Parts of Disney's last-minute agreement with Reedy Creek that may render the new DeSantis board powerless are valid until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III of England

Mar 29, 2023 in "Reedy Creek Improvement District"

Posted: Wednesday March 29, 2023 3:41pm ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

Disney's final Developer Agreement between Reedy Creek Improvement District and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts appears to have severely handicapped the Ron DeSantis-appointed board of the new Central Florida Tourism Oversight board.

 

Signed into effect on February 8, just as the Florida House passed the legislation to take control of Reedy Creek Improvement District, the new Developer Agreement gives Disney significant control of the RCID landing and prevents the new board making any changes to the agreement.

At today's special meeting, where the board discussed the new Developer Agreement, one member said, "We lose control over everything other than to maintain the roads and maintain the infrastructure."

Board member Brian Aungst said, "We gave governmental control to Disney."

The legal council for the new board said that various agreements were made over the past several months that were "unusual" and "suspect."

In a brief statement following the meeting, Disney said, "All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida's Government in the Sunshine law."

The Governors office released the following statement this afternoon, "The Executive Office of the Governor is aware of Disney's last-ditch efforts to execute contracts just before ratifying the new law that transfers rights and authorities from the former Reedy Creek Improvement District to Disney. An initial review suggests these agreements may have significant legal infirmities that would render the contracts void as a matter of law. We are pleased the new Governor-appointed board retained multiple financial and legal firms to conduct audits and investigate Disney's past behavior."

You can review the February 8 Reedy Creek Improvment Dsitrcit Developer Agreement here.

One aspect of the agreement contains an interesting timeframe for the document's term.

This declaration shall continue in effect until twenty one (21) years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England living as of the date of this Declaration. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary herein, this Declaration will terminate as of the date that none of WDPR or any of its Affiliates (or their respective successor entities) owns any real property within ten (10) miles of the RCID Properties.

The legal wording makes use of the Royal Lives Clause,  a common practice in the United Kingdom in the past century to tie up a trust to a living person who was expected to have one of the longer life expectancies in the population. This article explains more.

The action by DeSantis to strip Disney of its self-managing district came in retaliation to Disney's public opposition to the Parental Bill of Right law, which took place under ex-Disney CEO Bob Chapek. Speaking at the Reedy Creek firehouse on February 27 when signing the bill, DeSantis said that Disney's opposition to the Parents Bill of Rights bill was a "mild annoyance," but that the state of Florida will no longer be "joined at the hip with one California-based company." After signing the bill DeSantis said, "the corporate kingdom finally came to an end."

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

View all comments →

flynnibus46 minutes ago

The top tool of manipulators is to identify and boogieman and blame everyone’s woes on that.

Stripes6 hours ago

The creator of the play envisioned a mostly non-white cast. It was intentional. The play is an artistic work. As such, the first amendment overrides anti-discrimination laws and protects the creator's vision. This is one of a handful of perfectly legal exceptions to anti-discrimination laws.

MisterPenguin6 hours ago

Companies should take steps that white men are proportionately represented. Like, for example, in janitorial jobs.

MR.Dis7 hours ago

Interesting post. I saw the play Hamilton and loved it. Did anyone notice that all the straight white founding fathers were played by minorities. Did I care, no because the play was just darn good. Why do I bring this up, because it should not matter your race but are you best for the job.

LAKid538 hours ago

And I was just an unmarried female looking for a job as a secretary.....

LAKid538 hours ago

Coming from the university environment, I can say, especially for faculty, what's on your CV is what gets you the job, especially a tenure track one. No system was perfect. But to paint DEI as some type of boogie man is wrong. When SCOTUS, in its 3rd ruling on using some form of affirmative action in admissions decisions, put the nail in that coffin, one of the groups most adversely affected were Asian students.

Chi848 hours ago

Same here.

LAKid538 hours ago

💯 And I know from experience....

mkt9 hours ago

Rather than address this load of bunk, I'll leave it at this: The number one group to benefit from DEI initiatives are white women, while African Americans benefit the least. A simple Google search easily debunks the narrative that DEI is some grand conspiracy against straight white men. Reality is more complex than faux-right wing Twitter outrage. Additionally, Veteran outreach is classified under DEI. Signed, a straight white (passing) man who speaks English with a neutral American Accent and has landed jobs harder to get into than Harvard. So much for DEI - maybe it is about your qualifications and job history.

Stripes9 hours ago

I work for one of the largest, most powerful, well-known companies on the planet. I’ve seen a number of stories in the conservative press critical of the fact that we have a DE&I team. I can tell you that our annual anti-discrimination compliance training, created by DE&I and legal, involves going over a scenario that highlights a white male and how it is against company policy, and grounds for termination, to discriminate against him based on his race or gender for any reason. I understand and largely agree with the criticism of how DEI was practiced in universities, but, in my experience, the private sector DEI implementation is primarily just about ensuring the company is following the Equal Opportunity Employment statutes and similar anti-discrimination laws.

Stripes10 hours ago

It’s not only objectionable, this kind of discrimination is illegal. Unless the open position/role qualifies for a bona fide occupational qualification, considering one’s sex or skin color in employment decisions are illegal. As an example of a BFOQ exception, let’s say the FBI wants to infiltrate the KKK. They’re going to need a white guy for that job. Or, let’s say it’s a movie character like T’Challa or Natasha Romanoff, the casting director can discriminate based on appearance without violating civil rights laws.

Chi8410 hours ago

NOW we believe that. All the discrimination can be done now, thank you. We’re good all being treated the same now.

Brian10 hours ago

The notion that you cannot and ought not be discriminated against for your race, national origin, gender, etc, is a very fair and noble one, and ought to be the policy of all public and private sector entities, and how the law is enforced. Sadly, that's not what DEI has been for many years, and anyone making a claim to the contrary is not being honest. DEI was wielded as a shield to be racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory towards groups that were unfairly labeled as "privileged" (particularly, but not exclusively, straight white males), and denying them opportunities based on these protected characteristics, so that a more "diverse" candidate, leaving merit aside, could take their place. The word "diverse" took on new meaning as simply "not white." This was all done based on the assumption that because someone is, for example, a straight white male, they are inherently more powerful, better off, wealthy, etc, than a lesbian black woman. What this asinine theory of intersectionality fails to take into consideration, of course, is that one's protected characteristics are not the sole predictors of power or wealth. I'd much rather be a lesbian black woman than a straight white man if it meant I could be raised by a stable parent(s) with high income and go to a private school in Manhattan instead of being raised in rural Alabama to a parent addicted to drugs without two pennies to scratch together. It is high time that, if it is to be implemented at all, both the public and private sector implement DEI in a manner that ensures equal and fair opportunity to all people, regardless of their protected characteristics, including those who have been labeled as "privileged" by moronic pseudo-intellectuals who know nothing of their circumstances but their skin color and their sex. Its sole purpose should be that, whether one is a straight white male, or a lesbian black woman, or anything in between, these characteristics are meaningless and the person is to be judged by "the content of their character."

James Alucobond10 hours ago

I did not say it was the norm nor did I say that everything was being done well in the olden days. I merely said I have personally seen certain things that I (and almost everyone involved, for that matter) found objectionable.