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

[flynnibus]

If you can’t see how Disney unfairly being able to tax itself artificially lowers their tax bill, then your agenda has blinded you.

Do you think it is cheaper for just you to pay for the roads you use… or is it cheaper to have everyone pool together and pay for all the roads?

 

[peter11435]

It's the primary issue. It's the reason RCID exists.

It’s not the primary issue and it is absolutely not the reason the district exists

You attempt to deal in too many absolutey

 

[peter11435]

If you can’t see how Disney unfairly being able to tax itself artificially lowers their tax bill, then your agenda has blinded you.

Yes because free market capitalists believe in granting special privileges to only a few corporations and not everyone! Right!

Ah, now the left cares about free speech when there’s pushback against their agenda! While on one hand they attack Elon Musk for trying to make Twitter a platform for free speech with no censorship, they simultaneously defend Disney’s ability to support teaching 5 year olds about pansexualism! Truly a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing I guess!

How does them paying an additional tax to RCID lower their tax bill to other entities?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Once again, for the hundredth time, that some things aren’t a punishment doesn’t mean it is not in any way punitive or being done for punitive reasons. Incompetence doesn’t permit improper actions.

Punishment and punitive mean the same thing. If something isn't a "punishment" then it's not "punitive."

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[lazyboy97o]

f you can’t see how Disney unfairly being able to tax itself artificially lowers their tax bill, then your agenda has blinded you.

This has been explained repeatedly. The taxes levied by Reedy Creek Improvement District are in addition to those levied by the counties. They’re extra. Extra means more, not les.

It's the primary issue. It's the reason RCID exists.

No, it is not.

 

[flynnibus]

It's the primary issue. It's the reason RCID exists.

Not really.

What makes rcid unique is the breadth of functions it includes in a single district. The main reason rcid was advantageous to FL was because the lack of county infrastructure and capacity for the kind of development to come. Creating RCID allowed FL to pile all those costs solely on the district. For disney it gave them the control to keep outsiders at arms length.

Land use management is far more significant than permitting. Permitting is not an planning checkpoint- its a compliance checkpoint

 

[lazyboy97o]

Punishment and punitive mean the same thing. If something isn't a "punishment" then it's not "punitive."

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

No duh. You keep trying to find isolated issues and declare they define the entire situation. Even if it’s not punitive to Disney, forcing the counties to take on additional work and expenses can easily be punitive.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

The supreme court has repeatedly ruled that even what we might consider hate speech is protected by the first amendment.

... and therefore you believe that the State of NJ (in the hypothetical) must subsidize Sparkle's Klan editorials forever?

 

[Brian]

So the state of NJ must subsidize Sparkle's anti-LGBTQ Klan editorials every month forever? That's your understanding of 1st Amendment law?

No, my position is that the basis for removing the tax subsidy must not be that the government of New Jersey finds the anti-LGBTQ content to be unpalatable.

The modern interpretation of the first amendment is that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). Corporations, obviously, are run by people. Corporations don't just spontaneously embrace political positions out of nowhere. In your own scenario, Kevin Kelly is responsible for the shift in content the publication puts out. By the transitive property, the state of New Jersey removing the tax break for the publication due to it's positions on LGBTQ issues is violating the free speech rights of Mr. Kelly.

And yes, as ridiculous as I find Disney's stance on the 'legislation that shall not be named,' I will always fight for free speech, because I sure as hell will need that same right at the rate things are going.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

What all this comes down to is that this could have been repealed years and years ago. At anytime basically. The reason it wasnt? It’s beneficial to both Disney and the state of Florida. We know what disney gets out of the agreement.. we also know how it helps the counties and state of Florida . By the way, theres not enough talk about how it does help the state, only how it helps Disney. So it has been in effect for lets say 55 years. No problems, no worries, its never brought up. What changed to put it on a fast track of removing it? We all know. We saw the interviews and speeches and hundreds of comments. That’s illegal and there no doubt that if Disney decides to take this further, its a win.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

No duh. You keep trying to find isolated issues and declare they define the entire situation. Even if it’s not punitive to Disney, forcing the counties to take on additional work and expenses can easily be punitive.

If it's not punitive to Disney, then it's not punishment of Disney. If it's not punishment of Disney (or punitive), then it's not a 1st Amendment violation. It can't be both "not a punishment" and "a 1st Amendment violation."

 

[peter11435]

... and therefore you believe that the State of NJ (in the hypothetical) must subsidize Sparkle's Klan editorials forever?

I believe the state of New Jersey could not remove the previously granted benefit purely because they didn’t like the content (Provided that the content did not violate any laws) without violating the company’s first amendment right.

 

[lazyboy97o]

What all this comes down to is that this could have been repealed years and years ago. At anytime basically. The reason it wasnt? It’s beneficial to both Disney and the state of Florida. We know what disney gets out of the agreement.. we also know how it helps the counties and state of Florida . By the way, theres not enough talk about how it does help the state, only how it helps Disney. So it has been in effect for lets say 55 years. No problems, no worries, its never brought up. What changed to put it on a fast track of removing it? We all know. We saw the interviews and speeches and hundreds of comments. That’s illegal and there no doubt that if Disney decides to take this further, its a win.

According to the governor he didn’t know it was a thing, so that’s why he didn’t do anything about it. An odd position to claim in my book.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If it's not punitive to Disney, then it's not punishment of Disney. If it's not punishment of Disney (or punitive), then it's not a 1st Amendment violation. It can't be both "not a punishment" and "a 1st Amendment violation."

Again, there are aspects that are punitive for Disney, they’re just not what you incorrectly assumed. You also can’t punish third parties for another’s speech.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

No, my position is that the basis for removing the tax subsidy must not be that the government of New Jersey finds the anti-LGBTQ content to be unpalatable.

But the NJ Governor and state legislature (in the hypothetical) have already publicly stated that Sparkle magazine is no longer welcome in the state. So how can NJ have a basis for removing the tax subsidy that isn't instantly countered with, "But we all know you really did it because you don't agree with Sparkle's Klan editorials."?

 

[peter11435]

According to the governor he didn’t know it was a thing, so that’s why he didn’t do anything about it. An odd position to claim in my book.

Right? You’ve been the governor of Florida for how long?

 

[peter11435]

But the NJ Governor and state legislature (in the hypothetical) have already publicly stated that Sparkle magazine is no longer welcome in the state. So how can NJ have a basis for removing the tax subsidy that isn't instantly countered with, "But we all know you really did it because you don't agree with Sparkle's Klan editorials."?

That’s why the governor and state legislature in NJ should have been much smarter from the start.

 

[peter11435]

If it's not punitive to Disney, then it's not punishment of Disney. If it's not punishment of Disney (or punitive), then it's not a 1st Amendment violation. It can't be both "not a punishment" and "a 1st Amendment violation."

They have actively admitted that if Disney changed its tune and changed its content they would be open to reversing course.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Right? You’ve been the governor of Florida for how long?

Not just that, he was born and raised in Florida. He was a Congressman. You’d think a lawyer from Florida would have at least heard a little about the “Disney government”.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

That’s why the governor and state legislature in NJ should have been much smarter from the start.

So your position (and understanding of 1st Amendment law) is that the state of NJ (in the hypothetical) must subsidize Sparkle's anti-LGBTQ Klan editorials forever?