Chi84
Premium Member
I haven’t read the entire agreement but lack of consideration is almost always a losing argument.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
JAB
Well-Known Member
"...eleventh-hour deals with its soon-to-be-replaced puppet government."
"...quietly contrived with its puppet Board..."
The sheer hypocrisy of a group of people with absolutely no municipal administration qualifications who were hand-picked by the Governor specifically to do his bidding in his war against Disney calling RCID "puppets" is mind-boggling.
"...quietly contrived with its puppet Board..."
The sheer hypocrisy of a group of people with absolutely no municipal administration qualifications who were hand-picked by the Governor specifically to do his bidding in his war against Disney calling RCID "puppets" is mind-boggling.
Vacationeer
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
Is it possible Chapek saved the US from a future with Ron? We’ll see.
This whole ordeal has an abundance of irony. That one could take the cake.
This whole ordeal has an abundance of irony. That one could take the cake.
WDWHero
Active Member
He's doing a good job all by himself lol, he still would have gone after.. checks notes... drag queens?
RamblinWreck
Well-Known Member
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
I know he's a republican but I'm pretty sure we all know what animal they'll pick to represent him for the caricature.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Couldn't Disney argue that they will provide lands at fair market value without the bar needed for eminent domain? And does a development agreement *need* consideration?
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's a bias - just maybe a little naivety.
Disney's only fighting this because they are the one that was targeted.
You can be assured that if the tables were turned, Disney wouldn't be stepping in the line of fire, risking their own economic well being to protect one of their competitors, either.
Disney's arguing this on 1st amendment rights and people are cynically saying things like "yeah, because Disney's so concerned about the first amendment - lolz!"
Truth is, they really are. They're very concerned about their own first amendment rights. They aren't trying to protect you or me or Sea World.
Them prevailing will, hopefully, have that side effect but their interests in this are purely to protect themselves.
And to be clear, I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
In the long run, I don't think how this pans out is going to do anything for or against Universal or Sea World's (or Legoland's) reputations at all for the vast majority of the general public.
Privately, I imagine many (if not most) executives for large businesses in the state would like to see Disney prevail on this, though.
Last edited:
Stripes
Premium Member
The development itself would be consideration. The district would receive more visitors, more economic activity, and more tax revenue due to the development pursued under the development agreement.
Last edited:
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Isn’t the consideration for the development agreement that they will develop the land for a specific use? Take away the politics. Why would a local government sign a development agreement with anyone? If I own a piece of land and I say I want to build a theme park on it and I ask the county to sign a development agreement to streamline the process. Why would the county agree to it? If the county decides the development I want is good for the county because it adds jobs and tax revenue they want to encourage me to do it. The development agreement wouldn’t allow me to then build a bunch of townhomes or a trash dump instead. So the consideration given is the limitation on what I can do with my property going forward.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Sure it is. The contract lays out what they can develop. It’s limited to Disney World stuff. They can’t build homes or a factory.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
After Kelo, Florida passed a constitutional amendment to restrict eminent domain much more than Kelo allows.
Stripes
Premium Member
It’s not directly stated, but it doesn‘t need to be because it is self-evident.
The lack of consideration claim doesn’t hold any water. There are others that do, but not that one.
Notypeo
Member
I can’t speak to Florida law or practice specifically. But my hunch is that countless projects statewide depend on development agreements where the consideration given by the developer is “you get a nice development in accordance with the plan.” And this is one of the places where things get tricky for the DeSantisites. Are they sure that the Villages made a discrete community benefit payment for every development agreement it struck? Do they really want every developer from now on needing to do so in order to be confident their agreement is enforceable? Do they want to argue for throwing out developer agreements left and right? And do conservative state court judges want anything to do with any of this?
17 billion in investments is certainly consideration. Further since the 17 billion was talked about in the yearly stockholders meeting it has to be true
It was also talked about in their legal filing. The new board is full of it.
Chi84
Premium Member
Forgoing condemnation proceedings would likely be enough because very little is needed in the way of consideration. But if people here really believe judges just decide things according to political affiliation, why worry about it?
gorillaball
Well-Known Member
It’s not as if the people dealing with legal matters would deal with the guest experience. Also, this could drag for years and years and the “cost” wouldn’t equate to popcorn buckets sold over any period of time.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
DeSantis is claiming that existing Florida law allows for the legislature to void a development agreement.
I mean, that statute reads to me like if the government passes a general law that contradicts a developer agreement (example: something like the ADA) or if a change in party happened and a gun store law was passed that only allowed 1 gun store per 10 square miles, and a development agreement had several gun stores in it.. in any case that section seems to say that development agreements are amended to account for the new law, not that they can just be voided. I don't think a law to allow voiding of development agreements after the fact would be allowed.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
Very true, thankfully Disney has deep pockets and can handle this in their legal department without it affecting the guest experience. Spending millions to fight this is peanuts for them, it would bankrupt a smaller business though. DeSantis picked a fight with probably the worst company he could have chosen, deep pockets and beloved by many, kind of a no win situation.
Who knows if the legal team and their spouse and little ones flies down to Orlando and meets with Disney legal with lawyer burning the midnight oil while the families soak up the guest experience VIP style escorted by cast tour guides to the parks courtesy of Mickey? Now that would be a great guest experience for the lucky ones! Savannah view suite at AK Lodge would be sweet!