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

[LittleBuford]

You can be assured that if the tables were turned, Disney wouldn't be stepping in the line of fire, risking their own economic well being to protect one of their competitors, either.

You’re probably right. Still, I suppose I would have expected some amount of industry solidarity in the face of such an assault. I guess I really am naively idealistic.

 

[BrianLo]

 

[MrPromey]

You’re probably right. Still, I suppose I would have expected some amount of industry solidarity in the face of such an assault. I guess I really am naively idealistic.

If we all were, this would be a much easier world to navigate and things like this wouldn't happen.

Don't say it like it's a bad thing.

 

[SplashJacket]

God, I hate this thread.

I hate that it needed to be created.

I hate the division it creates.

I hate the anger and frustration it generates.

I hate the waste.

Thank you Florida leaders.

 

[MandaM]

View attachment 713997

Do “them parks” have different rules than theme parks?

 

[MrPromey]

Do “them parks” have different rules than theme parks?

Nah - that's just southern vernacular.

See also, "them there".

 

[Lilofan]

God, I hate this thread.

I hate that it needed to be created.

I hate the division it creates.

I hate the anger and frustration it generates.

I hate the waste.

Thank you Florida leaders.

Nothing would come close if he ran the country and pulled this kind of lunacy. Perhaps some in our land are thinking " Be careful what you wish for"?

 

[drnilescrane]

View attachment 713997

On one side, we have O'Melveny & Myers. On the other side, Lionel Hutz.

 

[Chi84]

On one side, we have O'Melveny & Myers. On the other side, Lionel Hutz.

You mean them there Lionel Hutz. @MrPromey

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Oh, I think this goes to the argument that RCID was created BEFORE the Florida constitution?

Just a guess…but since RCID was passed before the state constitution was ratified…and had more or less remained unchanged for 55 years…Disney would argue the agreement was sound and only became an issue/political pawn after a dispute over a completely unrelated law was passed. The only correlation is revenge.
It’s a fairly easy case to make

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

On one side, we have O'Melveny & Myers. On the other side, Lionel Hutz.

They aren’t even suing the right operetor

“Them park”…along with “whoville”, “how goes it?”, “where’s the cat?” And “Whuzzle Landing” is at Islands of Adventure

 

[Disstevefan1]

It’s not as if the people dealing with legal matters would deal with the guest experience. Also, this could drag for years and years and the “cost” wouldn’t equate to popcorn buckets sold over any period of time.

Let's hope the DeSantis special district doesn't make too much trouble for WDW while this drags on for years.

 

[mikejs78]

Let's hope the DeSantis special district doesn't make too much trouble for WDW while this drags on for years.

That's what temporary injunctions are for.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I mean, that statute reads to me like if the government passes a  general law that contradicts a developer agreement (example: something like the ADA) or if a change in party happened and a gun store law was passed that only allowed 1 gun store per 10 square miles, and a development agreement had several gun stores in it.. in any case that section seems to say that development agreements are amended to account for the new law, not that they can just be voided. I don't think a law to allow voiding of development agreements after the fact would be allowed.

We’re heading back down the path where the conclusion is that legislatures can do anything and constitutions are meaningless. Even if the intent of the statute was to allow unilateral voiding by the government party, that does not mean it passes constitutional muster even if it has been on the books for decades.

While it helps avoid claims of collusion, the differing approaches between the legislature, executive and district creates conflicting narratives, one of which will have to be chosen in federal court. Having contradictory defenses isn’t going to be helpful and will be noted.


Also, weren’t the legislative findings approved at the last meeting, the first meeting at which they were presented and discussed? That means the district themselves didn’t follow 163.3225 which requires two public hearings “Before entering into, amending, or revoking a development agreement”.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Let's hope the DeSantis special district doesn't make too much trouble for WDW while this drags on for years.

Are you serious?

You need to start over on this thread and read it Again.

That is literally EXACTLY why they’re doing this. There’s no nuance.

It’s to get pub as a means of extracting more political donations from rubes.

No that’s why Disney is in court

 

[Disstevefan1]

Are you serious?

You need to start over on this thread and read it Again.

That is literally EXACTLY why they’re doing this. There’s no nuance.

It’s to get pub as a means of extracting more political donations from rubes.

No that’s why Disney is in court

I am serious, right now, the DeSantis district is in power. I hope the DeSantis district doesn't make too much trouble for the day to day operation of WDW as this drags along in the courts for years.

There are obvious ways they could.

 

[WDWHero]

I am serious, right now, the DeSantis district is in power. I hope the DeSantis district doesn't make too much trouble for the day to day operation of WDW as this drags along in the courts for years.

There are obvious ways they could.

You know what they say you can hope in one hand and in another see which one fills up first

 

[mkt]

On one side, we have O'Melveny & Myers. On the other side, Lionel Hutz.

 

[lentesta]

This part caught my eye:

Lack of Consideration​

​

The only purported consideration that Disney provided through the Development Agreement was its agreement to demand no more than fair market value for Disney-owned lands that the District might need for any public-facilities projects that Disney may obligate the District to undertake pursuant to the Development Agreement. But the District already had the power to take private lands for public projects and to pay only fair market value for those lands.​

Without adequate consideration by both parties, the contact is unenforceable.

Any thoughts from those who have read the entire development agreement?

I heard from some lawyers last night after they did a skim of the new suit. Some thoughts:

• The Lack of Consideration claim ignores what Disney's waiving: the right to contest the taking of the land. With an eminent domain claim, Disney could have, for example, sued to say that:
  • The board's stated purpose for the land doesn't fit within its charter
    -or-
  • The amount of land being taken is excessive for the stated goal ("you're taking all of EPCOT to build a lemonade stand")
    -or-
  • The specific land taken isn't needed to achieve those same ends (like, "you can do this anywhere, why pick the middle of Main Street, U.S.A.?")
• The state's filing assumes that any eminent domain claim they could make would have been automatically approved by a court. That's obviously not true - eminent domain stuff gets litigated all the time, and governments sometimes lose.
• Disney's waiving the right to contest, and just agreeing to fair market value, is a benefit to the district in that it reduces uncertainty, reduces costs, and speeds up timelines for improvements.

The folks I spoke to said this was a weaker argument, which is probably why it went last, and that it opens the board to follow-up questions that they might not like to answer, e.g., "What purpose does the district serve?"

 

[GoofGoof]

17 billion in investments is certainly consideration. Further since the 17 billion was talked about in the yearly stockholders meeting it has to be true
It was also talked about in their legal filing. The new board is full of it.

This is a good point. Disney does nothing without purpose. I thought it was just part of the PR battle when Iger mentioned the $17B and just as important the 13,000 new jobs. That could certainly be introduced as evidence of what the district will get from the development of WDW.