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

[JAB]

I think you guys are saying the same thing. If the proper mailings didn’t occur and if a landowner emerges with a complaint then a judge would decide whether they qualify as adversely impacted based on the reasons they give.

Exactly; which is why I'm so confused about what his issue with my post was.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think you are crossing separate subjects. The point about raising an objection is not part of the notice requirements.

So your whole potentially harmed thing is not about who theh must provide notice too

Affected property owners is the criteria of the statute for who is to receive a mailed notice. It’s so they can express support or opposition to guide the decision making of the officials. Once the decision is made, a voicing of support is immaterial. The concern after the fact is that someone who would have objected was not heard.

A development deal being trashed because someone who does not object to it was not told at the correct time is a bit of a nonsense scenario. Who’s going to bring that action? What court would even proceed with the case of “I agree with this but I want it voided”? Now that the time for notice has passed standing becomes an issue.

 

[LAKid53]

And yet they provided no proof. I wonder why?

Because they hastily called the meeting? You learn never to proceed with actions to overturn a rule, contract, etc., without having all facts and evidence at hand, especially if you sit on a governmental board. And you're one of 3 attorneys on that board.

I've embarrassed a few attorneys who were so ready to pounce on our program that they failed to do their diligence by reading statue, rules or the bloody document they presented as "fact" of non-compliance.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And yet they provided no proof. I wonder why?

You can’t prove a negative. If nothing was mailed then there is nothing to show.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Two different sentences- two different discussions.

I’m not talking about the board’s conclusions that they can void the contract… we were talking anout the notice requirements. Not what cones next.

I have always been talking about the interplay between notice and how it relates to action going forward.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

That's really not how owning stock in Disney works, I'm afraid.

please educate me on how Disney is a bad investment then?

 

[peter11435]

You can’t prove a negative. If nothing was mailed then there is nothing to show.

I’m referring to them identifying someone who claims to have not been notified but was affected.

 

[LAKid53]

Shouldn’t it be public if the CFTOD grants development for that area?

The CFTOD would provide notice and documents pertaining to awards would be on their website. But the developers themselves aren't governed by the law.

That being said, any documentation the Board requires developers to submit to the Board itself are available for public inspection, unless something in those records would make them exempt under the law.

 

[harry58]

You can’t prove a negative. If nothing was mailed then there is nothing to show.

Thats true, but if i am not misunderstanding, the statement was "why have they not brought someone forward who was aggrieved " different issue

but to which i would reply, for the same reason Disney has not said much. They may have an aggrieved party, they may not.... but just because they did not present them at this meeting is proof of neither.

 

[scottieRoss]

I cannot. I also can’t name a single person who has never drunk Coke, eaten bacon, or stepped in a big pile of . But I know it’s best to avoid it.

You believe Disney did what they think is moral, but not what the formidable opposing side thought was moral. (Including me. ) So again, if they think their strategy was the best way to stand up, they now have to pay for it. It appears many Disney executives regret this stand.

Except, Disney can pay for it from the public. Sales can either go up or go down. However, this is the United States of America and our Constitution gives them the right to face those public repercussions. But it does not permit the state to add to those repercussions. Whether you agree with the stand Disney took or not or whether you agree with Disney's politics or not, the State of Florida is forbidden by the Constitution to apply repercussions to them.

 

[Heath]

And this is a naive perspective… or one abused by people willingly distorting it to fit their purpose.

You don’t think businesses should get involved in local planning? Like i dunno… thr interstate that stands to bypass their town? Or hoe about ghe new reporting requirements that will cause them undue burden? Or how about regulations in general? Or how about how they jnteract with their employees and customers?

Just stay out of everything? These businesses don’t exist ina vacuum- nor are make up of non-humans.

Every business owner who has broken their back to be a success would tell you to gfys if you told them they should stay out of politics that impact them

I own several small businesses. It’s unrealistic to stay out of politics altogether. This was identity politics, and this was the assumed understanding of context. We can debate in circles, but as a seasoned business owner that’s been through the school of hard knocks (not naive) , I try to stay out of politics in general. I’m not talking about my municipal and planning. I am involved in my downtown committee. Look the consensus with Disney executives is that if they could have avoided this situation with another approach, they would have.

 

[LAKid53]

I’m referring to them identifying someone who claims to have not been notified but was affected.

Which, since that appeared to be a point of contention at this meeting for members of the Board, they should have had some proof the requisite mailings weren't done. A list of eligible property owners that included up-to-date addresses. A simple phone call or email asking if the property owner received the mailed notice prior to the January 2023 meeting.

 

[Tha Realest]

It’s in 163.3243. One must be aggravated or adversely affected to challenge the validity of the agreement.

You’re misquoting and misreading the statute.

“Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2)” (not “aggravated“) can seek enforcement

If it was limited to “aggrieved or adversely affected person” it would have read ”Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2).”

“Any party” inclusion can be viewed broadly as to include the CFTOD (as successor in interest to the RCID).

I don’t think that’s how this is going to play out. The CFTOD will assert that the contract is null and void and refuse to comply with it. I think it will be Disney/WDPR that, eventually, will seek to enforce the CFTOD’s compliance with the development agreement (likely under this section).

 

[maxairmike]

Which explains that spot. I'm referring to the others.

If you're not referring to the RIBs (which the chair was dumb to suggest removing if they want to develop more District land and as they continue to develop more in Celebration) and on the Hartzog side of 429, then it must be the utility work that is going on all along the Avalon corridor for the continuing buildout of all the Horizon West communities. I wish it was fast-tracking the Avalon expansion, but at least RCID has flags in the ground to fully build out the Western Way side of the intersection, so there's movement there that hopefully this board doesn't get the bright idea to interfere with.

 

[Heath]

Except, Disney can pay for it from the public. Sales can either go up or go down. However, this is the United States of America and our Constitution gives them the right to face those public repercussions. But it does not permit the state to add to those repercussions. Whether you agree with the stand Disney took or not or whether you agree with Disney's politics or not, the State of Florida is forbidden by the Constitution to apply repercussions to them.

I’m sorry I look at these threads and over and over people default to the government can’t attack free speech, or what Disney did is moral. I never opined on any of this. All I have said is businesses should politics. Which is challenging if not impossible, but let me be more specific…avoid identity politics. If Disney could get a mulligan, they would have avoided the mess.

 

[Tha Realest]

Correct. They have to demonstrate standing and harm.

Where is standing and harm required to show noncompliance with a public hearing requirement?

 

[James Alucobond]

See this is what happens on these threads… I make a comment that Disney has to “pay for it” and that turns into mind readers speculating on what I think, What I said is that Disney does not want to be in this media and cultural battle, and they don’t want to be in this Reedy Creek battle, and they don’t want to be investing money and energy in creative things that make money. That’s what I mean by “pay for it.” And you turned this into the debate of what you speculate I think about government rights.
My original premise, like many others, is businesses need to stay out of politics as much as possible.
I’ve noticed that this is a mostly pro-Disney forum, and if one says anything that’s a different perspective, one gets ganged up on here, with fallacies and emotional responses.
I do NOT support government over reach. All I did was say Disney stepped in it. I also said they could have better avoided it. Then that turned into “that’s not moral!l Then I said I’m not debating morality, all I said is many Disney executives regret stepping into this poop, and would have made more effort to avoid the situation. if they could get a redo.

If your argument were that they shouldn’t wade into certain kinds of cultural politics because of how that would be viewed in the court of public opinion, then fine.

But we’re not talking about public opinion in this thread. We’re talking about the government of the state of Florida and how it responded to Disney exercising its right to free speech. You suggested that they should have anticipated this, that this is fruit they should have known they’d be reaping, but why should a company anticipate that a government will respond to them in an unlawful manner? This fruit should never have been born to reap in the first place.

 

[JoeCamel]

I own several small businesses. It’s unrealistic to stay out of politics altogether. This was identity politics, and this was the assumed understanding of context. We can debate in circles, but as a seasoned business owner that’s been through the school of hard knocks (not naive) , I try to stay out of politics in general. I’m not talking about my municipal and planning. I am involved in my downtown committee. Look the consensus with Disney executives is that if they could have avoided this situation with another approach, they would have.

You do realize they fired the guy who did what you object to?

 

[GoofGoof]

You’re misquoting and misreading the statute.

“Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2)” (not “aggravated“) can seek enforcement

If it was limited to “aggrieved or adversely affected person” it would have read ”Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2).”

“Any party” inclusion can be viewed broadly as to include the CFTOD (as successor in interest to the RCID).

I don’t think that’s how this is going to play out. The CFTOD will assert that the contract is null and void and refuse to comply with it. I think it will be Disney/WDPR that, eventually, will seek to enforce the CFTOD’s compliance with the development agreement (likely under this section).

Party means “party to the contract” not just anyone off the street

 

[LAKid53]

If you're not referring to the RIBs (which the chair was dumb to suggest removing if they want to develop more District land and as they continue to develop more in Celebration) and on the Hartzog side of 429, then it must be the utility work that is going on all along the Avalon corridor for the continuing buildout of all the Horizon West communities. I wish it was fast-tracking the Avalon expansion, but at least RCID has flags in the ground to fully build out the Western Way side of the intersection, so there's movement there that hopefully this board doesn't get the bright idea to interfere with.

Next time I drive to Flamingo Crossings I'll take a photo. As I said earlier, they remind me of dry storm water retention ponds, but the excavation is too shallow.