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

[Jrb1979]

They would lose the level of service provided. Let’s say you and your neighbors pay extra to maintain the street you live on. You pay for all maintenance needs. As soon as a pothole starts you pay to have it fixed, no need to wait for the city to get around to it. Would you consider it a loss if it was decided you could no longer pay extra to maintain your street?

Would it be a loss to Universal Orlando Resort if the City started to require them to present every new ride at a public hearing and get zoning approval?

For Disney it would be a loss. It's a win for the rest of the parks in the area as they are now on the same level playing field.

 

[Goofyernmost]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's a pretty succinct and clear statement that says nothing that you claim it does.

What I said doesn't disagree with what you posted. However, when it states that "congress shall make no laws etc." it is saying exactly what I said., Surely, you aren't naïve enough to think that you can say anything, no matter how harmful against anyone not a part of the government and think the what you quoted will relive you of any consequences of those words. You can protest anything the government says or enacts without fear of reprisal FROM THE GOVERNMENT. And that was the intent of the wording.

The problem here is connecting it directly to Chapek. Chapek said something and shortly state congress to look into and modify the agreement that was granted to WDW. Except for the coincidence that it happened at the same time. He did nothing to directly connect Chapek or even Disney Co. to the words spoken by Chapek. Legally, they are unrelated. Suspicious perhaps, but cannot be proven to have any bearing on the state of Florida's decision to override the old agreement. Chapek isn't even going to be slightly hurt by it because retaliation was not directly happening to Chapek and is something that cannot be proven to be connected anyway.

 

[lazyboy97o]

For Disney it would be a loss. It's a win for the rest of the parks in the area as they are now on the same level playing field.

How was the playing field not level? As of right now the other parks will have to financially support infrastructure that was previously paid for entirely by Disney at extra expense.

 

[celluloid]

I imagine many more fans are scared of how the Annual Pass Prices will be now if they were not before!

 

[englanddg]

Historically, the Supreme Court looks past legal façades to get to the central issue.

TWDC has complete control over who serves on the RCID Board of Supervisors. The Supreme Court almost certainly will equate RCID to Disney.

Disney took three steps that would qualify as protected actions:

1. Disney publicly stated that they oppose the law.
2. Disney announced plans to fund groups that would fight the law in court.
3. Disney suspended campaign contributions to Florida politicians.

All three are protected as expressions of free speech.

I really think DeSantis is going to lose in court and RCID will continue to exist as it does today.

Politically there is no question this is retribution.

Legally, I'm not so sure. They've walked a fairly fine line carefully here... If it makes it to court, which I suspect it will, certainly will be a case worth listening to the oral arguments on appeals.

Personally, I think there isn't much case there for a first amendment argument for the simple reason that the legislation doesn't target their corporate speech. Other harm, however...perhaps...well...we'll see.

Doesn't make it right.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Politically there is no question this is retribution.

Legally, I'm not so sure. They've walked a fairly careful line here... If it makes it to court, which I suspect it will, certainly will be a case worth listening to the oral arguments.

Personally, I think there isn't much case there for a first amendment argument for the simple reason that the legislation doesn't target their corporate speech. Other harm, however...perhaps...well...we'll see.

Doesn't make it right.

Limiting speech does not only mean directly trying to limit speech. It’d be like trying to find a news outlet for negative stories. They can print them they just have to pay the fine afterwards.

 

[BrianLo]

I don't have much to add generally, other than some generalized mis-conceptions about Disney's stock Price.

Disney's stock Price is down because of the general market negative sentiment about tech and streaming (see Netflix). There's a reason the stock ran up seemingly uncorrelated to half of their parks still being closed in 2020 and has run down once P&R reported record profits last quarter.

As much as posters want the stock price to be a indictment on this issue, Genie+ or Chapek (and I'm not, not saying it doesn't play a factor), Disney is down in a very large part because Netflix is down 60% Year on Year. They are being caught up in Netflix subscriber loses and the speculative bubble that was burst amongst streamers very recently.

There's news articles talking about the stock being down 33% YOY and this current debacle in the same breath. How can something that we all know came out of left field have impacted the stock last year?

 

[englanddg]

They would lose the level of service provided. Let’s say you and your neighbors pay extra to maintain the street you live on. You pay for all maintenance needs. As soon as a pothole starts you pay to have it fixed, no need to wait for the city to get around to it. Would you consider it a loss if it was decided you could no longer pay extra to maintain your street?

Would it be a loss to Universal Orlando Resort if the City started to require them to present every new ride at a public hearing and get zoning approval?

So, how does Uni currently do it?

 

[MandaM]

What I said doesn't disagree with what you posted. However, when it states that "congress shall make no laws etc." it is saying exactly what I said., Surely, you aren't naïve enough to think that you can say anything, no matter how harmful against anyone not a part of the government and think the what you quoted will relive you of any consequences of those words. You can protest anything the government says or enacts without fear of reprisal FROM THE GOVERNMENT. And that was the intent of the wording.

The problem here is connecting it directly to Chapek. Chapek said something and shortly state congress to look into and modify the agreement that was granted to WDW. Except for the coincidence that it happened at the same time. He did nothing to directly connect Chapek or even Disney Co. to the words spoken by Chapek. Legally, they are unrelated. Suspicious perhaps, but cannot be proven to have any bearing on the state of Florida's decision to override the old agreement. Chapek isn't even going to be slightly hurt by it because retaliation was not directly happening to Chapek and is something that cannot be proven to be connected anyway.

Here’s some comments by key FL Republicans in the past few days. I don’t think there’s ANY question that they directly connected their actions to Disney’s comments.

Desantis:
“You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re going to martial your economic might to attack the parents of my state? We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that.”

“I'm just not comfortable having that type of agenda get special treatment in my state. Don't let anyone tell you that Disney is going to get a tax cut out of this. They are going to pay more taxes as a result of this."

“Disney and other woke corporations won't get away with peddling their unchecked pressure campaigns any longer"

Speaker of the House Sprowls:
“ I think what’s most troubling about Disney isn’t so much that they have disagreement with what we’ve done on policy. Lots of people disagree with what we’ve done on policy. They use their platform to perpetuate what we believe to be a lie, which is that, you know, the bill did one thing that it really didn’t do at all. And I think using its corporate power to do that, using the benefits that the taxpayers have given them for so many years to do that, is wildly inappropriate. So I think the governor’s anger was well-placed, and we’re happy to take it up.”

Rep Randy Fine:
“When Disney kicked the hornets nest several weeks ago, we started taking a look at special districts.”

“[Disney said] they want to come in and misrepresent laws that the legislator have passed, [they] actually want to tell Floridians how they should live their life the California way, and Floridians have said: "We've had enough. You're a guest in our state”

 

[GoofGoof]

So, how does Uni currently do it?

Like this:

Orange County leaders vote to move forward with planned road expansion for Universal

After hours of back and forth, Orange County leaders approved a controversial road expansion.

www.wesh.com

So if Disney wants a new road RCID foots the bill and Disney as basically the only tax payer pays for it. When Universal wants a road they have to lobby Orange County for approval but public money is paying for a portion. So the 1.4M people living in the county pay for part of a new road that benefits a multi-billion dollar corporation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So, how does Uni currently do it?

Do what? Get zoning approval? They don’t. Florida allows for Planned Developments. These are large land holdings that must meet typically nominal criteria but are otherwise largely free to be developed as desired by the land owner. This is what is being done with the South Campus right now and why there have been no public meetings about the specifics of Epic Universe or the adjacent hotels. Universal received the approval for a Planned Development and they are essentially done, free to do largely whatever they want not much different than Disney.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

What a time to be alive.

 

[englanddg]

Limiting speech does not only mean directly trying to limit speech. It’d be like trying to find a news outlet for negative stories. They can print them they just have to pay the fine afterwards.

No, but they’d have to make the connection that this action in some way limits their speech.

I’m not sure the timing alone is enough to pass that muster. Strict scrutiny applies for Corporate speech, but that has been applied to cases where the speech is directly limited.

For example, a fine placed on commercial speech which carries a political message or limits on political endorsements.

I’m having trouble seeing where, legally, that applies to what has occurred here.

If RCID is not TWDC, and TWDC has no tangible financial benefit from RCID, what exactly is TWDC losing? How are they harmed?

To be punitive, it would need to involve that, would it not?

I’m simply not sure there is enough.

This is why I mentioned the IRS “scandals” from years ago. It was seen as political retribution by some. Perhaps, behind closed doors, it was, or perhaps it was just bad timing. But, it never went anywhere because it was, in fact, legal.

 

[peter11435]

Here’s some comments by key FL Republicans in the past few days. I don’t think there’s ANY question that they directly connected their actions to Disney’s comments.

Desantis:
“You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re going to martial your economic might to attack the parents of my state? We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that.”

“I'm just not comfortable having that type of agenda get special treatment in my state. Don't let anyone tell you that Disney is going to get a tax cut out of this. They are going to pay more taxes as a result of this."

“Disney and other woke corporations won't get away with peddling their unchecked pressure campaigns any longer"

Speaker of the House Sprowls:
“ I think what’s most troubling about Disney isn’t so much that they have disagreement with what we’ve done on policy. Lots of people disagree with what we’ve done on policy. They use their platform to perpetuate what we believe to be a lie, which is that, you know, the bill did one thing that it really didn’t do at all. And I think using its corporate power to do that, using the benefits that the taxpayers have given them for so many years to do that, is wildly inappropriate. So I think the governor’s anger was well-placed, and we’re happy to take it up.”

Rep Randy Fine:
“When Disney kicked the hornets nest several weeks ago, we started taking a look at special districts.”

“[Disney said] they want to come in and misrepresent laws that the legislator have passed, [they] actually want to tell Floridians how they should live their life the California way, and Floridians have said: "We've had enough. You're a guest in our state”

Don’t forget.

Spencer Roach

“Yesterday was the 2nd meeting in a week w/fellow legislators to discuss a repeal of the 1967 Reedy Creek Improvement Act, which allows Disney to act as its own government. If Disney wants to embrace woke ideology, it seems fitting that they should be regulated by Orange County.”

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, but they’d have to make the connection that this action in some way limits their speech.

I’m not sure the timing alone is enough to pass that muster. Strict scrutiny applies for Corporate speech, but that has been applied to cases where the speech is directly limited.

For example, a fine placed on commercial speech which carries a political message or limits on political endorsements.

I’m having trouble seeing where, legally, that applies to what has occurred here.

If RCID is not TWDC, and TWDC has no tangible financial benefit from RCID, what exactly is TWDC losing? How are they harmed?

To be punitive, it would need to involve that, would it not?

I’m simply not sure there is enough.

This is why I mentioned the IRS “scandals” from several years ago. It was seen as political retribution. Perhaps, behind closed doors, it was, or perhaps it was just bad timing. But, it never went anywhere because it was, in fact, legal.

No, it does not need to be a direct limitation of speech. Financial harm is not the only form of harm.

 

[zakattack99]

It's a win for the rest of the parks in the area as they are now on the same level playing field.

I keep hearing this argument from people but only after the fact. I never head fans or the entities themselves say that they felt that the arrangement was unfair (and we still have not heard from the other parks as far as I have seen) so why now? If Comcast and Uni felt that they where at a disadvantage due to RCID why did they not push for change sooner? Why are they not voicing their support for the change now? Personal because I think this argument does not hold weight and the playing fields are pretty level for all competitors already

 

[GoofGoof]

No, but they’d have to make the connection that this action in some way limits their speech.

I’m not sure the timing alone is enough to pass that muster. Strict scrutiny applies for Corporate speech, but that has been applied to cases where the speech is directly limited.

For example, a fine placed on commercial speech which carries a political message or limits on political endorsements.

I’m having trouble seeing where, legally, that applies to what has occurred here.

If RCID is not TWDC, and TWDC has no tangible financial benefit from RCID, what exactly is TWDC losing? How are they harmed?

To be punitive, it would need to involve that, would it not?

I’m simply not sure there is enough.

This is why I mentioned the IRS “scandals” from years ago. It was seen as political retribution by some. Perhaps, behind closed doors, it was, or perhaps it was just bad timing. But, it never went anywhere because it was, in fact, legal.

Did you not see all of the quotes from the Governor and some of the bill sponsors where they are essentially saying this is a direct reaction to Disney’s opposition of the other bill? That would certainly all be admissible in a court case. If they took this action and remained silent perhaps they could argue the 2 are unrelated but they are going out of their way to tell anyone who will listen that this is taking down woke Disney.

 

[englanddg]

No, it does not need to be a direct limitation of speech. Financial harm is not the only form of harm.

I didn’t say it had to be direct. In fact, I said they’d “have to make a connection”.

That said, being upset about a situation doesn’t equate to legal harm in and of itself.

TWDC would have to prove that their speech has been curtailed by this action, in fact.

I’m struggling to see how they make that connection.

Basically what they have are statements (which do not match entirely with the floor debate for HC3, I would add, take Tate for example) and timing.

They aren’t a direct party impacted by the legislation. It doesn’t only impact RCID, but rather a larger class of IDs, and it conflicts with the current state constitution to boot.

Tough sell…

 

[celluloid]

I keep hearing this argument from people but only after the fact. I never head fans or the entities themselves say that they felt that the arrangement was unfair (and we still have not heard from the other parks as far as I have seen) so why now? If Comcast and Uni felt that they where at a disadvantage due to RCID why did they not push for change sooner? Why are they not voicing their support for the change now? Personal because I think this argument does not hold weight and the playing fields are pretty level for all competitors already

Genuine question. Prefacing so it does not sound snarky. So do you think Disney bypassing much of government's red tape is of no advantage for Disney that the other companies would not have?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I didn’t say it had to be direct. In fact, I said they’d “have to make a connection”.

That said, being upset about a situation doesn’t equate to legal harm in and of itself.

TWDC would have to prove that their speech has been curtailed by this action, in fact.

I’m struggling to see how they make that connection.

Basically what they have are statements (which do not match entirely with the floor debate for HC3, I would add, take Tate for example) and timing.

They aren’t a direct party impacted by the legislation. It doesn’t only impact RCID, but rather a larger class of IDs, and it conflicts with the current state constitution to boot.

Tough sell…

You have been provided the explicit statements, repeatedly now. Comments were also made during the official course of business.

Their speech does not have to be curtailed. A punishment for the speech is enough.

If the District conflicts with the current constitution why didn’t the state just sue again? Why didn’t the Supreme Court catch that the last time?