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

[JAB]

These clowns literally passed a bill which validated the same development agreement (which is a contract) they are now furious about existing. You can’t make this stuff up

They were so focused on making sure Disney couldn't get out of paying for the bonds, services, etc. that they didn't think about the fact that it would also lock the new board into any agreements RCID made with Disney in the interim, and now it may be coming back to bite them.

 

[LAKid53]

These clowns literally passed a bill which validated the same development agreement (which is a contract) they are now furious about existing. You can’t make this stuff up

Much was done in haste by the Legislature. The original legislation that abolished RCID effective June 2023. That had to be undone when someone realized the existing bonds would be affected. HB-9B corrected that, amongst other problems. It included the language I bolded. Disney then, with proper notice, based on the Charter that created RCID and Chapter 163, negotiated and executed a Development Agreement with RCID that would stand under HB-9B, which is now law. None of that was done at the 11th hour.

I don't see any language in SB-1604 that repeals the portion of Chapter 2023-5 with regards to contracts executed with RCID prior to February 23, 2023. It only addresses portions of Chapter 163. There were other agreements adopted at that meeting -license agreements, restrictive covenants and labor agreements.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

These clowns literally passed a bill which validated the same development agreement (which is a contract) they are now furious about existing. You can’t make this stuff up

"Looks like those clowns in congress did it again, what a bunch of clowns."

 

[Vacationeer]

Can citizens of neighboring counties do anything?

Property values, local businesses and infrastructure could be collateral damage.

Any way to question the intent and expected outcome of all these actions singling out WDW?

 

[LAKid53]

Just read the most recent analysis of SB-1604. It increases the two required local government comprehensive planning periods from 5 and 10 years to 10 and 20 years. And prohibits any local government that fails to update its plan within the 7 year evaluation and appraisal process from considering and adopting ant public initiated amendments. That's going to affect county comprehensive plans and public input on those plans. I'm surprised environmental groups such as Audubon or Sierra Club haven't come out in opposition to the bill.

 

[GoofGoof]

Just read the most recent analysis of SB-1604. It increases the two required local government comprehensive planning periods from 5 and 10 years to 10 and 20 years. And prohibits any local government that fails to update its plan within the 7 year evaluation and appraisal process from considering and adopting ant public initiated amendments. That's going to affect county comprehensive plans and public input on those plans. I'm surprised environmental groups such as Audubon or Sierra Club haven't come out in opposition to the bill.

What’s the real reason for this one?

 

[LAKid53]

What’s the real reason for this one?

The bill itself? Void the Development Agreement executed February 8th.

But staff on the Community Affairs and Rules Committees noted that when analyzing the bill.

 

[scottieRoss]

Notice requirement

View attachment 712528

This is not for notice for meetings of the Board or Public Hearings. This is for a meeting of the Landowners. This is a meeting for the Landowners to vote on something. This has nothing to do with the meetings in January or February, or even the new board.

 

[GoofGoof]

The bill itself? Void the Development Agreement executed February 8th.

But staff on the Community Affairs and Rules Committees noted that when analyzing the bill.

Was that the only purpose? I thought there was an original bill already out there and they just added an amendment that allows them to void the development agreement that specifically targets Disney.

 

[LAKid53]

This is not for notice for meetings of the Board or Public Hearings. This is for a meeting of the Landowners. This is a meeting for the Landowners to vote on something. This has nothing to do with the meetings in January or February, or even the new board.

It's important to include the exact citation - Section title and number - of a 75+ page agreement. There are several provisions within the Charter that address notices of meetings.

 

[LAKid53]

Was that the only purpose? I thought there was an original bill already out there and they just added an amendment that allows them to void the development agreement that specifically targets Disney.

That analysis was done after the 4/20 amendment to the bill. That amendment added the language to allow the board of supervisors to ignore any agreement "executed within 3 months preceding the effective date of a law modifying the manner of selecting members of the governing body of the independent special district from election to appointment..."

The was a floor amendment to the bill filed at 7:32 PM this evening that addresses design review. But no action has been taken on the amendment.

Disney lobbyists are certainly earning their pay keeping up with this piece of legislation.

 

[mikejs78]

 

[UNCgolf]

So there was no general requirement to mail notice to all property holders. That language specifies that any party wanting the 10 day advance notice must have previously requested it. It also goes on to say that the lack of such notice does not constitute a valid objection to the proceedings anyways.

Barring some other guidance that isn't included in those sections, I don't see how the mailing of notice or lack thereof has any bearing whatsoever on anything done by the prior board. They were only "required" (in quotations since it's a toothless requirement) to mail notice to parties who specifically requested it, and failing to do so has no effect.

To put it in casual language, that essentially says, "Hey, make a list of anyone who asks for notice. If you're doing something, send notice to the people on the list. But if you don't mail them notice, or even if you don't ever keep a list of names at all, oh well, it doesn't matter in the slightest."

 

[Disorbust]

This is al such tedious BS. I realize with this thread that being a lawyer would not have been a good career choice for me.

 

[LAKid53]

View attachment 712585

View attachment 712586

View attachment 712587

There goes that argument of the new board....

 

[lentesta]

The question would then be does a special district charter have the power to supercede state statute?

Here's the previous section, Section (2), which contains language about exemption from State and local laws.

The "notwithstanding" thing always confuses me. I think this says RCID was meant to be exempt from any laws related to this section, including future laws.

Since "notices" is part of this section (it's the next section, Section 3), it might be covered. I'm sure we need lawyers to examine this.

 

[lentesta]

I cannot believe the $795/hour lawyers the Board hired missed this critical fact.

It's almost as if they're doing highly-paid public relations work.

 

[GoofGoof]

View attachment 712585

View attachment 712586

View attachment 712587

So I think at this point we can put to bed the idea that the contract is invalid due to lack of notice. It was an easy Hail Mary to throw out there for the board and Governor but as many people said when it was initially discussed, why would Disney follow such a meticulous approach to this situation all along and then miss something so obvious? Based on this evidence, they did not. It’s also obvious that the state knew this as well and that is why they added the amendment to the bill being considered as an attempt to go back and void the contract. The courts will likely have to decide if that’s legal or not but based on Federal and State contract law it doesn’t seem likely to hold up either. I think the amendment as structured might be legal prospectively. Anyone signing a contract would know that this provision exists now, but you cannot apply it retroactively to existing contracts. That’s my opinion anyway.

I read a quote somewhere that perfectly described this situation: “while DeSantis was busy bragging about laying traps the mouse ate all the cheese.” That new sheriff in town boast is really not aging well.

 

[lentesta]

The courts will likely have to decide if that’s legal or not but based on Federal and State contract law it doesn’t seem likely to hold up either.

US Trust Co vs New Jersey suggested a three-part test for a state to invalidate a contract to which it's a party:

1. The state has to identify a specific, compelling public interest
2. There has to be no other "less drastic" way for the state to achieve the same goal
3. Only the smallest part of the contract that conflicts with that specific goal can be voided

ETA Context: IIRC, the canonical example is from some landfill dumping contract in Maine. The state awarded a contract to a company to dump waste in the landfill. Later the state enacted legislation prohibiting the dumping of ... I think it was radioactive waste? ... in landfills. The company sued but the law was upheld. I think the company got minimal damages.

It's worth asking if SB 1604 contains all three of the elements identified in US Trust. I've read it and I don't think it addresses any of them.

I think parts of US Trust were re-examined later in the 2nd Circuit, but we're in the 11th, and I don't think there's been a later case that took up US Trust in the 11th. I could be wrong.

 

[Touchdown]

More importantly, contract law, will end up in federal court which is far less likely to be agreeable to the states position.