DeSantis’ Reedy Creek board says Disney stripped its power

[Del Tachi]

I'm not going to actively support a conglomerate's efforts to evade oversight by legitimate state authorities

[DrScholl]

I'm not going to actively support a conglomerate's efforts to evade oversight by legitimate state authorities, but I can't exaxtly say I'm sorry for DeSantis here.

The problem is that DeSantis was going to use this board to manipulate Disney's content which is not what the board's authority is for. That said the board maintains it's authority which is to maintain the roads and infrastructure.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I must confess I'm a bit torn here: while I detest DeSantis and realize he's doing this for the wrong reasons, I also don't think a massive corporation should be allowed to run a Company Town within its own Special District in 2023.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I'm not going to actively support a conglomerate's efforts to evade oversight by legitimate state authorities, but I can't exaxtly say I'm sorry for DeSantis here.

"Legitimate" is becoming an increasingly fraught word when it comes to Republican officials. (They'll likely get all self-righteously angry at that description, but it's a grave they've been digging themselves for decades.)

The larger problem this exemplifies is how destructively corrosive Republicans are to the rule of law, particularly when they act in  bad faith within our already weakened system.

1) Disney gets a cushy but not pro-actively abusive special treatment vis a vis governance of its Florida property.
2) DeSantis gets mad that Disney opposes his agenda in the public sphere, and decides to abuse his and his party's governmental power to punish them.
3) The Florida GOP obediently passes a bill punishing Disney, which Ron signs with great fanfare.
4) The Florida GOP realizes the legal realities of their punitive PR stunt are going to hurt them at the polls.
5) With far less fanfare, they changed from abolition of Disney's special status to tyrannical oversight.
6) Disney leverages existing law to tie the hands of DeSantis' appointees and tie the government up in court.
7) Republicans are unhappy, because they're supposed to be the only ones allowed to abuse the law in bad faith.

All of this (with the possible exception of the original creation of Reedy Creek) is very obvious bad faith, using technical legalities to trample the spirit and practice of rule of law into the muck. In a functioning government, #2 should have been met wkth unanimous opposition, with DeSantis forced to back down and apologize or face impeachment. Obviously, that was never going to happen, so now we get this whole miserable train of events.

What Disney is doing is bad, in the sense that it further erodes a very weakened system. It's understandable, because it's playing by the same lack of respect that their opponent is. But the elephant in the living room is that  GOP governor can say, "hey, I want some legislation to punish my political opponents" and the response of his party is "you got it". And we're mostly numb to just how awful this is. We're the proverbial frogs in a pot, as the GOP commits constant, escalating assaults on rule of law and representative government.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Could the fact that there is no such potentate as "King Charles III, King of England," as opposed to "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," raise issues with an unsympathetic enough judge?

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

2) DeSantis gets mad that Disney opposes his agenda in the public sphere, and decides to abuse his and his party's governmental power to punish them.

…

In a functioning government, #2 should have been met wkth unanimous opposition, with DeSantis forced to back down and apologize or face impeachment. Obviously, that was never going to happen, so now we get this whole miserable train of events.

This is where I’m at. Reedy Creek shouldn’t exist on its own principles, but the fact that DeSantis is trying to get political retribution is deplorable.

Edit: that should read “Reedy Creek shouldn’t exist…” Autocorrect hates when I try to type “shouldn’t”

[Illiniwek]

Absolutely hilarious troll job.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Among other things, a “declaration of restrictive covenants” spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or “fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.”

That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document.

What.

Believe it or not these sort of clauses are common in property law. It's basically a loophole to get around being unable to state it's in effect forever. But property law does allow it to run for up to 21 years until after the death of someone even if they're completely unrelated to the deal. The British royal family are commonly used because their lineage is so well documented and easy to track.

Also the youngest of King Charles III's descendents is 4 meaning if he lives to be at least 83 it'll still be in effect for another century and with royal longevity likely even longer. It's not forever but for the rest of the life of almost all people currently alive including newborn infants currently in the maternity ward.

[Donerail]

Could the fact that there is no such potentate as "King Charles III, King of England," as opposed to "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," raise issues with an unsympathetic enough judge?

No, Charles III is described unambiguously and adequately. Even unsympathetic judges usually will not prefer that kind of parlor trick; "oh, this language actually refers to Charles the Fat, not the living figure we all know as 'King Charles III of England'" is not the kind of thing a judge with a modicum of self-respect will put in an opinion, particularly when interpreting a contract as carefully drafted and otherwise reasonable as this one.

There are also multiple principles that backstop this interpretation, such as the clause stating that the agreement exists in perpetuity and only gets into these issues if a section of it is held to otherwise violate the rule against perpetuities; the 300 year wait-and-see period under Florida law for such interests; and the general rule that contracts are to be construed against the drafter (here, the Reedy Creek board).

[John Dule]

Hopefully Disney's legal fees over the coming years are substantial. I'd rather see that money go to the compliance lawyers than produce one festering anal polyp of cinema after another.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Could the fact that there is no such potentate as "King Charles III, King of England," as opposed to "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," raise issues with an unsympathetic enough judge?

No, Charles III is described unambiguously and adequately. Even unsympathetic judges usually will not prefer that kind of parlor trick; "oh, this language actually refers to Charles the Fat, not the living figure we all know as 'King Charles III of England'" is not the kind of thing a judge with a modicum of self-respect will put in an opinion, particularly when interpreting a contract as carefully drafted and otherwise reasonable as this one.

There are also multiple principles that backstop this interpretation, such as the clause stating that the agreement exists in perpetuity and only gets into these issues if a section of it is held to otherwise violate the rule against perpetuities; the 300 year wait-and-see period under Florida law for such interests; and the general rule that contracts are to be construed against the drafter (here, the Reedy Creek board).

That makes sense. It seemed like a reach to me too; it just came to mind as a potential (tenuous, obnoxious) legal strategy that could exist.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Tying the exercise of governmental power to the life of a foreign monarch is blatantly against the public policy and will be struck down in court.

[Blue3]

Among other things, a “declaration of restrictive covenants” spells out that the district is barred from using the Disney name without the corporation’s approval or “fanciful characters such as Mickey Mouse.”

That declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to the document.

What.

In the next Dune movie...


"The rivalry between House Atreides and House Harkonnen goes back tens of thousands of years. The origins are obscure; there are rumors they were once called "Disney" and "DeSantis." Oral traditions date it back to a multi-generational rivalry over access to a mouse in a castle, bathroom rights, and the sports of juveniles. Historians doubt the veracity of these details, and are puzzled over how they could be connected, but still the myth persists."

[DrScholl]

Tying the exercise of governmental power to the life of a foreign monarch is blatantly against the public policy and will be struck down in court.

You've said that you are a lawyer for a city yet you submit a poor legal take like this. Let me explain this to you. Citizenship is irrelevant here and so is the concept of the monarchy, because those people are not legal parties in the agreement and as already stated this sort of timeline has been used in real estate before.

Let's understand what the district was intended to do. That is to collect taxes, maintain infrastructure under it's own code and provide emergency services for the parks. Disney protected it's authority to make infrastructure decisions so that DeSantis couldn't screw with infrastructure of the park to force Disney to make content that was non-objectionable to conservatives (and yes, he admitted he was coming for content).

“When you lose your way, you’ve got to have people that are going to tell you the truth,” DeSantis proclaimed. “So we hope they can get back on. But I think all of these board members very much would like to see the type of entertainment that all families can appreciate.”

[John Dule]

Tying the exercise of governmental power to the life of a foreign monarch is blatantly against the public policy and will be struck down in court.

You've said that you are a lawyer for a city yet you submit a poor legal take like this. Let me explain this to you. Citizenship is irrelevant here and so is the concept of the monarchy, because those people are not legal parties in the agreement and as already stated this sort of timeline has been used in real estate before.

He wasn't saying that Charles was a party to the agreement, lol. He said that this was going to be voided by the courts as an unconscionable contract and/or contract against public policy. I personally don't know what the Florida standard is for unconscionability and the like, so IDK if Reactionary's confidence is well-founded or not.

[afleitch]

I don't think we need the caveat of 'well I don't agree with Disney running Reedy Creek'. No one genuinely gave a sh-t about it, from either side until DeSantis decided he wanted to target Disney because they didn't heel. For all the critiques of 'woke capitalism', it might be the only pushback against this sort of overreach.

[Torie]

Aside from the litigation, this last minute development agreement, or much of it, could be negated by state legislation, which trumps an agreement with a locality. There might be breach  of contract issues, but in this case it may be development agreements are subject to evolutions in state law.

[GoTfan]

https://twitter.com/BostonJerry/status/1641189877629739011

[Blue3]

Tying the exercise of governmental power to the life of a foreign monarch is blatantly against the public policy and will be struck down in court.

You've said that you are a lawyer for a city yet you submit a poor legal take like this. Let me explain this to you. Citizenship is irrelevant here and so is the concept of the monarchy, because those people are not legal parties in the agreement and as already stated this sort of timeline has been used in real estate before.

He wasn't saying that Charles was a party to the agreement, lol. He said that this was going to be voided by the courts as an unconscionable contract and/or contract against public policy. I personally don't know what the Florida standard is for unconscionability and the like, so IDK if Reactionary's confidence is well-founded or not.

Have you read the other posts on this? It seems quite legally sound.