-
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
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Right! I forgot about William and Kate's third!5
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Here is the exact wording:
TERM: ASSIGNMENT BY WDPR. 7.1. Term. This Declaration shall be deemed effective as of the Effective Date and continue to be effective in perpetuity unless all or certain portions of the provisions of this Declaration are expressly terminated as provided elsewhere herein; provided, however, that if the perpetual term of this Declaration is deemed to violate the "Rule Against Perpetuities,' " or any similar law or rule, this Declaration shall continue in effect until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary herein, this Declaration will terminate as of the date that none of WDPR or any of its Affiliates (or their respective successor entities) owns any real property within ten (10) miles of the RCID Properties.
So it is limited to the last descendant who was living as of the date the contract was signed.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I think this was a fairly easy case to make from the start.
The problem…and just my guess…is that Disney is calculating just how hard it is to win in politicized courts?
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Disney made last-minute deal with former Reedy Creek board giving company wide powers, new board says
"This essentially makes Disney the government," board member Ron Peri said.
www.clickorlando.com
The Board apparently is hoping to come to a compromise with Disney before legal action is taken. The contract prevents the new board from even amending it, why would they even bother to compromise.
Disney Glimpses
Well-Known Member
Probably to prevent risking from it being nullified altogether. I wonder what kind of compromise this would entail though.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Thank you. The article I quoted earlier didn't include the "living as of the date of this Declaration" bit, plus I was thrown by the reference to "the last survivor", which I mistakenly interpreted as referring to future generations. I see now that "the last survivor of the descendants" is meant to be understood as "the last surviving descendant".
This is called damage control.
They expect people to believe that they pretty much expected this all along? LOL.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
They didn't. Members of the board openly stated in the news article I linked above that they "were upset the previous members didn't tell them and that they had to find out", the chair said he was "disappointed in Disney".
peter11435
Well-Known Member
But also why would the new board be willing to compromise if they legitimately felt the agreement was an overreach and would not hold up. The new board has zero reason not to go to court if they honestly think they are in the right. Going to court doesn’t cost them anything.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
People with unreasonable demands often say they want to compromise to appear more reasonable. They get to say they want to “compromise” and then when it doesn’t happen they blame the other party for not “compromising” which they wanted to do all along.Disney made last-minute deal with former Reedy Creek board giving company wide powers, new board says
"This essentially makes Disney the government," board member Ron Peri said.
The Board apparently is hoping to come to a compromise with Disney before legal action is taken. The contract prevents the new board from even amending it, why would they even bother to compromise.
Because it lets them claim they were trying to be “reasonable” and “compromise”. Disney did this big thing and they were willing to let them keep some of it if they could just talk about it.
flyakite
Well-Known Member
In case anyone is interested, here are the Florida statutes that seem to indicate that Disney followed the law and used something that does not seem uncommon.
Sections 163.3220-163.3243 may be cited as the “Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act.”
It requires quite a bit scrolling using this link:
Sections 163.3220-163.3243 may be cited as the “Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act.”
It requires quite a bit scrolling using this link:
Disney Glimpses
Well-Known Member
I agree completely, just offering a point of view.
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
This is hilarious. They honestly expected Disney just to hand over the keys to the world peacefully in what was essentially a an ugly hostile takeover?
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
Not true. They have to pay their lawyers to prepare and go to court to fight this.
I’m more thinking this gives them evidence of possible tangible damages if the board tries to undo the agreements. They would have been arguing possible damages if they sued at the beginning. If the board took action it might give them probable damages to sue to undo the state’s actions.
I understand the state wouldn’t be party to the current pending lawsuit, but I wonder if Disney could use this to sue Florida saying that their actions by replacing the RCID have the possibility to cause major harm to their business practices, and this action would be exhibit #1.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
While there is precedence, there are also several theories that could be advanced against this. There are a number of general contract law theories that could be invoked. And, they are not normally used. But, it would put a court in the position of having to choose major contracting law public policy arguments vs. the law cited earlier. While we're focused on Disney right here, incentivizing this behavior across the State in other situations could have a major chilling effect. Which gives a court (should it want to) more leeway in what would normally be seen as "interfering".
I personally agree Disney is trying to push this out in hopes Desantis is replaced by a more friendly leader. But, there is a lot of general public policy danger in what they are choosing to do. Knowing this will almost certainly now go to court - I actually think this was a really, really bad act on their part (speaking as a Floridan generally - not a Disney fan.)
I personally agree Disney is trying to push this out in hopes Desantis is replaced by a more friendly leader. But, there is a lot of general public policy danger in what they are choosing to do. Knowing this will almost certainly now go to court - I actually think this was a really, really bad act on their part (speaking as a Floridan generally - not a Disney fan.)
peter11435
Well-Known Member
They have to pay their lawyers with money that belongs to the district. The district gets all of its money through taxes and fees it collects mostly from Disney. Disney would essentially be funding both sides of any legal action. The board is not accountable to Disney or any landowners within the district that fund its operations. There is little to no reason for the board to be averse of litigation aside from outcomes not in their favor.