Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
Forget that, it would mean that all contracts - everywhere - were essentially worthless.Forget just illegal. It's flat out unconstitutional: both state and US constitutions.
Forget that, it would mean that all contracts - everywhere - were essentially worthless.Forget just illegal. It's flat out unconstitutional: both state and US constitutions.
Disney didn’t fight the take over publicly because they had a legally executed development agreement protecting what they valued most, their ability to use land that they have legally owned for 50+ years to build more theme parks and hotels.
I did think about the skiing. However, the state already is dealing with inadequate transportation infrastructure to get to the ski areas. So unless Disney wants to help finance that, I don't see ski resort coming.Time to dust-off those old plans for a Disney ski resort.
(Hey Disney, there's two resorts here in Vermont under receivership after a developmental deal went bad...).
I have never once thought a first come, first served system is a good one when it comes to government financing. That’s the state’s fault for making decisions that way. It has nothing to do with the District. There’s nothing to say that Orange County Utilities would not have been first in line which would have had the same result.Take yourself out of defensive mode for a second and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense that a state, as a whole, should not have the ability to say that low income housing is a more important priority than additional resort expansion for a corporation.
Why dont you stop being defensive and ask yourself if the state should have the ability to dictate what landowners can & can’t do with their land. All because of a political statement that the landowner made.Take yourself out of defensive mode for a second and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense that a state, as a whole, should not have the ability to say that low income housing is a more important priority than additional resort expansion for a corporation.
Ok, let's note your complaint there is no diversity on the district board - because at the time of creation the state didn't mandate independent directors.You're referring to the legal mechanism by which it was created. In practice, how did it operate? Who controlled the board?
Just see if he can name the parties involved instead of relying what he found on wikipedia.I have never once thought a first come, first served system is a good one when it comes to government financing. That’s the state’s fault for making decisions that way. It has nothing to do with the District. There’s nothing to say that Orange County Utilities would not have been first in line which would have had the same result.
IANAL but… good luck with that in court.
They did and made the choice not to, why aren't you going on about the state?Take yourself out of defensive mode for a second and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense that a state, as a whole, should not have the ability to say that low income housing is a more important priority than additional resort expansion for a corporation.
They acted by releasing a statement that said, "We are focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework."
They could have sued to prevent the new board from taking over, and maintain their control over the government but they didn't. They transferred the most essential controls over and abandoned ship. Why would they do that?
Sometimes winning isn’t worth the collateral damage.
lol.. only applying to special districts.. good luck arguing why they would have done this kind of change anyway, regardless of RCID transition.Here’s a photo for everyone to see. Disney would have an outstanding case.
And there are towns whose populations have declined to a point where basically one family takes turn being mayor and everyone is on the city council. Should they be subjected to other authorities now that there’s not enough diversity of residency? How do you even create that criteria?The landowners of the municipality, which just so happens to be Disney. Just as if any other municipality was largely owned by one person/entity. I would expect that they have a very large say in who is elected and represents their needs.
I have never once thought a first come, first served system is a good one when it comes to government financing. That’s the state’s fault for making decisions that way.
This.Why dont you stop being defensive and ask yourself if the state should have the ability to dictate what landowners can & can’t do with their land. All because of a political statement that the landowner made.
These are valid questions that have nothing to do with the existence of RCID.Beyond the setup for applying for the bonds though, do you think it's wise that a state should dedicate more resources to propping up industry than overseeing housing development or education, or to the other functions that a good government should provide?
Don't you think the people should generally have a say in such matters?
Then the State should have had a different process for determining how the bonds were approved. Neither Disney nor RCID had any authority to make the rules for the State. If you eliminate the RCID bonds, can you say for certainty that the very next application belonged to the County seeking the low-income housing funding?Take yourself out of defensive mode for a second and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense that a state, as a whole, should not have the ability to say that low income housing is a more important priority than additional resort expansion for a corporation.
Exactly what this law would mean, yes.So we can void contracts unilaterally without cause? Perfect. No notes.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.