Riviera Rita
Well-Known Member
Imagine the headlines with Charlotte meeting Aurora- A Princess meets a Princess.They could even stay in the castle suite!
Imagine the headlines with Charlotte meeting Aurora- A Princess meets a Princess.They could even stay in the castle suite!
All I can think of is Elenor in "The Lion In Winter" saying 'Now I've got you, got you' (If you've seen the film you can hear it in Katherine Hepburns voice. If you've never seen it --- do!)
I’m not sure how this could be considered “removal of power”. It also wouldn’t apply to most other development situations as the local government wouldn’t have the same powers RCID had. In this case a local government entity freely and publicly entered into a legal contract with a corporation. Then control of said government entity was unilaterally seized by the governor for political purposes and the new appointed board is unhappy that the old board signed what they think is a bad contract. How could the court overturn this based on those grounds? The precedent would be set that anytime a company signs a contract or agreement with the government that contract could be overturned whenever new politicians took over with a different view point. That’s not something anyone wants. Remember the pendulum swings both ways.I haven't dug into the details here so (seeing your occupation as well), I'm talking high level. But, while they normally would never carry weight outside of padding out your arguments in the initial claim/motions/briefs, we are starting to get into bad faith contracting, conflicts of interest, and (remote but possible) even tortious interference (assuming there was anything pending - not likely).
The most likely, rather, is a public policy argument. If there is a change pending of this nature with that level of attempted insulation and removal of power without ability to modify would set that up more than usual. Especially for development, as this could have much wider sweeping implications for other development situations. A court (especially one sympathetic to Desantis) could easily find the chilling effect there grounds on public policy to at least invalidate the term of this contract and inability for the future board to reclaim powers it would rightfully have via the establishment of the district.
Again, not saying these are likely to win. Rather, this is a tough ball (speaking nicely) usage of legal loopholes and capabilities. And, if those cases are decided in favor of "creativity" by big companies with major legal departments, I tend to find that does not benefit society at large very well down the line when that case law becomes precedence. And, while this would normally settle out of court 100% guaranteed, I wonder if this one may go all the way through given the public eye.
Legal nerding over. Please feel free to DM me if you'd like to chat more, without everyone else glazing over.
This is a good point. I think this situation is so unique it’s unlikely to come up much in the future. A government entity is unlikely to sign this type of contract “in bad faith” because there are very few examples where a corporation completely controls that entity.Yes. But it's important to remember - a court is not typically in the business of determining if the arrangement itself is good or bad. They can get involved if the circumstances around the formation of the arrangement are sufficiently problematic enough to challenge the contract's enforceability. That (obviously) gets very complicated based on many, many circumstances. But, if a court says it's ok to enter into an agreement in xyz circumstances (in decided case law), it means, in theory, that can be done in the future in similar circumstances. And, judges will look to that "legacy".
They 100% thought they were in a position to be able to stop “woke Disney.”Watching more and more clips of these new board members with their knickers in a knot yesterday makes me curious to what these people thought their job was going to actually be. Did they think their role was ever more than the mundane goings on of a local municipality? I keep seeing the one guy going on about “all we can do is road improvements and maintain infrastructure”. Yah! That’s the whole point. You’re not designing new parades and attractions or building new hotels, you’re making sure the trash gets picked up on time and the mosquito sprayer truck is making the rounds. It’s just hilarious to see how mad they are when they realized what a terribly boring job they have been given
Really shows they did zero research in what the RCID actually wasThey 100% thought they were in a position to be able to stop “woke Disney.”
It’s hard to imagine a future where either party intentionally gives that much power to a giant corporation again. But 30 years gives Disney a lot of time to plan / build Super Walt Disney World in Charleston and then Walt Disney World 64 in KnoxvilleThe semi-perpetuity clause is not meant to be forever forever, just a long enough time until the political pendulum provides a legislature that will undo this mess.
I skimmed through them two or three times and didn’t see anything that did that. I may be wrong though.Next question, is there anything protecting the cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista in these new documents?
I really think they felt they were going to walk into Team Disney and start cancelling Tiana's Bayou Adventure and telling Iger what movies they can make.Watching more and more clips of these new board members with their knickers in a knot yesterday makes me curious to what these people thought their job was going to actually be. Did they think their role was ever more than the mundane goings on of a local municipality? I keep seeing the one guy going on about “all we can do is road improvements and maintain infrastructure”. Yah! That’s the whole point. You’re not designing new parades and attractions or building new hotels, you’re making sure the trash gets picked up on time and the mosquito sprayer truck is making the rounds. It’s just hilarious to see how mad they are when they realized what a terribly boring job they have been given
Why not Merida?Imagine the headlines with Charlotte meeting Aurora- A Princess meets a Princess.
They clearly thought they would have full editorial control of all Disney content.Watching more and more clips of these new board members with their knickers in a knot yesterday makes me curious to what these people thought their job was going to actually be.
With the positions these board members have held in the past I wonder if the reality of what they signed up is causing second thoughts about accepting the position? Who will be the first to bail?They clearly thought they would have full editorial control of all Disney content.
Specifically, they thought they would be able to leverage the powers of the district to dictate editorial control over things outside those powers.
That's a nice restaurant you have there, you should put cheeseburgers on the menu and change that window poster. On an unrelated note, be a shame if their was a fire, the health department shut you down, or the fire marshal shut you down to make layout changes.
The new events do not eliminate all of those levers, but they significantly reduce the number of levers available and the possible impacts of the ones that are left.
I noticed that yedsteday when I was doing some searching, all but one of them are/were lawyers who do/did work at a Law firm. The one that isn’t is the chair for the Sarasota school district.With the positions these board members have held in the past I wonder if the reality of what they signed up is causing second thoughts about accepting the position? Who will be the first to bail?
This is almost certainly true, and also why this whole thing is so disturbing.I really think they felt they were going to walk into Team Disney and start cancelling Tiana's Bayou Adventure and telling Iger what movies they can make.
Especially as her great granny was half Scottish.Why not Merida?
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.