Jump to content

Orlando Attractions Area News & Developments


sunshine

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, jack said:

We can debate if Disney should have a special status but not because they oppose a bill in the legislature. It smells of revenge, not good public policy. 

The sane world is supporting a bill they have never read and are relying are partisan actors to explain it to them. You should never trust a politician under any circumstances. Additionally, our so called opposition party has lots its mind and are not to be trusted either. The mainstream media has no credibility and has not delivered a fair assessment of the bill. 

I don't like this bill because it is vague and the potential impact on high schoolers who most likely have already dealt with sexual identification themselves or someone close to them. 

It makes sense from a good public policy perspective as well. If we're granting someone special privileges, and they're actively demonstrating that an utter disregard for decency, it makes sense to revoke the special privileges and go back to treating them just like everyone else.  We're talking about special privileges here. I'm not happy with the vagueness in the bill either, but the bill is targeted at students 3rd grade and under. If you read the bill, its hard to believe its going to have any impact at all on high schoolers, its targeted at elementary education, specifically 3rd grade and under, because of a number of

 

1 hour ago, prahaboheme said:

Ron de Santis is waging a cry-baby war on Disney’s special status because Disney is come out in strong opposition to his Don’t Say Gay hate bill. 
Just another example of how the GOP continues to adopt authoritative tendencies.

1) tell you what you can and cannot say or do unless it fits neatly into  a far right viewpoint 

2) if you oppose it, abuse power by attempting to shutdown or retaliate against said person, company, entity 

If I had to wager on who will win this fight, I’ll bet on the side of the state’s largest employer.

Stop being disingenuous, the bill doesn't even mention any form of homosexuality, don't say don't say anything, and clearly is not any sort of hate bill. There's literally only 2 reasons to call it that:

1) You're lying

2) You haven't read the bill and are misinformed

Where's the liberal outrage about cities in California literally trying to kick Chick Fil A out of their areas even though the public at large clearly wants them there given the vast support and lines ever since the democrats waged war on them? Talk about a cry baby war. At least Ron de Santis is playing fair, only going after special rights they got to make them treated more normal, unlike what the democrats consistently do in their tantrums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


14 hours ago, jrs2 said:

Left vs Right; gay issues in politics is a major bullet point.  so is abortion.  don't fall for it as though it's some sinister partisan and your guys are coming to the rescue.  everyone is being played. 

as for this weekend, in the words of Chappelle as Rick James..."enjoy yo-self."  Peace!

What on earth are you talking about?

14 hours ago, aent said:

It makes sense from a good public policy perspective as well. If we're granting someone special privileges, and they're actively demonstrating that an utter disregard for decency, it makes sense to revoke the special privileges and go back to treating them just like everyone else.  We're talking about special privileges here. I'm not happy with the vagueness in the bill either, but the bill is targeted at students 3rd grade and under. If you read the bill, its hard to believe its going to have any impact at all on high schoolers, its targeted at elementary education, specifically 3rd grade and under, because of a number of

 

Stop being disingenuous, the bill doesn't even mention any form of homosexuality, don't say don't say anything, and clearly is not any sort of hate bill. There's literally only 2 reasons to call it that:

1) You're lying

2) You haven't read the bill and are misinformed

Where's the liberal outrage about cities in California literally trying to kick Chick Fil A out of their areas even though the public at large clearly wants them there given the vast support and lines ever since the democrats waged war on them? Talk about a cry baby war. At least Ron de Santis is playing fair, only going after special rights they got to make them treated more normal, unlike what the democrats consistently do in their tantrums.

The only one being disingenuous here seems to be you. It’s not even worth a discussion if you cannot speak with a bit of sincerity.

Regarding CA and Chick Fil A — please name a single city that is attempting to kick them out. Furthermore, anyone has a right not to agree with the practices of Chick Fil A and can speak out and boycott that company. Many people do. It’s a whole other matter when the GOP wants to write into law how an entire population of people should think and speak.

Edited by prahaboheme
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, prahaboheme said:

What on earth are you talking about?

The only one being disingenuous here seems to be you. It’s not even worth a discussion if you cannot speak with a bit of sincerity.

Regarding CA and Chick Fil A — please name a single city that is attempting to kick them out. Furthermore, anyone has a right not to agree with the practices of Chick Fil A and can speak out and boycott that company. Many people do. It’s a whole other matter when the GOP wants to write into law how an entire population of people should think and speak.

Oooh, that was an easy question. Currently Santa Barbara, CA is attempting to declare Chick Fil A a public nuisance. Just Google the banning of Chick Fil A and the refusal to give the company new permits in liberal areas, tons of news stories about it. I, of course, am not talking about people speaking out or boycotting Chick Fil A (I happen to disagree with their stance on gay marriage and all other religious issues and dislike their attempts to get religious morals made into law), of course people have a right to do that. DeSantis isn't even talking about doing anything that hasn't been done to [b]literally every other company in the entire United States[/b].  Ya know, Universal Orlando has to deal with Orange County and the water district. SeaWorld does. Everyone else does. Why does Disney need special privileges that literally no other company gets? 

This bill literally does the very opposite of what you're saying, its not saying how anyone should think or speak, its protecting very young children from a very small number of batcrap crazy teachers who think its ok to teach 8 year olds that its good to get a sex change operation. Its been the democrats MO for the past few years to literally ban people from thinking or speaking differently then what the government says, whether it comes to sex change operations or wearing masks or the origin of COVID, or exactly who needs to take the vaccinations. If you disagree with them, you are "misinformation" and must be cancelled

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, aent said:

Oooh, that was an easy question. Currently Santa Barbara, CA is attempting to declare Chick Fil A a public nuisance. Just Google the banning of Chick Fil A and the refusal to give the company new permits in liberal areas, tons of news stories about it. I, of course, am not talking about people speaking out or boycotting Chick Fil A (I happen to disagree with their stance on gay marriage and all other religious issues and dislike their attempts to get religious morals made into law), of course people have a right to do that. DeSantis isn't even talking about doing anything that hasn't been done to [b]literally every other company in the entire United States[/b].  Ya know, Universal Orlando has to deal with Orange County and the water district. SeaWorld does. Everyone else does. Why does Disney need special privileges that literally no other company gets? 

This bill literally does the very opposite of what you're saying, its not saying how anyone should think or speak, its protecting very young children from a very small number of batcrap crazy teachers who think its ok to teach 8 year olds that its good to get a sex change operation. Its been the democrats MO for the past few years to literally ban people from thinking or speaking differently then what the government says, whether it comes to sex change operations or wearing masks or the origin of COVID, or exactly who needs to take the vaccinations. If you disagree with them, you are "misinformation" and must be cancelled

Again disingenuous on your part.

The public nuisance complaint in Santa Barbara is about traffic disruptions not a liberal agenda to eliminate them altogether.  Distorting news stories to fit a conservative viewpoint fits right into the FOX news playbill. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, aent said:

Oooh, that was an easy question. Currently Santa Barbara, CA is attempting to declare Chick Fil A a public nuisance. Just Google the banning of Chick Fil A and the refusal to give the company new permits in liberal areas, tons of news stories about it. I, of course, am not talking about people speaking out or boycotting Chick Fil A (I happen to disagree with their stance on gay marriage and all other religious issues and dislike their attempts to get religious morals made into law), of course people have a right to do that. DeSantis isn't even talking about doing anything that hasn't been done to [b]literally every other company in the entire United States[/b].  Ya know, Universal Orlando has to deal with Orange County and the water district. SeaWorld does. Everyone else does. Why does Disney need special privileges that literally no other company gets? 

This bill literally does the very opposite of what you're saying, its not saying how anyone should think or speak, its protecting very young children from a very small number of batcrap crazy teachers who think its ok to teach 8 year olds that its good to get a sex change operation. Its been the democrats MO for the past few years to literally ban people from thinking or speaking differently then what the government says, whether it comes to sex change operations or wearing masks or the origin of COVID, or exactly who needs to take the vaccinations. If you disagree with them, you are "misinformation" and must be cancelled

"a very small number of batcrap crazy teachers who think its ok to teach 8 year olds that its good to get a sex change operation"

Let's just be honest here.  This is an election year bill for Gov. DeSantis to stir up the culture wars.  It's not very different from the "bathroom" bills which have raged through legislatures over the past couple of years.  As with any "culture wars" bill, the language is so sloppy and broad it can be abused, to punish teachers for giving LGBT-affirming responses to the typical questions a 3rd-grader might ask.  I agree that some of the trans activism is over the top these days, but there's language in the bill which goes beyond preventing inappropriate "sex change operation" conversations.

Anyhow, it's quite stupid for InSanetis to be poking a stick at the state's largest employer, especially while they are in the process of moving 2,000 corporate jobs to the state.  However, I never put it past Florida politicians to be incredibly stupid and myopic, because they aren't the brightest bunch.

Edited by jliv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the GOP, this is a political stunt and @jlivis right that it would normally go quiet after November. This year, however, it will probably drag on as Ron DeSantis, who has spent almost his entire time in office running for president, will continue that.

What the GOP, who doesn’t care much about people, doesn’t get, is how many lives will be destroyed in this process. The law is intentionally vague and the idea of carte blanche suing by parents (have you ever been to a school board or PTA meeting?) should send chills up any intelligent citizen’s spine

We’ve been here before. Segregationist Governor Charley Johns did the same thing here in the ‘50’s, though he concentrated on the colleges :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Eugene_Johns

Then there was Anita Bryant in the ‘70’s, who I have to thank for giving me the courage to come out thanks to her madness. Fortunately, she destroyed her career in the process.

Remember how the right insisted that marriage equality would destroy marriage? It didn’t. Remember how gays in the military (who had always been there) would destroy the military? We didn’t . We could go on but let’s not.

Given all the REAL problems the state has (financial inequality, climate change, affordable housing, environmental degradation -  hello, manatees and red tide-), this non-problem that will make it even harder to teach is not what our legislators should be concentrating on.

If you’re voting for these yahoos, you’re part of the problem. Please do better. If you’re voting for actual governance in Tallahassee, Charge On!

Edited by spenser1058
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jliv said:

"a very small number of batcrap crazy teachers who think its ok to teach 8 year olds that its good to get a sex change operation"

Let's just be honest here.  This is an election year bill for Gov. DeSantis to stir up the culture wars.  It's not very different from the "bathroom" bills which have raged through legislatures over the past couple of years.  As with any "culture wars" bill, the language is so sloppy and broad it can be abused, to punish teachers for giving LGBT-affirming responses to the typical questions a 3rd-grader might ask.  I agree that some of the trans activism is over the top these days, but there's language in the bill which goes beyond preventing inappropriate "sex change operation" conversations.

Anyhow, it's quite stupid for InSanetis to be poking a stick at the state's largest employer, especially while they are in the process of moving 2,000 corporate jobs to the state.  However, I never put it past Florida politicians to be incredibly stupid and myopic, because they aren't the brightest bunch.

Again, the bill literally says nothing about these situations you're bringing up. The bill prohibits saying "a normal relationship is between a man and a woman" just as much as it prohibits defining what the word gay is. It really doesn't do either one. Obviously, the 7 page bill is too long for you guys to read, but here's the summary of it from the Education Committee of the state:

Quote

The bill reinforces a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions regarding the care and upbringing of his or her child in the public school setting. The bill requires each district school board to adopt procedures for notifying a student’s parent if there is a change in services or monitoring related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being. All procedures adopted under the bill must require school district personnel to encourage a student to discuss issues related to his or her well-being with his or her parent.

The bill prohibits a school district from maintaining procedures that require school district personnel to withhold from a parent, or encourage a student to withhold, information related to a student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being. School district procedures may authorize school district personnel to withhold information only for a reasonable belief that disclosure would subject the student to abuse, abandonment, or neglect.

The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.

At the beginning of each school year, a school district must notify parents of all healthcare services offered at their student’s school and provide parents the opportunity to individually consent to, or decline, each service. Additionally, schools may not administer a well-being questionnaire or health screening form to a student in kindergarten through grade 3 without first receiving consent from the student’s parent.

The bill requires each school district to adopt procedures for a parent to notify the principal of concerns regarding the provisions in the bill, and the process for resolving concerns within seven days of the complaint. The bill specifies that, if the complaint is not resolved by the school district after an additional 30 days, a parent may:

  • Request the Commissioner of Education appoint a special magistrate who meets qualifications established in the bill. The special magistrate must recommended a resolution to the State Board of Education (SBE) within 30 days. The SBE must approve or reject the recommendation between 7 and 30 days after the recommendation. The school district must pay the costs of the special magistrate.
  • Bring an action against the school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that the school district procedure or practice violates the provision in the bill and seek injunctive relief. A court may award damages and must award reasonable attorney fees and court costs to a parent who receives declaratory or injunctive relief.

The bill requires all school district student support services training to adhere to guidelines, standards, and frameworks established by the Department of Education (DOE). By June 30, 2023, the DOE must review and update, as necessary, all relevant guidelines, standards, and frameworks for compliance with the bill.

 

What part of this is objectionable? Stop making up what ifs and lets point to something in the actual bill that is actually bad. The bill doesn't even allow parents to sue UNLESS IT KEEPS HAPPENING. If the school district reviews a complaint and resolves it within 7 days, with another 30 days to make sure its really resolved, the parents have no relief to be given.

 

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Remember how gays in the military (who had always been there) would destroy the military? It didn’t. We could go on but let’s not.

 

No, I don't. I do remember that Obama told me that a civil union should be good enough and was not in favor of gay marriage, but thankfully, the right-leaning supreme court disagreed with him and declared it legal. And Clinton is the one who created the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that both sides seemed very happy with for a very long period of time.

Edited by aent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2022 at 10:54 AM, prahaboheme said:

What on earth are you talking about?

what I'm trying to say is that both parties' policies are scripted by a common source with the intention of creating exactly what is happening in this thread.   

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

Remember how gays in the military (who had always been there) would destroy the military? It didn’t.

Gays in the military making it worser?  Shoot.  Send Rob Halford to the military or some of the bears I know of...that'll toughen them up believe me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 8:27 PM, aent said:

It makes sense from a good public policy perspective as well. If we're granting someone special privileges, and they're actively demonstrating that an utter disregard for decency, it makes sense to revoke the special privileges and go back to treating them just like everyone else.  We're talking about special privileges here. I'm not happy with the vagueness in the bill either, but the bill is targeted at students 3rd grade and under. If you read the bill, its hard to believe its going to have any impact at all on high schoolers, its targeted at elementary education, specifically 3rd grade and under, because of a number of

 

Stop being disingenuous, the bill doesn't even mention any form of homosexuality, don't say don't say anything, and clearly is not any sort of hate bill. There's literally only 2 reasons to call it that:

1) You're lying

2) You haven't read the bill and are misinformed

Where's the liberal outrage about cities in California literally trying to kick Chick Fil A out of their areas even though the public at large clearly wants them there given the vast support and lines ever since the democrats waged war on them? Talk about a cry baby war. At least Ron de Santis is playing fair, only going after special rights they got to make them treated more normal, unlike what the democrats consistently do in their tantrums.

They are opposed to a bill. It has nothing to do with decency. The bill explicitly call out younger students but blows it up by stating age appropriateness. Who decides what is age appropriate? A parent can now sue based on their own interpretation and a judge will have decided what the legislature meant by age appropriateness. This is a god send to trial lawyers and a perfect example of lazy legislatures. 

The original draft prohibited classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity and was changed to classroom instruction. That is why it was rightfully called the "don't say gay". Since that provision was modified, it should not be called that anymore. So yes, it does call out homosexuality but it does not ban it the way the opposition states it. 

Your example of Chick Fil A is why I despise the model Republican Party so much. They have taken the worst elements of the left and turned it up to 11. radicalism should be rejected in all forms. 

Edited by jack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, aent said:

Again, the bill literally says nothing about these situations you're bringing up. The bill prohibits saying "a normal relationship is between a man and a woman" just as much as it prohibits defining what the word gay is. It really doesn't do either one. Obviously, the 7 page bill is too long for you guys to read, but here's the summary of it from the Education Committee of the state:

 

What part of this is objectionable? Stop making up what ifs and lets point to something in the actual bill that is actually bad. The bill doesn't even allow parents to sue UNLESS IT KEEPS HAPPENING. If the school district reviews a complaint and resolves it within 7 days, with another 30 days to make sure its really resolved, the parents have no relief to be given.

 

No, I don't. I do remember that Obama told me that a civil union should be good enough and was not in favor of gay marriage, but thankfully, the right-leaning supreme court disagreed with him and declared it legal. And Clinton is the one who created the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that both sides seemed very happy with for a very long period of time.

If a parent believes a teacher violated this statute and their concern is not “resolved” by the school district, they could sue the relevant school district for injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees. Lawsuit factory. 

So Clinton is an old guy whose views represented most of the country of the time. Obama probably lied. Also, water is wet. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, spenser1058 said:

For the GOP, this is a political stunt and @jlivis right that it would normally go quiet after November. This year, however, it will probably drag on as Ron DeSantis, who has spent almost his entire time in office running for president, will continue that.

What the GOP, who doesn’t care much about people, doesn’t get, is how many lives will be destroyed in this process. The law is intentionally vague and the idea of carte blanche suing by parents (have you ever been to a school board or PTA meeting?) should send chills up any intelligent citizen’s spine

We’ve been here before. Segregationist Governor Charley Johns did the same thing here in the ‘50’s, though he concentrated on the colleges :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Eugene_Johns

Then there was Anita Bryant in the ‘70’s, who I have to thank for giving me the courage to come out thanks to her madness. Fortunately, she destroyed her career in the process.

Remember how the right insisted that marriage equality would destroy marriage? It didn’t. Remember how gays in the military (who had always been there) would destroy the military? We didn’t . We could go on but let’s not.

Given all the REAL problems the state has (financial inequality, climate change, affordable housing, environmental degradation -  hello, manatees and red tide-), this non-problem that will make it even harder to teach is not what our legislators should be concentrating on.

If you’re voting for these yahoos, you’re part of the problem. Please do better. If you’re voting for actual governance in Tallahassee, Charge On!

Hmmm.  Well, with regard to political motivations; the thing about policies having a "chilling effect" on conduct and all, this is probably in retaliation the Biden's renewed bill on being anti-gun, and opening people up to liability and/or gun companies and so on and so forth.  And all this goes back to what I've been saying...it's all scripted...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A press release sent out about the upcoming SI hotels- Orlando is slated to be #2:

https://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/202204/8887/

From Theme Park Insider 

There really wasn’t more info than we knew from when I noted this was coming a while back. I think a battle of useless press releases with Ms. Ponte is in order!


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spenser1058 said:

A press release sent out about the upcoming SI hotels- Orlando is slated to be #2:

https://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/202204/8887/

From Theme Park Insider 

There really wasn’t more info than we knew from when I noted this was coming a while back. I think a battle of useless press releases with Ms. Ponte is in order!
 

Well, regarding college sports, I believe USA Today is the sponsor or creator of the Coaches Pole (Poll- it's a joke), which keeps USA Today relevant in that regard.  I do know SI does preseason polls and don't they for recruiting as well?  I know I've always looked for Gators on the covers of SI over the decades...it's like a trophy of sorts.  So, yeah, I can see how SI is still relevant.  The Swimsuit thing is also big; Hawaiian Tropic modeled theirs after SI I'm sure...  The resort should be a draw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused. Why are they suing Universal? How is Universal going to be held liable for a contract dispute with another party? Shouldn't the lawsuit for breach of contract be against the landowner that they were in a supposed contract with to by the land? Not gonna lie as the park that they say they proposed with a 700 foot indoor ski slope sounds amazing...... but it is a pipe dream that never would have been built, and quite honestly, was probably planned with hopes of scaring Universal into buying the land from them after any supposed sale. They never intended to build it. This is shady all around, now they are pissed that they couldn't bank on their scheme. 

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-bz-development-company-sues-universal-breach-contract-20220413-yyzp3bcsqfhvna2jggtidir6ti-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, shardoon said:

I am confused. Why are they suing Universal? How is Universal going to be held liable for a contract dispute with another party? Shouldn't the lawsuit for breach of contract be against the landowner that they were in a supposed contract with to by the land? Not gonna lie as the park that they say they proposed with a 700 foot indoor ski slope sounds amazing...... but it is a pipe dream that never would have been built, and quite honestly, was probably planned with hopes of scaring Universal into buying the land from them after any supposed sale. They never intended to build it. This is shady all around, now they are pissed that they couldn't bank on their scheme. 

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/os-bz-development-company-sues-universal-breach-contract-20220413-yyzp3bcsqfhvna2jggtidir6ti-story.html

 As far as anybody knows, maybe Universal is interfering with that purchase attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jrs2 said:

 As far as anybody knows, maybe Universal is interfering with that purchase attempt.

They probably made a counter offer. This was during the time that universal was trying to buy up as much land as possible in that area. The selling party accepted that offer. If the selling party was in breach of contract, there were remedies at the time. This company could have file suit immediately and tried to get an injunction on the new sale to Universal.  Nothing was done. 

Secondly, if there was a signed contract already with the selling party, and the selling party breached, how exactly is Universal liable for the breach. This should be the selling party. Universal was not part of any contract with this person. This is a contract dispute, and Universal has no part of that. 

Lastly, why did we never hear about this huge park that was going to be built? Apparently according to the lawsuit, Universal heard about it and maliciously interfered with a pending sale. If it was that common knowledge, why were there not any rumors of this pending South Xanadu World? Personally, it sound like these plans for development, whether fictitious or not, were made well after the fact, and they were designed specifically for this law suit.  I would move for dismissal WITH prejudice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, shardoon said:

Secondly, if there was a signed contract already with the selling party, and the selling party breached, how exactly is Universal liable for the breach. This should be the selling party. Universal was not part of any contract with this person. This is a contract dispute, and Universal has no part of that. 

 

I haven't seen this lawsuit, but they're likely claiming tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship. This is a law that makes no sense at all, but basically says if you have knowledge of a business relationship (whether contractual or even just conceptual) between two other parties unrelated to you, and you execute another contract or business deal with one of those parties, and it effects the other of the 2 parties, you are liable to that other party for any and all damages, and perhaps even more.

So if during the Universal negotiation of the huge chunk of land, the owner of tells Universal "I had someone interested in buying this small piece of the land for a business idea they had, can I carve that out of the contract we're negotiating?" (even though there is no contract with anyone yet, just negotiations) then Universal has a legal obligation to say yes because of the information given in the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, aent said:

I haven't seen this lawsuit, but they're likely claiming tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship. This is a law that makes no sense at all, but basically says if you have knowledge of a business relationship (whether contractual or even just conceptual) between two other parties unrelated to you, and you execute another contract or business deal with one of those parties, and it effects the other of the 2 parties, you are liable to that other party for any and all damages, and perhaps even more.

So if during the Universal negotiation of the huge chunk of land, the owner of tells Universal "I had someone interested in buying this small piece of the land for a business idea they had, can I carve that out of the contract we're negotiating?" (even though there is no contract with anyone yet, just negotiations) then Universal has a legal obligation to say yes because of the information given in the question.

However, it was no secret that universal was buying up any and all parcels well before this supposed contract. It's gonna be a big burden of proof to prove universal wouldn't have bought that land if they didn't know about the park when they have a history of buying up every last parcel. 

This smells like a money grab from a slimy lawyer and failed developer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shardoon said:

However, it was no secret that universal was buying up any and all parcels well before this supposed contract. It's gonna be a big burden of proof to prove universal wouldn't have bought that land if they didn't know about the park when they have a history of buying up every last parcel. 

This smells like a money grab from a slimy lawyer and failed developer. 

are we talking about that land south of Artigon or Deezerland?  Because if we are, Universal has a history of interference starting with that World of Steel or whatever thrill park from many years back.  Also, they also opposed the Mango's project down the street from there as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, shardoon said:

However, it was no secret that universal was buying up any and all parcels well before this supposed contract. It's gonna be a big burden of proof to prove universal wouldn't have bought that land if they didn't know about the park when they have a history of buying up every last parcel. 

This smells like a money grab from a slimy lawyer and failed developer. 

Thankfully for the slimy lawyer, the burden of proof you mention is irrelevant to the case, they don't need to do that at all if you read the law as I mentioned, thats not an element for that law. They don't even need a contract, just a conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jrs2 said:

are we talking about that land south of Artigon or Deezerland?  Because if we are, Universal has a history of interference starting with that World of Steel or whatever thrill park from many years back.  Also, they also opposed the Mango's project down the street from there as well.  

If you're referring to the land between Dezerland and Tangelo Park, that was at one time earmarked for amusement park development and is currently under construction as residential, then no, Universal never owned that. From what I've heard, the land in question is southwest of Lockheed and northwest of Top Golf, on the outskirts of Universal's southern property. This lawsuit has no legitimate justification as far as I can tell, as Universal shouldn't be held responsible for the seller's broken promises, but it won't interfere with Epic Universe regardless of what happens. 

Mango's coaster project failed to materialize due to the would-be developer not having his **** together, not interference from Universal. If Universal actually had the power to prevent these sorts of nearby projects, Icon Park never would've been built (doing at least two people huge favors.)

Edited by F-L-A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2022 at 3:00 PM, codypet said:

I know there's some quick speculation, but I think it really depends on the investigation.  I wouldn't be surprised if the restraints get revised and it opens back up.   Time will tell.  I think it depends on what happens with the operator after the lawyers battle it out.

 

On 3/30/2022 at 1:51 PM, prahaboheme said:

One must wonder if the drop tower will be permanently closed down given the national attention of the tragic incident. 

Now that the investigation is complete, if they can find a new operator, I'm thinking they'll definitely reopen the ride with revised restraints.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.