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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Still, the trolls do seem obsessed with the mailing notice thing.

What is the official take on this from the Disney/RCID side of it?

RCID has like 30 official residents?

I bet they have that one sidestepped

This ain’t like Cayahoga County

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

That’s ultimately why the state has little to no leverage

Or are we pretending that “we have the money…so how about we do it our way?”
Isn’t a daily established legal doctrine in the US?

Normally I think I would agree with you. Though in the battle of money, the Government, who prints the money generally always wins.

Here WDW I think is a bit different. Sure they bring in tons of revenue to the state, taxes, tourism dollars, ect., Hell they in a big sense made Orlando what it is. But unlike most businesses, what's Disney's leverage against Florida? They aren't like a manufacturing company who could take a sweetheart tax deal and move their plant, or offices from one state to another. I guess they could move their administrative people back to CA, or to some better/cheaper state, but the main buisness, the one that is bringing in all the revenue and tax dollars is a fixed asset that I can't see any way leveraging against Florida.

Can you see any feasible way that WDW could move any operations out of Orlando? They aren't just packing up Space Mountain and moving it and the parks to GA or one of the Carolina's. Hell it's been talked to death why opening up a 5th gate doesn't make alot of finacial sense, multiple that times 100x for any attempt at moving the WDW operations from Florida.

I guess you could argue that WDW could hold back on future investment in Florida, take that 17B and put it....where? Open up a new stand alone destination in NC or Texas? Besides the insane start up and infrastructure costs of building an entirely new domestic destination, you will likely just end up cannibalizing domestic travel demand (in a time when investment rates are up and domestic discretionary spending are anything but certain.) Further investment in CA? Maybe, but is that a good return on investment for Disney, is there space there to expand efficiently? Disney still wants to make money, and right now the cash cow of the whole operation is parks. 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?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Normally I think I would agree with you. Though in the battle of money, the Government, who prints the money generally always wins.

Here WDW I think is a bit different. Sure they bring in tons of revenue to the state, taxes, tourism dollars, ect., Hell they in a big sense made Orlando what it is. But unlike most businesses, what's Disney's leverage against Florida? They aren't like a manufacturing company who could take a sweetheart tax deal and move their plant, or offices from one state to another. I guess they could move their administrative people back to CA, or to some better/cheaper state, but the main buisness, the one that is bringing in all the revenue and tax dollars is a fixed asset that I can't see any way leveraging against Florida.

Can you see any feasible way that WDW could move any operations out of Orlando? They aren't just packing up Space Mountain and moving it and the parks to GA or one of the Carolina's. Hell it's been talked to death why opening up a 5th gate doesn't make alot of finacial sense, multiple that times 100x for any attempt at moving the WDW operations from Florida.

I guess you could argue that WDW could hold back on future investment in Florida, take that 17B and put it....where? Open up a new stand alone destination in NC or Texas? Besides the insane start up and infrastructure costs of building an entirely new domestic destination, you will likely just end up cannibalizing domestic travel demand (in a time when investment rates are up and domestic discretionary spending are anything but certain.) Further investment in CA? Maybe, but is that a good return on investment for Disney, is there space there to expand efficiently? Disney still wants to make money, and right now the cash cow of the whole operation is parks. 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?

Florida doesn’t print money…the Feds do

Nobody was suggesting Disney was trying to win anything in state court. They’ll pay it no mind.

Their ultimate goal is for regime change and this to settle/go away…but winning in federal court is 1A

And the largest chunk of US money is backed by what happens in California with New York not far behind…so never doubt “market forces” at work either..


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 won in the halls of power.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Still, the trolls do seem obsessed with the mailing notice thing.

What is the official take on this from the Disney/RCID side of it?

We’ll have to see how Disney responds to the state suit. Reedy Creek Improvement District had its own rules and nobody has pointed to a clause in Chapter 163 that amends those rules.

 

[lentesta]

If the district attempted to take more than the "land required", Disney would certainly fight them in court.

If the district refused to build this infrastructure, Disney would take them to court.

If the district, for example, tried to take control of the entrance into the Magic Kingdom by eminent domain, Disney most assuredly would fight it.

At least one of the lawyers I've spoken to said the agreement says Disney promises not to go to court for those things.

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.

 

[RamblinWreck]

https://.com/2023/04/central-florid...ays-disneys-reedy-creek-agreement-is-illegal/

Central Florida attorney Jacob Schumer told Orlando Sentinel that voiding the development agreement would impair a contract, putting the state on shaky legal ground. But the new board could have a case if RCID didn’t provide notice to affected property owners.

“Significant case law out there basically says that if statutory notice requirements aren’t followed,” he said, “then the government action is void from the outset.”



Do we even know if Disney/RCID did or didn’t follow that requirement? The new board also claimed they didn’t provide notice in the newspaper, right? And they actually did do that.

 

[RamblinWreck]

If you have no way to win based on the facts, you try to win on a procedural argument.

But might they win on it?

What would the typical ruling/remedy be?

Do they even have standing to essentially say “please nullify this arrangement we entered into because we contend that we didn’t follow the rules”?

I know it’s not the current members of the board that would have screwed up, but it’s still the same board. It would be like Iger trying to get Disney out of something because Chapek did it wrong.

 

[mkt]

And good morning! Here's today's filings from pacer. Nothing really interesting, but keeping them all

Further good morning! Here's the all current docs from the CFTOD v Disney countersuit in Orange County. The actual complaint is too big of a file to upload, so here's the link to view it:

complaint.pdf

Filing # 172181658 E-Filed 05/01/2023 04:27:22 PM. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT. DISTRICT, Plaintiff, CASE NO.:. v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC.,. Defendant. COMPLAINT. FOR ...

www.docdroid.net

 

[mkt]

But might they win on it?

What would the typical ruling/remedy be?

Do they even have standing to essentially say “please nullify this arrangement we entered into because we contend that we didn’t follow the rules”?

I know it’s not the current members of the board that would have screwed up, but it’s still the same board. It would be like Iger trying to get Disney out of something because Chapek did it wrong.

They can get it tossed, and then they refile.

 

[mikejs78]

Still, the trolls do seem obsessed with the mailing notice thing.

What is the official take on this from the Disney/RCID side of it?

https://.com/2023/04/central-florid...ays-disneys-reedy-creek-agreement-is-illegal/

Central Florida attorney Jacob Schumer told Orlando Sentinel that voiding the development agreement would impair a contract, putting the state on shaky legal ground. But the new board could have a case if RCID didn’t provide notice to affected property owners.

“Significant case law out there basically says that if statutory notice requirements aren’t followed,” he said, “then the government action is void from the outset.”



Do we even know if Disney/RCID did or didn’t follow that requirement? The new board also claimed they didn’t provide notice in the newspaper, right? And they actually did do that.

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.

 

[RamblinWreck]

I've seen him and maybe a couple of the people who he vlogs with make that argument, yet I've not heard anyone else credible say anything about it. The state has not mentioned it in their countersuit, nor has Desantis or the state Attorney General made any mention of it, which leads me to believe it's a stretch that these few are trying to leverage for click-bait and self-promotion. Also, with the extent to which Disney's attorney's have executed so far, I find it hard to believe they would miss this little detail. All that being said, it's possible, and it could be something the state will bring up later, but I just have to think it's a very minor issue at this point, if any at all.

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.

 

[RamblinWreck]

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.

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?

 

[GrumpyFan]

Because didn’t Disney didn’t want running a local government on their books.

They were a smallish movie studio until 1990…it’s been well documented. Took alot to get things built from bankers.

Reedy creek allowed for public bonds…which was advantageous for Disney AND the bond holders. It’s one of the more stable investments out there.
And Florida didn’t have to come up with more money to allow Disney to bring tons of money back into their economy.

This is really simple.

Two additionals.
1) Walt wanted protections and enough buffer against what was built next door or within view at least so as not to re-create the chaos that happened in SoCal after they opened DisneyLand.
2) After the St Louis incident, where they (Augustus Busch) wanted him to include alcohol in his venues, which Walt was vehemently against (much has changed here), he decided they needed to control as much as possible within their domain to avoid such mandates.

 

[lentesta]

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!

It was definitely a "I'm mildly surprised by this at first reading" moment.

 

[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.