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

C

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
Imhere said:
Many of us, of every political leaning, have opinions when the USA sends foreign aid to a country that turns around and trashes the U.S.

It would be no problem for Disney company to battle Florida over Taxing, Zoning, and a whole host of other business related issues. The problem comes in when a small group of company leaders living in an echo chamber in a 10 sq mile area of California wages war on an already passed State Social issue in Florida.
somebody has to take a stand somewhere, profitable or not, against the tyrannical minority.
Click to expand...

So just to be clear, you're argument is that of the following choices:

1. Individuals or businesses voicing their opinions
2. Government punishing those who voice their opinions

that #1 is the one that's tyranny?
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
HM Spectre said:
That's correct. Corporations are also expected to make decisions in the best interests of their shareholders. This is why, generally, when a corporation engages in political speech, it's related to an issue that directly impacts their company and you don't see this kind of uproar.

Here, Disney is choosing to take a political side on an issue that doesn't directly impact their company and it's having a negative impact to their business. If the elimination of the RCID were good for Disney, they'd have done it themselves years ago. There's no reason for Disney to be involved other than having individuals in the company who think it would be a good thing if Disney used its power to support their political leanings. Like I said in my original post, that is a BAD precedent to set.

Having the right to engage in political speech doesn't mean that you should in every instance.

Anyone supporting a corporation like Disney wading into politics like this should ask themselves if this is something that they actually support in principle, or if they just support it here because it aligns with their views. My guess is it's the latter for most people.
Click to expand...
What you have said is why shareholders/investors can and should hold a company accountable for their actions. but it does not Justify the government in violating the first amendment
 
DLR92

DLR92

Well-Known Member
GimpYancIent said:
DL is not in a better position than WDW as Anaheim became a hostile environment to DL about a decade ago. Despite all the recent turmoil around WDW the business situation for WDW is better than DL. The migration of company assets from DL to WDW will continue.
Click to expand...
I’m convinced Disney will be now shopping elsewhere to move their assets away from
FL.
 
SteveBrickNJ

SteveBrickNJ

Well-Known Member
I am about to post a photo I took from a Reuters "News" article. Then I will quote myself and comment further.
20220422_153751.jpg
 
S

Stang95svtcobra

New Member
lewisc said:
Orange and Osceola counties would have to purchase fire equipment, fire houses, road equipment...from Disney, contract with Disney to supply services or buy and build the stuff on their own.
Click to expand...
As of yesterday both the Florida House and Senate passed the bill dissolving Reedy Creek Governor is ready to sign it as soon as it comes across his desk
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Disone said:
I don't know about that. They send you to shoot you much more carefully than you state. I would be genuinely understand the delivery You are talking about.
I have seen that is when one state representative said that Disney kicked a hornets nest, but that this has been something that has been brought up many times, The elimination of the reedy Creek improvement district.

Prior to this it wasn't politically advantageous to do so, but now opens the door to finally make that move. I get what that can be but it's not a clear and succinct determination that Disney is being "punished".

I agree that it is, however, I believe the politicians are smarter than just coming out and actually saying that. We're dealing with semantics here but that's what politics is all about. Everybody absolutely knows that this is about punishing Disney, but they're not going to actually say those words.
Click to expand...
The motives have been stated very plainly, even in the session. This isn’t a matter of here-say or interpreting actions.
 
Disney Analyst

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
This. The unbelievable amount of corporate love in this thread is frightening.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify your position.

Should a corporation, any corporation, have no say or role in politics? No opinion permitted?

Are you in favour of removing corporate lobbying, and corporate donations to politicians? Ending the stronghold of the NRA? Health Insurance Companies?

Or are you only saying this because Disney took a socially liberal position...
 
SteveBrickNJ

SteveBrickNJ

Well-Known Member
SteveBrickNJ said:
I am about to post a photo I took from a Reuters "News" article. Then I will quote myself and comment further.View attachment 634810
Click to expand...
This "news" article states as if it is a "fact" that Gov. DeSantis is retaliating. Does Reuters or the media have a quote from the Governor that he is RETALIATING? In the good old days "reporters" would use words to qualify something...words like "allegedly" or "seemingly". Yet Reuters is supposed to be neutral...like The Associated Press....is that true? Shouldn't they report down the middle and not just openly lean left?
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
HM Spectre said:
That's correct. Corporations are also expected to make decisions in the best interests of their shareholders. This is why, generally, when a corporation engages in political speech, it's related to an issue that directly impacts their company and you don't see this kind of uproar.

Here, Disney is choosing to take a political side on an issue that doesn't directly impact their company and it's having a negative impact to their business. If the elimination of the RCID were good for Disney, they'd have done it themselves years ago. There's no reason for Disney to be involved other than having individuals in the company who think it would be a good thing if Disney used its power to support their political leanings. Like I said in my original post, that is a BAD precedent to set.

Having the right to engage in political speech doesn't mean that you should in every instance.

Anyone supporting a corporation like Disney wading into politics like this should ask themselves if this is something that they actually support in principle, or if they just support it here because it aligns with their views. My guess is it's the latter for most people.
Click to expand...
I believe freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Not a constitutional right merely granted by the First Amendment, an inalienable right of all people regardless of where they live. People should be free to express themselves, to organize themselves and make similar expressions. I find the idea of using government to attack political opponents abhorrent.

I have also been very consistent regarding the District. I have long provided detailed explanation of unique aspects of how it operates, particularly in regards to building and development. I am more than willing to have a good faith discussion on the specifics of the District and how it’s powers effects the counties. I even recommended people read a book highly critical of the District.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom