As I said in a subsequent post, it through law gives a board of supervisors the ability to breach a VALID agreement with no consequences.
Turning contract law on its head...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
As I said in a subsequent post, it through law gives a board of supervisors the ability to breach a VALID agreement with no consequences.
Turning contract law on its head...
Yet the record of who voted Yay lists the names of the Democrats as voting "yes". Which the following clearly shows they didn't.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I don’t think it’s consistent because the law says they can’t comply with agreements that were in effect. The District says the agreement was never in effect.
Either way, the District still actually has to comply with the agreement because the agreement is based on the still existing land development regulations. The board has no alternative comprehensive plan on which to base new land development regulations.
The 4 months part seems mostly useless.
Nothing there sounds like anything is automatic. It reads like they're supposed to review within 4 months, with the ability to adapt the agreement as-is. Doing nothing would seem to mean they are directed to not comply. Waiting longer than 4 months, it is unclear what would happen if they want to adopt the agreement then. The board would be out of compliance with this law by waiting longer or not reviewing. But, that's just back to what is the impact of being out of compliance with this law? They would be the same out of compliance if they comply with the agreements instead.
It seems rather sloppy. And very unconstitutional too.
As the legislation stands, it does. The Development Agreement was executed February 8, 2023. The bill (SB 9B) changing how the members of the board are selected was signed into law by the governor on February 27, 2023.
Until a court of competent jurisdiction rules that Subsection 7 of SB 1604 violates the Contract Clause or is ex post facto law, it stands. While laws on face may be unconstitutional, they in law aren't until a court declares them as such.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
This bill has nothing to do with undoing previous legislation.
The legislature already tried to dissolve the Reedy Creek Improvement District and then they realized it’d be a disaster (if it was even legal).
Patcheslee
Well-Known Member
CFTOD started live streaming meetings April 18th, the same day the announced the "surprise" changes to the development agreement. Would it be far fetched to believe the stream is being used as a way for legislation to monitor their plans without direct connection? If CFTOD didn't stream, how long would it have taken for Ingoglia to file an amendment to SB1604. Just thinking out loud.
Does it really though?
It clearly tells the board to not comply with an agreement. But, does it actually excuse them from any consequences of that? Does it create any new consequences for complying with an agreement and ignoring this law?
It is clearly inconsistent with contract law.
Very sloppy. And unconstitutional. As though in their haste to give the Board an out, they in perpetuity (but without Lilibet's longevity
) impede Disney's RIGHT to enter into ANY agreement. By simply changing how board members are selected. Which the legislature could do at any time it doesn't like an agreement. The Legislature doesn't need to wait for the governor to call a special session - the Speaker and Senate President can jointly do so.
By LAW, it tells the Board not to comply with ANY, not just a development, agreement that falls within the timeframe in the bill. A lawyer would make the argument that the board would be in violation of LAW if it complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Which gives it an out to be sued for breach. Violating law would supercede being penalized for a breach.
I'm sure when SB 1604 is signed into law by the governor, Disney will add it to the filing.
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
I'd honestly be shocked if Disney's lawyers didn't already have the filing ready to go.
I'm sure they've got amendments ready to finalize anytime a new bill is introduced in either committee or on the floor. Their lobbyists are certainly working overtime.
Thats what I thought. My reason for posting this is ... outside of these boards, (and to a lesser extent the Orlando area), this entire thing is under reported and completely misunderstood. WYou hat does that mean to the bigger picture? Is it really going to matter on a national scale?
Legal precedent is usually set by something adjudicated at a local level, yet can matter nationally going forward.
hi yes you took that in a different direction than I intended. Yes this absolutely has tremendous repercussion nationally on a legislative level.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Yeah so if RCID signed a contract with a vendor Dec 2022 to pave roads or build an overpass and that vendor is halfway through the project their contract is now essentially unenforceable. So the district can just walk away and not pay them if it choose not to readopt. If an energy provider signed a contract in December with RCID that is also “void“ now unless they readopt it. If electricity prices have dropped since Dec (which they have following the big drop in the price of natural gas) they can get out of a contract and reset to current market. Florida - where free markets go to die
Yeah so if RCID signed a contract with a vendor Dec 2022 to pave roads or build an overpass and that vendor is halfway through the project their contract is now essentially unenforceable. So the district can just walk away and not pay them if it choose not to readopt. If an energy provider signed a contract in December with RCID that is also “void“ now unless they readopt it. If electricity prices have dropped since Dec (which they have following the big drop in the price of natural gas) they can get out of a contract and reset to current market. Florida - where free markets go to die
Under the bill, very possible.
Which means Disney wouldn't be the only entity filing a lawsuit to invalidate that portion of the bill once it becomes law. HB 1604 was passed yesterday by the Legislature.
