Sorry Desantis, but I think Disney may have gotten the last laugh

Who are you and what have you done with "Captain Equity," gator_lawyer?

Because even an intelligent liar wouldn't frame what I was saying as "Bragg was targeting Trump because he was White."

 

I think what’s stupid is anyone who reduces an argument to an absurdity and then tries to argue the absurdity. You chose to comment on one sentence with name-calling rather than respond to his entire post. It appears you chose not to because you couldn’t, so it would have been better to not respond at all.

 

Read the thread jj.

I think we've exhausted the discussion, and I didn't fire insults first.

Hell, read the post I was responding to. Gator_lawyer sure as heck wasn't shy about insulting me.

I know it's hard for ya'll to not be snowflakes, but my goodness.

 

You respond to reasoned arguments with name-calling and you’re calling us snowflakes. Okay.

 

Matt Dixon has a thread on this morning's meeting. DeSantis usually excludes Matt because he reports honestly. Surprised he was allowed in. Likely will not be in the future.

Same thing about no mailed notice, while at the same time saying that they are doing research on other ways to void covenants. A bit inconsistent.

Not sure what to make of the need to "raise revenue" through "monetizing assets". That sounds like the toll issue. Hard to believe they will do it, but I put nothing past them.

Says they will instruct counsel to longer challenge assessments, which just about every big land owner does. Query - does this board have fiduciary duties? To who? Is that legal?

 

Just my take but this entire thread is based on the reaction of an overly sensitive snowflake who also happens to be in a position of real power the abuse of which is apparently backfiring.

On another note, for decades it's been an article of faith among conservatives that private corporations can perform what are considered governmental functions more efficiently than actual governments. Disney through the Reedy Creek Improvement District has proved that a private corporation can indeed perform governmental functions efficiently. Because of a disagreement a certain butt hurt snowflake who calls himself a conservative has replaced the corporation with a board of a political hacks.

 

This thread is riddled with mud-slinging and I've been more than patient, but there comes a point where I deal it back.

You don't like it? Tough.

 

one could manipulate life expectancy, replacement costs, and anticipated growth volumes to require budgets to increase to continue to provide an acceptable level of service for the infrastructure being managed. Once budget increases have been supported, revenue sources can be assigned.

lets say that the existign road has a 20 year life span left but an "inspection" cuts that to 10 years and then throws a big inflation factor on the estimated cost to repair and an increase in estimated growth which would require expansions. that leaves the reserves short of revenue based on the new "projections". do that across stormwater, utilities, fire, rescue, security, transportation, and environmental reclamation/monitoring and you can add a big number to the budget to increase reserves or make assessments, depending on how their district is put together.

 

Thanks. Informative. I've always understood that Reedy Creek goes way above and beyond most municipal standards for infrastructure maintenance. My own eyes seem to confirm that. I take your point, presuming I am understanding you correctly, that it can still be manipulated. Of course I think like a lawyer, which I am. The prior board could justify going above and beyond the minimum for economically rational reasons, for maintaining appearances. But if it goes beyond that, how do you justify beyond the political vendetta? And who does this board owe a duty to? Most boards owe a fiduciary duty to someone.

This may be the only board I can think of that does not even act like they owe a fiduciary duty to the actual beneficiaries that they supposedly serve. I understand who they really serve, but it just doesn't make sense legally.

Just a thought. I don't know how that factors in anything.

 

most of the infrastructure adjustments would have to be spelled out in a signed/sealed report to the district. That SHOULD reduce the delta in those areas as a wastewater plant doesn't depreciate overnight. Estimated inflation rates, increased number of visitors projected, labor rates, impact for climate change ??? are typically not required to be authenticated by a licensed professional. Traffic studies with growth projections would require a PE to modify

 

Wait wut? I have who ever is posting on ignore but I was told by mods that snowflake is verboten. Our lefty voices are being suppressed

“Help I’m being oppressed”!

min fact if this is 715 he reported me for calling him a snowflake which is a snowflake rat thing to do..

Troubling

 

It’s really bizarre to me how hard it is for many here to simply talk about issues and not make things personal. maybe I just don’t care enough to get mad?

 

That's all helpful but I'm still flummoxed by the legal question as to how this board can undertake actions which are intended to financially harm the district they are purportedly operating, and as a board, would arguably have a fiduciary duty to. It's admittedly legalistic, and perhaps inapplicable to a special district, although I don't see how. Just interesting

 

Then the flip side, if no one lives there, who has standing to sue?

 

The Disney corporation, the counterparty on the Restrictive Covenant. That no one lives there was relevant to the issue of what other impacted homeowners were required to be mailed direct notice. But certainly whatever legal entity Disney uses to operate the Parks would have standing to sue the board for breach of fiduciary duty, presuming the board owes them such duty.

I'm sure Disney is trying just to ride this out. Iger was quoted as saying he would love a sit down with DeSantis to try to work things out. That's 80% optics, but I'm sure they would love to have this thing behind them. If they could think of something to give up that wouldn't hurt and that would give DeSantis a public victory, they would probably do that. I'm sure part of it is like anyone negotiating the terrorist - you can't believe they're doing something so stupid. It's hard to negotiate with someone that's not acting self-interest of those they are supposed to represent.

Just speculating. I don't have any idea how this is going to end up.

 

Oh... you don't think the mods are treating you fairly?

I will grace you with a similar respect that this forum has given me:

 

That’s who it was.

 

No Justice no peace!

 

But, has he really? What exactly has his actions changed? The end result is things haven't changed for Disney or for Florida. Like I said, $75B talks and the idea of booting Disney out of Florida is akin to saying California is booting out Hollywood - will never happen. Without Disney, Florida dies with their population dropping below 5 million in a few decades once Florida enacts a state income tax to recupe lost Disney revenue.

 

Well "Hollywood" has definitely outsourced lots of things to other places where they can get around labor laws and the like, I don't think its so much as Disney being booted out as it choosing to do more business outside Florida for various reasons.