Lawsuit against Universal related to development of potential 4th (or 3rd?) gate

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

Just read the article about a lawsuit being filed against Universal to prevent it from developing the land next to its current parks and resorts.

The article mentioned that a man who used to own the land brought the lawsuit. How does he have standing to bring this lawsuit? What is his stake in the matter now? Sounds like sour grapes that he was unable to develop the land as a result of restrictions on the land.

If the lawsuit is pending now, does that mean Universal has already filed building permits? Any news on what that 4th gate (or 3rd, if you don't count VB) might be? Seems like a premature lawsuit if there are no current plans for development.

 

[rteetz]

Universal has not filed any building permits for another park yet.

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

Universal has not filed any building permits for another park yet.

Interesting. I wonder what the point of the lawsuit is. Lawsuits generally can't be brought to prevent action unless there is some sort of action going on to prevent.

 

[KYMickey]

He may be trying to get ahead of the curve. The courts take so long these days to do anything. Rather than have to rush to get a restraining order once Universal filed building permits he may just want to lay down the groundwork now for preventing them from building there. I'm not sure what basis he would have for the lawsuit but it's possible that the powers that be prevented him from building something youth afraid that Universal, because their clout could get it approved!

 

[rteetz]

Interesting. I wonder what the point of the lawsuit is. Lawsuits generally can't be brought to prevent action unless there is some sort of action going on to prevent.

Probably because he knows they have big plans for the land. Universal isn't just buying 400+ acres just because.

 

[HopperFan]

Just read the article about a lawsuit being filed against Universal to prevent it from developing the land next to its current parks and resorts.

The article mentioned that a man who used to own the land brought the lawsuit. How does he have standing to bring this lawsuit? What is his stake in the matter now? Sounds like sour grapes that he was unable to develop the land as a result of restrictions on the land.

If the lawsuit is pending now, does that mean Universal has already filed building permits? Any news on what that 4th gate (or 3rd, if you don't count VB) might be? Seems like a premature lawsuit if there are no current plans for development.

Interesting. I wonder what the point of the lawsuit is. Lawsuits generally can't be brought to prevent action unless there is some sort of action going on to prevent.

The article I read is not a man who has filed the lawsuit and it is complicated. Universal owned the land and self restricted themselves to not build a park. Then the land was then sold to another LLC who lost the land in foreclosure, and now is owned once again by Universal's holding company LLC. Industry experts believe it is not an issue since Universal placed the restrictions to begin with, I think the further points are the second LLC believes only they can change the restrictions. To further complicate it, the issue may be that many properties around there (when Universal owned) felt their property values were lower because of the restriction that a park could not be built and therefore they could not sell to them. Since their land was also "restricted" it impacted sales and their ability to negotiate the best deals. It will be a pain for Universal, as this issue has to be resolved not just for them but what the surrounding owners may get out of it.

Now as far as filings, YES Universal has initiated some filings with the County and South Florida Water Management for the new property.

- They have submitted a map to the county's planning department for a proposed sub-district to create a new "Universal Studios Sub-District 8" that will have a theme park zoning among other things. This is something that will play into above issue.

- The permitting that deals with SFWM was filed in the spring in more detail than previous info submitted to begin work on 364 acres with grading of the land and wetland creations. In Florida one must always balance land and water (which is why Disney adds to it's nature preserve to add construction at WDW) so the permitting process is VERY complicated.

----

Now I see the other article about the "man" ... looks like the same story but they included the name of a company "officer" of the company that lost the land in the foreclosure to a holding company, who then sold it. Just finished a 15 year "zoning issue" where there was a "private declaration" of self imposed restrictions. Lawyers can certainly have this recinded especially since Universal was the owner then and now (and old owner probably had recourse as well) ... but it looks like this company is looking for compensation as they will probably claim they lost it in foreclosure due to the restrictions placed on it. Trying to hold Universal to the restrictions unless THEY agree (they seem to think they own that decision even though they no longer own the land) is basically a threat to hold up the project unless ...... $$$$$

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...ersal-orlando-theme-parks-20161031-story.html

Universal will be very busy with all the lawsuits being filed against them for different things.

 

[PuppyJonathan]

I was surprised to find a thread for this so late (didn't want to start it since I really don't know about the legality of planning). This is going to be interesting. For some reason I don't see this ending well on universals part though

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

The article I read is not a man who has filed the lawsuit and it is complicated. Universal owned the land and self restricted themselves to not build a park. Then the land was then sold to another LLC who lost the land in foreclosure, and now is owned once again by Universal's holding company LLC. Industry experts believe it is not an issue since Universal placed the restrictions to begin with, I think the further points are the second LLC believes only they can change the restrictions. To further complicate it, the issue may be that many properties around there (when Universal owned) felt their property values were lower because of the restriction that a park could not be built and therefore they could not sell to them. Since their land was also "restricted" it impacted sales and their ability to negotiate the best deals. It will be a pain for Universal, as this issue has to be resolved not just for them but what the surrounding owners may get out of it.

Now as far as filings, YES Universal has initiated some filings with the County and South Florida Water Management for the new property.

- They have submitted a map to the county's planning department for a proposed sub-district to create a new "Universal Studios Sub-District 8" that will have a theme park zoning among other things. This is something that will play into above issue.

- The permitting that deals with SFWM was filed in the spring in more detail than previous info submitted to begin work on 364 acres with grading of the land and wetland creations. In Florida one must always balance land and water (which is why Disney adds to it's nature preserve to add construction at WDW) so the permitting process is VERY complicated.

----

Now I see the other article about the "man" ... looks like the same story but they included the name of a company "officer" of the company that lost the land in the foreclosure to a holding company, who then sold it. Just finished a 15 year "zoning issue" where there was a "private declaration" of self imposed restrictions. Lawyers can certainly have this recinded especially since Universal was the owner then and now (and old owner probably had recourse as well) ... but it looks like this company is looking for compensation as they will probably claim they lost it in foreclosure due to the restrictions placed on it. Trying to hold Universal to the restrictions unless THEY agree (they seem to think they own that decision even though they no longer own the land) is basically a threat to hold up the project unless ...... $$$$$

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...ersal-orlando-theme-parks-20161031-story.html

Universal will be very busy with all the lawsuits being filed against them for different things.

Thank you for this excellent explanation! Sounds like a fascinating case.

If the restrictions existed prior to the company's purchase of the land from Universal, then I am not sure how they have much of a case, though I have never heard of private declarations of self imposed restrictions and am not sure how they are disclosed upon purchase- or really how they even apply to a subsequent purchaser.

Does seem that the company just wants a payout from Universal to drop the lawsuit. Unfortunately, many lawsuits seem to be brought for that reason.

 

[wilkeliza]

Are they also facing potential issues with Volcano Bay? Last time I looked at Universal news the big issue was that property owners in the area that did not have a theme park were lead to believe Universal couldn't build there. Unisveral promised the residents there would be any impact but I wonder what will happen once Volcano Bay is open.

Seems like Universals expansion is starting to creep into the problems that Disneyland has in Anaheim. Sure money is powerful when getting approval but the voices of the surrounding community can be as well.

 

[HopperFan]

Thank you for this excellent explanation! Sounds like a fascinating case.

If the restrictions existed prior to the company's purchase of the land from Universal, then I am not sure how they have much of a case, though I have never heard of private declarations of self imposed restrictions and am not sure how they are disclosed upon purchase- or really how they even apply to a subsequent purchaser.

Does seem that the company just wants a payout from Universal to drop the lawsuit. Unfortunately, many lawsuits seem to be brought for that reason.

For sure will be interesting. Yes you can set your own restrictions and it happens often when you are trying to appease a community with your future plans. Not sure their purpose. Another type would be self imposed CID, Community Improvement District, when property owners agree to self tax in order to use extra tax for infrastructure and that also will happen when a new development is trying to get a project approved or if a renovation is happening to an area where there isn't enough tax money to make improvements.

My thought is that if this company purchased the land assuming ownership of the master plan with restrictions, as they say, then it would make sense that when the property was sold (foreclosure or not) the ownership would transfer to that person. If you don't own the land I don't know how you own the agreement, especially since they were not part of the original agreement.

Are they also facing potential issues with Volcano Bay? Last time I looked at Universal news the big issue was that property owners in the area that did not have a theme park were lead to believe Universal couldn't build there. Unisveral promised the residents there would be any impact but I wonder what will happen once Volcano Bay is open.

Seems like Universals expansion is starting to creep into the problems that Disneyland has in Anaheim. Sure money is powerful when getting approval but the voices of the surrounding community can be as well.

This is another interesting but probably more black and white situation. Universal owned this land, sold it to residential developers with the condition that all properties would be aware of future potential. Homes' titles included documentation that the land that Universal owned would be developed and it would potentially be park/attraction projects. Since the zoning was already in place no real public interaction was needed to build the water park and the residents WHO KNOWINGLY bought homes next to Universal are now upset because they say the slides are ugly.

Buyer beware! If you are buying a home next to undeveloped property do your due diligence to know who owns it, what it is zoned for and what neighboring land is zoned for ... and look at the comprehensive land use plan for the next 20 years. Sounds like Universal is good here other than the complaints they will constantly get.

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

This is another interesting but probably more black and white situation. Universal owned this land, sold it to residential developers with the condition that all properties would be aware of future potential. Homes' titles included documentation that the land that Universal owned would be developed and it would potentially be park/attraction projects. Since the zoning was already in place no real public interaction was needed to build the water park and the residents WHO KNOWINGLY bought homes next to Universal are now upset because they say the slides are ugly.

Buyer beware! If you are buying a home next to undeveloped property do your due diligence to know who owns it, what it is zoned for and what neighboring land is zoned for ... and look at the comprehensive land use plan for the next 20 years. Sounds like Universal is good here other than the complaints they will constantly get.

Totally agree with this. I read an article a couple of weeks ago about people who bought homes right next to Universal and are now whining about what it is like to live next to a theme park.

It reminded me of people who build in flood zones then are shocked when the land- gasp!- floods.

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

For sure will be interesting. Yes you can set your own restrictions and it happens often when you are trying to appease a community with your future plans. Not sure their purpose. Another type would be self imposed CID, Community Improvement District, when property owners agree to self tax in order to use extra tax for infrastructure and that also will happen when a new development is trying to get a project approved or if a renovation is happening to an area where there isn't enough tax money to make improvements.

Interesting. That makes sense.

And those restrictions necessarily transfer with the land? Who has the power to remove those restrictions? I can't imagine such restrictions being transferred in perpetuity.

 

[HopperFan]

Interesting. That makes sense.

And those restrictions necessarily transfer with the land? Who has the power to remove those restrictions? I can't imagine such restrictions being transferred in perpetuity.

I would say that every case is different based on wording. Really do not know "transfer/power" situation without seeing the document and it's wording - and how it is attached in County records, or if it is at all. Given Universal wrote it they knew what they were getting when they bought it back so am sure they know they can void it.

 

[PuppyJonathan]

The same thing is happening to LEGOLAND in Goshen, New York. Only difference is the complaint isn't that houses won't even be close to the proposed park site but how they're worried about the town's infrastructure handling a park

 

[Accident]

I think because this land foreclosed that anyone other than these 2 parties could have acquired the land could have built whatever they wanted (within zoning laws) and there would be no problem or anything stopping them.

But there appears to be some contract between universal and this gentlemen that I'm assuming is worded where neither of them would build a tourist attraction on this piece of land. Foreclosure or not, there is a contract between these 2 parties that they agree'd would not build certain things on this land. Good for him, just because he doesn't have the land anymore doesn't mean the contract that neither of them wouldn't build a tourist attraction on it isn't still valid. This one is going to cost universal if they are actually going to be 1 or 2 more theme parks there.

I know of a case with the wiz and bestbuy in union nj that was about competition. not exactly the same because the city was involved with the agreement but it came down to when the wiz filed and the wiz won but lost because they had to pay bestbuy for the building and lost profit from dragging their behinds in filing. the wiz went under because of it.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

I think because this land foreclosed that anyone other than these 2 parties could have acquired the land could have built whatever they wanted (within zoning laws) and there would be no problem or anything stopping them.

But there appears to be some contract between universal and this gentlemen that I'm assuming is worded where neither of them would build a tourist attraction on this piece of land. Foreclosure or not, there is a contract between these 2 parties that they agree'd would not build certain things on this land. Good for him, just because he doesn't have the land anymore doesn't mean the contract that neither of them wouldn't build a tourist attraction on it isn't still valid. This one is going to cost universal if they are actually going to be 1 or 2 more theme parks there.

I know of a case with the wiz and bestbuy in union nj that was about competition. not exactly the same because the city was involved with the agreement but it came down to when the wiz filed and the wiz won but lost because they had to pay bestbuy for the building and lost profit from dragging their behinds in filing. the wiz went under because of it.

But I can't see why Universal (or anyone for that matter) would place a restriction concerning what the selling party (universal) could due with the property, I mean their selling it so they shouldn't be able to do anything. I can see placing restrictions on what the purchaser can do, but the seller when selling has to assume they might never re-acquire that property so why would anyone even bother placing any restrictions on what they(the seller) can do in the off chance that they repurchase the property.

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

I think because this land foreclosed that anyone other than these 2 parties could have acquired the land could have built whatever they wanted (within zoning laws) and there would be no problem or anything stopping them.

But there appears to be some contract between universal and this gentlemen that I'm assuming is worded where neither of them would build a tourist attraction on this piece of land. Foreclosure or not, there is a contract between these 2 parties that they agree'd would not build certain things on this land. Good for him, just because he doesn't have the land anymore doesn't mean the contract that neither of them wouldn't build a tourist attraction on it isn't still valid. This one is going to cost universal if they are actually going to be 1 or 2 more theme parks there.

I know of a case with the wiz and bestbuy in union nj that was about competition. not exactly the same because the city was involved with the agreement but it came down to when the wiz filed and the wiz won but lost because they had to pay bestbuy for the building and lost profit from dragging their behinds in filing. the wiz went under because of it.

I'm not sure that Universal and Thomas had a contract. From what I read recently, Thomas says he was "appointed as the enforcer of the declaration" (said declaration being the restrictions on the propery) . Not sure who he thinks appointed him. Still not sure what he is trying to enforce if no plans to build exist (unless the permits mentioned by HopperFan are enough to set this suit into motion) .

Since Thomas still owns some land near Universal that also carries the restrictions, he may be trying to use this suit to force Universal to lift the restrictions on his property. Maybe Thomas wants to develop something akin to a theme park and can't do so already. Isn't he in the process of building Skyplex or something like that near Universal?

I am selfishly totally on Universal's side here. I want them to build, build, build! !

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

I'm not sure that Universal and Thomas had a contract. From what I read recently, Thomas says he was "appointed as the enforcer of the declaration" (said declaration being the restrictions on the propery) . Not sure who he thinks appointed him. Still not sure what he is trying to enforce if no plans to build exist (unless the permits mentioned by HopperFan are enough to set this suit into motion) .

Since Thomas still owns some land near Universal that also carries the restrictions, he may be trying to use this suit to force Universal to lift the restrictions on his property. Maybe Thomas wants to develop something akin to a theme park and can't do so already. Isn't he in the process of building Skyplex or something like that near Universal?

I agree with HopperFan, though. I think Universal knows what it is doing and will figure this out quickly. It may cost them a little to make this guy go away, but they will build on this land.

I am selfishly totally on Universal's side here. I want them to build, build, build! !

 

[Accident]

But I can't see why Universal (or anyone for that matter) would place a restriction concerning what the selling party (universal) could due with the property, I mean their selling it so they shouldn't be able to do anything. I can see placing restrictions on what the purchaser can do, but the seller when selling has to assume they might never re-acquire that property so why would anyone even bother placing any restrictions on what they(the seller) can do in the off chance that they repurchase the property.

I haven't seen the contract so I don't actually know but right now with limited info I have it sounds like universal may have screwed up or made it so loosely worded that it's not in their favor since they drafted it (assuming they drafted it) or that a contract exists in the first place.. will be interesting to see what happens here..

I am selfishly totally on Universal's side here. I want them to build, build, build! !

Oh I want them to build build build also. But contracts are contracts and they need to handle that situation (if it exists) first.

 

[AtlantaDisneyDreamer]

I haven't seen the contract so I don't actually know but right now with limited info I have it sounds like universal may have screwed up or made it so loosely worded that it's not in their favor since they drafted it (assuming they drafted it) or that a contract exists in the first place.. will be interesting to see what happens here..



Oh I want them to build build build also. But contracts are contracts and they need to handle that situation (if it exists) first.

I agree that they have to work out the legal issues. I hope the legal eagles who work for Universal have it all under control.

I just read a little more about Skyplex. Do you know anything about that? Apparently Universal fought against zoning for Skyplex because it features a 500 foot tall coaster that could mess up sight lines and theming for The Wizarding World (who wants to see a towering 500 foot coaster behind Hogwarts?) but it looks like the zoning change was approved for Skyplex to go ahead.

Skyplex holds practically no interest for me, and I would sure hate for it to mess up my being immersed in Harry Potter World.

Universal and Thomas' company seem to be battling right now and it could get uglier.