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

[Chi84]

I know nothing about this, but my BIL is an attorney in a state AG office first amendment and human rights division. He told me it would be very very difficult for Disney to win this case for the exact reasons the judge dismissed it.

He just said that first amendment law isn’t as straightforward as most people think because the current precedents are convoluted and contradictory. Unfortunately my knowledge is limited so can’t really provide any other explanation. Just figured I’d pipe up because he knows more about this stuff than most people.

FWIW, my BIL is very liberal.

In my opinion, people think the laws protect their constitutional rights/civil liberties to a much greater extent than they actually do. This is why there’s disappointment on both sides of the political spectrum.

But a district court ruling in favor of DeSantis on first amendment grounds was recently reversed by the 11th circuit so we’ll have to see.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

What’s crazy about this whole thing is that I doubt Disney would have said anything at all if they didn’t get caught donating to supporters of the bill. They were put on the defensive and called out publicly by their own employees. It was a lose lose no matter which way they went.

As much as I’ve soured on Iger I still have no doubt he could have navigated this and avoided the whole mess, for all his faults he’s a very good PR guy and I think he could have gotten a strong enough message across to appease the employees while also being diplomatic enough not to draw the ire of an entire state.

Chapek bumbling through it was the worst possible scenario, he managed to alienate both the employees and the state

 

[WoundedDreamer]

This sounds like requesting that the state of FL take over running Walt Disney World. That's an interesting take, to say.

Yeah, I'm calling for the nationalization of Walt Disney World.

Or I'm calling for a development that includes multiple stakeholders working together in order to help all parties involved succeed.

Whichever one makes more sense to you.

 

[Figgy1]

Yeah, I'm calling for the nationalization of Walt Disney World.

Or I'm calling for a development that includes multiple stakeholders working together in order to help all parties involved succeed.

Whichever one makes more sense to you.

IMHO that would be like calling for multiple stakeholders on any other corporate campus. So imho your first sentence would apply

 

[mmascari]

It's not a foregone conclusion that the appeals court will agree wtih him.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've seen one on TV.

Doesn't the appeals court just need to determine that one of the conditions the judge used to restrict the case was incorrect and then kick it back down to re-evaluate without that condition.

For instance, the appeals court could determine that Disney was targeted and the other districts were caught as collateral damage instead of the current court determination that Disney was not targeted because other districts were also impacted.

Flip that one decision on appeal, and everything about the dismissal changes. That would be it, and the case would pick back up in the current court.

It's not like there is a lack of evidence that Disney was targeted.

 

[jinx8402]

So a community taking a development plan to the community for approval is akin to nationalization? I guess you're a serious libertarian. Fair enough.

You're right. But all these years, Disney was taking these development plans to the the community (RCID) and they were approved!

 

[lazyboy97o]

They could start by dropping their DOA lawsuits that are wasting the State and Disney's time and resources. Then they could collaborate on a longterm development plan for Walt Disney World.

They might also want to express their gratitude for Florida and Floridians publicly for having been generous over nearly 60 years in allowing them to operate in their home state with little interference.

The state already reviewed and approved the comprehensive plans… that’s something the state is actively trying to not discuss.

 

[Figgy1]

So a company taking a development plan to the community for approval is akin to nationalization? I guess you're a serious libertarian. Fair enough.

The community is Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake if you're talking about people living there. RC was the governing body

 

[lazyboy97o]

The community is Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake

They don’t count for reasons. Nor do the counties. We have to end special treatment with more special treatment! We have to end illegal actions with more illegal actions!

 

[WoundedDreamer]

The state already reviewed and approved the comprehensive plans… that’s something the state is actively trying to not discuss.

Ultimately, the proceederual violations seem pretty explicit. Moreover, their argument that the contract cannot stand because the CTFOD did not gain anything with this contract also are pretty clear. This case will go the same way as the Free Speech case. Defeat for Disney.

 

[mmascari]

Yeah, I'm calling for the nationalization of Walt Disney World.

Or I'm calling for a development that includes multiple stakeholders working together in order to help all parties involved succeed.

Whichever one makes more sense to you.

I mean you did say "they could collaborate on a longterm development plan for Walt Disney World." along with "They might also want to express their gratitude for Florida and Floridians publicly for having been generous over nearly 60 years in allowing them to operate in their home state with little interference."

That reads a whole lot like Disney should be thankful to even exist in FL at all and that FL should have a larger say than they already do in the running of WDW. Certainly, it's asking for a larger involvement in WDW than in any other business in FL, otherwise nothing would need to change. Kind of like FL taking over WDW.

So, yeah, I think you are calling for "the nationalization of Walt Disney World", at least by the state of FL not the the federal government.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You're right. But all these years, Disney was taking these development plans to the the community (RCID) and they were approved!

The Comprehensive Plans were developed by the Reedy Creek Improvement District and then submitted to the state for confirmation that it complies with state law.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Ultimately, the proceederual violations seem pretty explicit. Moreover, their argument that the contract cannot stand because the CTFOD did not gain anything with this contract also are pretty clear. This case will go the same way as the Free Speech case. Defeat for Disney.

Good job trying to change the subject.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

I mean you did say "they could collaborate on a longterm development plan for Walt Disney World." along with "They might also want to express their gratitude for Florida and Floridians publicly for having been generous over nearly 60 years in allowing them to operate in their home state with little interference."

That reads a whole lot like Disney should be thankful to even exist in FL at all and that FL should have a larger say than they already do in the running of WDW. Certainly, it's asking for a larger involvement in WDW than in any other business in FL, otherwise nothing would need to change. Kind of like FL taking over WDW.

So, yeah, I think you are calling for "the nationalization of Walt Disney World", at least by the state of FL not the the federal government.

Expressing gratitude for your generous partners is akin nationalization? We need to get a compilation of CEOs bringing up State Governors and Mayors to thank them for their help. This is typical practice and just good manners. They SHOULD feel grateful to be operating in Florida. They've been richly blessed by their association with Florida. Yeah, gratitude is a good thing. Citizens of states like to feel like the businesses in their states appreciate them.

Good job trying to change the subject.

You brought up the contract that RCID and Walt Disney signed. Or were you talking about separate agreement? Not trying to be facetious. Reading through the audit, the case seems pretty strong.

 

[Dranth]

So a company taking a development plan to the community for approval is akin to nationalization? I guess you're a serious libertarian. Fair enough.

What community? You mean the one that can no longer vote on who runs their district? Disney was taking its development plans to the community, the Governor and legislature changed that. So, it seems you feel people who aren't a part of and don't pay taxes in the district should have a say?

 

[mikejs78]

Ultimately, the proceederual violations seem pretty explicit

Name one procedural violation.

their argument that the contract cannot stand because the CTFOD did not gain anything with this contract

They get the same thing as any other local government that enters into a development agreement. Should all such agreements in FL be thrown out?

 

[mikejs78]

They SHOULD feel grateful to be operating in Florida

And they express that fact often.

 

[mmascari]

You're right. But all these years, Disney was taking these development plans to the the community (RCID) and they were approved!

Over the last however many years, hasn't there been changes to the highways and county roads surrounding WDW? Things clearly outside of the district and done by groups outside the district. Then, leading into road changes done by the district.

Do we think those different entities didn't talk at all? That they didn't collaborate on changes?

It was already not in a bubble and working with the community beyond just the district.

 

[Figgy1]

And they express that fact often.

Starting with Walt himself

 

[Willmark]

No. Free speech isn’t limited to eloquent speech. People can say any stupid thing they want in whatever dumb way they want to say it. It doesn’t matter if Chapek also made a bunch of vile comments about state officials. It doesn’t matter. He could have even done it while yelling “Fire!” in a theater and handing out anti-war leaflets.

Kudos for understanding what was actually being said about shouting “fire” in a crowded theater and what the case was actually about.

I’m betting you’re likely aware of how OLW walked back what he wrote in Scheneck vs the US in 1919.

For those interested this is worth a fee sign up of a very good break down of the case and its aftermath: https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

To all TLDR? The case in question had nothing to do with fires, theaters and was about an example in a SC decision. Basically he was using common parlance at the time to make a point.

Oliver Wendell Holmes realized his mistake annd walked back his language in the anctual follow up cases and was eventually (partially) overturned by Brandenberg vs Ohio in 1969.