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

This quote killed me:In his latest act of retaliation against Disney, DeSantis said lawmakers will advance a bill that will “make sure that people understand that you don’t get to put your own company over the will of the people of Florida.” (as if)

This will be tied up in court for years. Wise use of state resources?

 

He said he would build a prison next to Disney? This guy is a nutcase lol.

 

yep.
DeSantis will move to nullify Disney deal that stripped his power | Daily Mail Online

 

"One of the Florida's statutes provides the legislature with the authority to revoke development agreements in this exact type of instance,' he said during the press conference."

It doesn't surprise me that there is such a statute, although there are likely some limitations on how to apply it. Aside from that, I don't know if he can overcome a restrictive covenant. Again, not my area of law, but that seems like too simple an answer

 

Don't know this area of law to be clear. My quick search turned up Section 163.3241, Fla. Stat. Not sure if that's the law he is talking about. Also wonder if there might be a constitutional challenge under Article I, Section X of the Florida Constitution, which prohibits bills of attainder, ex post facto laws or laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

 

He's a weird little tyrant and his own worst enemy. And the more he does stuff like this the more people will see it. We're definitely seeing it here on the board. A number of our posters who were formerly all in on DeSantis have really cooled off on him now.

 

That has to be it. But there is also the issue of special legislation, like you noted, ex post facto, although not criminal, plus the fact that I'm not sure whatever Disney did violated a current law. As I understand it at a superficial level, all the legislation did was said that their people would be in charge for future decisions. Disney's efforts were restrictive covenants rather than a development plan. But what do we know?



163.3241 Modification or revocation of a development agreement to comply with subsequently enacted state and federal law.—If state or federal laws are enacted after the execution of a development agreement which are applicable to and preclude the parties’ compliance with the terms of a development agreement, such agreement shall be modified or revoked as is necessary to comply with the relevant state or federal laws.

 

Ha, yeah, I definitely know nothing either way. I just googled the revocation of development agreements based upon the quote you provided.

 

He's an impotent little authoritarian. His ego can't handle it. He doesn't care about hurting Floridians or wasting millions of dollars in taxpayer money. He has to win his little feud. Pathetic behavior from a pathetic little man.

 

Reviewing through Twitter and the people defending DeSantis, that is it. They are also saying that Disney did not meet the notice requirements. They acknowledge the public newspaper notices, but state there also has to be mailed notice to impacted homeowners.

That's pretty common in land-use issues but I'm curious as to who would be the impacted homeowners. There is not a residential house anywhere close. Again, I don't know that area of law, but at least for seeking a variance, there is a certain distance that you have to abide by giving direct mail notice to your neighbors in addition to posting a sign. I'm quite confident that if that is the standard, there is no impacted homeowner.

 

This really doesn't make the point that you think it does.

We're the "reactionaries." We're the ones trying to force you guys to eat your own rules. We're the ones aiming for mutually assured destruction.

The fact that you frame this "demand of control over what Disney bought and paid for" as hypocrisy of "conservative values" really tells you all that you need to know.

You guys don't care about that. But because Disney is the "good guy" and Ron DeSantis is the "bad guy," you guys have suddenly turned into small government pro-business libertarian conservatives.

We are walking this tight rope by believing that the policy and cultural ends here justify the means whereas you are just suddenly acting like a small-government pro-business conservative on an ideological level because the power dynamics switched.

All DeSantis is, is an acknowledgment that when you juxtapose libertarian governing with authoritarian governing, the agenda and values of the libertarian governing body will always lose in the long run, so might as well pull the same crap that the authoritarian one pulls.

This isn't DeSantis genuinely believing on an ideological level that we should basically have centralized corporations cow-towing to government by means of intimidation and policy threats. This is him acknowledging that Democrats have been doing this crap for decades, which is a big reason Democrats have gained so much control over the influential institutions and the culture, so we need to start playing the same game.

And before anyone says "but Democrats don't do the same thing:"

Boston Mayor Blocks Chick-fil-A Franchise from City over Homophobic Attitude | TIME.com

 

Yeah, seems like the Disney lawyers were two steps ahead on this, I’m sure it’s not an accident that they went with a restrictive convenant instead of some other option. Of course, this relies on the courts deciding it fairly… if DeSantis resigns to run for president then maybe the next governor will drop this bullshit and try to mend fences with Disney…. We can hope…

 

I agree… I thought I had read that all the land under Reedy Creek is owned by Disney ….

There actually are some private residences and neighborhoods in the “major kingdom”, but they were de-annexed from reedy creek….

“Before Golden Oak was built, the subdivision was de-annexed from the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which provides government services to the Disney resort. All Golden Oak property owners are residents of unincorporated Orange County, making them ineligible to vote on Reedy Creek matters.”…Google search.

 

He won't need to resign to run, I think

 

Weaponization of law? Tell us more Ron.

 

This article really sums up the current dynamic we're seeing now well.

Newsom denounces 'authoritarians,' but what about his record?

"Newsom’s message is that those governors and other prominent Republicans, such as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, are “authoritarian threats,” citing such actions as banning books and subverting abortion access, gay rights and gender-affirming care for transgender youths...

Was Newsom being an authoritarian when he declared an emergency during the COVID-19 pandemic, suspended dozens of laws, closed public schools and ordered much of the state’s economy to be shut down, erasing nearly 3 million jobs overnight and pushing the state into a severe recession?

Newsom would say that he was just exercising his executive powers for the greater good.

Was Newsom an authoritarian when he unilaterally stopped executions in 2019, even though the death penalty was and still is state law, and won voter support the last time the issue was placed on the ballot?

Meanwhile, he has signed a number of new laws aimed at restricting or eliminating behavior he and his fellow Democrats consider to be wrong, such as owning guns or resisting construction of new housing. And how about those decrees banning the sale of gasoline-powered cars after 2035?

Newsom’s actions were no less arbitrary than those of the governors he criticizes. When it comes to authoritarianism, he is, to use an old saw, a pot calling the kettle black."

Democrats have a history and a habit of taking authoritarian action, then poo-pooing it or downright mischaracterizing it as non-authoritarian because the cause justifies the action. "The ends justify the means."

Now all of a sudden, a Governor in Florida governs exactly like they do, effectively shows them a mirror... and now they're calling their reflection ugly.

Do I think he can be more tactful in exactly how he's fighting the culture war? Yes. But I'm damned glad he's fighting the culture war, and I'm sure as Hell happy he's the Governor of the great state of Florida.

 

As a point of information Mayor Menino threatened Chick-fil-A but he never actually took any action against the company and even admitted there was little that he could do to block the company from opening restaurants in the city. His threat apparently did have an impact since it didn't open in first restaurant in the city until last year although it does have 15 locations in the Boston area.
From 2012 when Memino made his statement.
Boston Mayor Thomas Menino clarifies position on Chick-fil-A

More recently
10 years after pushback, Boston's first Chick-fil-A opens in heart of city

 

That sort of rhetoric does have effect though, it intimidates business into silence, because if they don’t toe the woke party line, they will be targeted and punished by Democratic politicians.

 

Keeping in mind that what Menino said was nothing more than rhetoric and that he admitted that there was nothing that he could he do to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening a location in Boston, a far cry from Meatball Ron De Sanctimonious's stunt of using the power of the state in an attempt to inflict real pain on Disney.