In early April, DeSantis ordered an investigation into Disney’s last-minute power grab. A source familiar with the investigation revealed to The Federalist that Disney skipped key steps when amending its developmental agreement, rendering the resolution null and void…
Disney’s first hearing on the issue was held Jan. 25, and the second on Feb. 8. The company advertised proceedings in the Orlando Sentinel. The last requirement of Florida law, however, that all affected property owners be given notice by mail, was skipped entirely, according to sources familiar with Disney’s proceedings. The missed mandate means the company would have to restart the process for its 11th-hour resolution to be valid.
There are only about a dozen or so land owners in the entire development. Are we sure that nothing was mailed to them?
Correction, 19 land owners.
Edit:
It does not appear that a violation of the procedures results in an automatic voiding of such an agreement. Instead, it looks like one would need to file for injunctive relief:
163.3243 Enforcement.—Any party or aggrieved or adversely affected person as defined in s. 163.3215(2) may file an action for injunctive relief in the circuit court where the local government is located to enforce the terms of a development agreement or to challenge compliance of the agreement with ss. 163.3220-163.3243.
That’s correct. Generally, in Florida land use laws, errors in notice render a decision voidable, not void. And even then, errors in notice are cured if the people entitled to get that notice have actual notice, even if they didn’t get the legal notice.
I suspect that all 19 property owners are Disney entities that were represented by counsel that prepared the request for the DA, and which counsel (presumably) either attended the hearings or can document that they were aware they were taking place.
I will add, that it seems unlikely that either the current board or DeSantis can even claim to be an “aggrieved or adversely affected person” per the statute. Please correct me if that is not correct.
Meanwhile, the Gov is threatening to use the land controlled by Reedy Creek, which is now controlled by the Gov’s lapdogs, for some unsavory uses, like a prison, that Disney would rather not have as a neighbor. Crosses my mind a prison really isn’t that bad. How about a lead smelter? How about a fertilizer plant?/sarcasm
No, I think that’s right. Though it isn’t a defined term under the Local Government Development Agreement Act (it is in other statutes relating to zoning and development, like the Growth Management Act), it’s almost certainly going to be construed to apply only to those persons who own property affected by the Development Agreement.
Being creative that is why Disney should sue DeSantis because Disney is aggrieved. Disney’s lawyers can not think of that? Playing politics in CT with a state worker’s livelihood would get a governor in trouble. There are limits in the law to what a governor can do to strike out at someone such as Disney shareholders. It is a theft a fraud to attack Disney this way. It is abuse of power. Does not matter than he can do it. The intent is harm. He should be held accountable instead of carrying on in round two.
We do not hear of legal action by Disney. Or I dont.