Power play: Disney handicapped new Reedy Creek board before handing over control

[In It to Win It]

Last edited Wed Mar 29, 2023, 05:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Power play: Disney handicapped new Reedy Creek board before handing over control

Disney Areements


This article goes into a little more detail than the previous one I posted.

According to the new board members, who are now known as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight board, and their attorneys, Disney is allowed the maximum possible density and building heights inside Walt Disney World. Other property owners will need Disney’s permission to expand within the district, and they and Reedy Creek leaders will need to seek Disney’s approval if they made any aesthetic changes to their properties within the district.

The district is also not allowed to permit advertisements of any companies that compete with ones that operate within Reedy Creek, board members said.

“We lose control over everything other than to maintain the roads and maintain the infrastructure,” one board member said.

Board members said they found out about the agreement after their appointments.

WFTV worked with an independent attorney who specializes in government law to analyze the agreement Wednesday morning. Upon initial review, the attorney said the agreement appeared to be valid.

“I’m struggling to find a reason why it’s unlawful,” the attorney said, noting the type of agreement struck was normal between large developers and governments, it was properly noticed and Reedy Creek’s leadership willingly entered into it.

The unusual part, the attorney said, was the powers the agreement locked in. However, the attorney noted nothing about the existing structure of Reedy Creek was normal and, in that context, the agreement made sense.

They also said Reedy Creek and Florida lawmakers could run into constitutional issues if they tried to undo the agreement since governments can’t impair existing contracts.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. This makes me smile

[Igel]

35. Because a large corporation has agreed to allow itself to

violate all kinds of local community norms? And benefit from a sweet deal that for any other corporation, or any corporation in some other states, would be called "corporate subsidies"? Imagine if Foxconn had done what it said, would opposition to corporate subsidies declined? DUers would have rallied around Foxconn?

Yeah, didn't think so.

When my choice is "pro-deSantis" or "pro-multi-billion-dollar community-screwing corporation" my response is, "Waiter, I'll have another--make it a double. No--make it 2. Doubles."

[In It to Win It]

37. I'm more of a fan of the old saying

"two wrongs don't make a right"

I don't think any of us here were shedding tears for Disney when DeSantis was on the attack. We can go back and forth about Disney's "sweet deal", but I don't think that "sweet deal" for something that for a letter they wrote. My position would be the same for Foxconn. This is not to conflate these two separate things because Disney "allowing itself to violate local community norms" and Ron DeSantis revoking that privilege for a letter they wrote are two separate things.

Disney has done a host of unethical things in Disney World. DeSantis had a host of reasons to revoke this privilege, including for all of their unethical shit. However, the reason is for the one ethical thing they did. I wouldn't be in favor of taking away "corporate subsidies" because a company wrote a letter, even if it was Foxconn. That is a bridge too far for me.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

39. What corporate subsidies are you talking about?

Disney/ReedyCreek pays property taxes like everyone else. Reedy Creek pays an additional $160 million to pay for infrastructure and service infrastructure debt that would otherwise be carried by Orange County taxpayers.

[TheBlackAdder]

2. Does this mean Disney gets a billion dollars and no longer has to maintain their roads?

[lostnfound]

3. It was all plot, in my opinion

Desantis pretends to fight, Disney pretends to fight, taxpayers stuck with a bill. Ultimately this will be a good guy on Disney’s books at year-end.

[Effete Snob]

5. We shall see

If the DeSantis administration and this board intend to go after covenants in land titles, then boy howdy is Florida going to get pretty interesting.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. I Diagree A Bit

I don't think Disney was in on a plan WITH DeSantis, but against it.
They added poison pills that hoped the board would reject, or miss.
Disney really didn't fight hard over this. They're "whatever, we won't fight this" happened quite a while back.
It looks more to me like Disney was trying to pretend to concede to DeSantis while putting a knife in his back.
And, DeSantis fell for it.

[azureblue]

29. When DeSantis went after Disney the first time

Disney's lawyers combed through ever agreement to find the weak spots. This is how the mouse works, and they never tip their hand or make noise about it. Stupid DeSantis thought Disney would roll, but this, and Disney hosting the Gay event, was the first returned fire. Disney knows they are a business first and they will use that to do what they want to do. As is always said, "do not mess with the mouse". You think scientology is bad about subterfuge?

[ProfessorGAC]

34. A Question Not Worth Answering

Since it's a nonsequitur.

[Johonny]

7. I think it means DeSantis never looked at the board, its prior agreements, or what

changing the board would do. This was all cosmetic and like all GOP policy, it was only FOX news talking point deep.

[lostnfound]

42. Why would any of this matter to desantis? He cares about money and power

Not taxpayers, not fairness, not democratic control over reedy Creek.

[Cha]

4. Haha.. Woe is deSadist & his team

of Ghouls.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

6. Mickey says suck it, Ron.

[Lovie777]

8. Sounds like the Disney lawyers did their homework and.....................

actually read contracts, rules, laws, books, etc.

Now watch DeSatan and his merry men/women try first to go to courts, since they have the courts in their pockets, then try to change Florida's Constitution in their own fascist image.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

40. Let's not forget this will be their second trip to the drawing board to prop up Desantis

Desantis and his minions had to fix the first temper tantrum legislation that completely dissolved Reedy Creek - thereby transferring over $1 billion in municipal debt to Orange County.

The Florida Legislature had to hold a special session to concoct this current consolation prize for Desantis which is the takeover of the now toothless board.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

9. This paragraph from the article is hilarious.

Particular focus was paid to one section that board members said locked in development rights of a particular parcel until 21 years after the death of the youngest current descendant of King Charles, or until Disney abandons the resort.

Did they really write that in there just for fun?

[obamanut2012]

14. This is HYSTERICAL

[Celerity]

17. no, it is basic common law

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217770825#post16

[Celerity]

16. Rule against perpetuities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities

The rule against perpetuities is a legal rule in the common law that prevents people from using legal instruments (usually a deed or a will) to exert control over the ownership of private property for a time long beyond the lives of people living at the time the instrument was written. Specifically, the rule forbids a person from creating future interests (traditionally contingent remainders and executory interests) in property that would vest beyond 21 years after the lifetimes of those living at the time of creation of the interest, often expressed as a "life in being plus twenty-one years". In essence, the rule prevents a person from putting qualifications and criteria in a deed or a will that would continue to affect the ownership of property long after he or she has died, a concept often referred to as control by the "dead hand" or "mortmain".

The basic elements of the rule against perpetuities originated in England in the 17th century and were "crystallised" into a single rule in the 19th century. The rule's classic formulation was given in 1886 by the American legal scholar John Chipman Gray:

No interest is good unless it must vest, if at all, not later than twenty-one years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.

— John Chipman Gray, Rule Against Perpetuities § 201.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

19. Right... but they had to be having some fun by choosing that particular living person, right?

Or maybe they feel like that's someone who has good health care.

[Celerity]

20. Because it is grounded in English common law, the British monarch at the time of writing is often

used by tradition in many nations. The US also commonly uses the current US President or other well-known families.

The Royal Lives clause

As a result of the rule against perpetuities it became important for trust deeds to expressly specify the "perpetuity period" applicable to the trust, this being the period of time after which the trust would terminate and its assets vest. One manner of doing so (which was commonplace in years gone by and continues to feature in many existing trust deeds) was by reference to the British royal family. Until 31 July 1995, the Cayman Islands perpetuity period could only be defined by reference to lifetimes of persons alive when the trust was established. The typical perpetuity period being:

"21 years from the death of the survivor of the descendants now living on the date of this Settlement of His late Majesty King George V".

Royal lives clause

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_lives_clause

A Royal lives clause is a contract clause which provides that a certain right must be exercised within (usually) the lifetime plus 21 years of the last living descendant of a British Monarch who happens to be alive at the time when the contract is made.

Form

A sample clause would read:

The option must be exercised before the end of the period ending at the expiry of 21 years from the death of the last survivor of all the lineal descendants of [his late Majesty King George V or some other British monarch] who have been born on the date of this agreement.

Rationale

The clause became part of contractual drafting in response to common law rule developed by the courts known as the rule against perpetuities. That rule provided that any future disposition of property must vest within "a life in being plus 21 years". The rule generally affects two types of transactions: trusts and options to acquire property. Generally speaking, such transfers must vest before the end of the maximum period, or the grant will be void. Under the old common law, a transaction would be void even if the property might possibly vest after the end of the maximum period, but now most jurisdictions have, by statute, adopted "wait and see" laws.

In an attempt to mitigate the perceived harshness of the common law rule, and to maximise the possible length of time for which trusts in particular could subsist, lawyers began to draft so-called Royal lives clauses. Royal lives were chosen because (a) it was assumed that being affluent, at least one or two members of the family could be assumed to live a reasonably long period of time, and (b) being Royalty, it would be reasonably easy to calculate the lives of the descendants. In practice, a dead monarch was usually chosen so as to maximise the possibility of a grandchild or great-grandchild who would be outside of the immediate Royal family having recently been born.

snip

Outside the United Kingdom

In the United States, President's lives clauses are used for similar reasons; well-documented political and industrial families (such as the Kennedys and Rockefellers) are also used. In the Commonwealth, use of Royal lives tends to persist. In Ireland, the descendants of Éamon de Valera are sometimes used.

[machoneman]

31. Law school teachers will often inject nonsensical stuff like that. Why? Merely to see....

..if any student actually read it! Here, they are fucking with the new Board and DeSatan. Hilarious!

[MichMan]

10. I love it when business controls government.

and gives the middle finger to politicians.

[OldBaldy1701E]

24. Interesting. I find it abhorrent when businesses attempt to manipulate government.

However, in this case, I do find it pretty sweet I must admit.

[JHB]

11. It's a trap!

[not fooled]

28. Hahahahahahahahaha

Thanks for posting that.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

41. .

[Beetwasher.]

12. AND They Offloaded All The Cost for Roads and Infrastructure onto FL! LOL!

All the new board gets is the bills. ROFL!

[genxlib]

18. It's not free

Disney pays taxes to the board. they always have.

The question will be whether those taxes stay reasonable or whether the the board tries to stick it to the Mouse.

[In It to Win It]

21. We just might find out there's more to that agreement when they cross that bridge LOL

[azureblue]

32. the board does not have enough money

or attorneys to fight Disney. The Mouse has already figured this one out. Disney is two steps ahead of stupid. While DeSantis is trying to figure which sock goes on the left foot, Disney has already confisticated his car. Disney does what it wants to do.

[C_U_L8R]

13. That fairy dust packs a mean punch.

Now go sweep the streets, magat clowns.

[obamanut2012]

15. I knew Disney was up to something when they didn't go after FL in court

No one beats the Mouse.

lolz

[smb]

22. LOL

Board members said they found out about the agreement after their appointments.

[mcar]

25. Well played, WDW, well played

Might just make me go back.

The King Charles part is chef's kiss.

[Mad_Machine76]

26. No wonder

there didn't seem to be a big "to do" about the whole thing.

[wryter2000]

27. I cannot rec this enough

[bpj62]

30. Long game

Disney played the long game. They just quietly went about their business while DeSantis was running his mouth and talking about how the kingdom was dead. Disney was singled out not because they disagreed with DeSantis don't say gay bill but because they stopped making political donations to Florida legislators after DeSantis singled them out. Disney greased both sides of the aisle in the Florida Legislature and now no one is getting anything.
As for this agreement I can guarantee you that Disney has lawyers on retainer who made damn sure this and other agreements are ironclad. DeSantis got played and it will be interesting to see his reaction. I can guarantee you the state does not have the same level of attorneys that Disney does.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

33. This makes me smile

Disney has what is in effect a utility district that maintains the roads and infrastructure for Walt Disney World called Reedy Creek Development. When you are at WDW you see a Reedy Creek Fire Department and police station. When Disney offended DeathSantis on his "don't say gay" law, DeathSantis first had the Florida legis pass a bill to abolish Reedy Creek which would have cause Florida taxpayers assume several billion of bonds and would have been a breach of these bonds.

DeathSantis had the Florida legis rescind that bill and adopt a new bill to let DeathSantis appoint the board of this utility district. Disney had sufficient time to screw DeathSantis' new board

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Nevilledog]

36. Wish it had sound

Link to tweet

[Takket]

38. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

okay okay okay... I just have to say, when this happened, I was DUMBFOUNDED Disney did not sue over this. I did not understand how the hell they would allow this hostile takeover, with the threats from the future board members to use their power to stop Disney projects if they thought the company was acting "woke". It made NO SENSE to me, but, well, now it make sense! I guess it just goes to show we don't always know the whole story and in a battle of whits, rethugs are severely outgunned every time.

This entire thing was a political stunt to begin with that had NOTHING TO DO with ANYTHING other than desantis throwing a hissy fit because Disney did not like the "don't say gay bill", and now the new board swaggers in, big smiles on their faces, ready to tell disney they can't build a new ride because they don't like gay characters in a new show, so some such bullshit, only to find out they can't DO SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL So they accepted these appointments ready to play games with disney, and now they find out they have these jobs and NO TOYS to play with LOL Well you can sit there and pound sand you feckless losers!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[LetMyPeopleVote]

43. Disney just completely stripped the power from Ron DeSantis' handpicked board

Link to tweet

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

44. lol