News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

Dranth

Well-Known Member
Welcome to the peculiarities of US presidential candidates actually get on the ballot. Right now he isn’t trying to appeal to most people. He actually doesn’t even need to appeal to most Republican primary voters in order to clench the nomination.
This, though it is kind of funny because the back tracking people have to do now a days when they reach the general is turning out to be too much. On a national level, going "full base" to win the primary hasn't worked out well.
 

Smiley/OCD

Well-Known Member
Have to eat crow, I was shocked when Disney announced they were going to do nothing when this took effect, but little did I know they had already won. And yes, all of this would have been public information easily found and digested by anyone who took the time to go through things.

But as someone who works in local government, I could tell you that volunteer board members not knowing what is going on until the first meeting is par for the course.
It’s not just local politics…this goes on in Washington DC EVERYDAY
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Pardon my ignorance, but does “last survivor” mean the descendants as of the time this was adopted or does this term get extended if Kate or Meghan have additional children?
Either way, this was a BRILLIANT move…
Based on clarifications from others, I think it’s meant to be understood as the last survivor from among the currently living descendants.
 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
One of the board members (Ziegler) had this to say on Twitter yesterday:

“The arrogance of @Disney continues… from ignoring parents and allowing radicals to sexualize our children, to now ignoring Florida taxpayers by sneaking in a last minute sweetheart development agreement, Disney has once again overplayed their hand in Florida.

We won’t stand for this and we won’t back down.

If unlawful actions were taken, this development agreement will be nullified.”
8B0F4C90-2853-4551-A820-7D4E7EDE31D9.jpeg
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Either way, this was a BRILLIANT move…
Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.
Did you miss where this is something with an established history and precedent? It’s entirely serious and not a joke.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.
Reposting just in case you haven’t seen it. These clauses are (or at least were) fairly common and not absurd or arbitrary.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.
I too initially misinterpreted it as mockery, but as others explained to me, it’s a well-established practice:


I certainly don’t think it has anything to do with making light of anyone’s death.
 

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.

That ambiguity is what may nullify the agreement under Florida's contra proferentem rule. It doesnt specify a date when it concludes, just sometime in the future.
 

MR.Dis

Well-Known Member
I made the prediction that Disney would not sue to overturn the change in RCID. I will make the prediction that the new District will not sue to cancel the last minute contracts. The District can still use its powers to oversee the "health and safety" of new developments. From what I am seeing, the only thing that is prohibited is for the board to be involved in the actual development of any new projects. When cooler heads take a look at this, it is not worth the time or effort to try to cancel. Mr Ron will probably make a very discrete call to the board and advise them to just "Let it Go".
 

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
This, though it is kind of funny because the back tracking people have to do now a days when they reach the general is turning out to be too much. On a national level, going "full base" to win the primary hasn't worked out well.
This is where I think, if he has any sense, Desantis won't want to get involved in the next phase of this whole mess of his own creation.

Maybe it would help endear him to Republican primary voters, though I have my doubts a protracted legal battle with Disney is going to be something he even wants to be up there on stage talking about alongside other candidates for the nomination. It makes him look silly as everyone else is talking about geopolitics, China, Russia, etc. and he is having to talk about fighting Disney World. The whole thing will stick in people's heads and make his main opponent look almost statesmanly in contrast. The likelihood of any legal challenges dragging on into the general election makes it even more imperative to try and back away from this rather than get more involved... at least, that would be my advice if I were advising him!

The late night jokes about declaring war on the China pavilion at Epcot write themselves...
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
Watching more and more clips of these new board members with their knickers in a knot yesterday makes me curious to what these people thought their job was going to actually be. Did they think their role was ever more than the mundane goings on of a local municipality? I keep seeing the one guy going on about “all we can do is road improvements and maintain infrastructure”. Yah! That’s the whole point. You’re not designing new parades and attractions or building new hotels, you’re making sure the trash gets picked up on time and the mosquito sprayer truck is making the rounds. It’s just hilarious to see how mad they are when they realized what a terribly boring job they have been given 😂
Yep! Their comments yesterday were a very thinly-veiled way of saying, "No fair! They're making it harder for us to F with them for political retribution!"
 

Prince-1

Well-Known Member
Not really - the inclusion of that absolutely arbitrary, absurd clause, shows that they know that eventually this will be overturned legally, and it was just about making a statement. As others have said, they just hope that DeSantis time as governor is coming to a close as he moves to the national stage, but given his massive popularity in Florida, the thought that whomever follows him isn't going to continue what he started is just delusional.

The more you think about it, the more stupid and silly it was to include, not to mention the morbidity of it, invoking the deaths of people who are currently infants. I can't stand the Spare, his repulsive wife, and their constant disgusting behavior, but in this case - they would totally be justified in being outraged that Disney is creating contracts where the deaths of their children are used as clauses in what basically amounts to joke.

Well that is one unique way of spinning what was done by Disney.
 

Dranth

Well-Known Member
I made the prediction that Disney would not sue to overturn the change in RCID. I will make the prediction that the new District will not sue to cancel the last minute contracts. The District can still use its powers to oversee the "health and safety" of new developments. From what I am seeing, the only thing that is prohibited is for the board to be involved in the actual development of any new projects. When cooler heads take a look at this, it is not worth the time or effort to try to cancel. Mr Ron will probably make a very discrete call to the board and advise them to just "Let it Go".
I do remember you saying they would not challenge it in court, though I don't know that I agreed with all your reasoning at the time, it certainly turned out true. Hopefully you are right about this one as well but my personal experience dealing with politicians has shown me how hard it is for them to let things go sometimes. Ego's play a HUGE part and while the ones who play the game the best can keep that in check, all of them struggle with it.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
That ambiguity is what may nullify the agreement under Florida's contra proferentem rule. It doesnt specify a date when it concludes, just sometime in the future.

Exactly. It is an antiquated provision that hasn't been in wide use in new agreements for the better part of a century, and updating it with Charles in 2023 is just absurd, unnecessary, and frankly disgusting. If it were not for people playing politics and liking the supposed "gotchya!" nature of it, this would be widely condemned. This isn't 1930 any more.

I can't think of any reason besides political affiliation that wouldn't make someone think including a provision that is based upon the death of a 21 month old baby who has less than nothing to do with the situation is appropriate or in any way near good taste. The flurry of responses here just shows how terribly far down the rabbit hole of "as long as I agree politically with the entity doing it, morality is irrelevant," we are.

If the other party had done this, people would be calling for riots in the street.

In any case...back to the dumpster fire this thread goes, LOL.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
That ambiguity is what may nullify the agreement under Florida's contra proferentem rule. It doesnt specify a date when it concludes, just sometime in the future.
Florida law covers what is allowable to avoid perpetuities.
 

James122

Well-Known Member
I really think they felt they were going to walk into Team Disney and start cancelling Tiana's Bayou Adventure and telling Iger what movies they can make.
This. DeSantis and his board of cronies truly seemed to partake in the shared delusion that they would be wielding significant influence not just over Disney's Florida operations, but across every division of the company, up to and including approving movie pitches and okaying TV series greenlight decisions.

The fact that Disney kneecapped them and did it all out in the open under their noses just makes the it all the more hilarious.

DeSantis's fight with Disney is such a clear violation of the 1st Amendment (which I'm sure he knows) since he's admitted his actions were punitive and in response to Disney's criticism of the Don't Say Gay bill, so I applaud Disney for outmaneuvering him and making the board look like incompetent buffoons.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom