Recent content by WannaGoNow

You are so welcome, glad to have cleared up all your confusion on this matter 😁 Like why the Sentinel was so “lazy” or that contracts cannot be dissolved just because the body is dissolved.

Sorry, my mistake, Stripes is right. The Orlando Business Journal has Resolution 639, not 638. But per the public announcement, it should be on display.

It has - it should be on display now per the public announcement of the meeting https://classifieds.orlandosentinel.com/fl/notices/notice-of-meeting-you-will-/AC1E044909eaf2028DxD3p734A05 Also, several media outlets have seen it.

Yes, the agreement would definitely survive dissolution. Also, negating the contract just because a body is dissolved is illegal by federal and state law. That’s part of the reason why DeSantis did not dissolve Reedy Creek but instead replaced it. Yes! The board cannot do anything except what...

No, I've clearly stated changing the planning board is rearranging deck chairs on the Titantic; it's a straw man and a distraction to make the board look like they are doing something that has teeth. And the "superior authority" is over all WDW/Reedy Creek lands - but Bay Lake alone would...

From the Restrictive Covenants: BINDING EFFECT: ENFORCEMENT. 6.1. Covenants Running With RCID Properties and Benefits Running With the WDPR Properties. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions contained in this Declaration are intended by both parties to, and shall, run with title to the...

He can believe Santa Claus divorced Mrs. Claus in order to be with the Easter Bunny if he wants. He can believe Santa Claus violates all sorts of natural and legal laws if he wants. But the concern at hand is whether Disney/Reedy Creek violated the Sunshine Law. That applies to specific...

It’s called the restrictive covenants with regards to the developer agreement. I could cite the entire thing, but it’s easily available on the internet. Please provide your legal basis for your belief that a nonsense resolution supersedes the language in the signed contracts,

Yes.

I provided earlier a link to the BOD packet of materials, which contain the developer agreement and restrictive covenants. You might want to read them. On the other hand, would love to see your link proving Disney committed malfeasance, and would also love to see your legal reasoning how a...

Nah, I’ve got the map clearly in front of me. You keep arguing about the planning board. It’s immaterial and a straw man. The developer agreement and restrictive covenants already lay out the process for approving plans. The new board is basically trying to rearrange deck chairs on their...

An Orlando law firm - which is the entity that drafted the contracts - emailing contracts to the board for discussion is legal and allowable. There is no basement in the pizza parlor.

Delegation of final development approval powers is exactly what the developer agreement and restrictive covenants are about and what the new board thinks their nonsense resolution will change. You might want to read the documents and the resolution.

Reality and the law say…ding ding ding winner! Sorry, but those trump opinion surveys.

Outside of official channels? No. There does not.