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

[mf1972]

i was working when i read this news last night. i did laugh a little & also at the comments made here. it made my day. if anything the nickname meatball is much more appropriate now.

 

[kong1802]

I must publicly admit I underestimated the Mouse yet again.

Just brilliant.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'll accept whatever the correct interpretation is. Yeah, I read it to mean all descendants of King Charles III, meaning when the royal line dies out which would be a VERY long time.

It’s a very common land rights item and it always means last living. Even if it wasn’t written that way, Disney would argue that it means last living, because otherwise it’s a perpetuity, and it is specifically written into the document that the King Charles part only comes into effect if it is ruled that a perpetuity isn’t allowed here. But also that’s how any court would interpret it, because again, it’s a norm.

It actually is written that way. Here is the exact wording and it says “living as of the date of 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.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

Relax, nobody invoked death. Go back and read the quotes earlier, it’s a common methodology used in legal contracts to avoid the rule against contracts in perpetuity.

 

[mysto]

Source: https://www.wftv.com/news/local/pow...XFYXTOFKKQMLXY/?taid=642483accb00fe0001d94b76

Additional commentary by a financial site. If you can ignore their bias their analysis and reporting can be very good.

Zero Hedge on Royal Lives clause and RCID

Congrats to @drnilescrane for apparently being the first to latch onto this one....

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

It’s a common practice even today. It’s usually used with trusts which cannot continue forever. The trust is dissolved X number of years after the death of the last beneficiary. Very common and yes, sometimes a beneficiary is an infant. Nothing about this implies wishing for or calling for the death of anyone.

 

[CastAStone]

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

It’s only not commonly used anymore in the UK where the rule against perpetuities has been codified as a 125 year limit. As no such limit exists in the US, it’s still common here.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

I wasn't really calling you out.. you recognized your rush. I was more referring to the other who had so much more vitriol while letting his rear hang out in the open

I'm still kinda shocked we didn't see this as it unrolled... I admit I was not stalking the rcid website, but I assumed others like dcbaker and len were... while the details we got from meetings were pretty much bland.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Heeheehee.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

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.

Are you slow or just not paying attention? The rule against perpetuities is a contractual doctrine that has been around since the 17th century!!! This might actually be one of the most well established contractual doctrines to exist under common law. The entire doctrine revolves around the contractual rights ending at some time in the future, which for years has been 21 years after the death of a life in being at the creation of the interest. This modern day version of the RAP was set out by John Grey in 1886. The modern day approach to the doctrine is a hundred and forty years old, and always involved the death of someone.

 

[CastAStone]

I wasn't really calling you out.. you recognized your rush. I was more referring to the other who had so much more vitriol while letting his rear hang out in the open

I'm still kinda shocked we didn't see this as it unrolled... I admit I was not stalking the rcid website, but I assumed others like dcbaker and len were... while the details we got from meetings were pretty much bland.

The terms that were the main subjects of discussion in the meeting seem to differ from the ones people are finding interesting now. And it’s potentially possible people who were there have opinions on the matter that led them to not bring things up.

 

[Ayla]

It’s a common practice even today. It’s usually used with trusts which cannot continue forever. The trust is dissolved X number of years after the death of the last beneficiary. Very common and yes, sometimes a beneficiary is an infant. Nothing about this implies wishing for or calling for the death of anyone.

Agreed. We have the same wording in the trusts we set up for our children. It's standard legal language.

 

[AEfx]

It’s a common practice even today. It’s usually used with trusts which cannot continue forever. The trust is dissolved X number of years after the death of the last beneficiary. Very common and yes, sometimes a beneficiary is an infant. Nothing about this implies wishing for or calling for the death of anyone.

Yes, who are INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION.

Unless Lilibet is now a beneficiary of Disney's profits?

Agreed. We have the same wording in the trusts we set up for our children. It's standard legal language.

Really, it invokes King Charles?

/smh

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.

LOL, I'm not wading into the dumpster fire this thread is any deeper, but you know as well as I do that if the new board had signed an agreement that included this clause, and used an innocent, multi-racial child who has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation as a legal object like Disney did, there would be widespread moral outrage accusing it of being a virulently racist, imperialist, white supremacist fantasy affront to society that could incite violence against marginalized groups, taking advantage of our antiquated legal system and held up as an example of systemic racism.

I don't think all that (I agree that many of those things exist, they just aren't relevant here) - but I do think it is gross and unnecessary given how many ways there are to do the same thing. And I just cannot imagine the Olympic level mental gymnastics that would need to be used to not think that the above is absolutely true - this would be a top headline scandal across media, instead of the funny little footnote it's being treated as. It's all anyone would be talking about.

Just like to begin with, up until this whole fiasco the majority of people you would find actually already thought that Reedy Creek needed some major changes and that Disney had too much power that was no longer appropriate and was given at a much different time than we currently live in - and certainly now wouldn't support a greedy corporation taking even more control/power (additionally now on property they don't even actually own!) as they are now. But that's just our society right now - a religious loyalty to politics is above reason or any semblance of consistency.

But anyway - back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber...

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

 

[flynnibus]

The terms that were the main subjects of discussion in the meeting seem to differ from the ones people are finding interesting now. And it’s potentially possible people who were there have opinions on the matter that led them to not bring things up.

yeah, but ignoring the details, the fact such a far-reaching agreement was even was being hammered out, to go basically completely unreported by everyone... quite the coup here. Its almost as bad- as the initial land buying in FL.... but even that didn't go unnoticed, people just couldn't nail it down.

 

[BaconPancakes]

Yes, who are INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION.

Unless Lilibet is now a beneficiary of Disney's profits?



Really, it invokes King Charles?

/smh



LOL, I'm not wading into the dumpster fire this thread is any deeper, but you know as well as I do that if the new board had signed an agreement that included this clause, and used an innocent, multi-racial child who has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation as a legal object like Disney did, there would be widespread moral outrage accusing it of being a virulently racist, imperialist, white supremacist fantasy affront to society that could incite violence against marginalized groups, taking advantage of our antiquated legal system and held up as an example of systemic racism.

I don't think all that (I agree that many of those things exist, they just aren't relevant here) - but I do think it is gross and unnecessary given how many ways there are to do the same thing. And I just cannot imagine the Olympic level mental gymnastics that would need to be used to not think that the above is absolutely true - this would be a top headline scandal across media, instead of the funny little footnote it's being treated as. It's all anyone would be talking about.

Just like to begin with, up until this whole fiasco the majority of people you would find actually already thought that Reedy Creek needed some major changes and that Disney had too much power that was no longer appropriate and was given at a much different time than we currently live in - and certainly now wouldn't support a greedy corporation taking even more control/power (additionally now on property they don't even actually own!) as they are now. But that's just our society right now - a religious loyalty to politics is above reason or any semblance of consistency.

But anyway - back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber...

Oh the faux outrage. Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!?

 

[Ayla]

Yes, who are INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION.

Unless Lilibet is now a beneficiary of Disney's profits?



LOL, I'm not wading into the dumpster fire this thread is any deeper, but you know as well as I do that if the new board had signed an agreement that included this clause, and used an innocent, multi-racial child who has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation as a legal object like Disney did, there would be widespread moral outrage accusing it of being a virulently racist, imperialist, white supremacist fantasy affront to society that could incite violence against marginalized groups, taking advantage of our antiquated legal system and held up as an example of systemic racism.

I don't think all that (I agree that many of those things exist, they just aren't relevant here) - but I do think it is gross and unnecessary given how many ways there are to do the same thing. And I just cannot imagine the Olympic level mental gymnastics that would need to be used to not think that the above is absolutely true - this would be a top headline scandal across media, instead of the funny little footnote it's being treated as. It's all anyone would be talking about.

Just like to begin with, up until this whole fiasco the majority of people you would find actually already thought that Reedy Creek needed some major changes and that Disney had too much power that was no longer appropriate and was given at a much different time than we currently live in - and certainly now wouldn't support a greedy corporation taking even more control/power (additionally now on property they don't even actually own!) as they are now. But that's just our society right now - a religious loyalty to politics is above reason or any semblance of consistency.

But anyway - back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber...

Holy straw man, Batman.

 

[JGamer]

The number of wanna-be or actual low-level lawyers in this thread is astounding. Do you really think you are a better lawyer then Disney's legal team? I have no doubt every argument that has come up in this thread was reviewed by multiple legal experts on Disney's legal team because that is their job.

Disney is a multi-billion dollar corporation that pays millions of dollars a year to their legal team. They know what they are doing. The only way this gets overturned is by a partisian judge trying to make a statement. If that happens, I have no doubt this ends up in the Supreme Court and could result in Citizen's United being overturned. Do you really think politicians want to lose all that sweet lobbying money?

Disney came up with a plan and executed it. They counted on the fact that the state really didn't understand what they were doing and what power Disney actually had in the situation. They did everything in public knowing this was just for headlines and the State was too arrogant to pay attention.

 

[Chi84]

Yes, who are INVOLVED IN THE SITUATION.

Unless Lilibet is now a beneficiary of Disney's profits?



Really, it invokes King Charles?

/smh



LOL, I'm not wading into the dumpster fire this thread is any deeper, but you know as well as I do that if the new board had signed an agreement that included this clause, and used an innocent, multi-racial child who has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation as a legal object like Disney did, there would be widespread moral outrage accusing it of being a virulently racist, imperialist, white supremacist fantasy affront to society that could incite violence against marginalized groups, taking advantage of our antiquated legal system and held up as an example of systemic racism.

I don't think all that (I agree that many of those things exist, they just aren't relevant here) - but I do think it is gross and unnecessary given how many ways there are to do the same thing. And I just cannot imagine the Olympic level mental gymnastics that would need to be used to not think that the above is absolutely true - this would be a top headline scandal across media, instead of the funny little footnote it's being treated as. It's all anyone would be talking about.

Just like to begin with, up until this whole fiasco the majority of people you would find actually already thought that Reedy Creek needed some major changes and that Disney had too much power that was no longer appropriate and was given at a much different time than we currently live in - and certainly now wouldn't support a greedy corporation taking even more control/power (additionally now on property they don't even actually own!) as they are now. But that's just our society right now - a religious loyalty to politics is above reason or any semblance of consistency.

But anyway - back to your regularly scheduled echo chamber...

I don’t think you understand the Rule Against Perpetuities.

 

[MisterPenguin]

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

You have some imagination.