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

JMcMahonEsq

Well-Known Member
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

5th gate? Just build a new resort Bob.
Premium Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
1680198010216.png
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Member
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

Premium Member
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.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
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.
As an “actual low level lawyer,” I doubt anyone here thinks they are better acquainted with the subject matter than Disney’s legal team. But hey, it’s a discussion board so people are going to discuss 😊
 

EPCOT-O.G.

Well-Known Member
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...
Some believe Lilibet isn't the granddaughter of King Charles III, but rather James Hewitt.
 

Spokker

New Member
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.
I doubt it. The debate moderator is not going to be constantly hammering DeSantis with questions about this while they ask more "legitimate" questions to the other candidates. DeSantis will no doubt have the same opportunity to opine on China, Russia, geopolitics, etc. as the other candidates.

This is assuming this topic is a negative for him, which is not a foregone conclusion.

DeSantis won re-election in a landslide after he started fighting with Disney. This was in a formerly purple state and he even won Miami-Dade County. Social media, which does not represent the average voter, may get a kick out of all this legal maneuvering and King Charles and all that stuff, but DeSantis seems to have connected with voters who don't normally vote Republican by standing against values these voters think are too far-left. There's a chance he may do it nationally and you might miss it if you only hang out on social media, Reddit and pro-Disney echo chambers.

And if DeSantis does make it out of the primary, it's not going to matter what push polls say about Americans being so aghast over what DeSantis has done in Florida. What matters in presidential politics is what a relatively small handful of voters in swing states think and online chatter does not generally reflect what they think.

And this is a guy that turned a swing state dark red.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
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.
I looked up the average salary of a lawyer at TWDC. Its $167K per year. It is not earth shattering salaries. My former classmate is a lawyer in NYC , his salary is $450K per year working approx 75 hours per week.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom