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

[JAB]

Touché. Until now, DeSantis' plans have not relied upon front line state workers, only elected officials and political appointees. You're introducing a group of people into the mix who are generally not partisans, and who punch in every day to provide for their families. These same people would also be liable to blow the whistle, either publicly or through government channels, if they are asked to do anything unscrupulous.

What's there to keep the board from saying Disney has to shut down the monorail for "safety reasons" until it's inspected, and then just not sending an inspector for a month? I don't know if they can actually do that, but if they can/do, it's out of the hands of the frontline inspectors regardless of how upstanding they might be.

 

[Brian]

What's there to keep the board from saying Disney has to shut down the monorail for "safety reasons" until it's inspected, and then just not sending an inspector for a month? I don't know if they can actually do that, but if they can/do, it's out of the hands of the frontline inspectors regardless of how upstanding they might be.

FDOT would be responsible for the inspections, not CFTOD. Even if CFTOD had the authority to shut down the monorail, which I don't believe they do, what you're describing would rely on FDOT then purposefully delaying the inspection.

Yet another reason for Disney to reach into their very deep pockets, suit up their army of lawyers, and file a lawsuit. There should be plenty of easily accessible evidence of collusion, in that case.

 

[JAB]

FDOT would be responsible for the inspections, not CFTOD. Even if CFTOD had the authority to shut down the monorail, which I don't believe they do, what you're describing would rely on FDOT then purposefully delaying the inspection.

Yet another reason for Disney to reach into their very deep pockets, suit up their army of lawyers, and file a lawsuit. There should be plenty of easily accessible evidence of collusion, in that case.

My mistake. Not as in-the-pocket as the district board, but it's still a government body that could potentially drag out inspections if pressured by the governor. Although I hope you're right that such an action would give Disney cause for legal grievance.

 

[LAKid53]

The proposed law says that there will be shutdowns to *conduct* the inspections. That means that even an inspector operating in good faith, if they are told to shut down the monorail for 3 weeks to conduct the inspection else they will lose their jobs - is that going to be refused on principle by most inspectors? This governor has made it obvious that he will terminate people who aren't lockstep with him.

Those front-line inspectors will be Career Services employees and thus not easy to fire. Must likely in a bargaining unit, so they've got grievance rights the entire process.

 

[LAKid53]

I have to wonder if they have no clue at all about WDW transportation and think that shutting down the monorail would shut down the parks because they assume it's the only way to get certain places, and they have no idea that there's alternate options - ferry boats from the TTC, walking paths for Contempo, GF, and Poly (and that there are also ferry docks for those resorts that they could put back into use if needed), and buses from MK to Epcot.

Reminds me of the "protestors" who thought that "no one can go to Disney World" because they blocked the back way into Disney Springs with their trucks, assuming that the Walt Disney World sign meant it was the main (and only) entrance to the resort.

When the monorail isn't operating, buses will be.

 

[Patcheslee]

Granted, the word transportation is there, but this is written vague enough and lacks a definition of what transport is in the context of this new rule that I could potentially see CFTOD goons... sorry, "FDOT Regulators" shutting down attractions that are on rails because they technically do transport you between locations.

I think it could be argued attractions wouldn't fall under this because conveyance means transporting someone from one place to another. Railroads, monorail, Skyliner are the only ones.

 

[Patcheslee]

I have to wonder if they have no clue at all about WDW transportation and think that shutting down the monorail would shut down the parks because they assume it's the only way to get certain places, and they have no idea that there's alternate options - ferry boats from the TTC, walking paths for Contempo, GF, and Poly (and that there are also ferry docks for those resorts that they could put back into use if needed), and buses from MK to Epcot.

Reminds me of the "protestors" who thought that "no one can go to Disney World" because they blocked the back way into Disney Springs with their trucks, assuming that the Walt Disney World sign meant it was the main (and only) entrance to the resort.

Boats aren't part of FDOT jurisdiction, so have to keep an eye out for filings for those as well.

 

[mkt]

I think it could be argued attractions wouldn't fall under this because conveyance means transporting someone from one place to another. Railroads, monorail, Skyliner are the only ones.

They’re transporting you from load to unload. I know how stupid that sounds, but some true believer will see that as reasoning enough to shut down a major attraction on a busy day to hurt Disney.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I don't know of many examples of heavy machinery that can be safely inspected without shutting them down first. If an inspector is acting in good faith, they will keep the system down only as long as it takes to conduct the inspection.

Orders to conduct an inspection for any specific and minimum period of time would come from a partisan, and would almost certainly be widely reported by the media, thus presenting Disney with yet another opportunity to seek redress in court.

Which is why they usually are done during off hours. Specifically adding language that allows shutting down daily operations is part of the threat. If you send a team that works during the day and tell them to get it done then they have to go get it done.

 

[mkt]

acting in good faith

That's a big IF.

 

[tissandtully]

That's a big IF.

Exactly, if you don’t see now what this is, you never will. There’s no normal behavior.

 

[StaceyH_SD]

I saw somebody post elsewhere that the current board removed the signed covenants from the 2/8 BOS packet?

 

[Tha Realest]

I saw somebody post elsewhere that the current board removed the signed covenants from the 2/8 BOS packet?
View attachment 712404

Yes, it appears to. I’m distressed that there has been poor retention of these records on the website. There is no reason packets should be updated two months after the fact.

 

[StaceyH_SD]

Yes, it appears to. I’m distressed that there has been poor retention of these records on the website. There is no reason packets should be updated two months after the fact.

Certainly not very Sunshine-y of them

 

[tissandtully]

Yes, it appears to. I’m distressed that there has been poor retention of these records on the website. There is no reason packets should be updated two months after the fact.

Unserious people.

 

[tissandtully]

Frankly, I’m just not sure since I’ve never seen anything like this before.

Because it’s insane

 

[LuvtheGoof]

I agree, the board cannot simply declare a contract void. But they are effectively taking a stance that they do not intend to honor it.

As I understand, the purpose of the newly proposed legislation is to void the contract. I’m not sure the board has to act since, by law, the contract will be void.

Since there will be a state law voiding the contract, I think this means Disney will have to initiate the lawsuit.

As you point out, Disney probably will challenge the law as unconstitutional.

Frankly, I’m just not sure since I’ve never seen anything like this before.

But at least Disney has turned this into a contract dispute, which I suspect was their strategy all along.

Why would it matter if they honor it or not, as the contract is owned by Disney and they would be hiring the contractors to do the work per the contract? They board still has the authority to award a contract to fix roads and build canals, just not to do anything with the parks and resorts.

It's quite obvious both from the Florida and US Constitutions that the law is unconstitutional. At least if Disney has to sue, it will be at the state level and not suing the board and having to pay both sides of the lawsuit. Since DeSantis signed the bill, couldn't he be named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I agree, the board cannot simply declare a contract void. But they are effectively taking a stance that they do not intend to honor it.

As I understand, the purpose of the newly proposed legislation is to void the contract. I’m not sure the board has to act since, by law, the contract will be void.

Since there will be a state law voiding the contract, I think this means Disney will have to initiate the lawsuit.

As you point out, Disney probably will challenge the law as unconstitutional.

Frankly, I’m just not sure since I’ve never seen anything like this before.

But at least Disney has turned this into a contract dispute, which I suspect was their strategy all along.

The state proposal does not automatically void the contract. It allows a new board to review and reconsider contracts entered into before they took office.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

The state proposal does not automatically void the contract. It allows a new board to review and reconsider contracts entered into before they took office.

Which, since the contracts were legally entered into, would make this action illegal as well.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why would it matter if they honor it or not, as the contract is owned by Disney and they would be hiring the contractors to do the work per the contract? They board still has the authority to award a contract to fix roads and build canals, just not to do anything with the parks and resorts.

It's quite obvious both from the Florida and US Constitutions that the law is unconstitutional. At least if Disney has to sue, it will be at the state level and not suing the board and having to pay both sides of the lawsuit. Since DeSantis signed the bill, couldn't he be named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit?

Would the state proposal give Disney standing to sue the state? They wouldn’t be the ones acting to void the contract, the District would be doing that.