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

[lazyboy97o]

The entire “void the entire contract because RCID failed to notify all landowners 60 days in advance by mail” seems highly dubious.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the former RCID board did fail to notify all of the district’s landowners.

The typical judge is going to hold up the contract, make sure all landowners are notified and, if none object within the 60 days required by statute, allow the contract to take effect.

What district landowner is going to object? They all have close business relationships with Disney. Are any of them going to want the new crazy board deciding what Disney can do instead of Disney?

Any judge worth their salt seeks the least invasive remedy.

The law doesn’t say all land owners within a jurisdiction. It says all “affected” land owners. Is the CVS in Flamingo Crossing an affected land owner if they’re not a party to nor bound by the agreement?

 

[orky8]

I disagree. I think that DeSantis needs an off-ramp, lest he be viewed as "losing" to Disney by his base, and compromising his future political ambitions.

If I were Iger, I'd be calling up DeSantis and trying to game out a mutually agreeable solution to the issue, where nobody comes out with egg on their face. What that solution would look like, I'm not sure, but one of these guys went to Yale and Harvard, and the other has run a Fortune 50 company for over a decade. In other words, they're both intelligent men; I'm sure they can figure something out.

None of this to say that Disney is obligated to make amends, but clearly this situation is just going to keep getting more and more ridiculous with each passing day, and, despite the protestations of some, they can't just pickup WDW and move it somewhere else. Disney would be wise to open the lines of communication up right at the top of the org chart and start working towards an off-ramp where DeSantis can claim "victory" with his base and Disney doesn't take a huge PR and/or monetary hit, or compromise on their claimed values.

Again, should Disney have to do this? No. But clearly this situation will just continue escalating, so it would be wise for Disney to attempt to put a stop to it sooner rather than later.

I think originally Desantis wanted the political fight and thought it played well for him, but that narrative is shifting. Now, he needs an off-ramp, whether he realizes or not. Perhaps a $17B victory for the State could help?

 

[GBAB1973]

I disagree. I think that DeSantis needs an off-ramp, lest he be viewed as "losing" to Disney by his base, and compromising his future political ambitions.

If I were Iger, I'd be calling up DeSantis and trying to game out a mutually agreeable solution to the issue, where nobody comes out with egg on their face. What that solution would look like, I'm not sure, but one of these guys went to Yale and Harvard, and the other has run a Fortune 50 company for over a decade. In other words, they're both intelligent men; I'm sure they can figure something out.

None of this to say that Disney is obligated to make amends, but clearly this situation is just going to keep getting more and more ridiculous with each passing day, and, despite the protestations of some, they can't just pickup WDW and move it somewhere else. Disney would be wise to open the lines of communication up right at the top of the org chart and start working towards an off-ramp where DeSantis can claim "victory" with his base and Disney doesn't take a huge PR and/or monetary hit, or compromise on their claimed values.

Again, should Disney have to do this? No. But clearly this situation will just continue escalating, so it would be wise for Disney to attempt to put a stop to it sooner rather than later.

He's had multiple chances at an off ramp and has chosen not to take them. He wants complete domination here of Disney.

He never had to pick this fight to begin with. The education bills were going to get passed regardless of Disney weighing in or not. He could have just ignored them and still gotten what he wanted legislatively.

When they created the law giving him full control of the board, he had other options. Maybe allow the state to pick 3 and Disney to pick 2. He then could have exited claiming a W.

But at every step of the way, he's double and tripled down on this. He doesn't want a partial win. He wants a complete win. He's so far into it now though that he no longer has a choice. He has to keep fighting even if he realizes he's losing. Backing out now would be viewed as weakness and this whole thing was about PR more than anything.

 

[Chi84]

Can someone with access to a legal database tell me if either:

• US Trust Co vs New Jersey (1977) -or-
• Allied Structural Steel vs Spannaus (1978)

have been superseded?

ETA: Both were SCOTUS cases in which the state tried to invalidate a contract to which it was a party.

SCOTUS said (I'm summarizing):

• Courts should use strict scrutiny when evaluating the state's claims
• The state has to list the specific thing to which it's objecting
• The state must use the least-disruptive means necessary to resolve the objection

That ... does not seem to be happening in the Florida legislation out today.

I'm not sure any amount of legal research is going to help with this particular situation. A court's analysis of the contracts clause is generally going to begin with the assumption that legislation, by its nature, is meant to have broad application and is not directly targeted at interfering with an individual's or a business's contract rights. The interference considered in these cases is ancillary - collateral damage - to the purpose of the legislation.

 

[Henry Mystic]

Cooler heads could prevail if this was about solving an actual problem that they could come to an agreement over.

Exactly. It’s to score political points.

Nothing. More.

There’s no possible middle ground that can be found if that is the aim.

 

[GoofGoof]

I am not an attorney and do not try to be one. It just is that everyone on this board seems so darn sure that Disney is going to win this issue that to give a little balance I posted from a source that is not going along with the consensus on this forum.

It seems like maybe a case of bad reporting. I don’t know what to take as the so called expert‘s opinion and what’s added by the writer.

If the legal battle ends in the state’s favor, DeSantis promises public safety pay raises and a reassessment of property value to potentially have the company pay more in taxes in Orange and Osceola counties. Kramer predicts it will be a tough case for Disney to win.

This is not a shown as a quote from Kramer so hard to say if he said it or not. So if this entire statement actually came from Kramer he’s not very credible. No legal battle is necessary to give pay raises to RCID EMS. The district controls that with or without the development agreement in place and the idea that the district somehow controls the tax assessment for the counties is also a fairytale. The governor literally made that up. So if this expert is actually saying he believes this will happen if Disney loses a hypothetical lawsuit then he’s not very credible. He also doesn’t specify what case will be tough for Disney to win.

Legal analyst explains challenges with nullifying Reedy Creek agreement

"It always depended on the state of Florida playing ball with Disney," legal analyst Steven Kramer said.

www.wesh.com

 

[Mr. Stay Puft]

The entire “void the entire contract because RCID failed to notify all landowners 60 days in advance by mail” seems highly dubious.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume the former RCID board did fail to notify all of the district’s landowners.

The typical judge is going to hold up the contract, make sure all landowners are notified and, if none object within the 60 days required by statute, allow the contract to take effect.

What district landowner is going to object? They all have close business relationships with Disney. Are any of them going to want the new crazy board deciding what Disney can do instead of Disney?

Any judge worth their salt seeks the least invasive remedy.

Exactly. Not following every step of the law does not guarantee an automatic judgement against a defendant, whether in a civil lawsuit or a criminal case. Sometimes judges will just see something like this as an honest mistake or oversight and will allow the party at fault to remedy the situation in good faith, rather than just going for a straight up judgement not in favor of.

 

[Brian]

He's had multiple chances at an off ramp and has chosen not to take them. He wants complete domination here of Disney.

He never had to pick this fight to begin with. The education bills were going to get passed regardless of Disney weighing in or not. He could have just ignored them and still gotten what he wanted legislatively.

When they created the law giving him full control of the board, he had other options. Maybe allow the state to pick 3 and Disney to pick 2. He then could have exited claiming a W.

But at every step of the way, he's double and tripled down on this. He doesn't want a partial win. He wants a complete win. He's so far into it now though that he no longer has a choice. He has to keep fighting even if he realizes he's losing. Backing out now would be viewed as weakness and this whole thing was about PR more than anything.

You're not wrong on many of those opportunities, especially when it came to reconstituting RCID into CFTOD and the board's composition.

What I think bears repeating is that it has to be Iger who makes the call. DeSantis needs to be able to say to his base that Disney extended the olive branch. If DeSantis extends an olive branch preemptively, or even goes so far as to call Iger himself, that will absolutely leak to the press, and his base will abandon him and consider him a weakling.

 

[CntrlFlPete]

yes, according to this Duke operates the facility and sells the power to RCID through a power purchase agreement.

Not-so-hidden Mickey solar farm at Walt Disney World

This video taken from above reveals what’s not visible on the ground – a 22-acre solar farm in the shape of Mickey Mouse at Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, Florida. Disney continues to find ways to provide clean energy to its parks and resorts and...

illumination.duke-energy.com

the small one was built w/ Duke. The lager one was not:

https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/b...disney-world-resort-powering-two-theme-parks/

 

[Brian]

oops….too late for that . As someone posted earlier (maybe even you, this thread moves too fast ) The big guy has woken up and already started chirping about it. DeSantis is merely the cover band….there’s only one original.

All the more reason for Iger to use this as an opportunity for an off-ramp.

Plus Chris Christie if anyone is still listening to him.

 

[usty]

Birds eye for the Disney inmates - view of MK and Epcot nightly fireworks !

What crimes get you fireworks view? Which vlogger would commit them first to do a review?

 

[lazyboy97o]

This typically is handled by notifying all landowners in the district.

If RCID fails to notify a landowner because they arbitrarily decided who was and who was not “affected”, then they risk some landowner objecting they that are affected and they were not notified.

For the price of a postage stamp, you notify everyone even remotely interested.

Notifying all landowners is the smart play.

So yes, you notify CVS in Flamingo Crossing.

How is it an arbitrary decision? If a landowner isn’t bound by the deal how are they affected?

 

[GoofGoof]

This typically is handled by notifying all landowners in the district.

If RCID fails to notify a landowner because they arbitrarily decided who was and who was not “affected”, then they risk some landowner objecting they that are affected and they were not notified.

For the price of a postage stamp, you notify everyone even remotely interested.

Notifying all landowners is the smart play.

So yes, you notify CVS in Flamingo Crossing.

I think this covered that point:

Exhibit 1 of the land development agreement is the description of the property.

”The property is defined as the following property less and except any portions of the following property that are, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, owned in fee simple by a party other than Reedy Creek Improvement District or Master Developer.”

So basically the only 2 parties affected by the agreement are Disney as the master developer and RCID. Both obviously received notification.

 

[GBAB1973]

All the more reason for Iger to use this as an opportunity for an off-ramp.

Why should Iger look for an off ramp, especially if he feels he has the winning hand?

 

[Coaster Lover]

so he floats the idea of building a prison at Disney World so people laugh at him some more?

They just released some concept art for a triple occupancy room at the new Prison Resort...

Spoiler: Disney's All Star Prisoner's Resort Concept Art

 

[Stripes]

The law doesn’t say all land owners within a jurisdiction. It says all “affected” land owners. Is the CVS in Flamingo Crossing an affected land owner if they’re not a party to nor bound by the agreement?

Generally, “affected property owners” would apply to all property owners adjacent to the property subject to the development agreement potentially even those outside of the district if their property is adjacent to/within 300 feet.

The statute itself doesn’t clarify what is considered an “affected property owner.” But this is how such language is generally understood.

 

[hopemax]

You're not wrong on many of those opportunities, especially when it came to reconstituting RCID into CFTOD and the board's composition.

What I think bears repeating is that it has to be Iger who makes the call. DeSantis needs to be able to say to his base that Disney extended the olive branch. If DeSantis extends an olive branch preemptively, or even goes so far as to call Iger himself, that will absolutely leak to the press, and his base will abandon him and consider him a weakling.

That would still happen the moment Disney corporate did anything that the base would consider woke. It would be all the proof they need that in the long run "Disney won." Pride events at either US park? Didn't do enough. DEI hiring initiatives? Didn't do enough. Movies / TV / Attractions featuring characters and stories they don't like? Didn't do enough. DeSantis got himself into a no win situation, because ultimately he will be judged by the base by whatever product Disney continues to put out. The only way he can not be a loser is to keep up the pretense of the fight. Like we've seen after 2020, and in AZ now.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

What crimes get you fireworks view? Which vlogger would commit them first to do a review?

"We stayed in the Disney Prison ... Our HONEST REVIEW!!!!"

 

[Notypeo]

Can someone with access to a legal database tell me if either:

• US Trust Co vs New Jersey (1977) -or-
• Allied Structural Steel vs Spannaus (1978)

have been superseded?

Short answer is that it doesn’t look like the Supreme Court has overturned either decision — i.e., neither one has been superseded.

 

[mkt]

I don’t like that this agreement is tied to the lifespan of a member of the royal family, because I am not a fan of the royal family.
I dare the mods to delete this.

Eh, it's a pretty boilerplate legal concept that attorneys hate.