There is absolutely nothing illegal or dirty about a corporation proposing a contract to the local government. The board had every right to reject the contract. It was approved by the board in a public meeting. Nothing hidden. Nothing dirty about it. Someone will probably suggest that the board was controlled by Disney, which is true, but that was done by design and passed by the legislature 50+ years ago and not seriously challenged for 50+ years. So there’s no way to accuse Disney of wrongdoing over that point. The board is no longer controlled by Disney so I’m sure the new board will not sign any similar type contracts. Problem solved there ( if there even was one). In contract law you can’t go back and invalidate previous contracts signed by the government every time someone new takes control. That’s not how it works. The new government must honor the old contracts. Happens all the time in every level of government.Having worked in large corporations that would often do dirty deals like this appears to be, I can assure you that they would have also left a trail of emails and texts between the folks on the board and Disney's folks. If Florida starts digging I'm betting money it wouldn't take long to find some smoking texts and emails that they colluding together which could open both Disney and the board members to criminal prosecution. I expect Florida to now start going over everything with a fine tooth comb. Sometimes corporations forget that even if they have great lawyers, when they off the government they are fighting an adversary that can also change the rules and make any victory you have worthless. It is always best to stay on good terms with any government you have to deal with... Disney is only going to cause themselves more headaches than they already have.
That doesn’t matter. It’s not illegal to take advantage of laws and loopholes before they are changed. Even if you are only doing so because you know the law will soon be changed.I'm assuming that the actions taken by the board would not have been taken had the change of the law in Florida not scared the hell out of Disney. I'm betting that now that the AG of Florida has started digging, that they won't stop until they find something.
Again, you are assuming things you don’t really know anything aboutAnd that is all it would take. Someone telling one of them not to worry they will still get their annual pass would be enough. The problem is they were all too tight with Disney and anything they do will look like a payoff.
This sounds like wishful thinking. If something comes out that proves Disney paid a bride to a board member to get them to sign the contract then I’m sure it could be investigated and the contract may be overturned, but why would they need to bribe a board they controlled?It depends. If one of those board members asked or hinted at needing a job then it could be considered a bribe depending on the response from Disney. Never underestimate the stupidity of people to say the wrong thing. I've seen a manager in a company I represented flat out brag about how successful he had been at paying doctors to prescribe the companies new medication. He thought the company would be pleased with him, he didn't realize that some of the doctors had patients that were reimbursed by the federal government through medicare which meant he was violating federal law. His boasting to get a raise in the annual review gave the feds more evidence against the company that cost him his job and the company several million in fines. When you have more laws on the books than anyone could ever hope to know you can be sure that most everyone even lawyers and judges break some and if a the government decides they are going to get you they will probably find something if they look hard enough.
no, the OP asked what was left presuming the contracts won’t be stricken:You honestly think there is a chance in hell that Disney with all its in-house legal firepower, and the bankroll of a Forture 50 company and access to the beat outside counsel on the planet, and months of time to plan given the time from when this moronic endeavor was started to when when they were going to implement it, missed a timing/notice requirement?
Exactly. Plus it’s not exactly like the soon to be unemployed board members would exactly be on DeSantis side to begin with. It wouldn’t take a bribe to get them to vote in Disneys favor.This sounds like wishful thinking. If something comes out that proves Disney paid a bride to a board member to get them to sign the contract then I’m sure it could be investigated and the contract may be overturned, but why would they need to bribe a board they controlled?
Lots of people like to say this as if it is something bad. Based on the rest of the context in those stories.Someone will probably suggest that the board was controlled by Disney, which is true
I agree with this. While I think overturning the contract itself is going to be very challenging at best there are other ways to try to hurt Disney.I'm also not saying anything about ex post facto rules or laws. I'm saying that Florida can come up with new laws and rules that would hurt Disney going forward.
Said another way….what Disney did with this contract was perfectly legal based on contracts law so the only Hail Mary attempt to invalidate it is to find some smoking gun that Disney bribed a board member to approve the contract. So yes, if they find that hypothetical smoking gun then sure it could be invalidated. So let the AG request public records and let them investigate and if/when they find nothing then move on.That's the humor in it. What they did may be completely legal, but if their was anything that could be construed as a bribe or payoff by Disney to any board member voting on it, then you just broke the law.
And at the time everything was done, the state’s position was that Reedy Creek Improvement District was going to be dissolved. Land development regulation would have then become the purview of the cities, which were involved in this process. The cities set to inherit the land development agreement knew about it and helped craft it. And of course board members have now expressed a desire to not just undo the work of the cities and their elected officials, but go further and dissolve the cities.Lots of people like to say this as if it is something bad. Based on the rest of the context in those stories.
However, that’s effectively designed to mislead by removing the nuance.
The RCID board was controlled by those who elected them. Representing the will of the voters that they govern. That just happened to almost exclusively be Disney.
It’s funny when the new board says they represent the voters, when clearly the do not represent the voters they have governance over.
Again, you are assuming things you don’t really know anything about
It would be great if the same attorney who suggested the royal lives clause left a “smoking gun” memo saying “everything we do must be in total compliance with the law and done with due notice to all parties involved.”Said another way….what Disney did with this contract was perfectly legal based on contracts law so the only Hail Mary attempt to invalidate it is to find some smoking gun that Disney bribed a board member to approve the contract. So yes, if they find that hypothetical smoking gun then sure it could be invalidated. So let the AG request public records and let them investigate and if/when they find nothing then move on.
One customer bases’ lie is another customers bases’ truth.Is he really “serving” his base when he knowingly, deliberately, and continually lies to them for profit? Pandering, sure, but I don’t think that’s serving. I certainly wouldn’t want Disney to adopt that model.
Except in this case the lies can be proven to be lies. There’s really no room for debate on most of them. So it’s one customer bases lies and the other customer base is choosing to believe lies and ignore facts.One customer bases’ lie is another customers bases’ truth.
Reality is somewhere in between.
And TWDC learning to serve its customer base has nothing to do with this.
The BBC isn't impartial, it only seems that way to people that agree with it. That is pretty much the way all news is. Whether it is done well or not, if you believed the narrative before they gave it you'll think it was impartial. Even when news claims to give both sides of a story they always present one side in a better light. Remember when they pull up those sound bites from experts or whoever, you never know how many others that went the other way were left on the cutting room floor.
Proof that holds up in court is very different than proof in the court of public opinion. Even if there’s no actual proof it’s easy to say there was wrong doing and a portion of people will blindly believe it. A lot of people mostly believe what they want to believeNever say never, but they will likely find nothing. However, I still expect them to try and claim some out of context statement in some random email is “proof” of some wrong doing they will never truly be able to define. It is the standard playbook of late, make stuff up and confuse the issue because being honest about it would force them to backtrack and admit to all the mistakes and BS leading up to this.
Perhaps the only weakness on Disney's side is how RCID board of supervisors were elected. With RCID's original charter and the "one vote per acre" rule to elect board members, Disney fully controlled who served on the RCID board. All RCID board members had close ties to Disney. Effectively, Disney entered into a development agreement with themselves.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.