News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[LittleBuford]

Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.

I too initially misinterpreted it as mockery, but as others explained to me, it’s a well-established practice:

Royal lives clause - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I certainly don’t think it has anything to do with making light of anyone’s death.

 

[networkpro]

Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.

That ambiguity is what may nullify the agreement under Florida's contra proferentem rule. It doesnt specify a date when it concludes, just sometime in the future.

 

[MR.Dis]

I made the prediction that Disney would not sue to overturn the change in RCID. I will make the prediction that the new District will not sue to cancel the last minute contracts. The District can still use its powers to oversee the "health and safety" of new developments. From what I am seeing, the only thing that is prohibited is for the board to be involved in the actual development of any new projects. When cooler heads take a look at this, it is not worth the time or effort to try to cancel. Mr Ron will probably make a very discrete call to the board and advise them to just "Let it Go".

 

[Sir_Cliff]

This, though it is kind of funny because the back tracking people have to do now a days when they reach the general is turning out to be too much. On a national level, going "full base" to win the primary hasn't worked out well.

This is where I think, if he has any sense, Desantis won't want to get involved in the next phase of this whole mess of his own creation.

Maybe it would help endear him to Republican primary voters, though I have my doubts a protracted legal battle with Disney is going to be something he even wants to be up there on stage talking about alongside other candidates for the nomination. It makes him look silly as everyone else is talking about geopolitics, China, Russia, etc. and he is having to talk about fighting Disney World. The whole thing will stick in people's heads and make his main opponent look almost statesmanly in contrast. The likelihood of any legal challenges dragging on into the general election makes it even more imperative to try and back away from this rather than get more involved... at least, that would be my advice if I were advising him!

The late night jokes about declaring war on the China pavilion at Epcot write themselves...

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Watching more and more clips of these new board members with their knickers in a knot yesterday makes me curious to what these people thought their job was going to actually be. Did they think their role was ever more than the mundane goings on of a local municipality? I keep seeing the one guy going on about “all we can do is road improvements and maintain infrastructure”. Yah! That’s the whole point. You’re not designing new parades and attractions or building new hotels, you’re making sure the trash gets picked up on time and the mosquito sprayer truck is making the rounds. It’s just hilarious to see how mad they are when they realized what a terribly boring job they have been given

Yep! Their comments yesterday were a very thinly-veiled way of saying, "No fair! They're making it harder for us to F with them for political retribution!"

 

[Prince-1]

Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.

Well that is one unique way of spinning what was done by Disney.

 

[Dranth]

I made the prediction that Disney would not sue to overturn the change in RCID. I will make the prediction that the new District will not sue to cancel the last minute contracts. The District can still use its powers to oversee the "health and safety" of new developments. From what I am seeing, the only thing that is prohibited is for the board to be involved in the actual development of any new projects. When cooler heads take a look at this, it is not worth the time or effort to try to cancel. Mr Ron will probably make a very discrete call to the board and advise them to just "Let it Go".

I do remember you saying they would not challenge it in court, though I don't know that I agreed with all your reasoning at the time, it certainly turned out true. Hopefully you are right about this one as well but my personal experience dealing with politicians has shown me how hard it is for them to let things go sometimes. Ego's play a HUGE part and while the ones who play the game the best can keep that in check, all of them struggle with it.

 

[AEfx]

That ambiguity is what may nullify the agreement under Florida's contra proferentem rule. It doesnt specify a date when it concludes, just sometime in the future.

Exactly. It is an antiquated provision that hasn't been in wide use in new agreements for the better part of a century, and updating it with Charles in 2023 is just absurd, unnecessary, and frankly disgusting. If it were not for people playing politics and liking the supposed "gotchya!" nature of it, this would be widely condemned. This isn't 1930 any more.

I can't think of any reason besides political affiliation that wouldn't make someone think including a provision that is based upon the death of a 21 month old baby who has less than nothing to do with the situation is appropriate or in any way near good taste. The flurry of responses here just shows how terribly far down the rabbit hole of "as long as I agree politically with the entity doing it, morality is irrelevant," we are.

If the other party had done this, people would be calling for riots in the street.

In any case...back to the dumpster fire this thread goes, LOL.

 

[Chi84]

That ambiguity is what may nullify the agreement under Florida's contra proferentem rule. It doesnt specify a date when it concludes, just sometime in the future.

Florida law covers what is allowable to avoid perpetuities.

2022 Florida Statutes :: Title XL - Real and Personal Property :: Chapter 689 - Conveyances of Land and Declarations of Trust :: 689.225 - Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

 

[James122]

I really think they felt they were going to walk into Team Disney and start cancelling Tiana's Bayou Adventure and telling Iger what movies they can make.

This. DeSantis and his board of cronies truly seemed to partake in the shared delusion that they would be wielding significant influence not just over Disney's Florida operations, but across every division of the company, up to and including approving movie pitches and okaying TV series greenlight decisions.

The fact that Disney kneecapped them and did it all out in the open under their noses just makes the it all the more hilarious.

DeSantis's fight with Disney is such a clear violation of the 1st Amendment (which I'm sure he knows) since he's admitted his actions were punitive and in response to Disney's criticism of the Don't Say Gay bill, so I applaud Disney for outmaneuvering him and making the board look like incompetent buffoons.

 

[Chi84]

Exactly. It is an antiquated provision that hasn't been in wide use in new agreements for the better part of a century, and updating it with Charles in 2023 is just absurd, unnecessary, and frankly disgusting. If it were not for people playing politics and liking the supposed "gotchya!" nature of it, this would be widely condemned. This isn't 1930 any more.

I can't think of any reason besides political affiliation that wouldn't make someone think including a provision that is based upon the death of a 21 month old baby who has less than nothing to do with the situation is appropriate or in any way near good taste. The flurry of responses here just shows how terribly far down the rabbit hole of "as long as I agree politically with the entity doing it, morality is irrelevant," we are.

If the other party had done this, people would be calling for riots in the street.

In any case...back to the dumpster fire this thread goes, LOL.

The Rule Against Perpetuities still exists in Florida and specifically states that a way to avoid it is by providing that an interest in land vests or terminates “no later than 21 years after the death of an individual then alive.”

If you have a problem with the morality of this current legal provision you should address it to the Florida legislature.

 

[flynnibus]

As was pointed out to me yesterday this was done before anybody knew what the final framework would be but you'd think somebody from Florida would have kept an eye on public meetings until things were settled

'you'd think' has come up a lot with this whole journey hasn't it?

That's what happens when people are doing things for all the wrong reasons...

 

[Zummi Gummi]

Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.

 

[flynnibus]

I too initially misinterpreted it as mockery, but as others explained to me, it’s a well-established practice:

What you see here is the common flaw of people these days. Seeing something they don't understand and instead of going... "hrmm, that's not familiar to me, I want to learn more about and understand why that is there..." they just rant about it flaunting their ignorance while trying to rally like minds. Instead of actually taking it as an opportunity to investigate or understand before making conclusions.

People are all to eager to open their mouth before they understand what they will talk about.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.

Regardless of which side of the aisle you’re aligned with, I beg to differ…this was a brilliant move… it’s no different than children finding out their parents have massive life insurance policies, so the kids know they’ll be rich when mom and dad croak.

 

[Chi84]

What you see here is the common flaw of people these days. Seeing something they don't understand and instead of going... "hrmm, that's not familiar to me, I want to learn more about and understand why that is there..." they just rant about it flaunting their ignorance while trying to rally like minds. Instead of actually taking it as an opportunity to investigate or understand before making conclusions.

People are all to eager to open their mouth before they understand what they will talk about.

I know you’re not specifically referring to one poster, but just to be fair @LittleBuford is firmly on the side of asking questions and investigating without ranting.

 

[LittleBuford]

a provision that is based upon the death of a 21 month old baby

This is a very odd, and misleading, way to represent things. The death referred to by the clause is projected to happen long in future—that’s the whole point. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the death of a baby.

 

[LittleBuford]

What you see here is the common flaw of people these days. Seeing something they don't understand and instead of going... "hrmm, that's not familiar to me, I want to learn more about and understand why that is there..." they just rant about it flaunting their ignorance while trying to rally like minds. Instead of actually taking it as an opportunity to investigate or understand before making conclusions.

People are all to eager to open their mouth before they understand what they will talk about.

I agree and acknowledge my own rush to judgement on this issue yesterday. I should have taken a minute or two to Google the matter before posting here.

 

[LittleBuford]

I know you’re not specifically referring to one poster, but just to be fair @LittleBuford is firmly on the side of asking questions and investigating without ranting.

Thank you! This is very kind.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is very odd, and misleading, way to represent things. The death referred to by the clause is projected to happen long in future—that’s the whole point. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the death of a baby.

Nor does it apply to a specific individual. People outlive younger relatives all the time. Charles’ own mother outlived her younger sister by twenty years.