GoofGoof
Premium Member
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.