tissandtully
Well-Known Member
Seeing what's already happened today in other places I think the Gods have denied your requestAn injunction, you say? Interesting hypothetical. BUT NOT THIS WEEK BECAUSE I SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR NO DRAMA.
Seeing what's already happened today in other places I think the Gods have denied your requestAn injunction, you say? Interesting hypothetical. BUT NOT THIS WEEK BECAUSE I SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR NO DRAMA.
I was about to write something similar. I would think the contract still stands unless it’s declared void by the courts. Disney doesn’t need to do anything right now. If the district fails to comply with the contract or attempts to block development then Disney would need to act. The injunction would be to force the district to comply with the contract until a court can rule on it. I don’t know if anything changes if/when the legislature passes their bill allowing the district to void the contract. Then Disney may have to file something to challenge that law.Since the District would be seeking the dissolution of the contract, I’m not sure an injunction would be necessary at this moment. The court would have to issue some sort preliminary voiding. As of right now, there also isn’t really anything for Disney to have enjoined. The District has not yet moved to change the land use regulations, so even if they’re operating from the view that the contract is void nothing really changes.
Exactly. They never explicitly name Disney, but the criteria are always drafted in a way such that it only applies to Disney. Or as the kids on the InterWebs say these days... "Tell me you're targeting Disney without telling me you're targeting Disney."It’s funny how they try to make it seem like they aren’t trying to target Disney but the wording is specifically tailored toward Disney only.
I doubt any case closes within 2 years of it being filed, forget within 2023.
Every bill crafted in the Florida Legislature affecting Disney, including exemptions, is always written in such a way to specifically refer to WDW without naming the company or the theme park resort.Exactly. They never explicitly name Disney, but the criteria are always drafted in a way such that it only applies to Disney. Or as the kids on the InterWebs say these days... "Tell me you're targeting Disney without telling me you're targeting Disney."
…might be a different kinda scale/arena here?I didn't say it was likely, just that it's possible. I've worked on cases that were done in less than 6 months because of dismissal/summary judgment.
Maybe?????????????? Skyliner probably, railroad would probably be considered an amusement ride. If the railway was included so could the train in AKWould this effect the WDW Railroad as well?
Skyliner?
Don’t they count as “fixed guideway transportation” system?
No, because the amendment is to a bill. It’s still just a proposal.It’s funny how they try to make it seem like they aren’t trying to target Disney but the wording is specifically tailored toward Disney only.
EDIT: Would this warrant action by Disney? Since it’s now filed as an Amendment.
…might be a different kinda scale/arena here?
It's a filed amendment to CS/CS/SB 1250 due to be heard in the Senate Fiscal Policy Committee tomorrow between 10am - 6pm EDT.No, because the amendment is to a bill. It’s still just a proposal.
Forgot about Rafiki’s. That’s a good point.Maybe?????????????? Skyliner probably, railroad would probably be considered an amusement ride. If the railway was included so could the train in AK
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.