[JenBurdoo] Land of Princesses

[JenBurdoo1]

In recent news (don't google it), what does King Charles III have to do with Disney World?

[Sarisberie2]

Does this have anything to do with his upcoming coronation? A US politician?

[JenBurdoo1]

Does this have anything to do with his upcoming coronation? No. A US politician? Mildly.

[Sarisberie2]

Are any Disney characters relevant? If so, can I invoke [list of Disney characters] please?

[JenBurdoo1]

Are any Disney characters relevant? No. If so, can I invoke [list of Disney characters] please?

[GalFisk]

Are any other fictional characters relevant? Are other people apart from the King and the politician relevant? Any companies apart from the Walt Disney company?

[Sarisberie2]

Messaged you - thanks for reply! Withdrawing...

[BalinTheDwarf]

I've seen this on the news, so I'll stay a lurker.

[Sundowner64]

Charles III - the current British monarch?
Disney World - the theme park in Orlando, FL?
Is anything specific about the park relevant? buildings? attractions? themes? festivals? its history? its management?
Any upcoming changes in Disney World relevant?
Is specifically Disney World relevant? or the Walt Disney Company in general?
Did someone find out that any Disney character looks like Charles?
Land ownership relevant? the somewhat obscure theory that because Spain ceded Florida to the British crown in the 18 century, the British king is legally still the owner of whole Florida, and everyone who possesses land there is a tenant to the British king, as tenancy was never formally abolished?
Does Charles know that he has to do with Disney World?

[JenBurdoo1]

Are any other fictional characters relevant? No. Are other people apart from the King and the politician relevant? Yes. Any companies apart from the Walt Disney company? No.

Charles III - the current British monarch? Yes.
Disney World - the theme park in Orlando, FL? Yes.
Is anything specific about the park relevant? buildings? attractions? themes? festivals? its history? The park itself is irrelevant, but... its management? This.
Any upcoming changes in Disney World relevant? The park, no. Other changes, yes.
Is specifically Disney World relevant? No, but... or the Walt Disney Company in general? To an extent.
Did someone find out that any Disney character looks like Charles? No.
Land ownership relevant? Yes. the somewhat obscure theory that because Spain ceded Florida to the British crown in the 18 century, the British king is legally still the owner of whole Florida, and everyone who possesses land there is a tenant to the British king, as tenancy was never formally abolished? No, though I wouldn't be surprised if this is what inspired it.
Does Charles know that he has to do with Disney World? By now, probably.

[Sundowner64]

Is there a change in land ownership to be expected?
Does Disney own the land of Disney World? Do they rent it?
Does someone dispute the ownership? the Seminole Community?
Did someone discover that old contracts establishing the right of Walr Disney Company to have a theme park there were wrong, void or expired?
Does the land indeed belong to the British Crown?
Does whoever disputes the land ownership/possession refer to ancient laws, contracts, rules, or court decisions involving the British monarch?
Is the Disney World management the one who disputes the ownership? Do they want to retain the current situation? change it?
Did a contract governing land usage expire? Does Walt Disney have to pay a fee for using the land? Relevant?
Still thinking about the idea of tenancy: Did someone claim that without consent of the king land ownership cannot transfer?
Is any legal or factual act of Charles III or any of his predecessors relevant? quoted as source of law or refered to?
Did someone file a petition or request to Charles?
Is Disney World part of a political district or municipality? if not: Is the idea then, as Florida is made up by its districts, Disney World is not a part of Florida, and thus, still part of Britain? or at least, the state of Florida has no political power on Disney World?

[JenBurdoo1]

Is there a change in land ownership to be expected? No. While ownership is relevant, it's not the only thing.
Does Disney own the land of Disney World? Yes, but... Do they rent it? No.
Does someone dispute the ownership? No. the Seminole Community?
Did someone discover that old contracts establishing the right of Walt Disney Company to have a theme park there were wrong, void or expired? No.
Does the land indeed belong to the British Crown? No.
Does whoever disputes the land ownership/possession refer to ancient laws, contracts, rules, or court decisions involving the British monarch? No.
Is the Disney World management the one who disputes the ownership? Do they want to retain the current situation? change it? The situation is in the process of change right now, but more than Disney are making relevant changes.
Did a contract governing land usage expire? No, but... Does Walt Disney have to pay a fee for using the land? Relevant? No to both.
Still thinking about the idea of tenancy: Did someone claim that without consent of the king land ownership cannot transfer? No.
Is any legal or factual act of Charles III or any of his predecessors relevant? quoted as source of law or refered to? No.
Did someone file a petition or request to Charles? No.
Is Disney World part of a political district or municipality? Yes; explore. if not: Is the idea then, as Florida is made up by its districts, Disney World is not a part of Florida, No, but explore. and thus, still part of Britain? No. or at least, the state of Florida has no political power on Disney World? This is one of the things that is changing.

[Biograd1]

Is Disney World trying to find a loophole in some Florida law? and is arguing that some aspect of land ownership history makes that property exempt from the law?

[JenBurdoo1]

Is Disney World trying to find a loophole in some Florida law? Yes. and is arguing that some aspect of land ownership history makes that property exempt from the law? No.

[Biograd1]

Does the law they are trying to circumvent concern taxes? land use (e.g., things like zoning, restrictions on construction of new buildings, etc.)? rights/benefits of employees working for the park?

[Sundowner64]

Did I get it right that the Walt Disney Corp. owns the land where Disney World is located? and the land ownership itself is not disputed?
Are some legal obligations or responsibilities connected to the ownership of this piece of land relevant? or the exemption from such obligations or responsibilities?
Is Disney World in a special development zone, tax exemption zone, or something the like? in other words: did the local government make life easy for the DIsney Corp. in order to attract them to this place?
Is the current conflict basically between Disney and the local government? Does the local government plan to end some privileges for Disney? to extend some law to the Disney World territory? to extend their power in some way onto the Disney World territory?

[JenBurdoo1]

Does the law they are trying to circumvent concern taxes? To an extent. land use (e.g., things like zoning, restrictions on construction of new buildings, etc.)? Primarily this, though. rights/benefits of employees working for the park? No.

Did I get it right that the Walt Disney Corp. owns the land where Disney World is located? Yes. and the land ownership itself is not disputed? Yes.
Are some legal obligations or responsibilities connected to the ownership of this piece of land relevant? This. or the exemption from such obligations or responsibilities?
Is Disney World in a special development zone, tax exemption zone, or something the like? Yes. in other words: did the local government make life easy for the DIsney Corp. in order to attract them to this place? In a particularly relevant issue, yes.
Is the current conflict basically between Disney and the local government? Yes. Does the local government plan to end some privileges for Disney? Yes. to extend some law to the Disney World territory? Ultimately. to extend their power in some way onto the Disney World territory? Yes.

[GalFisk]

Is the privilege financial? Environmental? Regulatory? Technological? Legal?

[JenBurdoo1]

Is the privilege financial? Environmental? Regulatory? Somewhere between this... Technological? Legal? ... and this.

[GalFisk]

Do the privileges affect: buildings? Utilities? Business practices? Human resources? Permits? Ownership? Taxing? Zoning? Transport? Do they relevantly make paperwork less costly? Less needed? Do they shield from some liability? Or responsibility?

[JenBurdoo1]

Do the privileges affect: buildings? Utilities? Business practices? Human resources? Permits? Ownership? Taxing? Zoning? Transport? They can affect just about anything, within limited bounds. Do they relevantly make paperwork less costly? Less needed? No to both. Do they shield from some liability? No. Or responsibility? Yes, on one side of the argument.

[Biograd1]

So it isn't about the applicability of one specific law (as in, for example, "is Disneyland subject to this anti-discrimination law when hiring" or "Is Disneyland in the hospitality or the entertainment industry, for the purpose of seeking business permits")? but rather about some very general legal status that Disneyland can or can't claim, that indirectly affects many aspects of its responsibility/obligations? something along the lines of "corporations as persons" that got discussed a lot some years ago?

[JenBurdoo1]

So it isn't about the applicability of one specific law (as in, for example, "is Disneyland subject to this anti-discrimination law when hiring" or "Is Disneyland in the hospitality or the entertainment industry, for the purpose of seeking business permits")? but rather about some very general legal status that Disneyland can or can't claim, that indirectly affects many aspects of its responsibility/obligations? It is a specific law, but that law covers a lot of stuff. "Disney holds jurisdiction over this aspect of its operations." Something along the lines of "corporations as persons" that got discussed a lot some years ago? Not this.

[Sundowner64]

Do the privileges of Disney relate to: land use and development (i.e. they can decide themselves where to have buildings, roads, ..)? infrastructure (water, electricity, phone, internet)? labor relations and hiring? exemption from some standards (like: safety at work, environmental protection)? exemption from some bureaucracy (like: no permission needed for construction, demolition, ..)? exemption from taxes?
Is there a reason why the government wants to end/restrict the privileges right now? technology relevant? internet? the value of the land? need of land for governmental purposes? negative impact from Disney using their privileges (like: environmental damage)? personal animosities? plain need of money (so they want to cut tax privileges)?
Does Disney claim their privileges are "eternal"? given by or in the name of the British Crown? thus, only the British Crown could revoke them?

[JenBurdoo1]

Do the privileges of Disney relate to: land use and development (i.e. they can decide themselves where to have buildings, roads, ..)? infrastructure (water, electricity, phone, internet)? labor relations and hiring? exemption from some standards (like: safety at work, environmental protection)? exemption from some bureaucracy (like: no permission needed for construction, demolition, ..)? exemption from taxes? Basically all of these, though yope to exemptions. Disney does pay significant taxes, though not to the local government.
Is there a reason why the government wants to end/restrict the privileges right now? Yes. technology relevant? internet? the value of the land? need of land for governmental purposes? negative impact from Disney using their privileges (like: environmental damage)? None of these. The present government thinks there's negative impact, but YMMV. personal animosities? This, largely. plain need of money (so they want to cut tax privileges)? Money isn't directly the issue, but Disney does technically have the privilege to wreck the state's economy if negotiations fail!
Does Disney claim their privileges are "eternal"? No, but effectively... given by or in the name of the British Crown? No. thus, only the British Crown could revoke them? No.

[Biograd1]

Is the basic idea that Disneyland is large enough--and far enough from the towns and cities around it--to qualify as its own "municipality", thereby making it self-governing on the local level, rather than falling under jurisdiction of a city government of a nearby locality?

[JenBurdoo1]

Answers and Recap:

Is the basic idea that Disneyland is large enough--and far enough from the towns and cities around it--to qualify as its own "municipality", thereby making it self-governing on the local level, rather than falling under jurisdiction of a city government of a nearby locality? Correct. Essentially, it qualifies as a municipality (complete with its own company town populated by voters), so that responsibility for its extensive roads, services, etc, doesn't fall on the local governments. It pays taxes to itself to fulfil these responsibilities.

The current political climate has caused a rift between Disney and the state government, which is moving to revoke certain of Disney's rights. The puzzle is: What is Disney doing to counteract this, and what has it to do with King Charles III?

[Biograd1]

Is the central argument about what is required to be decided at the state relative to the municipal/local level? or is it about whether another local government should have jurisdiction over Disney World (sorry I called it Disneyland above--that's in my own state of California so I shouldn't have confused them)?

Is Disney arguing that Disney World is not technically "part of Florida", but has some sort of exclave status? that the residents of the company town had not had a chance to accept (or deny) certain responsibilities when the town was founded, such that those cannot be applied to it without some sort of vote?

[JenBurdoo1]

Is the central argument about what is required to be decided at the state relative to the municipal/local level? Effectively, yes. Explore. or is it about whether another local government should have jurisdiction over Disney World (sorry I called it Disneyland above--that's in my own state of California so I shouldn't have confused them)? No. The local governments don't want jurisdiction over Disney World, because then their taxes would increase.

Is Disney arguing that Disney World is not technically "part of Florida", but has some sort of exclave status? No. that the residents of the company town had not had a chance to accept (or deny) certain responsibilities when the town was founded, such that those cannot be applied to it without some sort of vote? No.

[Biograd1]

So the local governments don't want jurisdiction, but the state government wants it to become part of another municipality because the state government would benefit somehow from that change? Or nobody wants it to become part of another city, but rather the state government wants to take away some rights that Disney has that are usually granted to municipalities?

[JenBurdoo1]

So the local governments don't want jurisdiction, but the state government wants it to become part of another municipality because the state government would benefit somehow from that change? Or nobody wants it to become part of another city, but rather the state government wants to take away some rights that Disney has that are usually granted to municipalities? This is closest. It's more that the rights are still there, but they now belong to the state. Or rather, they would, if Disney hadn't counteracted the action and used Charles III in its efforts.

[Sundowner64]

A royal lives clause relevant? Did the act that gave Disney the privileges state that they must/may execute their privileges until the death of Charles III + 21 years? (assuming that Charles was the youngest member of the British royal family at the time when the privileges were granted)

[JenBurdoo1]

A royal lives clause relevant? Did the act that gave Disney the privileges state that they must/may execute their privileges until the death of Charles III + 21 years? (assuming that Charles was the youngest member of the British royal family at the time when the privileges were granted)

Close enough.



SPOILER



When built, Disney World was formed within the Reedy Creek Improvement District, within which it would have full control over improvements to its property.

This year, Governor DeSantis, who disapproves of Disney's willingness to celebrate Gay Pride and other "liberal" actions, ordered that the board that oversees Reedy Creek Improvement District would henceforth be staffed by Florida government appointees. At DeSantis' direction, they could put pressure on Disney to cease its First Amendment activities ("You said people shouldn't vote for us, we say you can't build this ride.").

Disney quietly stripped the board of its powers, returned those powers to itself, and then signed over the board to DeSantis with what is known as a Royal Lives Clause attached: The present agreement shall not be changed until 21 years after the death of the last living descendant of King Charles III.

Charles presently has seven descendants, five of which are under the age of 10.

This agreement is now locked in, and the government of Florida has lost its leverage.

[trebor2]

That's fantastic!

[Sarisberie2]

Btw, did you know that Disney's attempt failed? Unfortunately, their lawyers weren't sufficiently 'on it'.
The agreement referenced the rule against perpetuities, stating that if a perpetual term is deemed invalid, then "The agreement shall continue 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 agreement."

So far so good. However...
Apparently, his title is Charles III, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain - i.e. NOT King of England, as there is no such title these days.
Cool puzz tho'