flynnibus
Premium Member
The district has to pay… not these individuals. And they have no one to face if they drive up costs…. Because they only are accountable to the gov… not their constituents
-
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
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Like suing your homeowners association, it sucks but has to be done sometimes. I won
Chi84
Premium Member
What general contract law theories are you referring to?
Brian
Well-Known Member
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
I'm honestly not really seeing much public policy danger here. It's a unique situation that's not really applicable to basically anywhere else. Florida itself has passed laws that are significantly more dangerous from a public policy perspective.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
What damages or harm? If a court finds the agreements to be null that harm was caused by the previous board and Disney by entering into illegitimate contracts. It had nothing to do with the current form of the District.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
Not sure really, my first assumption would be the office of the Governor or worse, the taxpayers of the state of Florida.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
DeSantis should have let the legislators backtrack from this when they wanted to a few months ago, he had already gotten his press and the “blame” would have fallen on them… instead he dug in his heals for more exposure and now he’s getting it… I’m guessing this isn’t the exposure he wanted though.
Hopefully other politicians take note, punishing people/companies for daring to oppose you may not work out the way you want it too. Not only has he angered a lot of moderate reps for turning his back on rep values but now he looks incompetent while trying to do it.
Hopefully other politicians take note, punishing people/companies for daring to oppose you may not work out the way you want it too. Not only has he angered a lot of moderate reps for turning his back on rep values but now he looks incompetent while trying to do it.
Brian
Well-Known Member
Neither would be party to a lawsuit over these agreements. The agreements were made between RCID (before it became CFTOD) and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. Those two entities would be the parties.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
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.
Epcot82Guy
Well-Known Member
It depends on the case. When I say public policy, I mean the legal theory of interfering with something that would normally be handled between private parties. You are 100% right that there are many laws that are more dangerous. I'm talking solely about the circumstances of a pseudo-public entity intentionally abandoning its authority and rights to a private organization, where there was an arguable (meaning you could make the argument) demonstrable conflict of interest between the parties involved.
A court would never decide whether the terms of the agreement were in the public's interest. Rather, if the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement would be significantly suspect enough that the court would need to step in to limit or invalidate the contract as a matter of pubic policy - such that other similar situations would not be incentivized in all circumstances.
They could find either way. They could also do a very narrow opinion saying it's ok in this exact circumstance, but not generally (or vice versa). I'm simply saying the circumstances and involvement of the public agencies like this could open the door - especially for a judge that is sympathetic to it. Rather than it being a clear and decisive win for Disney with no chance of a challenge.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
How is this creative or novel? What loopholes were used? These types of agreements are specifically authorized by state law.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.
Chi84
Premium Member
No I think you clarified what you meant. I would be surprised if much more comes of this but who knows.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.
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. I am/was mostly being facetious in my comment.
It is however a large and frankly hilarious gotcha. It will probably agitate an already overly aggressive board, but at least the true goal of content moderation is more of a financial and/or minor nuisance than an actual inevitability.
I want to know what the board wanted to control so bad. In the end, the main point of the district was provide municipal services to the area, which it will still be doing. So why are they so against this?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There were open statements that they wanted to control Disney’s content. Development review would have been a powerful tool to achieve those goals, at least at Walt Disney World.
Other terms also constrain how the District acts regarding those services.
Mr. Stay Puft
Well-Known Member
Exactly, and the statements about them wanting to regulate Disney's entertainment content and what they do in the parks is telling. It could be that plus development on land that technically isn't Disney owned or forcing through land purchases via eminent domain. I suspected the board might want to do things like try to force Disney to allow guest to bring guns on property (being the board is stacked with conservatives). Disney must have thought so too, hence the language in the contract about gun stores and such.
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It should probably be mentioned that Disney having aesthetic control over government projects around Walt Disney World is not new or unique. Even the Army needs Disney’s permission to change the look of Shades of Green. That’s right, the US Army, operating on land owned by the Department of Defense, needs to seek Disney’s permission to do certain things.