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

L

LapsedWDWFan

Member
JusticeDisney said:
Like I said, you don’t understand this legally. The government is retaliating for statements made. That is not permissible.
Click to expand...
Not true. If they had just ended it when they said...

"Florida's HB 1557, also known as the 'Don't Say Gay' bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law,"

...you'd have a point. But they didn't. Chapek went one step further.

"Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that."

That's not a statement. That's a threat that they intend to use their considerable resources to actively fight the government. I'm guessing they wouldn't be in this mess if they didn't state that as their goal, but they did and the state hit back.
 
Tom P.

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
That said, free speech protections apply to governmental entities, not private companies. So the comparison between Disney's actions and Florida's actions holds no water anyway. Nor do I think it even makes them hypocritical. I can not want certain behavior from those in my employ while also thinking that the government shouldn't involve itself in policing speech.
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
mgf said:
Local reporting suggests this will drive up property taxes by 20-25%. This will create a crisis both for the local governments and for property owners: https://www.wftv.com/news/local/end...re-taxes-you-will/3TK6ASNJT5EXHICW3DQ3ZHEZYA/
Click to expand...
For FY22 - Orange county is expecting $716M in property tax revenue. Do the simple math... if taxes were to go up 20% just for this (which they can't.. but just look at that cite alone).. that would be $143M in new revenue or $179M at 25%. Numbers that not shockingly.. are simply bracketing the entire FY22 RCID Budget number.

These are people simply taking two topline numbers and dividing them. That's not a real estimate... never mind the unrealistic assumptions that nothing changes except for moving the budget numbers.

They aren't estimates - they are people trying to give people kindergardener numbers to make it a 5 second consumable topic and make people fear it.

It's too bad Media didn't start this kind of reporting BEFORE the Gov called in his cronies to make it a law.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
People and organizations in the US are allowed to openly disagree with and challenge the government. We’re allowed to make such threats and act on them.

A number of officials have also now publicly said this is not just about the company’s actions in Florida but also about the content they produce. The lieutenant governor yesterday said they would reconsider if Disney apologized and promised to change the content they are producing. They are looking to not just punish for prior speech but actively censor.
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
WDWJoeG said:
Uh, no.

Here, I'll type slower so you can follow along.

The person asked if Disney had punished people who shared a different opinion. I then responded with a sarcastic comment responding to their question.

So your response had nothing to do with our actual exchange. But once again, thank you for the astounding wit and clarity, always appreciated!
Click to expand...
Maybe you’re not understanding. I read your comment and the post you responded to. I know the question that was asked. I also know it’s irrelevant and not equivalent in this discussion because as a private company they were within their right. If I make a racist statement my employer can apply consequences for that. The government cannot.
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
LapsedWDWFan said:
Not true. If they had just ended it when they said...

"Florida's HB 1557, also known as the 'Don't Say Gay' bill, should never have passed and should never have been signed into law,"

...you'd have a point. But they didn't. Chapek went one step further.

"Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts, and we remain committed to supporting the national and state organizations working to achieve that."

That's not a statement. That's a threat that they intend to use their considerable resources to actively fight the government. I'm guessing they wouldn't be in this mess if they didn't state that as their goal, but they did and the state hit back.
Click to expand...
They threatened to do something they are legally allowed to do. Citizens and corporations have a right and a responsibility to fight laws they disagree with.
 
C

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
Adventure Has A Name said:
So then your point that RCID is not a tax break is irrelevant. Either it is a benefit or it is not. If it is not a benefit, then it's not "punishment" to take it away (and therefore not possibly a violation of free speech). If it is a benefit, then the question is whether or not the state's action is an infringement on the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Taking something away can certainly be a punishment. If your employer provided you with a cell phone for business use and then took it away specifically because you voiced your disagreement with a new policy, then that would be a punishment for your dissent.
 
Tom P.

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
Adventure Has A Name said:
So then your point that RCID is not a tax break is irrelevant. Either it is a benefit or it is not. If it is not a benefit, then it's not "punishment" to take it away (and therefore not possibly a violation of free speech). If it is a benefit, then the question is whether or not the state's action is an infringement on the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
It's not that cut and dried. Intent matters. And the courts have ruled as such before. There is clear precedent.

Florida is totally within its rights to decide that special districts such as RCID are no longer beneficial and should be eliminated. However, even though that is a legitimate action to take, they can't take that action for a prohibited reason. If they are taking the action specifically as a way of stifling political speech, it is prohibited. Think of it this way: In an "at-will employment" state, an employer can fire someone for any reason or no reason at all. But even in those states, if you can prove that you were fired because you were black, it is illegal. An action that is normally perfectly permissible becomes illegal because of the intent.

The question, of course, always comes down to whether or not you can prove the intent. Normally that is difficult. However, in this case, since DeSantis and the legislators have publicly and plainly said exactly why they are doing it, I don't think it would be a high bar to clear. You can never be sure what a court will do, of course, but I have a feeling that Disney could prevail on this if they choose to fight it in court.
 
englanddg

englanddg

One Little Spark...
flynnibus said:
Nope. It’s their action - not the text of the law that matters. You can makeup any scheme you want on paper to fire someone… but the courts will decide if its retaliation based on the merits and motivations - not the act itself.

Just trying to cover your tracks with making the action more broad is not sufficient when the blabbermouths already countered thag defense.

All that matters about the law itself is to prove there is consequence/impact to twdc.

Unless you are trying to argue that the law doesn’t have any impact on twdc… to which i wish you luck on that journey
Click to expand...
Re-read what I wrote.

Nothing I stated contradicts your assertion.

But, there is more to this question than statements made by a politician as to their motivations. Politicians say things all the time which do not carry into the court.

If you want another example of this, look at the nothingburger accusations of targeted IRS enforcement against conservative non-profits.

Politicians said a lot of things about that, none of which passed as admissible fact.

So, a court will be asked to consider it, which I opened my comment with. But, how much weight they grant the accusation is debatable.
 
Y

yensid1967

Well-Known Member
Do you really think the residents of Orange/Osceola counties would be OK with their taxes going up $300 per year because of this!? Residents need to speak up!
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
englanddg said:
Re-read what I wrote.

Nothing I stated contradicts your assertion.

But, there is more to this question than statements made by a politician as to their motivations. Politicians say things all the time which do not carry into the court.

If you want another example of this, look at the nothingburger accusations of targeted IRS enforcement against conservative non-profits.

Politicians said a lot of things about that, none of which passed as admissible fact.

So, a court will be asked to consider it, which I opened my comment with. But, how much weight they grant the accusation is debatable.
Click to expand...
You don’t think a court would admit statements made in the course of legislative proceedings?
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
englanddg said:
Politicians said a lot of things about that, none of which passed as admissible fact.

So, a court will be asked to consider it, which I opened my comment with. But, how much weight they grant the accusation is debatable.
Click to expand...
Except you're ignoring that these are not just random statements - but statements as part of the actual debate of the action.

This is not a politican just making blowhard statements about what 'should' be done... These are statements made by actors WHILE THEY DO IT.

Your statement that it's not in the law itself and hence not relevant is blatantly untrue.
 
AdventureHasAName

AdventureHasAName

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
The state. The county is not allowed to just double tax some areas.
Click to expand...
The state government that just dissolved the RCID in order to place Disney under the Orange County government? That's what you're going with? That the state legislature is going to prevent Orange County from taxing Disney just has they had been taxed by the RCID? You feel the Florida state government is going to present Disney with a massive tax break?
 
Tom P.

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
Adventure Has A Name said:
The state government that just dissolved the RCID in order to place Disney under the Orange County government? That's what you're going with? That the state legislature is going to prevent Orange County from taxing Disney just has they had been taxed by the RCID? You feel the Florida state government is going to present Disney with a massive tax break?
Click to expand...
I don't think there has been a lot of what you'd call "long-term planning" involved in developing this particular legislation...
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom