• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The DeSantis gambit

Ziggurat said:
I don't consider it punishment, because it's not a benefit they deserved in the first place.
Click to expand...
Governments from both sides of the isle and at all levels of government regularly give various concessions to companies in order to encourage specific companies to expand their business (be it reduced taxes, promises to build infrastructure, changes to zoning, etc.)

Where were your complaints when Trump was touting Foxconn's plans to build a new factory (spurred in part by promised tax cuts and special infrastructure promises)? Where are your complaints about the other special districts in Florida?
 
Ziggurat said:
True. But likewise, no one should force them to keep giving Disney those privileges. What Florida granted, Florida can take back.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says otherwise...

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Click to expand...
 
bruto said:
First of all, the very public reason given for withdrawing the benefit was not anything to do with either the genesis of the benefit or a violation of its terms. It was quite clearly stated as retaliation for a perceived offense by the parent corporation, with no direct relation to the benefit.

And whether you think it's just or unjust, proper or improper, that's exactly what a punishment is, and what distinguishes it from simple restitution.
Click to expand...
Yep.

What's more, that matters in the legal context. As reported by Reuters:
Reuters said:
Legal experts said DeSantis may have sound policy reasons to
reconstitute the authority formerly known as Reedy Creek
Improvement District, but if Disney can show it was done as
retaliation, the company has a strong case.

....snip....

For Disney to prevail, a jury would have to find a connection
between the company's comments and the changes to the
development district, renamed under DeSantis' control as the
Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.

DeSantis may argue that government has given the company
special tax benefits over the years and Florida is entitled to
change that.

But Leslie Kendrick, the director of the Center for the First
Amendment at University of Virginia School of Law, said it
will come down to the reason for the changes.

"First Amendment law would say that is problematic if it's
done because of the speaker's protected speech," Kendrick said.
Click to expand...
The article cites two decisions of the Supreme Court as precedents:
Personally, I am inclined to place more trust in the opinions of actual legal experts than in opinions expressed by people who have a history of being wrong about US law when discussing politics on some Internet forum.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly those who fly the flag of free markets and unregulated laissez faire turn into virtual communists when their corporate darlings dare to read the market instead of the screeds of their fair weather champions.

Steal oil from natives, pollute the ocean, poison the earth? Hey, it's a free country! Non binary beer drinkers, dolls with downs, minority mermaids? There oughtta be a law!
 
lomiller said:
The Constitution says otherwise...
Click to expand...

What contract? The Florida legislation that created Reedy Creek? That wasn't a contract, that was a law.

Or perhaps you mean the last-minute restrictive covenant the RCID made to try to grant Disney a bunch of power? That wasn't a contract. You can find the text here:

https://blogmickey.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/2023-02-08-RCID-BOS-Package-FINAL_v2.pdf

Page 17 to page 25 contains the restrictive covenant. Notice something missing from it, particularly on the last page? No signature from anyone from Disney. Because it's not a contract. Contrast that with another licensing agreement in the same document, pages 438 to 441, which has signatures from both Reedy Creek and Walt Disney. But that licensing agreement isn't the point of dispute.

So what contract are you referring to?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Personally, I am inclined to place more trust in the opinions of actual legal experts than in opinions expressed by people who have a history of being wrong about US law when discussing politics on some Internet forum.
Click to expand...

Who are these legal experts? They cite one person (not multiple people), Ken Paulson, a professor at Middle Tennessee State University. His expertise is in media law. Not Florida special district law. He's hardly the last word on this, and his views are not shared universally among lawyers.

For a contrasting opinion, the Legal Mindset channel has been covering this and has a number of videos on the topic. Here's a relatively short one:
 
Ziggurat said:
Who are these legal experts?
Click to expand...
A few examples:
  • Ken Paulson (professor at Middle Tennessee State University, and the director of its Free Speech Center)
  • Leslie Kendrick (director of the Center for the First Amendment at the University of Virginia School of Law)
  • Jacob Schumer (Shepard, Smith, Kohlmyer & Hand)
  • Kathryn Rubino (Above the Law)
  • Joe Patrice (Above the Law, RPN Executive Search)
  • Floyd Abrams (Cahill Gordon & Reindel; represented NYT in Pentagon papers case, and Citizens United in that case)
  • Ted Boutrous, Jr (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher)
  • Rebecca Tushnet (Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law at Harvard Law School)
  • RonNell Anderson Jones (Lee E Teitelbaum Chair and Professor of Law at the University of Utah's law school)

Ziggurat said:
They cite one person (not multiple people), Ken Paulson, a professor at Middle Tennessee State University.
Click to expand...
You're not very good at this, are you? That Reuters article also quotes Leslie Kendrick.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
Yep.

What's more, that matters in the legal context. As reported by Reuters:
Originally Posted by Reuters
Legal experts said DeSantis may have sound policy reasons to
reconstitute the authority formerly known as Reedy Creek
Improvement District, but if Disney can show it was done as
retaliation, the company has a strong case.

....snip....

For Disney to prevail, a jury would have to find a connection between the company's comments and the changes to the development district, renamed under DeSantis' control as the
Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.

DeSantis may argue that government has given the company
special tax benefits over the years and Florida is entitled to
change that.

But Leslie Kendrick, the director of the Center for the First
Amendment at University of Virginia School of Law, said it will come down to the reason for the changes.
"First Amendment law would say that is problematic if it's
done because of the speaker's protected speech," Kendrick said.
Click to expand...
The article cites two decisions of the Supreme Court as precedents:
Personally, I am inclined to place more trust in the opinions of actual legal experts than in opinions expressed by people who have a history of being wrong about US law when discussing politics on some Internet forum.
Click to expand...

So the motive does matter. Hmmm....who wudda thunk? :rolleyes:
 
Ziggurat said:
W.D.Clinger said:
You're not very good at this, are you?
Click to expand...
Don't personalize this. It's not necessary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, stick with telling everyone to "try to keep up", or saying they're "stanning" for something, or "God damn, but you're bad at reading comprehension." That's way less personalizing than saying someone who is making basic errors isn't very good at this. :rolleyes:
 
Ziggurat said:
What contract? The Florida legislation that created Reedy Creek?
Click to expand...

Are you claiming Florida just unilaterally created the improvement district without any agreement with Disney?. :boggled:

Florida had an agreement with Disney. They can't legally use Legislative authority to break that agreement because they said something the governor didn't like.
 
lomiller said:
Are you claiming Florida just unilaterally created the improvement district without any agreement with Disney?. :boggled:
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if Disney agreed to the formation of the RCID, that doesn't make it a contract. When legislation gets passed, it's the law whether Disney agrees or not.

Florida had an agreement with Disney.
Click to expand...

What was the contract they had with Disney? Not agreement, agreements have no constitutional standing.
 
Bill allows De Santis to run for president while governor.

Republican Ron DeSantis would not have to resign as Florida governor in order to run for president if he chooses under a bill given final approval Friday in by the GOP-dominated state Legislature.

The measure, attached to a much broader elections bill, would carve out an exemption to Florida law requiring anyone seeking office to resign from one they already hold after qualifying as a candidate. Only an officeholder running for U.S. president or vice president would not have to resign.

Supporters portrayed the bill as purely a clarification and not intended specifically for DeSantis, who has not yet announced a presidential bid but is widely expected to declare his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the coming weeks. The bill passed the state House 76-34 along party lines and now goes to DeSantis, who is expected to sign it into law.
Click to expand...

https://apnews.com/article/be012bb10da7b89b433bfbce4e5cfa1a

Sure, give De Santis more power why don't you?
 
Orphia Nay said:
Bill allows De Santis to run for president while governor.

Sure, give De Santis more power why don't you?
Click to expand...
He would have done it anyway and defied naysayers who tried to stop him. Flipped them the bird and laughed, even. He thinks because he's governor, he can do whatever he wants including defying state laws. And he is being allowed to do it.
 
Ziggurat said:
jadebox said:
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=what+is+a+"Development+Agreement"
Click to expand...

What development agreement are you referring to? Point me to the actual text of this agreement.
Click to expand...
Although this may not be the development agreement Ziggurat wants to argue about, it is the development agreement that Governor DeSantis is trying to abrogate. As the New York Times put it:
DeSantis Appointees Seek to ‘Void’ Disney World Agreement​

Before returning to the actual text of the agreement, which is EXHIBIT E of that 447-page document, let's look at Item 8A to see exactly what happened on 8 February 2023:
PUBLIC HEARING

Item 8A – Resolution No. 637 – Final Reading – Amending the RCID Land Development Regulations.

President Hames then called a Public Hearing to order at 9:42 a.m. Mr. Classe requested Board approval of Ordinance/Resolution No. 637 on the final reading, amending the RCID Land Development Regulations to incorporate amendments required by the recent Comprehensive Plan 2032 update, which was found in compliance on July 15, 2022. The Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on November 18, 2022 and recommended approval by the Board of Supervisors after finding 1) The amendments are consistent with and promote the intent of the Comprehensive Plan; 2) will not adversely affect other implementation programs for elements of the Comprehensive Plan; and 3) promote the public health, safety, and welfare within the District.....This duly noticed public hearing is the final reading required for approval of an Ordinance/Resolution to amend the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Classe gave a brief overview of Ms. Pulham’s presentation from the first reading at the December board meeting and advised that the amendments are mostly administrative to make sure RCID complies with the state. President Hames thanked Ms. Pulham for presenting at the last board meeting. President Hames asked if there were any public comments on this request and there were none. Upon motion by Ms. Adams and duly seconded, the Board unanimously approved the request. (EXHIBIT E)
Click to expand...


EXHIBIT E is a "DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS". Following 10 paragraphs of "WHEREAS", it gets around to this:
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by RCID, to the fullest extent permitted by Law, RCID hereby declares that the RCID Properties shall be, and are hereby, made subject to this Declaration and the provisions, covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and obligations set forth herein, which Declaration, provisions, covenants, conditions, restrletions, easements and obligations shall run with title to the RCID Properties, in each case for the benefit of the WDPR Properties, WDPR, WDPR's Affiliates (as applicable) and each of their respective successors and assigns owning any portion of the WDPR Properties.
Click to expand...
The agreement runs on for 74 more pages, so I will quote only a few amusing highlights.

2.1. Permitted Uses. The RCID Properties shall be used only for their respective Permitted Uses and no other purpose whatsoever. As used herein, the "Permitted Uses" as to any particular RCID Property (or portion thereof) shall mean that such property shall be used: (i) only for such public and governmental purposes that such RCID Property is or are being used as of the Effective Date or are otherwise contemplated to be used by the Comprehensive Plan; and (ii) [....]
Click to expand...


In English, I think that (together with sections 2.2 and 2.3) says the status quo as of 8 February shall be preserved for the life of the agreement, which is:

7.1. Term. This declaration shall be deemed effective as of the Effective Date and continue to be effective in perpetuity...provided, however, that if the perpetual term of this Declaration is deemed to violate the "Rule Against Perpetuities," or any similar law or rule, this Declaration shall continue in effect until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants ofo King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration....
Click to expand...


ETA: By the way, the New York Times quotes an actual expert on development agreements:
NYT said:
“It would impair a contract,” said Jacob Schumer, a Florida lawyer who specializes in government law and development agreements.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom