That's a big IF.
-
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
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
StaceyH_SD
Well-Known Member
I saw somebody post elsewhere that the current board removed the signed covenants from the 2/8 BOS packet?
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
Yes, it appears to. I’m distressed that there has been poor retention of these records on the website. There is no reason packets should be updated two months after the fact.
StaceyH_SD
Well-Known Member
Certainly not very Sunshine-y of them
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
Unserious people.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
Because it’s insane
Why would it matter if they honor it or not, as the contract is owned by Disney and they would be hiring the contractors to do the work per the contract? They board still has the authority to award a contract to fix roads and build canals, just not to do anything with the parks and resorts.
It's quite obvious both from the Florida and US Constitutions that the law is unconstitutional. At least if Disney has to sue, it will be at the state level and not suing the board and having to pay both sides of the lawsuit. Since DeSantis signed the bill, couldn't he be named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The state proposal does not automatically void the contract. It allows a new board to review and reconsider contracts entered into before they took office.
Which, since the contracts were legally entered into, would make this action illegal as well.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Would the state proposal give Disney standing to sue the state? They wouldn’t be the ones acting to void the contract, the District would be doing that.
I thought one of the amendments was to void any contract made prior to a certain date, or am I not remembering that correctly? I also thought that the amendment giving them the ability to review and void a contract was part of a different amendment, wasn't it? So hard to keep track of what they are doing.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
That's the intent.
Dranth
Well-Known Member
No, but many of them assume a large number of the people who are using it are frauds and faking or just lazy and then use that to "scare" people into thinking the whole thing is a disaster that must be gutted.
JAB
Well-Known Member
That was my point. They keep talking up "monorail inspections" like it's some sort of threat when the monorail is far from the only option to get from place to place in WDW.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
I would think so, since getting g the law itself declared unconstitutional would negate the Board's ability to void it. I suppose it's possible that the Board would try to fall back on its other arguments for voiding the contract, though, so Disney may end up having to fight it on both fronts anyway. I'm sure that's exactly what the governor and his cronies want - to make it as difficult and expensive as possible for Disney. Even if both the State and Board lose, he'll convince himself that he won by creating the headache in the first place.
JAB
Well-Known Member
Four resorts? The only resorts on the monorail loop are Contempo, GF, and Poly. FW & WL already use buses along with water taxis. In addition, GF and Poly also have water taxi docks. So the only place buses would be an absolute necessity would be Contempo, but then only for those unable or unwilling to walk the very short distance to MK. Transportation from the resorts to parks other than MK is already done by bus.
Not to say they wouldn't add buses, but those buses wouldn't be shouldering the entire load of getting every monorail resort guest to MK. I just don't think it would be the "cluster" you or the government think it would.