re: Breakdown of the Florida counter suit against Disney. Absolute destruction

quote:

---

RobbBobb

---

Simping for commerce clause overreach.

This is what an obsession does to you folks.

quote:

---

Apparently Disney panicked and didn't hire specialists in the type of law governing these weird Florida special districts,..

Tldr they didn't properly give notice to all landowners in Reedy Creek

---

There was a thread on this several weeks ago about this. I commented that... It either comes down to " Diane 's group was supposed to coordinate" (and Diane was on vacation) or someone was trying to make a name and failed. I got a reply that ' you think a multi billion dollar company would lose sight on this? .no way."

it's hilarious how often it happens. Bureaucracy is an amazing study. When you hit 200k employees you have a representative population.... Only a hand full of people are incredibly smart. Most just want to get home before 530.

quote:

---

RuLSU

---

did you watch the video? its laid out exactly where they fricked up, by a lawyer who's entire practice in Florida was dealing with special development districts. Only Florida really has these things, and its not normal Florida property law either, so you have to be an expert in the exact statutes that govern them or you are going to frick it up, which Disney did. And we know they didn't hire specialist lawyers to draft the 11th hour development agreement, because it was drafter by Disney's general counsel, and then for optics they changed it on the public hearing literature to the reedy creek counsel (who also had been employed previously by Disney)

We also know that they didn't understand the statute because in the second public hearing they didn't properly publish the very substantially changes they had made to the wording of the development agreement between the 1st and 2nd public meetings require by statute, they only referenced it by name (the changes that contained all the restrictive covenants granting Disney all the governmental powers of reedy creek), which again in and of itself invalidates the development agreement like it never happened, per the statute. publicly disclosing the entirety of the proposal in the meeting documents is a statutory requirement. If you don't do it the agreement is invalid, full stop.

And we have to assume they didn't even understand basic contract law because the development agreement they pushed through was an invalid contract on its face, you cant do a contract where both parties don't have proper consideration, precisely so you cant do stuff like what Disney tried. They only thing Reedy Creek gained in that new development deal was an assurance that Disney would sell any land to the special district at fair market value, which is in fact no consideration at all since reedy creek already had the power of imminent domain to take the land at fair market value. That whole thing proves that Reedy Creek was in fact a Disney puppet because no properly constituted board would ever agree to give away all development rights to a private entity for no consideration, even if it were legal for them to do, which it wasn't. The legislature never gave reedy creek the power to sign over its governmental powers or development rights to Disney in the first place. Reedy Creek only had the powers that the statue authorizing it to exist specified, no more no less. Turning that stuff over to Disney is not within those powers.