Again, their customers will hold them accountable if they find their moral stance questionable. The government cannot retaliate in this way in response, nor should you want them to. I doubt you will think it fair to pay if or when the moral caprices of the government swing in the opposite direction.
Because targeting ~75% of corporate America would be an awfully tall order. Also, WDW is a Florida institution. Going after Target wouldn't resonate as much with the base.
I think it’d be a pretty week argument to claim that a mailed notice, and a mailed notice alone, is what would have stirred action. Not other public notices. Not national news coverage. Just that one piece of mail is what would have made you act in a timely manner.
I don’t think there is an argument that because the agreement doesn’t cause change that it no longer needs the same notice.
It’s amazing how this keeps getting missed. Disney could have advocated for the most horrible things. They could have said pedophilia and murder should be legal and it would be protected. They could have said they support a violent revolution against the government complete with a Reign of Terror and it would have been protected. The whole point of freedom of speech is that you can say pretty much anything, even vile and despicable things.
the legal counsel to the successors to the RCID, which would presumptively have ready access to previous communications, are asserting that notices weren’t provided to the affected property owners.
You’re adding requirements that don’t exist in the statute.
I understand. But there may be facts we don’t know that impact upon the ultimate effect of lack of notice.
First, it's actually irresponsible to the shareholders not to be involved in politics as you should certainly be lobbying with your company's best interests in mind. That is how Disney got into the position they enjoyed for decades in the first place.
jonathanturley.org
Ok that’s your premise. Mine was Disney backed legislatures making their own bed. That’s all.
It’s not that it negates the need for notice, but that it changes the ability to claim a valid concern of potential harm from the agreement. Examples have been shared of lack of notice not being sufficient to completely kill the deal. If that holds, then you need someone who not only should have been notified but has a concern they would have brought forward for consideration.
DVC investment - about $40K. One contact gifted, one sold. We are out.
.
The existence (or Nonexistence) of notice is a very easy thing to prove or disprove. It’s really a very simple question. We’ve yet to see any evidence of mailed notice. You can hand waive against its import or allege bad faith all you want, but no one has yet to produce evidence these notices were mailed as required by law.
And who provided evidence that they were not. Did the new board point out a single effected landowner today that was not noticed? Why not?
It’s in 163.3243. One must be aggravated or adversely affected to challenge the validity of the agreement.
