@ANoobis
The local households thing sounds suspicious. Disney has made a huge effort to make sure anyone in their domain is under their control, so it’s possible they did forget, but it strikes me that it’s likely the standing for a complaint would be with the people Disney controls, not the state. It might work, but it’s not straight-forward. It would probably have to be on some kind of voters’ rights ground and doesn’t seem likely to void the agreement, just end up being a fine or some other penalty. Basically, it seems nearly impossible to me that you can argue as a third party that people were misinformed when they will definitely claim they were informed.
I don’t know the laws with self-dealing, but Disney always controlled Reedy Creek and it was never hidden. I don’t know why so many commentators are taking the line that self-dealing would be a win because any court is going to throw that out. Trying to make a single, recent agreement a problem after half a century of being fine with similar isn’t going to fly.
It seems the most likely route to actually succeed would be to argue the actual agreement made is illegal, not just the mechanism by which it was made. Or, if it wasn’t, to make it illegal. I suspect we aren’t seeing that because it would affect many of Desantis’ supporters in Florida running various types of retirement towns.
My stance on the matter would be towards not allowing private entities governmental powers, ever.
Also unrelated directly to the matter, I want to draw attention to a photo in that article. If you spent any time in Florida talking to the locals, that sign seems very poorly thought through.
