especially where corporations are involved. The 11th circuit also upheld Judge Walker's injunction on the Stop Woke Act, which was decided by one Clinton judge and two Trump judges. So I don't think this particular ruling is instructive on how the 11th circuit will rule.
 
T

Touchdown

Well-Known Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Keeping in mind that Judge Mark Walker has been assigned to the Disney/DeSantis case, this CNN article potentially signals bad news for Disney:

Federal appeals court upholds several voter restrictions enacted by Florida Republicans

Quoting in part:

US District Judge Mark Walker’s ruling, the appeals court said Thursday, was legally and factually flawed. The 11th Circuit also reversed a holding by Walker that would have required Florida to seek federal approval for any future election rule changes that are similar to the provisions he had struck down.​

The Bush/Trump appointees ruled against Walker; the Obama appointee ruled for Walker.

This is why who hears the Disney case on appeal is important.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you are grasping things correctly, most conservative judges are called originalists, they view the constitution through a lens of what the founders intended. Contract clause in the constitution is extremely direct and leaves little wiggle room. They have also traditionally been pro business and anti government regulation. Expecting Bush appointees to change their stripes seems unlikely. Even most Trump appointees hold these views.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom