Can I say I told you so... In a nother vlog site I been saying this could cost Disney billions... I said they ( a rubber stamp from the new board) could pull eminent domain on undeveloped land, start out by saying it for a new roads for traffic from off property like over near AK lodge then sell the area beside to road for development under fair value clause and before Disney knows it a strip mall or worst could be across the road to the AK area...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
Out of the RCID budget and cash reserves obviously.
They can offset this new spending by collecting additional money (based on whatever is possible via taxes or fees), spending less elsewhere (reducing quality or level of other services to reduce costs), or borrow more money.
Those firefighters think they're getting a better contract with higher pay. Little do they know, they might reduce staffing instead to free up cash for lawyers. At least, that's one option that could happen.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I guess more or less of what I meant was, if Disney wants to sue on the grounds that the act of the legislature and this new Board is a violation/retaliation of their free speech, this is just giving them more ammunition.
Vacationeer
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Page 41 of 563 from https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2020_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf
Grey Public Facilities - could some be sold off to pay bonds?
Grey Public Facilities - could some be sold off to pay bonds?
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
Disney also put in place restrictive covenants preventing the district from using district landholdings in any way that isn't consistent with their present use.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
And the Board is free to prioritize the use of funds. They can take funds intended for other uses and use them for litigation.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
As always, the lawyers are getting rich no matter what happens
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
This isn’t more ammunition. The Board is seeking a way to exercise its authority. That’s not a basis for Disney to act unless the Board starts disregarding the agreement, and then the ammunition is just about the agreement.
If someone was really careful, I think they could fit a hotel in here:
goo.gl
Have to deal with those two retention ponds. Plus elevate the entire thing over World Drive, East Buena Vista Drive, and the two ramp loops on the western side. It's the ramp loops that create the larger space to begin with. There isn't as much space to the east.
28°21'48.2"N 81°33'52.1"W
goo.gl
Have to deal with those two retention ponds. Plus elevate the entire thing over World Drive, East Buena Vista Drive, and the two ramp loops on the western side. It's the ramp loops that create the larger space to begin with. There isn't as much space to the east.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
…a power that’s effectively useless now
mikejs78
Premium Member
The district using funds to sue Disney may actually be in violation of the new Reedy Creek act.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
I agree, the idea that this is some long game to gain control of, and sell off, WDW property to developers seems highly unlikely, the board was set up to control and influence Disney, not to take their land.
BaconPancakes
Well-Known Member
Aww and wouldn't that be such a shame... *world's smallest violin*
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Honestly, it’s wise for Disney to stage its legal battles against these fools rather than the state. This is well out of the public eye and I’m sure their legal team is more than capable of taking on these morons.
From their meeting as they discovered Disney’s poison pill:
From their meeting as they discovered Disney’s poison pill:
Last edited:
mikejs78
Premium Member
I'm not sure that's the case. The new legislation did place limits on what tax revenue could be used for. And it stregthen's Disney's taxation without representation case.
I'm not sure that's the case. I was speaking with an attorney friend of mine on this (also a Disney fan) who indicated that Disney's case against the legislation is bolstered if there is actual harm from an action the district takes. It's harder for a judge to ignore actual harm than theoretical harm, which a partisan judge could weasle around pretty easily.
I think the former would only be a threat to achieve the latter.
There's lots and lots of things that are just threats to achieve the control. How many of them need to be followed through vs just threats will be interesting.
mikejs78
Premium Member
Generally yes, but contract law is one of those areas that even partisan judges tend to rule on pretty consistently in favor of upholding contracts. And the key is what was legal at the time of the singing of the contract, not any future laws that may be enacted.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
This thread has better legs than the last few movies Disney released
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
I agree that Disney should be in the clear but these judges are increasingly weasels.