peter11435
Well-Known Member
I am referring to land that is currently held by the districtI'm not aware of any provision of the RCID dissolution bill that takes or sells Disney's land.
I am referring to land that is currently held by the districtI'm not aware of any provision of the RCID dissolution bill that takes or sells Disney's land.
Title VII is employment law; there has to be some sort of employer/employee relationship. It's not even Constitutional; it's statutory. It has nothing to do with 1st Amendment law.Supreme Court Holds That Employees' Close Family Members are Protected From Retaliation Under Title VII
On January 24, 2011, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, L.P., __ U.S. __ (2011), the United States Supreme Court held that the anti-retaliationwww.csemploymentblog.com
If the supreme court uphelds discrimination against family members is still retaliation under federal civil rights you can count on no such direct action requirement for a more fundamental constitutional right.
They simply have to demonstrate the action against rcid was to influence disney - which is something the state has already stated.
The three litmus test I provided do not require an action be explicitly enacted on the individual. That is the case law on retaliation for freedom of speech. You can keep disagreeing- it doesn’t make you right.
If you speak out against the gov and they imprisoned your significant other to punish you, you don’t think that is something you’d consider forbidden by the 1a? You think the courts would be like ‘… well, they didn’t imprison you…’?? And such a simple out would stand?
That’s why the second test does not include any requirement that the action was taken directly against you.
The district is not Disney. Disney does not own RCID's property; RCID does.I am referring to land that is currently held by the district
The Reedy Creek act itself says the district will exist into perpetuity.I wonder whether TWDC has standing here. Does a special district created by a special act of the legislature confer an inalienable right into perpetuity? Does TWDC, as a majority landowner in the RCID, have sufficient standing to argue a First or Fourteenth Amendment challenge?
If what you say is accurate, why would TWDC take the district back at all? There's literally no "favorable" terms that would be worth a billion dollars (which is the outstanding bond debt).DeSantis and his office vows that taxes aren't going to increase for any OC/OC resident. Reading between the lines here, to me that says they intend to negotiate a new district with the company with less favorable tax terms. They can't force that debt onto TWDC without giving them the district back and TWDC won't take the district back without terms that are favorable to them.
Orange Countywho gets RCID’s real property
I’m well aware of the distinction. But it’s a bit more complicated in this particular case.The district is not Disney. Disney does not own RCID's property; RCID does.
And OsceolaOrange County
How Convenient? You need to go back and look at the S4c vote because you’re flat out wrongHow convenient not to mention a majority of democrats voted for the bill No only those evil Republicans
Schools are the government.govt stay out, please
Jumping back in to provide some info from the OC Tax Collector about “creating a new tax”, which is what many have suggested happen. It won’t.
The best I can find is that they own everything yellow on this map ...I was under the impression that RCID had land leases with TWDC and owned no real property.
That's a huge part of my point.
RCES is a subsidiary of TWDC - the power plants are owned by DPEP.The best I can find is that they own everything yellow on this map ...
At the very least, we know they own the utilities power plant, the parking garages at Disney Springs, and some conservation land.
I was under the impression that RCID had land leases with TWDC and owned no real property.
Rick Fogleson appears to think so. His bona fides are in the article.Another interesting point is the cities vs the counties in the dissolution. The cities as they are were not defined prior to rcid… but in bills passed immediately after.
I’m wondering still if there are arguments for the dissolution of rcid to goto the cities instead of the underlying counties.
That would be interesting because it solves many of the discrepancies. It strips disney of it’s special status… the debts stay ‘in the family’… and there is less isolation.
Honestly I haven’t researched it - but you’d think this would be a good compromise .
That's the solar plants, isn't it?View attachment 634985
Just one of many
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.