Reedy Creek Improvement District long-term land use meeting 2023

[AdventureHasAName]

It is certainly possible that a crazy judge in FL can do whatever they want, but the correct and consensus opinion is that Disney is on solid legal footing.

I don't agree that Disney is on a survivable legal footing at all. I believe the legislature is going to be able to fix this fairly easily. Regardless of anything else, the legislature (and Governor's office) is bright red and they want this accomplished. It is very naive to believe they are powerless to make it happen ... or that the state legislature can be handcuffed forever by a local government (created by state statute) that acted specifically to frustrate the goal of the legislature.

 

[Touchdown]

The needle could be threaded by simply specifically referencing the Reedy Creek/Disney Development Agreement (whatever it is actually titled) in any corrective legislation.

They can’t be that specific, this agreement was made between a local govt in Florida was a business in California, ie a business transaction, that happened between two bodies in different states or word it another way, this was a piece of interstate commerce. Invalidating it like this would be trying to regulate interstate commerce, which is a power specifically stated in the Constitution that belongs to the federal govt.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

They can’t be that specific, this agreement was made between a local govt in Florida was a business in California, ie a business transaction, that happened between two bodies in different states or word it another way, this was a piece of interstate commerce. Invalidating it like this would be trying to regulate interstate commerce, which is a power specifically stated in the Constitution that belongs to the federal govt.

Yeah, um ... this wasn't interstate commerce.

 

[Touchdown]

Yeah, um ... this wasn't interstate commerce.

Why? Is the Walt Disney Corporation incorporated in Florida?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Wanna bet? It happens all the time ... on federal, state, county and local levels. Among other things, I write restrictive covenants in Texas; we single out specific land owners, or property projects, all the time for exemption to some rule or regulation placed in the restrictions. I filed one last month that exempted a land purchase contract from the rules being put into place. And that was on a property owners association level; not the city, county or state (who are all far more powerful).

Then surely you can provide some of these many examples.

A contract making specific references is not the same as legislation that specifically targets individual contracts.

 

[lazyboy97o]

SECTION 10. Prohibited laws.—No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

We do not live in a country where a state legislature has the ability to invalidate previously entered into contracts on a whim because they don’t like them. That would literally violate the constitution. The only way to invalidate this thing would be to establish that it was illegal either in the manner in which it was entered into, or because it’s terms violated state law at the time the contract was entered into.

Hypothetical ...

The state of Florida has permitted horse racing since 1910. Hundreds of contracts exist between businesses in Florida centered on or concerning horse racing. One contract is between Bob Smith, a race horse owner, and John Doe, a professional horse jockey that was enacted in 2020. The contract says John Doe will ride Bob Smith's horse "Mickey Mouse" once a month at Miami Horse Track every month from January 2020 until December 2025.

On January 1, 2023, the Florida legislature passes (and the governor signs) a law banning all horse racing within 500 yards of a church or a school. This law takes effect immediately. Miami Horse Track has both a school and a church across the street from its main entrance.

QUESTION #1: Has the contract between John Doe and Bob Smith now been invalidated?

QUESTION #2: Has the state legislature violated their constitutional rights?

------------

Additional Hypothetical ...

On December 25, 2022, the Miami Dade County legislature (I really have no idea what type of governing board they have, but it's not important) enters into a development agreement with the Miami Horse Track stating that the Miami Horse Track has the right to run horse races from the date of the contract was enacted until 2052 ... and to set all of its own rules and regulations related to the operation of these horse races at that venue.

QUESTION #3: Has the development agreement between Miami Dade County and Miami Horse Track now been invalidated?

QUESTION #4: Has the state legislature violated the horse track's constitutional rights?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Hypothetical ...

The state of Florida has permitted horse racing since 1910. Hundreds of contracts exist between businesses in Florida centered on or concerning horse racing. One contract is between Bob Smith, a race horse owner, and John Doe, a professional horse jockey that was enacted in 2020. The contract says John Doe will ride Bob Smith's horse "Mickey Mouse" once a month at Miami Horse Track every month from January 2020 until December 2025.

On January 1, 2023, the Florida legislature passes (and the governor signs) a law banning all horse racing within 500 yards of a church or a school. This law takes effect immediately. Miami Horse Track has both a school and a church across the street from its main entrance.

QUESTION #1: Has the contract between John Doe and Bob Smith now been invalidated?

QUESTION #2: Has the state legislature violated their constitutional rights?

Do you not see the huge difference between your example and what you are claiming is legal?

 

[Touchdown]

Hypothetical ...

The state of Florida has permitted horse racing since 1910. Hundreds of contracts exist between businesses in Florida centered on or concerning horse racing. One contract is between Bob Smith, a race horse owner, and John Doe, a professional horse jockey that was enacted in 2020. The contract says John Doe will ride Bob Smith's horse "Mickey Mouse" once a month at Miami Horse Track every month from January 2020 until December 2025.

On January 1, 2023, the Florida legislature passes (and the governor signs) a law banning all horse racing within 500 yards of a church or a school. This law takes effect immediately. Miami Horse Track has both a school and a church across the street from its main entrance.

QUESTION #1: Has the contract between John Doe and Bob Smith now been invalidated?

QUESTION #2: Has the state legislature violated their constitutional rights?

That’s not a direct reversal of the contract like what you have been arguing. The answer is no, the problem is, however what exactly can the legislature can come up with that makes the contract void that doesn’t also:
1. Invalidate the bond agreements
2. Invalidate a bunch of other similar agreements in the state
3. Is not so specific as to run afoul of the commerce clause

 

[AdventureHasAName]

That’s not a direct reversal of the contract like what you have been arguing. The answer is no, the problem is, however what exactly can the legislature can come up with that makes the contract void that doesn’t also:
1. Invalidate the bond agreements
2. Invalidate a bunch of other similar agreements in the state
3. Is not so specific as to run afoul of the commerce clause

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."

 

[Touchdown]

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."

Except that’s:
1. In twelve months, certain parties want this settled ASAP to use in a political campaign.
2. Said action opens the board to a lawsuit from its constituents if they feel the board did not act in their self interest.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Except that’s:
1. In twelve months, certain parties want this settled ASAP to use in a political campaign.
2. Said action opens the board to a lawsuit from its constituents if they feel the board did not act in their self interest.

It says "at least once" - the local government could perform a review daily if it decided to.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Except that’s:
1. In twelve months, certain parties want this settled ASAP to use in a political campaign.
2. Said action opens the board to a lawsuit from its constituents if they feel the board did not act in their self interest.

It also just requires cause. The idea that Disney building a new attraction is inconsistent with the agreement and long established zoning and development regulations is just preposterous.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

It also just requires cause. The idea that Disney building a new attraction is inconsistent with the agreement and long established zoning and development regulations is just preposterous.

No, the argument would be that agreement itself (pick a clause, but for argument's sake, let's say its perpetual length) violates good public policy and acts contrary to the benefit of State of Florida by intentionally frustrating the purpose of HB9B.

 

[Touchdown]

It also opens up board members to legal action where they will be personally sued and could be liable for damages. I highly, highly, highly suspect their legal team is not recommending this action.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Don't see any of the, so called, contracts / agreements surviving the upcoming legal scrutiny. The lawyers are going to make bank though.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

It also opens up board members to legal action where they will be personally sued and could be liable for damages. I highly, highly, highly suspect their legal team is not recommending this action.

Well, I don't practice law in Florida, but I assume that would be met with a defense of sovereign immunity, followed by a gigantic toll booth set up in front of WDW's main entrance gate for the purposes of funding Central Florida Tourism Oversight District's legal expenses. $25 a car? The George Washington Bridge charges $17, so $25 doesn't sound unreasonable.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Well, I don't practice law in Florida, but I assume that would be met with a defense of sovereign immunity, followed by a gigantic toll booth set up in front of WDW's main entrance gate for the purposes of funding Central Florida Tourism Oversight District's legal expenses. $25 a car? The George Washington Bridge charges $17, so $25 doesn't sound unreasonable.

It's always the customer, guest, visitors, tourists even casual passersby that end up paying the price.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

Well, I don't practice law in Florida, but I assume that would be met with a defense of sovereign immunity, followed by a gigantic toll booth set up in front of WDW's main entrance gate for the purposes of funding Central Florida Tourism Oversight District's legal expenses. $25 a car? The George Washington Bridge charges $17, so $25 doesn't sound unreasonable.

They wouldn’t be able to build that per the clauses in the agreement between RCID & Disney that state they have approval over improvements and changes.

On top of the fact that Disney brings in huge income and happiness to the state of Florida & its constituents. Those people vote, doing something like that would be seen as a direct order from DeSantis and could loose him, and his cronies votes. He’s also intending on running for president. Nothing about this is business friendly

 

[AdventureHasAName]

They wouldn’t be able to build that per the clauses in the agreement between RCID & Disney that state they have approval over improvements and changes.

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.