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

[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.

 

[JAB]

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 could 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.

In this case, though, wouldn't it be more like you leased the land you built your house on from your neighbor and the lease agreement already states they have to approve construction? How many hotels (if any) in the district are sitting on land that isn't owned by Disney?

 

[lentesta]

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 could 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.

So there are two questions:

1. If the Swan wanted to add hotel rooms, does the developer agreement say that Disney has decision-making authority there, which Disney did not previously have (e.g., through an existing contract with the Swan)?
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, is that unusual for special districts in Florida?

It's a fact that other Florida SD boards include people who have direct and substantial financial interests in the board's decisions. The Wilton Drive board is composed entirely (IIRC) of people who own land and businesses there.

 

[Andrew C]

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.

I think much of that are not viable options, even if they wanted to. Maybe the last item you listed is the most realistic.

 

[LAKid53]

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.

All Section 73.015, F.S., states is that:

"1. That all or a portion of his or her property is necessary for a project.
2. The nature of the project for which the parcel is considered necessary, and the parcel designation of the property to be acquired."

There is an attorney general opinion that looks at the taking of property by a special district and whether said reason for taking the property meets public interest. The question was in regards to the project for which the property is being taken is in violation of local zoning.

"....the power to condemn simply provides a method whereby property can be acquired; it does not have anything to do with the use of the property."

It's an interesting read, even if not specifically applicable to your hypothetical.

Special tax district, eminent domain power | My Florida Legal

www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[Disstevefan1]

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.

So TWDC would purposely neglect WDW and relocate DCL (both cash cows for the company) to prove a point?

The company needs these dependable sources of income.

Not trolling, just asking.

 

[RamblinWreck]

So TWDC would purposely neglect WDW and relocate DCL (both cash cows for the company) to prove a point?

The company needs these dependable sources of income.

Not trolling, just asking.

Doubtful they would neglect it, but they could certainly stop investing so much in it.