How do these requirements square with the District’s enabling legislation that was state law at the time? Unless the legislation providing for these procedural requirements specifically amended the District charter, then the charter’s procedures took precedent.
How many occurred under such a compressed timeframe?
While some view these as allegations, they’re stylized as “legislative findings” in the current document on the website. Finding suggests an evidentiary basis. Whether they’ll be viewed as such or given such deference by a later court is anyone’s guess, but that’s how it’s being propounded.
The property described in the media notice encompasses all property owners in the district, including the non-WDPR owners; the Ex 1 carveouts are absent. Why does the published notice operate with a seemingly different universe of affected property (RCID in its entirety) than the presumptive mailing recipients (just WDPR)?
They’re the findings of the Board of Supervisors, a legislative body.
BUT, I can imagine and assume scenarios where Disney does the necessary inspections overnight when the parks are closed…beams are not being used the monorail cars are all in their service bays and storage areas. I can’t imagine ANY scenarios where state inspectors would be on property before 9 am or after 5 pm to conduct their inspections.
But a state inspector doing their job in the overnight hours ? Doubt it.
You can't have findings without evidence. What you're reading are allegations of the Board, which taken as true, support the action they are asking counsel to take.
That will be next…DeSantis will send in FWC agents/rangers/police to perform inspections on all the marine vehicles on property…
DeSantis doesn't read the law when a company that employs more than 1K staff and has their own safety ride inspectors are exempt from state inspections ( ie WDW, Uni, SW ). State inspectors generally work business hours unless need to do their roles at night.
