Search results

What's there to keep the board from saying Disney has to shut down the monorail for "safety reasons" until it's inspected, and then just not sending an inspector for a month? I don't know if they can actually do that, but if they can/do, it's out of the hands of the frontline inspectors...

I have to wonder if they have no clue at all about WDW transportation and think that shutting down the monorail would shut down the parks because they assume it's the only way to get certain places, and they have no idea that there's alternate options - ferry boats from the TTC, walking paths...

Assuming the lawsuit doesn't move fast enough to get resolved before June 1, what are the chances the board backs off the suit if the "retroactively void valid contracts" bill passes? The board would gain the authority to void the contracts regardless of whether they were properly executed, so...

Exactly. They never explicitly name Disney, but the criteria are always drafted in a way such that it only applies to Disney. Or as the kids on the InterWebs say these days... "Tell me you're targeting Disney without telling me you're targeting Disney."

If the board loses the lawsuit over the validity of the contracts, I'm not sure they'd give up immediately. They still potentially have options with the legislature's new bill to let the board retroactively void the contracts, so they'd likely wait to see if that passes (and then possibly even...

I don't believe so because it's "affected landowners" and Disney owns the land. Same thing with Swan & Dolphin - Tishman owns the buildings, but Disney owns the land.

As an example: "Are you in favor of removing the district that gives Disney special tax status?" vs "Are you in favor of making Orange and Osceola county taxpayers pay for Disney's municipal services instead of Disney paying for all of their own services?" Both are asking the same question...

Wouldn't dissolving the district dump its bond debt and maintenance expenses onto Orange and Osceola counties? I don't think Disney would want be the ones responsible for that, as it would really strain their relationship with the counties. That's probably why no one talks about it - because...

As I mentioned in my post, I get that they're trying the "throw everything at the wall" approach to hedge their bets; I'm just pointing out that this has led to contractions in their position which opens it up to more scrutiny and may hurt their argument in the end. This is fundamentally...

So the government claims... "The contracts aren't valid." ...but they are also trying to pass a (possibly unconstitutional) bill to allow them to retroactively void the contracts... which would only be necessary if the contracts are actually valid in the first place. ...and now the AG is...

It makes me wonder if the board genuinely believes they have the authority to void the contract just because they say so, or are they knowingly crossing the line in an attempt to goad Disney into litigating.

Exactly; which is why I'm so confused about what his issue with my post was.

I'm really confused. How is that any different than what I stated in the post you quoted? If any landowner didn't get a mailing and chooses to object, it becomes a question of whether that landowner is legally considered "affected." We're saying the same thing, so I'm still confused why you...

Not sure what you mean. Why does the mailing deadline matter if they didn't mail the notices? I'm not saying they didn't, just considering "if."

Ah got it; didn't realize there was a state agency in the mix. So basically, if somehow RCID didn't actually mail notices to *all* landowners, then it will come down to a legal battle over whether any objecting landowners are considered "affected." 😬

I haven't read any references beyond the statute that says failure to mail notices is not, in and of itself, grounds for voiding an agreement that was publicly noticed per "Sunshine," so I'm curious to know what the case law is that makes the notices a "fatal" issue.

IIRC, Len posted something the other day that showed that failure to do the mailings does not void a development contract that was publicly noticed (which it was). From other discussions, it sounds like the only consequence if they somehow didn't send out the necessary mailings might simply be...

Assuming the legislature passes the new bill, and Disney has to take this to court, what are everyone's thoughts on whether Disney would take the opportunity to argue 1A violations, and try to get the whole restructuring thrown out, or whether they'll be satisfied with just keeping the RCID...

While they don't have the authority to void the contract yet, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to "review" it and hold a toothless vote indicating their future intent just to have it on the record, which it seems is all the new law will have required them to do since they intend to apply it...

Sure, but the way the bill is written, wouldn't the board be able to "review" and vote on it now (i.e. within 4 months), and then just wait for the bill to be signed to enforce their vote retroactively? I know they've been making questionable decisions, but I can't imagine even the FL...