Universal Orlando Resort Expansion (Part 1)

[s8film40]

In fairness I did a CP some time ago. After the program ended I and a group of friends decided to stay. We essentially duplicated what was offered in the housing program and shared rooms. It ended up costing us more and essentially eroded away the extra money we got as non CP's. $100 a week isn't too bad when you consider that covers ALL expenses, Rent, Furniture, Power & utilities, etc.

I believe Universal has a sort of college program on a smaller scale and I think I've heard they have a high school program similar to Disney's.

 

[jrn14]

Former CP here... The rumors are true!

But I'd do it all again...:ears:

 

[Nick]

Former CP here... The rumors are true!

But I'd do it all again...:ears:

^^^This

Everything people say about it is true and more (don't even get me started about the pricks working security at housing)... but I came away from it with a group of friends that I still regularly meet up with and a life-changing experience that was only magnified since I had only ever gone to Community College.

The program wasn't about the work or Disney to me - I knew I was getting screwed from the start in that department. It was all about the people you meet and the experiences you have. I came away now not only having friends living all across the US, but many that live in other countries, too (and since I live in Orlando, I see many of them when they vacation here now).

 

[graspthesun]

Back to @GadgetGuru's original point--it is definitely becoming more difficult, especially as housing prices in the immediate area--MetroWest, Sea World--keep rising at crazy levels. UOR tends to offer more money and also offers park admission benefits, which will help them, but this is a real issue facing all the Orlando parks in the immediate future. It makes no sense to commute an hour for a barely over minimum wage job.

I know so many 20-somethings that are working three jobs in Orlando just to make ends meet in the suburbs. It's a rough life.

 

[Happytycho]

As was discussed earlier in this thread, there is currently an ongoing lawsuit between UCPM III and SLRC Holdings (universal) regarding whether universal has the right to build a theme park on the land they bought near the convention center. The details can be found on the case records page.

A brief update based on my interpretation:
UCPM III is arguing that rules put in place when universal sold the land give them the right to decide if a theme park can be built there, while SLRC is arguing that the rules don't apply to universal and run in their favor so they do have the right to build.
They have gone through the process of complaints and responses, and have now moved on to motions and discovery. The timeline appears to be a fairly slow one, with the case unlikely to reach trial until sometime in 2018, depending on how fast of a track they are on. The current issue is that UCPM III has filed a motion for summary judgement, which basically means they think it's obvious they will win and want the judge to rule that way without taking it to trial. Universal has filed a motion for continuance, seeking to delay the former motion. My understanding from reading the records page is that there will be a hearing regarding these motions next week. Universal can't win here, they can only lose, so we better hope they don't.

Please note that all of the above is simply what I have come to understand from reading the page I linked to above. I have no legal training and am not aware of the full facts of the case.

 

[GadgetGuru]

As was discussed earlier in this thread, there is currently an ongoing lawsuit between UCPM III and SLRC Holdings (universal) regarding whether universal has the right to build a theme park on the land they bought near the convention center. The details can be found on the case records page.

A brief update based on my interpretation:
UCPM III is arguing that rules put in place when universal sold the land give them the right to decide if a theme park can be built there, while SLRC is arguing that the rules don't apply to universal and run in their favor so they do have the right to build.
They have gone through the process of complaints and responses, and have now moved on to motions and discovery. The timeline appears to be a fairly slow one, with the case unlikely to reach trial until sometime in 2018, depending on how fast of a track they are on. The current issue is that UCPM III has filed a motion for summary judgement, which basically means they think it's obvious they will win and want the judge to rule that way without taking it to trial. Universal has filed a motion for continuance, seeking to delay the former motion. My understanding from reading the records page is that there will be a hearing regarding these motions next week. Universal can't win here, they can only lose, so we better hope they don't.

Please note that all of the above is simply what I have come to understand from reading the page I linked to above. I have no legal training and am not aware of the full facts of the case.

I'm not an attorney either. But, I don't think this will be a big deal. If it was, I feel like the Orlando Sentinel would be talking about it (haven't seen an article since October 2016, Lawsuit seeks to block new Universal Orlando theme parks - Orlando Sentinel

Worst case, they'll pay this guy off.

 

[JoeCamel]

From the little I know about this Universal made a very bad decision (or 2) when they sold the property to begin with and didn't want the new owner to put up competition to their current operations.

Well that worked and no one built a park on the land but the current operators of Universal have now repurchased the property (at a premium of what it was sold for) and now want to build a park but are being held to the terms they imposed when they sold. The interim owners are trying to enforce this clause (to what purpose, they don't own it!) and are just impeding the rightful owners of developing the land despite the current/original owners defying the ban on development as a park.

I can't see how this does not play out in Universal's favor. The plaintiffs are looking for a settlement but I think if Universal sticks to its guns they will have to walk with nothing but legal bills.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

<off topic>

tl;dr join something that helps you belong in college. CP, sorority, fraternity, etc. it'll pay off in dividends

(I wear J Crew and Sperry's so guess which one I chose)

</off topic>

 

[maxairmike]

I believe UCPM III/Fourth Quarter Properties (aka Stanley Thomas) does have at least a plausible case, as they do still own several of the parcels in the overall south Universal Blvd. area. They still have the possibility to develop a park on their land, theoretically. I think the real question is how much more Comcast is willing to pay to either make it worth his while to just develop side business to coexist on his parcels, or to get the parcels out of his control.

 

[tidecat]

I've not heard anybody say it but I've thought this myself. There are buildings to the north and south blocking a direct path but it sounds plausible.

It doesn't seem like the old location will be torn down anytime soon:

iFLY Orlando to Close, New Facility to Open in 2017 | Indoor Skydiving Source

 

[Nick]

It doesn't seem like the old location will be torn down anytime soon:

iFLY Orlando to Close, New Facility to Open in 2017 | Indoor Skydiving Source

“I think we’re going to hold on to it to have it for training purposes. Because of us opening up so many locations, we’re constantly moving potential instructors all around to different locations for training.”

He could easily just be publicly bargaining under the guise of "training" in hopes that Comcast wants to pay up.

 

[Viator]

It doesn't seem like the old location will be torn down anytime soon:

iFLY Orlando to Close, New Facility to Open in 2017 | Indoor Skydiving Source

They relocated the iFLY to be closer to the Orlando Eye and the OCCC, with a larger and newer building.

It'd be wise, with what @Nick C. also pointed out, to think a bit differently.

 

[quinnmac000]

The question is what is Stan Thomas's goal. Is he trying to get the property back? What and why is he suing? The land was foreclosed on passing ownership to the bank or whoever took it after him because he didn't pay his dues. He isn't going to get the land back regardless of him suing Universal. This lawsuit makes little to no point and I have a strong feeling Universal will win. As for the private property restrictions, who holds the deed with the declaration? Someone can't enforce it if they don't personally have it. Universal qualifies still as the property developer meaning they set the rules and they have the ability to lift them if you are going by private property laws such as those used in subdivisions as they can provide themselves an easement.

Restrictive Covenants Restrictive covenants are provisions in a deed limiting the use of the property and prohibiting certainuses. They are similar in effect to equitable servitudes, but restrictive covenants run with the land because the restrictions are contained in the deed. Restrictive covenants are typically used by land developers to establish minimum house sizes, setback lines, and aesthetic requirements thought to enhance the neighborhood. The legal differences between equitable servitudes and restrictive covenants are less important today, as courts have merged the terms into one general concept.

Easements are rights to use the property of another for particular purposes. A common type of easement incurrent use is the affirmative grant to a telephone company to run its line across the property of a private landowner.Easements also are now used for public objectives, such as the preservation of open space and conservation. For example,an easement might preclude someone from building on a parcel of land, which leaves the property open and therebypreserves a park for the public as a whole.

 

[Nick]

The question is what is Stan Thomas's goal. Is he trying to get the property back? What and why is he suing? The land was foreclosed on passing ownership to the bank or whoever took it after him because he didn't pay his dues. He isn't going to get the land back regardless of him suing Universal. This lawsuit makes little to no point and I have a strong feeling Universal will win. As for the private property restrictions, who holds the deed with the declaration? Someone can't enforce it if they don't personally have it. Universal qualifies still as the property developer meaning they set the rules and they have the ability to lift them if you are going by private property laws such as those used in subdivisions as they can provide themselves an easement.

Maybe he's simply a Disney fanboy who is standing up for all that is right by blocking Universal's ability to build a new park for as long as he possibly can :ears:

 

[Happytycho]

I believe his argument is that in some of the policies previously set forth, UCPM III is specifically granted the right to decide if a theme park/entertainment attraction can be built on the land, regardless of whether or not it sells the land. If the court were to recognize this supposed right, he would be able to deny universal the ability to build unless they pay him whatever amount of money he wants.

 

[Nick]

I believe his argument is that in some of the policies previously set forth, UCPM III is specifically granted the right to decide if a theme park/entertainment attraction can be built on the land, regardless of whether or not it sells the land. If the court were to recognize this supposed right, he would be able to deny universal the ability to build unless they pay him whatever amount of money he wants.

But he doesn't own the land anymore, Universal does. I don't see how he has any case regarding policies.

 

[fryoj]

I'm assuming it's something along the lines of "if these restrictions were lifted while we owned it, we wouldn't have gone bankrupt, so they are stuck with them too. Unless they pay us..."

 

[UniversalRBLX]

Wouldn't the old contract pretty much be non existent as universal sold the property.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I'm assuming it's something along the lines of "if these restrictions were lifted while we owned it, we wouldn't have gone bankrupt, so they are stuck with them too. Unless they pay us..."

His logic makes zero sense. He's an opportunist/sour grapes.

 

[fryoj]

His logic makes zero sense. He's an opportunist/sour grapes.

Lots of people with no logic have gotten settlement checks. He's just hoping to get a big enough check to pay his legal fees and then some. That is if the law firm pursuing this isn't the driving force and just doing it for free unless theres a settlement.