Florida lawmakers to discuss takeover of Disney self-governing district

[Rasulis]

To add details, there are two parts to the agreement.

A standard 10-year development agreement giving Disney the power to develop X number of park, residential, hotel, retail and restaurant space. With the option to renew twice for a total of 30 years. This part of the agreement is standard and likely iron clad in court.

Two ways for the State to invalidate the agreement are present proof of quid pro quo or that the agreement is harmful to the State.

The second part of the agreement gave Disney approval power over all RCID (now CFTOD) decision making process in perpetuity (using the Royal Lives clause). With the exception of the maintenance of existing infrastructure. This one is easier to overturn. The first question would be is CFTOD and RCID the same entity with different names?

Disney lawyers are aware of all these options. The question is do they have another card up their sleeve?

[Breccia]

The second part of the agreement gave Disney approval power over all RCID (now CFTOD) decision making process

You're suggesting they could ignore environmental regulation?

[D Luniz]

You're suggesting they could ignore environmental regulation?

State level, maybe
I don't know FLs environmental stuff, but most states tend to write their environmental laws so the limits are at the floor that the EPA set at the federal level, with the state's only obligation being monitoring and enforcement (cant let the feds get the dollars from the fines, plus you can claim to be "business friendly" by just not reporting minor issues and give them time to clean up the mess)

but I wouldn't be shocked if Disney had some clause that they handle the monitoring themselves by having to file regular reports or something. And normally the only way for a city/county/state to get out of such agreements is for some major, or constant violations to occur to convince a judge that they need more oversight (like a consent decree on bad police depts)

[Breccia]

State level, maybe

Yes, state level, nothing about this agreement has any federal jurisdiction.

[Rasulis]

You're suggesting they could ignore environmental regulation?

No. All their developments still have to follow Florida codes and regulations. Including environmental regulations. Code enforcement is part of CFTOD building/permitting department day to day activities which are not subject to Disney's discretionary power.

[Edge-]

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/03/...isney-blunder/

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) ongoing legal battle with Disney is set to cost the state’s taxpayers $1,300 per hour in addition to the millions it has already cost to defend his extreme agenda in court.

According to Business Insider, the DeSantis administration has contracted two outside law firms to pursue a legal challenge to a maneuver on the part of the entertainment giant to strip the governor’s hand-picked Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board of much of its power.

Man, being an incompetent Republican isn't cheap! Shame Florida taxpayers are on the hook for DeSantis and his cronies getting easily outmaneuvered by the House of Mouse.

[s_bushido]

Man, being an incompetent Republican isn't cheap! Shame Florida taxpayers are on the hook for DeSantis and his cronies getting easily outmaneuvered by the House of Mouse.

Isn't this whole fiasco going to cost taxpayers either way? Like, what Disney was doing with this area was out of pocket for them, but now it's going to be Florida footing the bill instead? I haven't been paying much attention to the specifics, so I could be completely wrong.

[The Stormbringer]

Isn't this whole fiasco going to cost taxpayers either way? Like, what Disney was doing with this area was out of pocket for them, but now it's going to be Florida footing the bill instead? I haven't been paying much attention to the specifics, so I could be completely wrong.

I believe that's the case, at least in part. Either way, what we learned is that the Florida Republicans should've just left one of their biggest money-makers alone and they would've been fine. Instead they tried to take a performative shot at a big corporation for being 'woke' and it's biting them in the ass. Will they learn? Probably not!

[masterhorus8]

Isn't this whole fiasco going to cost taxpayers either way? Like, what Disney was doing with this area was out of pocket for them, but now it's going to be Florida footing the bill instead? I haven't been paying much attention to the specifics, so I could be completely wrong.

Isn't Disney also a taxpayer? So they're funding the defense against them?

[s_bushido]

Instead they tried to take a performative shot at a big corporation for being 'woke' and it's biting them in the ass. Will they learn? Probably not!

Of course not. They're going to be banging this "woke!" drum until voters finally get tired of their do-nothing bullshit. Maybe if 2024 goes as terribly for them as 2022 did, they'll start to figure it out. But given how things have been going, it's more likely that they'll just continue to double down on being completely useless and contrary to what people actually want.

[Poopymonster]

No. All their developments still have to follow Florida codes and regulations. Including environmental regulations. Code enforcement is part of CFTOD building/permitting department day to day activities which are not subject to Disney's discretionary power.

So yes, they can ignore them.
We all know Florida has such high regulations and codes.
Federal regulations though? Those stoopid Feds, wanting to make things nicer. Fuck em.

[Sunseeker]

So yes, they can ignore them.
We all know Florida has such high regulations and codes.
Federal regulations though? Those stoopid Feds, wanting to make things nicer. Fuck em.

Not that they really want to. Ultimately harming guests reduces future guests and profit. They have no desire to make a quick billion and then fuck off to Monaco. Disney is one of those weird businesses that has been in the game long enough as to actually care about the long game. They don't need to be flashy or loud or obnoxious, as this latest move proves. Sure, they'll get special treatment from the government thanks to lobbying, but they'll also get it because they're Disney, a staple of America. They don't get what they want simply by lining some Republicans pockets.

As South Park as repeatedly taught us, don't fuck with the Mouse.

[Ivanstone]

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/03/...isney-blunder/



Man, being an incompetent Republican isn't cheap! Shame Florida taxpayers are on the hook for DeSantis and his cronies getting easily outmaneuvered by the House of Mouse.

On one hand, I do think he fucked up. Because he’s a clown.

On the other hand, I’m also pretty sure DeSantis is happy with plan B. He gets to funnel tax payer money into conservative friendly law firms one of which has a personal friend in its employ. He and his base also get to play the victim card (again) against the evil woke corporation.

Meanwhile I gotta “cheer” for Disney because they’re the lesser evil in this case. Anybody sensible gets to be miserable. I’m hoping both of them self-immolate in some fashion.

[DarkTZeratul]

Isn't this whole fiasco going to cost taxpayers either way? Like, what Disney was doing with this area was out of pocket for them, but now it's going to be Florida footing the bill instead? I haven't been paying much attention to the specifics, so I could be completely wrong.

That was going to be the case when the plan was to dissolve the special district entirely. When they realized that doing so would stick taxpayers with a massive bill, they shifted to simply replacing the board instead.

[Edge-]

https://classifieds.orlandosentinel....8D5DiGho662015

By the way, does anyone want to see the public notice? Here it is, as was legally required.

Yes, it is boring as shit. No, that's not an excuse to say they pulled a fast one on you. All these notices are boring as shit.

[Poopymonster]

Not that they really want to. Ultimately harming guests reduces future guests and profit. They have no desire to make a quick billion and then fuck off to Monaco. Disney is one of those weird businesses that has been in the game long enough as to actually care about the long game. They don't need to be flashy or loud or obnoxious, as this latest move proves. Sure, they'll get special treatment from the government thanks to lobbying, but they'll also get it because they're Disney, a staple of America. They don't get what they want simply by lining some Republicans pockets.

As South Park as repeatedly taught us, don't fuck with the Mouse.

I wasn't saying they would lower their standards to the Floridian basement levels, I was saying they could.

[Rasulis]

So yes, they can ignore them.
We all know Florida has such high regulations and codes.
Federal regulations though? Those stoopid Feds, wanting to make things nicer. Fuck em.

Disney has its own building codes (EPCOT building codes) which dates back to the 1970. It has been regularly updated. The most recent edition dates 2018. It predates Florida building codes which was finalized in 1998 and became effective in 2002.

For the most part, both codes are comparable now. However EPCOT codes sections on accessibility, safety, emergency, inspection, electrical & energy efficiency/conservation, transportation, and basically anything involving large crowd control/safety/movement are more comprehensive than Florida's codes.

Disney's building inspectors also have a reputation of being very strict and knowledgeable. It is my understanding that all of Disney's building inspectors have engineering degrees. They also get paid a lot more than their Florida city's and county's counterparts.

Disney's building codes, design and construction practices, and inspection procedures are pretty much driven by maximizing customer's satisfaction and minimizing liability.

[Masark]

The second part of the agreement gave Disney approval power over all RCID (now CFTOD) decision making process in perpetuity (using the Royal Lives clause).

Not in perpetuity, just for a long ass time.

Perpetual agreements aren't legal. The purpose of a royal lives clause and similar constructs (similar constructs have been done using presidents' families) to to make the agreement last as long as possible without violating that rule by linking its term to the lifetimes of certain unspecified (because you don't want to have to go check the line of succession every time you draft a contract) but readily identifiable people (who are also likely to be long-lived), such as the king's currently living decedents (which we can list as Princes William, Harry, George, Louis, and Archie and Princesses Charlotte and Lilibet). The agreement ends 21 years after the last of those people dies.

Assuming their lifespans are in the 90th percentile, that would make the agreement last until about 2130.

[Elder Millennial]

So the one question I have about the Royal Lives Clause is this, is it until 21 years after the death of the last currently living descendant of Charles or until after the death of the last descendant of Charles.

Because these are two wildly different numbers. The latter would mean 21 years after the effective extinction of the Windsor House. Considering that some royal families like the Habsburgs, Bourbons and Hohenzollerns have been around for over a thousand years.....

[Masark]

So the one question I have about the Royal Lives Clause is this, is it until 21 years after the death of the last currently living descendant of Charles or until after the death of the last descendant of Charles.

The former. As I said, the purpose of the clause is to prevent it from being interpreted as an illegal perpetual agreement, while still making it last as long as possible.