The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD or District) has filed a motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit against Walt Disney World. The document was filed on Tuesday in the Orange County court system for the state-level case. The District sums up the case well, stating that Disney believes that a Development Agreement and Restrictive Covenants are valid and the District thinks that they are void. Let’s take a brief look at the Agreements before diving into the summary judgment argument.
Both the Development Agreement and the Restrictive covenants were entered into by the previous Board of Supervisors for the then-named Reedy Creek Improvement District. It’s probably important to note that the current District is the same government as the RCID. A plan by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his rubber-stamp Legislature to dismantle RCID was not feasible, so the Florida Government instead enacted laws to allow DeSantis to get rid of the old Board and RCID Charter and install his own hand-picked Board of Supervisors for the District.
The CFTOD argues that the Agreements were “the product of backroom dealings in the face of imminent and sweeping legislative reform” and called the work of the former RCID and Walt Disney World an “11th-hour attempt…to insulate [Disney] from the authority of the incoming board”. One of the arguments that the CFTOD puts forth is that the District’s new Board “uncovered” the agreements after an improper public notice about meetings where the Agreements were discussed. Disney says that public notice appeared twice in a prominent Orlando newspaper and that there were two public hearings on the Agreements.
Disney says that the Agreements became “a top priority for the State’s retaliatory campaign”. Indeed, there CFTOD would declare the Agreements void, and the state-level lawsuit emerged where the District would ask a judge to agree that the contracts were unenforceable.
Development Agreement
The first document at issue is the Development Agreement. Disney World says that the Development Agreement and Restrictive Covenants are “similar in character to contracts between other developers and special districts that fix long-term development rights and obligations…”. By entering into these agreements, a local government can ensure that long-term investment in the area moves forward, and a business that does the investing can ensure that certain rights are guaranteed beyond just a single cycle of government officials.
The District notes that Disney World is not the only property owner within the District. County records do show other property owners within the District such as the Four Seasons Orlando, US Army Morale Fund (Shades of Green), Bonnet Creek Joint Venture (Wyndham), Dcs Real Estates Investment (JW Marriot), and the District itself. The District argues that the Development Agreement was drawn up in such a way as to grant Disney World development powers over all future development within the District, even if Disney doesn’t own the property. The District says that “any property owner that wants to add even one more hotel room or one more square foot of retail space during the next thirty years cannot do so without first getting Disney’s permission to do so”.
Restrictive Covenants
The Restrictive Covenants build upon the Development Agreement by defining allowable “permitted uses” for land within the District. The CFTOD says that the Restrictive Covenants infringe on its free speech, and there are clauses that say that the District cannot use the name “Disney” or Disney characters without Disney’s express permission. The Restrictive Covenants also define general maintenance standards for RCID properties, but the Restrictive Covenants are not entirely controversial except for one thing – the King Charles Clause.
The King Charles Clause gained widespread popularity when Disney used the King of England to define the term of the agreement without violating the Rule Against Perpetuities”. In the Agreement, the term is defined as “…in effect until twenty-one years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration”. In fact, this term is actually a fallback term with the primary term being defined as “…the date that none of [Walt Disney Parks & Resorts] or any of its Affiliates (or their respective successor entities) owns any real property within ten miles of RCID properties”.
CFTOD Summary Judgment Argument
The 28-page Motion for Summary Judgment continues many of the same arguments that we’ve heard in the past:
Failure to Provide Public Hearing
The CFTOD contends that the RCID did not mail notice to the other property owners within the District. Disney World has previously noted that the meetings that were held were in accordance with the Sunshine Law and that public notice was given via a popular Orlando newspaper.
Failure to Establish Procedures for Development Agreement
The next point that the CFTOD argues is that the RCID did not establish procedures that it says State law requires to enter into a Development Agreement. The argument here might be over the word “may” versus “must”. The State law says that “[a]ny local government may, by ordinance, establish procedures and requirements…to consider and enter into a Development Agreement”.
RCID Jurisdiction to Enter Development Agreements
There are two municipalities within the District, Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, that the District says did not properly enter into the Development Agreement. Basically, the CFTOD argues that RCID agreed to Development rights that it did not have jurisdiction over. It’s a little more complicated than that, but that’s the top-level argument.
Roadway Projects Not Properly Voted On
The CFTOD argues that long-term roadway improvement projects totaling more than $500 million were included in the Development Agreement and that the projects were not properly voted on. The District argues that this provision violates the Florida Constitution.
Unlawful Delegation of Govt. Authority to a Private Entity
Taken in its totality, the CFTOD argues that the District essentially contracted away governmental authority to a private entity via the Agreements. The argument is that the Agreements “substitute Disney for the District as the final authority on all land use decisions…for the next 30 years”.
The District asks the judge for summary judgment on the above counts to avoid a trial in the matter. Disney World has not responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
As always, keep checking back with us here at BlogMickey.com as we continue to bring you the latest news, photos, and info from around the Disney Parks!