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

[lazyboy97o]

I gotta imagine though if you are leveraging something defined in another statute (the developer agreement one) that those standards apply to. This action wasn't in the normal course of the district's granted activities (covered by the RCID act), it's a concept pulled from the other law.

Except the district was allowed to enter into contracts and agreements. They were just going with a particular type. The district charter also said that the charter prevailed in the event of a conflict with future state law.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Wondering if the they might attempt to change the term limits for him?

He’s serving his second term…he can’t run for a third…I don’t know if Florida has a recall procedure, but I don’t think that would ever be up for discussion

 

[LAKid53]

He’s serving his second term…he can’t run for a third…I don’t know if Florida has a recall procedure, but I don’t think that would ever be up for discussion

Yes, he's term limited to 2 terms. Florida has no recall for statewide elected officials - governor, lieutenant governor, AG, Ag commissioner. Have to be impeached by the Legislature.

 

[Chi84]

Yes you can. That’s basically the whole point of an injunction, to stop something from occurring because it will cause a harm.

But there has to be a subject to enjoin. A lot of proof is required for getting a preliminary injunction.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Yes, he's term limited to 2 terms. Florida has no recall fur statewide elected officials - governor, lieutenant governor, AG, Ag commissioner. Have to be impeached by the Legislature.

And that’s NEVER going to happen

 

[JAB]

Well they declared it now….

It makes me wonder if the board genuinely believes they have the authority to void the contract just because they say so, or are they knowingly crossing the line in an attempt to goad Disney into litigating.

 

[lewisc]

Yes you can. That’s basically the whole point of an injunction, to stop something from occurring because it will cause a harm.

Posters are talking over each other.

You file for an injunction after a law, or regulation, is passed to prevent it from being enforced, pending a trial.

You don't file, based on political rhetoric, before the law is passed.

 

[lentesta]

Then what was the reason for the big name lawyers making that their main point? It’s a fascinating situation.

I’m guessing those lawyers had $800 per billable hour in reasons.

 

[mkt]

He’s serving his second term…he can’t run for a third…I don’t know if Florida has a recall procedure, but I don’t think that would ever be up for discussion

He can run for a nonconsecutive third term, and Florida has no recall procedure: just impeachment, which given how stacked the legislature and judicial in Florida are, is a non-starter.

 

[lewisc]

It makes me wonder if the board genuinely believes they have the authority to void the contract just because they say so, or are they knowingly crossing the line in an attempt to goad Disney into litigating.

I'll speculate neither. They are saying what Ron wants them say.

 

[RobbinsDad]

I have friends that were actually hoping DeSantis would run and would vote for him over Trump that are not huge Disney fans like us, but when talking to some of them about what is going on, even they think he’s going way beyond what he should be doing. One even said (paraphrasing) making a counter statement and firing back against them is fine, but doing what he’s doing is just wrong. So yeah I can see where he’d be losing some support on his own side overreaching now

He really does need to pivot rhetorically to something else. When you can make the other major national political figure within the state look like the adult in the room, you've miscalculated.

 

[MrPromey]

I’m guessing those lawyers had $800 per billable hour in reasons.

Paid for by us fine citizens of the sunshine state (which means, also Disney).

Meanwhile, my home owner's insurance...

 

[pdude81]

AGREED! The Ron makes The Don look like a moderate!!!! THATS SCARY!!!!!!!

 

[lazyboy97o]

Then what was the reason for the big name lawyers making that their main point? Its a fascinating situation.

Because that’s what they could find as a potential issue.

As a case this is rather bizarre if you were to strip away a lot of the context. Issues of notice and public participation are usually raised by a party who feels they were not properly notified so they could voice concerns or objections. It doesn’t really make sense to go through the effort to say you didn’t get a chance to say you agree and will benefit from the ultimate outcome. Even if that person did exist, they wouldn’t want to speak out if the risk was a beneficial decision being undone.

You also don’t often see this sort of wild decomposition of a body. Even when the Anaheim City Council was considered anti-Disney, there wasn’t this level of hostility. The weren’t talking about revoking the existing approvals and seizing land for other uses. Even using the 300’ rule, Disney could probably get every neighboring property owner to show up at the next meeting and voice unanimous support for the agreement and the Board would almost certainly still vote to nullify the agreement and refuse to reconsider it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But there has to be a subject to enjoin. A lot of proof is required for getting a preliminary injunction.

If we were talking about Orlando and Winter Park being placed under an appointed district would we really say nothing has happened? That just the act of revoking local decision making is not something that first needs improper decisions?

 

[wdwmagic]

Disney launches new website 'The Value of Disney Reedy Creek to Florida'​

Disney launches new website 'The Value of Disney Reedy Creek to Florida'

Disney launches new website 'The Value of Disney Reedy Creek to Florida'

www.wdwmagic.com

 

[MR.Dis]

I have absolutely no idea how Disney will respond. Unlike many others, my assessment of their actions is negative. I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t fight a declaration that the agreements are void. I don’t know what it would take to convince Iger that the stated maximalist goals are not just empty bluster and that this isn’t going away.

Correct that construction cannot start without permits but as of yet the Board has not changed the rules in a way that jeopardizes that. The Board itself does not issue permits, those approvals are administrative and done by the department staff. The same is true of the majority of items sent to the planning department, they’re administratively approved and do not go before the planning commission (now the Board of Supervisors). The Board has not yet changed the land use regulations in a way that will send projects to them.

Thank you for your reply. I try to cut thru all the vitriol with a reasoned picture of what is going on.

 

[Chi84]

If we were talking about Orlando and Winter Park being placed under an appointed district would we really say nothing has happened? That just the act of revoking local decision making is not something that first needs improper decisions?

First you need an actual lawsuit. Then you have to prove that the actions that are being challenged by the injunction threaten the person applying for the injunction with irreparable harm, that this harm is greater than any harm caused to the other side by the injunction and that the applicant is likely to prevail on the merits. They are difficult to obtain.

 

[JusticeDisney]

Plenty of actionable events have transpired.

I was only referring to the potential voiding of the agreement, which has not yet happened and thus is not actionable at this point.

 

[BuzzedPotatoHead89]

You also don’t often see this sort of wild decomposition of a body. Even when the Anaheim City Council was considered anti-Disney, there wasn’t this level of hostility. The weren’t talking about revoking the existing approvals and seizing land for other uses. Even using the 300’ rule, Disney could probably get every neighboring property owner to show up at the next meeting and voice unanimous support for the agreement and the Board would almost certainly still vote to nullify the agreement and refuse to reconsider it.

This is truthfully what I’m struggling with too. Even if the written notice was foregone for a substitute media and online notice under the letter of the law do the new state appointed cronies on the body have standing to sue?

They are not landowners in the district. If the letter of the law is not applied here would this nullify other actions under RCID where a similar substitute notice (in lieu of written notice) was also seemingly applied in the last several decades?