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

[GrumpyFan]

Is it really not mentioned in the countersuit?

For some reason I thought this was one of their major contentions. At least it seemed to be coming out of last week’s meeting.

But maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention.

I'll be honest and say I haven't read thru it entirely. But, I haven't heard anything about it.
If it is, someone please correct me here.

 

[Disstevefan1]

They followed the process outlined in the Reedy Creek act. They provided notice in the newspaper, and the Reedy Creek act states that they only have to mail notice to parties who request mailed notice, and that failure to mail does not constitute a reason to void the contract.

I am glad I asked.

 

[GoofGoof]

I once heard Dr Ruth Westheimer speak. She had a question-and-answer session at the end. Due to the nature of the questions, these were submitted anonymously in writing.

Some of the questions seemed outlandish. The audience laughed when some questions were read.

Dr Ruth said (paraphrasing), “Even if the original author was trolling, I answer all questions seriously in case there is someone else in the audience who genuinely wants to hear the answer.”

I respectfully suggest that when you think someone is trolling, you answer the question seriously for those who don’t have the time to keep up with this fast moving thread.

Alternatively, just don’t reply at all.

I generally tend to do this but I thought it was just because I wanted to hear myself talk and gather more likes This reasoning seems more altruistic. This thread does move fast so some more benefit of the doubt is in order.

 

[lentesta]

Please refer to here:

List of court cases relevant to the nondelegation doctrine

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

In Carter v. Carter, “The court held in part that the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 violated the nondelegation doctrine because Congress delegated legislative power to a private industry group.”

Is the board saying that the contract delegated policy making/enforcement authority to Disney?

There's a difference between "We delegate to Disney the ability to set building height requrements" and "We agree that no building can be over 4 stories in height." The former is authority, right? The latter is the board making the policy? I could be wrong.

Is there a specific example where the contract gives Disney the ability to set policy or (outside of the contract) enforce policy?

 

[mkt]

And that lawyer brought up your point: Could the CFTOB seize the MK entrance?

Before the taking was official, they'd have to figure out the fair market value of the entrance. I think that would be ... involved.

I took a peek at the maps. Since coincidentally the entrance is part of the same land as the bus loop and monorail station, there is a separate listing for it. The entrance has a fair market value of a hair over $20 million as of 2022 as per the Orange County Property Appraiser's website.

And it pays more than $500k/yr in property taxes.

 

[mkt]

That’s good news.

Sorry that I’m probably asking for something that’s contained in the thread somewhere, but can you direct me to where that verbiage in the act is located?

Here you go: http://edocs.dlis.state.fl.us/fldocs/leg/actsflorida/1967/LOF1967V1Pt2Ch0614-1068.pdf

Page 266 of the PDF and read from there on.

 

[GoofGoof]

If, in the development agreement, Disney
did agree to not contest any land taken by eminent domain, then just wow.

Can you imagine what this hostile board could do with this?

This is why I doubt Disney waived all of its eminent domain rights.

Fingers crossed Disney did not!

Maybe I’m just being dense but with eminent domain doesn’t the government have to show in my layman’s terms a compelling public purpose to seize private land. I’m sure the lawyers can correct whatever the proper term is. They can’t just claim the front gate of MK without a compelling reason.

Also, doesn’t the agreement require the district to get Disney’s approval first before developing their own land? Isn’t this why they need to void the agreement before breaking ground on the prison? So even if the district did claim Disney property they cannot do anything with the land without Disney signing off. So the district pays Disney for the land and then Disney stops paying taxes to the counties or the district for that land. Seems like a win for the mouse.

 

[JohnD]

They followed the process outlined in the Reedy Creek act. They provided notice in the newspaper, and the Reedy Creek act states that they only have to mail notice to parties who request mailed notice, and that failure to mail does not constitute a reason to void the contract.

They do have a point that they followed what was in law at the time they followed it.

 

[RamblinWreck]

Here you go: http://edocs.dlis.state.fl.us/fldocs/leg/actsflorida/1967/LOF1967V1Pt2Ch0614-1068.pdf

Page 266 of the PDF and read from there on.

This is perfect because of how well it refutes the claims being made.

It specifically states the same verbiage that they are so hung up on, “shall mail a copy of the notice” but then also explicitly states that “failure of the board to mail any such notice shall not constitute a valid objection to holding such meeting or to any other action taken”.


It couldn’t be more clear than that.

 

[el_super]

Is there any action Disney can take that would threaten to have an impact on the revenue they bring to Florida...without impacting the revenue they are bringing to themselves?

Dont they already pare back investment in Florida? Don't the WDW parks receive less investment then every other Disney park on the planet? It doesn't seem to really hurt their revenue.

I would still expect to see more investment in the Cruise Line and International Parks to get spending out of Florida, even just temporarily.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Is the board saying that the contract delegated policy making/enforcement authority to Disney?

There's a difference between "We delegate to Disney the ability to set building height requrements" and "We agree that no building can be over 4 stories in height." The former is authority, right? The latter is the board making the policy? I could be wrong.

Is there a specific example where the contract gives Disney the ability to set policy or (outside of the contract) enforce policy?

One of the points the District makes is that Disney holds all of the development rights. If the Swan and Dolphin, Shades of Green or B Hotel wants to expand, they have to go to Disney and get their approval because their expansion would be using up some of that maximum allowed hotel rooms. It could be construed that this is an authority that Disney now holds, but the District was not in the business of picking winners and losers so they couldn’t decide not allow a hotel to expand.

Disney also already held this authority because they have agreements and restrictive covenants with everyone involved that they get to approve changes. Are you delegating authority if it’s one you didn’t have/exercise and you “give” it to the entity that was exercising that authority?

I’m very curious to see how Disney responds to the District’s suit. Seeking dismissal for a lack of standing seems like it could have real merit and has been mentioned by lawyers.

 

[LAKid53]

Maybe I’m just being dense but with

eminent domain doesn’t the government have to show in my layman’s terms a compelling public purpose to seize private land. I’m sure the lawyers can correct whatever the proper term is. They can’t just claim the front gate of MK without a compelling reason.

Also, doesn’t the agreement require the district to get Disney’s approval first before developing their own land? Isn’t this why they need to void the agreement before breaking ground on the prison? So even if the district did claim Disney property they cannot do anything with the land without Disney signing off. So the district pays Disney for the land and then Disney stops paying taxes to the counties or the district for that land. Seems like a win for the mouse.

Yes, under Chapter 73, the government must have a compelling reason - infrastructure, road construction, right-of-way, etc. However, the government cannot take property to eliminate nuisance, slum or blight conditions.

 

[RamblinWreck]

Yes, under Chapter 73, the government must have a compelling reason - infrastructure, road construction, right-of-way, etc. However, the government cannot take property to eliminate nuisance, slum or blight conditions.

Also wouldn’t anything RCID takes via eminent domain have to be for the benefit of RCID?

They can’t just say that it would benefit the district to have a state prison in it.

 

[lentesta]

Maybe I’m just being dense but with eminent domain doesn’t the government have to show in my layman’s terms a compelling public purpose to seize private land. I’m sure the lawyers can correct whatever the proper term is. They can’t just claim the front gate of MK without a compelling reason.

Also, doesn’t the agreement require the district to get Disney’s approval first before developing their own land? Isn’t this why they need to void the agreement before breaking ground on the prison? So even if the district did claim Disney property they cannot do anything with the land without Disney signing off. So the district pays Disney for the land and then Disney stops paying taxes to the counties or the district for that land. Seems like a win for the mouse.

You're right about the general background for ED seizures. I'm saying in this case that Disney might have agreed to not contest the reason for a seizure. That's the thing that's mildly surprising.

I could be wrong on this - there might be other constraints elsewhere in the agreement. This was after a quick read.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Maybe I’m just being dense but with eminent domain doesn’t the government have to show in my layman’s terms a compelling public purpose to seize private land. I’m sure the lawyers can correct whatever the proper term is. They can’t just claim the front gate of MK without a compelling reason.

Also, doesn’t the agreement require the district to get Disney’s approval first before developing their own land? Isn’t this why they need to void the agreement before breaking ground on the prison? So even if the district did claim Disney property they cannot do anything with the land without Disney signing off. So the district pays Disney for the land and then Disney stops paying taxes to the counties or the district for that land. Seems like a win for the mouse.

The state also has constitutional limitations. Uses have to be approved by general law with a super majority approval. So any of these projects cannot be approved just for the District.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

..


Disney can’t threaten to leave…but the counter to that is that Florida losing Disney’s tax money would cripple a poorly run state.
So all they need to do it lay it out in court how much they fund the joint…and then leak it to the public if that doesn’t do the trick.
The PR battle is easily one in the halls of power.

This is where I lose you. Disney can't threaten to leave, we both agree. So where is the counter of Florida loosing Disney's tax money crippling the state coming from? You can leak out the figures on how many tax dollars Disney brings in to Florida.....but absent Disney going away, that tax revenue is STILL going to be coming in no matter what. There is no counter if there is absolutely no threat of those tax dollars disappearing.

 

[lentesta]

One of the points the District makes is that Disney holds all of the development rights. If the Swan and Dolphin, Shades of Green or B Hotel wants to expand, they have to go to Disney and get their approval because their expansion would be using up some of that maximum allowed hotel rooms.

Not to be pedantic here, but I don't understand the difference between a right (as in "develpoment rights"), and the authority to approve additional hotel rooms.

I thought development rights absolutely can be conferred via contract. Is that not correct?

 

[JAB]

One of the points the District makes is that Disney holds all of the development rights. If the Swan and Dolphin, Shades of Green or B Hotel wants to expand, they have to go to Disney and get their approval because their expansion would be using up some of that maximum allowed hotel rooms. It could be construed that this is an authority that Disney now holds, but the District was not in the business of picking winners and losers so they couldn’t decide not allow a hotel to expand.

Disney also already held this authority because they have agreements and restrictive covenants with everyone involved that they get to approve changes. Are you delegating authority if it’s one you didn’t have/exercise and you “give” it to the entity that was exercising that authority?

I’m very curious to see how Disney responds to the District’s suit. Seeking dismissal for a lack of standing seems like it could have real merit and has been mentioned by lawyers.

I wondered the same thing.

I know that S&D are on Disney-owned land that Tishman leases, and that there are restrictions in that lease that Tishman is limited to what land they can develop, and were only allowed to develop 2 hotels (which is why Swan Reserve - originally to be called The Cove at the Walt Disney World Swan - was built on the location of the Swan's tennis courts and is technically an expansion of the Swan), and that Disney has to approve any changes.

So if Disney already had such authority over non-Disney hotels in the district, can they really argue that the new agreement gives Disney authority it didn't already have via lease agreements?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Not to be pedantic here, but I don't understand the difference between a right (as in "develpoment rights"), and the authority to approve additional hotel rooms.

I thought development rights absolutely can be conferred via contract. Is that not correct?

I honestly don’t know. I think the argument is that the landowners of the District should share the development rights, not have them vested in one landowner. It would be a little odd if you couldn’t add a room to your house because your neighborhood had a cap on room additions and they were all given to your neighbor who may or may not use them.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

This is where I lose you. Disney can't threaten to leave, we both agree. So where is the counter of Florida loosing Disney's tax money crippling the state coming from? You can leak out the figures on how many tax dollars Disney brings in to Florida.....but absent Disney going away, that tax revenue is STILL going to be coming in no matter what. There is no counter if there is absolutely no threat of those tax dollars disappearing.

They can't pack up WDW and move to another state, but they can relocate DCL home ports, slow/stop construction of new hotels in FL (and prioritize new DVC builds in CA over FL, possibly with more Hilton Head type beach resorts outside of FL), and move office workers to other states. None of that would equal the impact of moving all of WDW, obviously, but it's not nothing, either. I'm sure Disney would prefer to have the courts rule in their favor over those options, though.