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

Chi84

Premium Member
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.
The Rule Against Perpetuities still exists in Florida and specifically states that a way to avoid it is by providing that an interest in land vests or terminates “no later than 21 years after the death of an individual then alive.”

If you have a problem with the morality of this current legal provision you should address it to the Florida legislature.
 

Zummi Gummi

Pioneering the Universe Within!
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.
Bobs Burgers Straws GIF
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I too initially misinterpreted it as mockery, but as others explained to me, it’s a well-established practice:

What you see here is the common flaw of people these days. Seeing something they don't understand and instead of going... "hrmm, that's not familiar to me, I want to learn more about and understand why that is there..." they just rant about it flaunting their ignorance while trying to rally like minds. Instead of actually taking it as an opportunity to investigate or understand before making conclusions.

People are all to eager to open their mouth before they understand what they will talk about.
 

Smiley/OCD

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.
Regardless of which side of the aisle you’re aligned with, I beg to differ…this was a brilliant move… it’s no different than children finding out their parents have massive life insurance policies, so the kids know they’ll be rich when mom and dad croak.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
What you see here is the common flaw of people these days. Seeing something they don't understand and instead of going... "hrmm, that's not familiar to me, I want to learn more about and understand why that is there..." they just rant about it flaunting their ignorance while trying to rally like minds. Instead of actually taking it as an opportunity to investigate or understand before making conclusions.

People are all to eager to open their mouth before they understand what they will talk about.
I know you’re not specifically referring to one poster, but just to be fair @LittleBuford is firmly on the side of asking questions and investigating without ranting. 😊
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
What you see here is the common flaw of people these days. Seeing something they don't understand and instead of going... "hrmm, that's not familiar to me, I want to learn more about and understand why that is there..." they just rant about it flaunting their ignorance while trying to rally like minds. Instead of actually taking it as an opportunity to investigate or understand before making conclusions.

People are all to eager to open their mouth before they understand what they will talk about.
I agree and acknowledge my own rush to judgement on this issue yesterday. I should have taken a minute or two to Google the matter before posting here.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
This is very odd, and misleading, way to represent things. The death referred to by the clause is projected to happen long in future—that’s the whole point. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the death of a baby.
Nor does it apply to a specific individual. People outlive younger relatives all the time. Charles’ own mother outlived her younger sister by twenty years.
 

mf1972

Well-Known Member
i was working when i read this news last night. i did laugh a little & also at the comments made here. it made my day. if anything the nickname meatball is much more appropriate now.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I'll accept whatever the correct interpretation is. Yeah, I read it to mean all descendants of King Charles III, meaning when the royal line dies out which would be a VERY long time.
It’s a very common land rights item and it always means last living. Even if it wasn’t written that way, Disney would argue that it means last living, because otherwise it’s a perpetuity, and it is specifically written into the document that the King Charles part only comes into effect if it is ruled that a perpetuity isn’t allowed here. But also that’s how any court would interpret it, because again, it’s a norm.

It actually is written that way. Here is the exact wording and it says “living as of the date of declaration”

shall continue in effect until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration.
 

GoofGoof

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.
Relax, nobody invoked death. Go back and read the quotes earlier, it’s a common methodology used in legal contracts to avoid the rule against contracts in perpetuity.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
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.
It’s a common practice even today. It’s usually used with trusts which cannot continue forever. The trust is dissolved X number of years after the death of the last beneficiary. Very common and yes, sometimes a beneficiary is an infant. Nothing about this implies wishing for or calling for the death of anyone.
 

CastAStone

5th gate? Just build a new resort Bob.
Premium Member
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

It’s only not commonly used anymore in the UK where the rule against perpetuities has been codified as a 125 year limit. As no such limit exists in the US, it’s still common here.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I agree and acknowledge my own rush to judgement on this issue yesterday. I should have taken a minute or two to Google the matter before posting here.
I wasn't really calling you out.. you recognized your rush. I was more referring to the other who had so much more vitriol while letting his rear hang out in the open :)

I'm still kinda shocked we didn't see this as it unrolled... I admit I was not stalking the rcid website, but I assumed others like dcbaker and len were... while the details we got from meetings were pretty much bland.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom