Reedy Creek Improvement District long-term land use meeting 2023

[MisterPenguin]

I remember when this was an open-and-shut 1st Amendment issue that would be resolved immediately 12 months ago.

It's not that asserting 1A rights was tried and failed, it was never tried.

Yet.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I can’t tell if you’re purposely being so narrow in your responses. Why would Disney attack the state and possibly cause themselves more problems when they could pull a move like they did. Now they may not have a choice, it doesn’t make their legal standing any less.

If I was Disney, I'd be throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks because I don't think any of it will ultimately work. That said, the Board intelligentsia was 100% certain this situation would take minutes to resolve over a year ago based on 1st Amendment violations.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

If I was Disney, I'd be throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks because I don't think any of it will ultimately work.

I’m glad you’re not their lawyer then.

 

[mkt]

I remember when this was an open-and-shut 1st Amendment issue that would be resolved immediately 12 months ago.

The statute of limitations is much longer than 12 months, which is beneficial if Disney intends to prove actual damages.

 

[lazyboy97o]

@Adventure Has A Name why won’t you give us some of these many, many examples of laws that invalidated specifically named contracts?

 

[pdude81]

I'd be happy to post this in the other thread, but I haven't been able to post in that thread for months for whatever reason (nobody took the time to explain to me).

So you are banned from posting in the appropriate thread for this, and took the conversation here instead. Is that right?

 

[Dranth]

I don't blame you for missing it as it was buried somewhere on the last page (NOTE: I just looked, it's post #170), but we were specifically referring to hypothetical actions taken after the state legislature had re-written a portion of the development agreement statute and after the CFTOD board had invalidated that agreement using the new statutory language.

Over a long enough time line I am sure Florida can find a way to accomplish something along the lines of what they want but I still think they are going to have a hard time with this. They had a much stronger case when they were just going to dissolve the district vs. taking it over.

Remember, it was the state that chose to change at the last minute and take control away from the residents of the distract instead of allowing it to dissolve. Now they want to claim that something that was done in open, completely legally and not that unusual for these types of districts should be null and void because a contract was signed before they even existed isn't to their liking? They are mad because now they can only do what they claimed the district was for to begin with? Oh no, now we have to maintain and fund the public projects within a special district that the special district residents ask/want. The HORROR OF IT ALL!

Now legally, sure, anything can happen but I think I like Disney's chances if they decide to fight the new district. Who knows, maybe Disney doesn't even care and won't bother fighting anything, but this notion the state can just instantly do whatever they want with no push back seems odd to me. Florida has been slapped a few times in recent memory in courts for overstepping.

 

[mkt]

@Adventure Has A Name why won’t you give us some of these many, many examples of laws that invalidated specifically named contracts?

Gonna spitball here since i have a few minutes before my next meeting and say possibly existing contracts between US and Cuban companies before the Cuban embargo, and more recently, between US and Russian companies.

 

[mkt]

I'd be happy to post this in the other thread, but I haven't been able to post in that thread for months for whatever reason (nobody took the time to explain to me).

You're not alone.

 

[Touchdown]

You're not alone.

Indeed. I would also argue the current discussion on this thread is far more stimulating and enlightened.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Just a master stroke by Disney. Not only does it maintain the status quo while it gets brought up in court but allows Disney to present arguments in defense that may call into question the boards power in the first place. More importantly, though, it keeps the status quo going through 2024.

Not sure 2024 is gonna be enough. The political problem will remain beyond

Omg!

Power play: Disney handicapped new Reedy Creek board before handing over control

In their final days of controlling the Reedy Creek improvement district’s board, Disney executives and attorneys found a way to poison the authority of the incoming members appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and effectively oversee the area’s development.

news.yahoo.com

Now we know why they didn’t fight it.

Wow.

It’s the first impressive move by the management structure in a LONG time

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You're not alone.

…well obviously you two misbehaved

 

[lazyboy97o]

Gonna spitball here since i have a few minutes before my next meeting and say possibly existing contracts between US and Cuban companies before the Cuban embargo, and more recently, between US and Russian companies.

Even those though are not specific, named contracts. It was almost all business with entities in Cuba. Even with sanctions, it’s everything related to that person or entity. That’s the problem. A legislative remember would have to make some action illegal, one that doesn’t negate a bunch of other contracts.

 

[mkt]

…well obviously you two misbehaved

 

[Touchdown]

Not sure 2024 is gonna be enough. The political problem will remain beyond

Of course it will but with new players, so the unknown is still preferable to the known at this point.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

So you are banned from posting in the appropriate thread for this, and took the conversation here instead. Is that right?

You know the thread still exists right ... everyone can go back to page 7 and see that I joined a conversation that had already been taking place on the topic. And this is probably a more appropriate thread for this particular discussion as the topic centers around the agreement that was voted on and approved at this meeting (and it doesn't really involve removing Reedy Creek; that's already taken place to the extent it is going to happen).

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Indeed. I would also argue the current discussion on this thread is far more stimulating and enlightened.

That's because it includes more than one point of view.

 

[Tha Realest]

Hmm ... re-write 163.3235 ...

"Periodic review of a development agreement.—A local government shall review land subject to a development agreement at least once every 12 months to determine if there has been demonstrated good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement. If the local government finds, on the basis of substantial competent evidence, that there has been a failure to comply with the terms of the development agreement, the agreement may be revoked or modified by the local government."

... to say ...

"Periodic review of a development agreement.—A local government shall review land subject to a development agreement at least once every 12 months to determine if the terms of the development agreement still further and support good public policy. If the local government finds the terms of the development agreement constitute poor public policy or acts contrary to the benefit of the State of Florida or the local municipality, the agreement may be revoked or modified by the local government."

EDIT:
It really doesn't even need to be this complex. The legislature could simply pass an edit to the statute saying "Entities with more than 60,000 employees in the State of Florida may not enter into development agreements pursuant to Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes."

You bring up a fascinating point with the local government's ability to revoke or modify the development agreement if they find that Disney hasn't "demonstrated good faith compliance" with the terms of the development agreement. This makes sense, right - if the government does a TIFF handout or something along those lines, and the contracted party refuses to develop that property, the government shouldn't be saddled with an ineffective or non-active contracting partner.

This is important for two reasons.

One, there's a lengthy history where this same entity entered into a series of contracts to do one thing (e.g., the EPCOT project, etc.) and then just did whatever it wanted. Dreams of built up, livable communities instead became Disneyland on steroids. Hey, not saying they should have stuck with the original plan, but no one can deny that what occurred was different than what was contemplated in the original contracts.

Two, Table 1 of the Development Agreement sets out preauthorization for an additional major theme park, two minor theme parks, 14,000 bedrooms, 150,000 sqft of office space, and 1,000,000 sqft of restaurant/retail. We've seen various situations in the past where media companies have to develop films or continually use certain characters based in certain IP so those rights don't lapse. Put away, the new RCID can potentially find Disney is not engaging in good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement if they don't meaningfully move forward on a fifth gate.

 

[lazyboy97o]

One, there's a lengthy history where this same entity entered into a series of contracts to do one thing (e.g., the EPCOT project, etc.) and then just did whatever it wanted. Dreams of built up, livable communities instead became Disneyland on steroids. Hey, not saying they should have stuck with the original plan, but no one can deny that what occurred was different than what was contemplated in the original contracts.

What contracts did Disney enter into with any governments regarding EPCOT?

Two, Table 1 of the Development Agreement sets out preauthorization for an additional major theme park, two minor theme parks, 14,000 bedrooms, 150,000 sqft of office space, and 1,000,000 sqft of restaurant/retail. We've seen various situations in the past where media companies have to develop films or continually use certain characters based in certain IP so those rights don't lapse. Put away, the new RCID can potentially find Disney is not engaging in good faith compliance with the terms of the development agreement if they don't meaningfully move forward on a fifth gate.

Those movies get made because there are timelines in the agreements. You can’t demand a timeline after the fact. Maximum usages are not unusual and the basis for a lot of zoning regulation.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Of course it will but with new players, so the unknown is still preferable to the known at this point.

No new players in Florida in 2024…and maybe much longer