Bare-ya-cuda
Well-Known Member
I never said they were dangerous.
Disney outmaneuvers Dumb Desantis
- Thread starter StmarysCity79
- Start date
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
Yes the trash would love to put a laser sight on my head but fortunately too stupid to know which end to use.You the dude with a red doton your head?
awpitt
Main Streeter
This really isn't that difficult..... From WKMG News 6 Orlando First reading of Development Agreement between Disney and RCID
But, as it turns out, the outgoing Reedy Creek Improvement District board, in the final lead-up to HB 9B's passage into law, purported to enter into a binding development agreement with Disney. The purported contract would explicitly give full control over zoning, building development rights, and other areas to Disney for another 30 years -- thus going even further than the already favorable treatment Disney enjoyed under the Reedy Creek Improvement District and stripping the new Central Florida Tourism Oversight District of any meaningful regulatory teeth. In a comically self-serving move, the development agreement even mandates -- surprise! -- that the new district spends property tax revenue on roads to benefit Disney pet projects.
There is just one glaring problem with the purported development agreement between the outgoing Reedy Creek Improvement District board and The Walt Disney Company: It is a blatantly illegal contract. The purported development agreement flouted the standard procedural mechanisms that regulate such governmental activity in Florida and also violated some of the rudimentary principles of contract law that every first-year law student in America learns in contracts class.
First, as a purported contract, the development agreement between Disney and the outgoing board requires "consideration" by both contracting parties; in other words, each side would need to make some sort of promise or vow some sort of specific action with respect to the counterparty. This purported development agreement, which was rushed through last-minute in a ham-fisted fashion, lacks consideration, perhaps the most essential element in all of the contract law: Here, the outgoing board purported to give Disney everything, but it received nothing in return. Absent consideration, the purported development agreement was void ab initio.
Second, under Florida's well-known, powerful Sunshine Law, a local government must comply with specific notice requirements for residents in order for the matters addressed at a government's board meeting to be valid and binding. Public notice of a meeting is mandatory under Florida law. Specifically, for an action of this sort to be binding, a notice of the underlying meeting must be mailed to local property owners. Disney and the outgoing board simply did not do that; they rushed their first public board meeting on the development agreement on January 25 and their second meeting on February 8 in their sloppy attempt to thwart at the last minute the Florida Legislature and the will of the Florida people. Unfortunately for Disney, Florida courts have consistently held that when the Sunshine Law is violated, a purported governmental action is void ab initio.
Third, the Florida Constitution stipulates explicitly that new revenue-raising measured based on ad valorem (i.e., proportional) taxation, which the purported development agreement entailed, can only be ratified via a direct referendum of a district. That condition was also not met here; instead, in another comically self-dealing move for Disney, the purported development agreement contained a provision that the district "shall fund" certain Disney prerogatives. This, too, is blatantly illegal.
Finally, the purported development agreement violates yet another basic tenet of contract law: that a contract is not procedurally or substantively "unconscionable." In fact, the purported development agreement is both.
It is procedurally unconscionable because the very nature of private Disney lawyers "negotiating" with the Reedy Creek Improvement District's outside counsel and drafting statements for a public hearing is blatantly self-dealing conduct; one source with close knowledge tells me that Disney's lawyer, in the lead-up to the outgoing board's two hearings, candidly confessed that the "optics look bad" for his name to be on the contract as the drafter, suggesting instead that the outgoing district's counsel have his name listed notwithstanding the apparent falsity. And the purported development agreement is substantively unconscionable because the entire purpose of this charade is to evade the will of the people of Florida, whose duly elected representatives wanted to replace the Disney-dominated Reedy Creek Improvement District board with the DeSantis-selected Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board.
There is just one glaring problem with the purported development agreement between the outgoing Reedy Creek Improvement District board and The Walt Disney Company: It is a blatantly illegal contract. The purported development agreement flouted the standard procedural mechanisms that regulate such governmental activity in Florida and also violated some of the rudimentary principles of contract law that every first-year law student in America learns in contracts class.
First, as a purported contract, the development agreement between Disney and the outgoing board requires "consideration" by both contracting parties; in other words, each side would need to make some sort of promise or vow some sort of specific action with respect to the counterparty. This purported development agreement, which was rushed through last-minute in a ham-fisted fashion, lacks consideration, perhaps the most essential element in all of the contract law: Here, the outgoing board purported to give Disney everything, but it received nothing in return. Absent consideration, the purported development agreement was void ab initio.
Second, under Florida's well-known, powerful Sunshine Law, a local government must comply with specific notice requirements for residents in order for the matters addressed at a government's board meeting to be valid and binding. Public notice of a meeting is mandatory under Florida law. Specifically, for an action of this sort to be binding, a notice of the underlying meeting must be mailed to local property owners. Disney and the outgoing board simply did not do that; they rushed their first public board meeting on the development agreement on January 25 and their second meeting on February 8 in their sloppy attempt to thwart at the last minute the Florida Legislature and the will of the Florida people. Unfortunately for Disney, Florida courts have consistently held that when the Sunshine Law is violated, a purported governmental action is void ab initio.
Third, the Florida Constitution stipulates explicitly that new revenue-raising measured based on ad valorem (i.e., proportional) taxation, which the purported development agreement entailed, can only be ratified via a direct referendum of a district. That condition was also not met here; instead, in another comically self-dealing move for Disney, the purported development agreement contained a provision that the district "shall fund" certain Disney prerogatives. This, too, is blatantly illegal.
Finally, the purported development agreement violates yet another basic tenet of contract law: that a contract is not procedurally or substantively "unconscionable." In fact, the purported development agreement is both.
It is procedurally unconscionable because the very nature of private Disney lawyers "negotiating" with the Reedy Creek Improvement District's outside counsel and drafting statements for a public hearing is blatantly self-dealing conduct; one source with close knowledge tells me that Disney's lawyer, in the lead-up to the outgoing board's two hearings, candidly confessed that the "optics look bad" for his name to be on the contract as the drafter, suggesting instead that the outgoing district's counsel have his name listed notwithstanding the apparent falsity. And the purported development agreement is substantively unconscionable because the entire purpose of this charade is to evade the will of the people of Florida, whose duly elected representatives wanted to replace the Disney-dominated Reedy Creek Improvement District board with the DeSantis-selected Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board.
awpitt
Main Streeter
But, as it turns out, the outgoing Reedy Creek Improvement District board, in the final lead-up to HB 9B's passage into law, purported to enter into a binding development agreement with Disney. The purported contract would explicitly give full control over zoning, building development rights, and other areas to Disney for another 30 years -- thus going even further than the already favorable treatment Disney enjoyed under the Reedy Creek Improvement District and stripping the new Central Florida Tourism Oversight District of any meaningful regulatory teeth. In a comically self-serving move, the development agreement even mandates -- surprise! -- that the new district spends property tax revenue on roads to benefit Disney pet projects.
There is just one glaring problem with the purported development agreement between the outgoing Reedy Creek Improvement District board and The Walt Disney Company: It is a blatantly illegal contract. The purported development agreement flouted the standard procedural mechanisms that regulate such governmental activity in Florida and also violated some of the rudimentary principles of contract law that every first-year law student in America learns in contracts class.
First, as a purported contract, the development agreement between Disney and the outgoing board requires "consideration" by both contracting parties; in other words, each side would need to make some sort of promise or vow some sort of specific action with respect to the counterparty. This purported development agreement, which was rushed through last-minute in a ham-fisted fashion, lacks consideration, perhaps the most essential element in all of the contract law: Here, the outgoing board purported to give Disney everything, but it received nothing in return. Absent consideration, the purported development agreement was void ab initio.
Second, under Florida's well-known, powerful Sunshine Law, a local government must comply with specific notice requirements for residents in order for the matters addressed at a government's board meeting to be valid and binding. Public notice of a meeting is mandatory under Florida law. Specifically, for an action of this sort to be binding, a notice of the underlying meeting must be mailed to local property owners. Disney and the outgoing board simply did not do that; they rushed their first public board meeting on the development agreement on January 25 and their second meeting on February 8 in their sloppy attempt to thwart at the last minute the Florida Legislature and the will of the Florida people. Unfortunately for Disney, Florida courts have consistently held that when the Sunshine Law is violated, a purported governmental action is void ab initio.
Third, the Florida Constitution stipulates explicitly that new revenue-raising measured based on ad valorem (i.e., proportional) taxation, which the purported development agreement entailed, can only be ratified via a direct referendum of a district. That condition was also not met here; instead, in another comically self-dealing move for Disney, the purported development agreement contained a provision that the district "shall fund" certain Disney prerogatives. This, too, is blatantly illegal.
Finally, the purported development agreement violates yet another basic tenet of contract law: that a contract is not procedurally or substantively "unconscionable." In fact, the purported development agreement is both.
It is procedurally unconscionable because the very nature of private Disney lawyers "negotiating" with the Reedy Creek Improvement District's outside counsel and drafting statements for a public hearing is blatantly self-dealing conduct; one source with close knowledge tells me that Disney's lawyer, in the lead-up to the outgoing board's two hearings, candidly confessed that the "optics look bad" for his name to be on the contract as the drafter, suggesting instead that the outgoing district's counsel have his name listed notwithstanding the apparent falsity. And the purported development agreement is substantively unconscionable because the entire purpose of this charade is to evade the will of the people of Florida, whose duly elected representatives wanted to replace the Disney-dominated Reedy Creek Improvement District board with the DeSantis-selected Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board.
Interesting thoughts; however, it's an OpEd. One person's opinion. Not the final conclusion.
"The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com."
Disney laying off thousands in second round of job cuts
Walt Disney Co. announced in February that it would trim its payroll by 7,000 jobs
Officials told Reuters that 4,000 people have been affected so far, including the latest round of cuts.
Representatives for Disney have not immediately responded to FOX Business' request for comment.
www.foxbusiness.com
Walt Disney Co. announced in February that it would trim its payroll by 7,000 jobs
Officials told Reuters that 4,000 people have been affected so far, including the latest round of cuts.
Representatives for Disney have not immediately responded to FOX Business' request for comment.
Disney laying off thousands in second round of job cuts
Thousands of employees are being laid off at Walt Disney Co. in a second round of job cuts beginning Monday as the company restructures and tries to save billions in operating costs.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Way I look at it. If Disney has been allowed to run on its own without state interference or association, then THEY should be the ones who have to provide unemployment benefits to the workers they "lay-off."Disney laying off thousands in second round of job cuts
Walt Disney Co. announced in February that it would trim its payroll by 7,000 jobs
Officials told Reuters that 4,000 people have been affected so far, including the latest round of cuts.
Representatives for Disney have not immediately responded to FOX Business' request for comment.
Disney laying off thousands in second round of job cuts
Thousands of employees are being laid off at Walt Disney Co. in a second round of job cuts beginning Monday as the company restructures and tries to save billions in operating costs.
Ron DeSantis Punches Back at Disney Lawsuit: You Have ‘No Legal Right to Corporate Welfare’
The Walt Disney Co. filed a lawsuit against DeSantis in federal court Wednesday, claiming the Republican governor is waging a “targeted campaign of government retaliation” in the ongoing fight over Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Law, which has been smeared by the mainstream news media as “Don’t Say Gay.”
After the California-based Disney publicly threatened to fight to repeal the Florida law, DeSantis stripped the company of its self-governing privileges in the Orlando area — a valuable corporate perk Disney has enjoyed for five decades.
A DeSantis spokesman issued a statement shortly after news of the lawsuit broke on Wednesday.
“We are unaware of any legal right that a company has to operate its own government or maintain special privileges not held by other businesses in the state,” DeSantis’ statement said. “This lawsuit is yet another unfortunate example of their hope to undermine the will of the Florida voters and operate outside the bounds of the law.”
Tilted
..
Corporate welfare? My lord, the right has even adopted the bullshit language of the left. The right looks more and more like the left everyday.
Anyway, why all the strawman arguments? I mean, I get it, they work with a lot of people. And when it's easier to argue with strawmen than to argue with reality, why not? People are so divided they, for the most part, just support their side regardless of what's right or wrong or the truth or hypocrisy or, really, anything. So just pander and lather, pander and lather.
Of course Disney doesn't have a legal right to this kind of special district, other than because Florida had previously agreed to do things this way (for its own perceived benefit). Of course various entities don't have legal rights to certain tax arrangements, other that's what various municipalities agreed to (for their own perceived benefit). People generally don't have a legal right to driver's licenses, other than because the law says they do. People don't have a legal right to various government benefits - like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - other than because the law says they do. People don't have a legal right to a government job. We don't have constitutional rights to such things.
But that doesn't mean the government can take away such things, or deny them from the outset, for unconstitutional reasons. So much of our constitutional protections are based on the reasons governments might do things. It doesn't have to give me a job, but it generally can't deny me a job because of my race. It can take away Social Security benefits for various reasons, but it can't take them away because of someone's religion. It doesn't have to let Disney have this special district but it can't take that away because of Disney's political advocacy. This is the whole point of much of the Bill of Rights (and the 14th Amendment). The government generally can't punish you for your speech or your religion or for various other reasons.
I'd like to think there was a time most people recognized these kinds of things and valued basic constitutional rights, even when it was other people's constitutional rights being violated. But maybe there wasn't, maybe people have always been blatant hypocrites about such things. At any rate, at this point, it seems we're down to pure tribalism. It's my tribe versus theirs, and nothing else matters. The Constitution? Nope. Right and wrong? Nope. Consistency? Nope. Honesty? Nope. When it comes to those I don't care about and don't easily relate to, to hell with their constitutional rights - let tyranny ring!
Just think..as His Imperial Majesty Toximus, you'll be able to quickly dispense with the existing Constitution and write up yr own!
Except - that it does. Routinely. It's just gotten more clever at it, by use of proxies rather than jack-booted thugs. Well, occasionally jack-booted thugs, but they'll have a warrant or a TV crew, at least.
Maybe it's my perspective - but I've been observing this kind of tribalism for decades from the left. That a party or a President or a high-ranking member of the party flouts the law easily, because no one will hold them to account for it. This isn't the only place I frequent - just, possibly the most conservative. Many of the more liberal ones I read, the premise is that the laws and Constitution be damned - it's outdated anyway - we have to do what is right, and that's always what they already have in mind to do.
Tilted
..
No thank you. I'm happy and have my hands full just managing my own brief existence in the Universe. I don't want power over others.
But here we all are...begging you to pick up the reins of power and smite those less worthy. You might even have enough time to get a pyramid built for you...been a long time since a ruler did that, and way overdue IMHO.
Tilted
..
Yes, that's right, the government has been (and it seems it has been increasingly) violating the Constitution and punishing people for things it's not supposed to punish them for. I'm saying it's not supposed to do such things and, more to the point here, I'd like to think more people would be against it - regardless of whether it was their own ox being gored. We should be more consistent in opposing government tyranny and constitutional violations. Be we aren't, it seems to me, at all consistent on that front.
As for your second paragraph, that's also part of my point... It's disheartening to me that we on the right have become more and more like (some on) the left in a lot of bad ways. Maybe we always have been, and I used to be more willing to (without realizing or maybe acknowledging it) give a pass because it was my side so to speak. But at this point it's gotten so bad. The hypocrisy, the disingenuousness, the victimhood mentality (both as being accepted and as being sold by political and ideological leaders)... in many regards the right is pretty well indistinguishable from the left. (I'm not talking about policy preferences, of course.)
And yes, I have friends and acquaintances who are more liberal (though most are more conservative) and they often spout nonsense as well.
Tilted
..
I already have a pyramid in my back yard. But it's just for me. I didn't work that hard (well, watch my minions work that hard) to share it with others.
I was thinking more along the lines of a "real" pyramid, that would cover most of a county. PG county, for example....
Tilted
..
Yeah, that would probably be more fitting. But as it is mine's about right-sized. If I built something larger I'd have to go out and acquire a lot more stuff to put in it.
Even into my forties, I used to believe that the law stood as a bulwark so strong that when political leaders chose to break it openly, SOMEONE would step up and say, sir, you can't do that, there's a law - and it was like a wall, like the speed of light. You can't break it. Period.
I've always known they would break it behind closed doors - but doing it openly - they now shrug and say "watch me".
Perhaps it's because playing by the rules doesn't change the outcome. I'm thinking groups like Project Veritas need to blatantly totally break the rules when it comes to stuffing the ballot boxes, because the left does it with impunity, cries foul when caught on it, claims it never happens and uses every stunt available to punish the right for trying to correct it (hence , the Jim Crow 2.0 in Georgia - voting laws that had no effect on restricting voters in 2022 except to lose the All-Star Game to a state with MORE restrictive laws).
As long as they GAIN by having non-secure elections, there's no reason to change it. IF by chance, someone ELSE beats them by cheating, then they might get serious.
They have so damned much of the press. They root and riot, they get a pass. We root and riot, we go to jail just for watching. They shout down our guys, they get praise. We shout down their guys, we get our asses beaten. Literally.
I used to think that playing fair would win - because people are savvy and can see it. Now, they don't see it, and they believe the crap version of the truth they're handed.
What I would LIKE - is for Washington to go back to SOME semblance of what it was - a body of persons who crafted some negotiated compromise that everyone can get on board with. Now, it's not, and most major bills are straight down party lines.
As Emperor Toximus, you'd only have to point at things you want and snap your fingers....