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

[Armerius]

Why not? Western companies, yes including TWDC, can pack up and go anywhere they want globally to produce their products. Plenty of countries that will welcome them to everyone's mutual benefit.

sure they can leave..but 1 ..takes time and A LOT of money...if they do, most likely the chinese gov wont allow imports of products from those companies. , even go as far as bar exports or selling of chinese produce products to those companies that they need to make their own products. (rare minerals, special quemicals etc etc).
and any big companie that has no access to the chinese market this day its doomed to fail. period.

so they would be shooting themselves in both feet and knees at the same time. so, nope it just wont happen.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

This is what I was getting at yesterday. By ostensibly expanding their quasi-governmental power with the contract, Disney has played right into the state's argument. The validity of said argument is certainly debatable, but they are making the argument nonetheless, and Disney has given them additional ammunition to make it.

FL Reps would have condemned Disney no matter what they did, they are all hoping to ride DeSantis coattails, Disney just needs to win public opinion, not win over politicians, and so far they’re winning the public opinion war.

 

[tissandtully]

This is from the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.

What other businesses are subject to public accountability from the government? I swear these people just make this stuff up and hope it sounds good.

 

[lazyboy97o]

This is what I was getting at yesterday. By ostensibly expanding their quasi-governmental power with the contract, Disney has played right into the state's argument. The validity of said argument is certainly debatable, but they are making the argument nonetheless, and Disney has given them additional ammunition to make it.

The argument is a lie and you are just validating the lies. These agreements are very much in alignment with treating Disney like everyone else.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

CNN still has some actual news and some real journalists. The talking heads on the opinion shows are just as biased as FOX news and MSNBC. The difference is Fox and MSNBC are mostly just taking heads now with very little if any actual news or reporting.

You can blame Ted Turner that thought it would be a great idea to have a 24 hour news cycle….in the end, there’s only so many ways to describe an auto accident without creating spin, conspiracy theories and alternate scenarios. THATS the downfall of this medium. My mom used to say too much free time on their hands…hands that MUST fill airtime. And it happens EVERYDAY on BOTH sides.

 

[GoofGoof]

This is what I was getting at yesterday. By ostensibly expanding their quasi-governmental power with the contract, Disney has played right into the state's argument. The validity of said argument is certainly debatable, but they are making the argument nonetheless, and Disney has given them additional ammunition to make it.

Shouldn’t he be saying ~ after spending 50+ years playing by the rules setup by the Florida legislature over 5 decades ago Disney is now again choosing to follow the laws and statutes setup by the legislature and the FL constitution in signing this contract? So in other words the state’s argument is that Disney is somehow a villain for following the rules they setup. How do we know which laws to follow and which are supposed to be ignored? If these types of agreements are bad then why not make them illegal? Why not make special districts illegal?

 

[JohnD]

An agreement is not a public-private partnership.

Okay. Was covering my bases. Looks like their jurisdiction is all under Section 2.

 

[JohnD]

Which continually refer to the executive branch. "any agency, the administration of which is under direct supervision of the Governor"

Which is why I went back to the definition at the front of the statutes:

Ch. 20.03(11), F.S.:
(11) “Agency,” as the context requires, means an official, officer, commission, authority, council, committee, department, division, bureau, board, section, or another unit or entity of government.

 

[Riviera Rita]

Ron's claim of 'the will of the people' is about as honest as Disney claiming closing Splash Mountain was the will of the people.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Ron's claim of 'the will of the people' is about as honest as Disney claiming closing Splash Mountain was the will of the people.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Ron's claim of 'the will of the people' is about as honest as Disney claiming closing Splash Mountain was the will of the people.

Ah yes, both liars.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

blahh...Iger and Ron need to just sit down for a 1 on 1 and sort it all out...rather than letting this continue to play out in the media...getting tiring...

How does that work?

This is a clear case of government overreach, so any sort of compromise or capitulation on Disney's part would be a mistake.

Regardless, the government here has an agenda to push and isn't interested in discussion either way.

Heck, didn't Florida democrats propose a compromise that would have seen the new board balanced to include some Disney reps? Compromise isn't on the table with these people.

 

[flynnibus]

Which is why I went back to the definition at the front of the statutes:

Ch. 20.03(11), F.S.:
(11) “Agency,” as the context requires, means an official, officer, commission, authority, council, committee, department, division, bureau, board, section, or another unit or entity of government.

Except it's written not as 'agency' but 'agency' with more constraints.

 

[Brian]

The argument is a lie and you are just validating the lies. These agreements are very much in alignment with treating Disney like everyone else.

I am attempting no such validation. I said:

The validity of said argument is certainly debatable, but they are making the argument nonetheless,

I'm merely pointing out that Disney's agreement with then-RCID has given the state another example to use in their arguments. That's it. I'm not making an argument that this was not retaliation for Disney's speech, that DeSantis was right to do what he did, that Disney was wrong to make a deal they were legally permitted to make, or anything of that nature. Again, the only thing I'm pointing out is that the tweet from the FL speaker of the house indicates that they are indeed using the agreement as "evidence."

Forgive me if this response comes across as aggressive, that is not my intention. I am responding not only to you but to several others who made similar statements suggesting I am validating the state's argument or their actions in the first place.

 

[Andrew C]

How does that work?

By letting cooler heads prevail and reaching an agreement that everyone can live with...instead of the endless political war where there are no winners. I am not speaking to Disney here...I am speaking to both Iger and Ron...in fact, let me give them a call...

 

[lazyboy97o]

Heck, didn't Florida democrats propose a compromise that would have seen the new board balanced to include some Disney reps? Compromise isn't on the table with these people.

Eskamani had a proposed amendment but it also had the ridiculous inclusion of the mayors of Orlando and Kissimmee.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Disney claiming closing Splash Mountain was the will of the people.

Source?

 

[GoofGoof]

Ah yes, both liars.

If Disney did claim that closing Splash Mountain was the will of the people then you have found an example of the company lying.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

By letting cooler heads prevail and reaching an agreement that everyone can live with...instead of the endless political war where there are no winners. I am not speaking to Disney here...I am speaking to both Iger and Ron...in fact, let me give them a call...

That would require cooler and/or reasonable heads on both sides, and that's just not realistic.

Florida actually thought they could use their power to control the content of a global entertainment company.

There's no common ground to be had with the lunatics in charge.

 

[Andrew C]

That would require cooler and/or reasonable heads on both sides, and that's just not realistic.

Dare to dream...

There's no common ground to be had with the lunatics in charge.

Well if you view the other side as lunatics, of course there would be no common ground. I would like a step away from that political rhetoric...but again, dare to dream.