- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 38,088
First I had a sad laugh about the comment requiring inspections of the WDW attractions. Sad because the Tyre Sampson tragedy occurred at an attraction that is subject to inspections.
I suspect the RCID land is simply an easement on the property, not actually owned by RCID (under any name).Could a bill in the legislature overturn the developer agreement? And how can the government build on RCID land if the land is still owned by Disney?
Even if the new RCID tries to build on their land (assuming they do own it) they are still subject to the limitations of the recently passed land use covenant. That gives Disney the right to approve any new buildings.Part of the land was ceded to RCID, although they could be in the form of outright transfers or of easements. The district obviously owns infrastructure like utilities. They don't have much land, but even then the restrictive agreement apparently specified that the new district couldn't use district owned land for things like retail businesses, such as retail gas stations.