Tomorrow, April 26, at 9:30 AM, Governor DeSantis’s new ‘Central Florida Tourism Oversight Board’ will meet. One of the most important items on the agenda is Item 8.1 that discusses why the board feels that their agreement with Disney is not valid and it needs to take steps to legally remove it.

**Note**  I am not an attorney so the following is my interpretation of the Agenda.

Here’s what Item 8.1 is for:

“Approval of legislative findings regarding and declare the February 8, 2023 Development Agreement and Delclaration of Restrictive Covenants entered into by the Reedy Creek Improvement District and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. void and unenforcable”  They are asking for “direction to litigation” to see what needs done to have it “terminated or stricken from the public records of Orange and Osceola Counties.”

Basically Agenda Item 8.1 discusses why Disney’s “restrictive covenants” placed by the Reedy Creek Improvement District should be voided and how they can be voided.

Again, the new board, and Florida governor Ron DeSantis, are arguing that while Disney did post notices in the Orlando Sentinel, they did not mail out a Notice of intent to “all affected property owners before the first public hearing.” Since Disney is not the only land owner in the District, they are required to send notices to other owners.

Disney did not post the agenda for their January 25 or February 8 Board meetings on there website until early March. Which was after the new Governor appointed Board took office.

Another issue facing Disney is their failure to follow protocol for all “cities” in the District:

It also mentions that the “cities” of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista had “had exclusive authority over comprehensive planning, land development regulations, development orders, and building permitting within their municipal boundaries.” Disney had the same authority over it’s lands outside those areas. So the new Board is arguing that Disney did not have the authority to “approve or regulate development-related activities on property located within the municipalities’ boundaries,including, but not limited to, issuing development orders, building permits, or enforcing the District’s comprehensive plan and land development regulations.”

Those areas did not have two public hearings as separate jurisdictions.

The new Board argues that the covenants are one sided in favor of Disney. Under these new “covenants” Disney can dictate things like:

1. Disney controls all development rights within the District. If other property owners wanted to develop anything they would need to obtain written approval for what they wanted to develop from Disney.
2. Disney must approve the height of any building constructed in the District
3. The District must fund, design, and construct (or cause to be constructed) certain infrastructure projects, including a number of road projects.

In summary they say “The benefits of the development agreement are entirely one-sided. The development agreement entitles Disney to the exclusive use of future development rights in the District, delegates District zoning powers to Disney, and allows Disney to obligate the District to construct private facilities in aid of Disney’s development projects.”

Under the Reedy Creek Improvement Districts changes, the Board can do nothing but build public projects on land, when Disney approves. But Disney promises to sell the land at “market value.”

Wow!

I do want to point out that Disney keeps trying to argue that they didn’t control the Reedy Creek Improvment District. Because if they did draft the changes or contracts it would be questionable as a company can not enter into a contract like this with itself, for obvious self-serving reasons.

Except Disney might have gotten caught.

At a previous meeting attorneys for the new board showed emails where Disney’s own attorneys drafted not only the new covenants but also controlled the meeting agenda. Names were changed to make the “optics” better. If true, Disney did not stay separate from the Reedy Creek Improvement District, as they should have so the agreement between them can be argued for dismissal.

The meeting tomorrow should be interesting.

You can read  the agenda document HERE.