News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[lazyboy97o]

What a weird comment...Americans, overwhelmingly, dont support corporations buying influence in governments and Disney and Twitter were fine as neutral entities. The moment either threw in on a political stance is when it opened itself for consequences from the government elected by the people...Hell, Disney would have been fine if it just maintained the stance that it had no opinion on it, but the cast can act in their own way after work. Nobody really cared when Disney originally said they werent going to take a stance on it

I guess that if a company doesn't want to reap damage from political action, they should just avoid being overtly political.

not true. this is about keeping these companies out of the political arena. They have no business being there and should just stick to what they do best...entertainment!

A number of persons have made public statements that this is about the content of Disney’s entertainment.

Even then, being political is legal and protected in the US.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Interesting how an entity i.e. Corporation or Company can have it's talking head "CEO" speak for the entity as a person, YET!, the people (the staffing / work force) also have the right to speak for themselves (as individuals) and present their own views / thoughts regardless of what the entities talking head says.

 

[Dranth]

What a weird comment...Americans, overwhelmingly, dont support corporations buying influence in governments and Disney and Twitter were fine as neutral entities. The moment either threw in on a political stance is when it opened itself for consequences from the government elected by the people...Hell, Disney would have been fine if it just maintained the stance that it had no opinion on it, but the cast can act in their own way after work. Nobody really cared when Disney originally said they werent going to take a stance on it

I guess that if a company doesn't want to reap damage from political action, they should just avoid being overtly political.

Not weird at all. The Government should NEVER be punishing people or companies for disagreeing with them. Also, I would be willing to bet that most of us are against corporations buying favor as well as against government overreach/retaliation at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So when is Reedy Creek going to make their move?

They have to wait for it to become law first. I imagine some lawyers are very busy right now.

 

[the_rich]

All companies should stay out of the political arena or risk losing half the population. Disney should just stick to entertainment!

Losing customers is fair game. Being punished by the government is off limits.

 

[englanddg]

One argument in defense of the legislative action, which I believe they will use, is that the bill doesn’t target Disney specifically in that it impacts 5 other improvement districts. Further, the older IDs conflict (apparently) with the amended Florida constitution. The bill is written in such a way.

Dunno if a judge would buy that though. I’m sure we will find out.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

It doesn’t matter what politicians say.

It matters what judges say. And the lawyers have already come out (even in anti-desantis articles) stating it’s legal and extremely unlikely to be overturned.

Trying to pretend this isn’t legal in Florida, where the federal judges are almost all conservative appointed, is hilarious.

Regardless of what politicians say. Are politicians reliable, unbiased sources now?

What makes you think Disney would give up at the State Court level and not take it to the US Supreme Court?

 

[andysol]

I’m starting to get confused.

People who are against this are arguing two things at the same time.

1) This is vindictive punishment and an attack on free speech and disney will win in court.

2) Disney will actually benefit, because the burden is passed onto taxpayers.

Let’s make up our minds, shall we.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

I have been itching to discuss this issue, and registered just to talk about it

I absolutely hate that Disney is getting into politics I like an escape -ism where I don’t have to think about who voted for who or what ideology someone has. I believe Disney was totally out of line to come out and say that they are putting the thumb on any scale.

 

[GimpYancIent]

They have to wait for it to become law first. I imagine some lawyers are very busy right now.

Yes! I see attorneys rubbing their hands together and salivating right now at the prospects of fee's, court costs, expenses etc. A good day for the legal profession.

 

[the_rich]

I have been itching to discuss this issue, and registered just to talk about it

I absolutely hate that Disney is getting into politics I like an escape -ism where I don’t have to think about who voted for who or what ideology someone has. I believe Disney was totally out of line to come out and say that they are putting the thumb on any scale.

And u have every right to have that opinion. But the state doesn't have the right to punish disney for it. They blatantly said this was the reasoning and that isn't allowed.

 

[Rosso11]

Question for someone who knows. What’s the situation with the fact that Florida law states that special districts created by the legislature can only be dissolved with a majority vote of the district's landowners. Wouldn’t the next step be this vote? Which is essentially Disney themselves? A few articles mention this but most leave this part out. It seems pretty important to me and if true this is really all for nothing in the end?

 

[zakattack99]

One argument in defense of the legislative action, which I believe they will use, is that the bill doesn’t target Disney specifically in that it impacts 5 other improvement districts. Further, the older IDs conflict (apparently) with the amended Florida constitution. The bill is written in such a way.

Dunno if a judge would buy that though. I’m sure we will find out.

I will buy you a drink if the Gov, Lt Gov, or either the head of the Florida House and Senate can name the other five districts.

 

[peter11435]

What a weird comment...Americans, overwhelmingly, dont support corporations buying influence in governments and Disney and Twitter were fine as neutral entities. The moment either threw in on a political stance is when it opened itself for consequences from the government elected by the people...Hell, Disney would have been fine if it just maintained the stance that it had no opinion on it, but the cast can act in their own way after work. Nobody really cared when Disney originally said they werent going to take a stance on it

I guess that if a company doesn't want to reap damage from political action, they should just avoid being overtly political.

Consequences from the government because of your political stance is against the law and a violation of the first amendment. The government punishing and silencing people, corporations, or organizations that speak out against that same government should be a scary thought to all.

 

[englanddg]

What makes you think Disney would give up at the State Court level and not take it to the US Supreme Court?

Would depend on the merits if this is a federal matter. Even if it was, it would go to a federal court first. Though, a retribution first amendment case could land there, and the only avenue I see.

Dissolution of the district though, that’s a State matter, and I doubt a federal court will pick it up.

But, Disney doesn’t get to escalate the venue, though they could petition, but the SCOTUS tends to let things filter through the process.

SCOTUS won’t touch this until it goes through the appropriate State or Federal Courts first.

 

[andysol]

Question for someone who knows. What’s the situation with the fact that Florida law states that special districts created by the legislature can only be dissolved with a majority vote of the district's landowners. Wouldn’t the next step be this vote? Which is essentially Disney themselves? A few articles mention this but most leave this part out. It seems pretty important to me and if true this is really all for nothing in the end?

This has been addressed many times.
must be approved by a majority of the resident electors of the district or, for districts in which a majority of governing body members are elected by landowners, a majority of the landowners voting

Meaning it negates the aspect as RCID wasn’t created by landowners; therefor electors aren’t needed to dissolve it.

 

[Bender123]

A number of persons have made public statements that this is about the content of Disney’s entertainment.

Even then, being political is legal and protected in the US.

Being political is fine and legal, but that doesnt exist in a vacuum and actions have consequences.

Not to praise Iger, but he had a way of just letting Disney be Disney, but it feels like Chapek has a complete inability to read a room. Their best play was when they just said they werent going to bribe politicians anymore, but they went that one extra step into a buzzsaw of their core audience of parents and government .

 

[englanddg]

I will buy you a drink if the Gov, Lt Gov, or either the head of the Florida House and Senate can name the other five districts.

DeSantis is a JAG and a smart legal cookie. I suspect he could.

Your point is well taken, though.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Question for someone who knows. What’s the situation with the fact that Florida law states that special districts created by the legislature can only be dissolved with a majority vote of the district's landowners. Wouldn’t the next step be this vote? Which is essentially Disney themselves? A few articles mention this but most leave this part out. It seems pretty important to me and if true this is really all for nothing in the end?

An in depth thought about that. The census lists residents in RCID but are they "landowners"? Are the properties in which these people reside actually owned by say a company / corporation? How would that impact such a vote?

 

[Bender123]

Consequences from the government because of your political stance is against the law and a violation of the first amendment. The government punishing and silencing people, corporations, or organizations that speak out against that same government should be a scary thought to all.

The advantage being taken away was also a benefit that was special to just that company. The only reason they have RCID and the Twitter carve out is because they paid off a lot of politicians to get them.