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

[JoeCamel]

Duke still owns and operates two in Crystal River Florida

How many were there before?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

RCID doesn’t charge Disney for electricity. RCES charges Walt Disney Parks and Resort and other customers in the district for electricity they use.

RCID owns the power station; RCES just operates it.

EDIT: I just re-read what you wrote. I'll change it: What happens if one member of the legislature doesn't like that RCID doesn't charge RCES enough to operate the power plant?

If the legislature had issues with the rates and fees there are enforcement mechanisms, audit processes, and oversight from several state agencies and departments. They could and should have at any time elevated their concerns to the Florida Public Service Commission, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Florida Auditor General to be investigated. They didn’t. In fact and instead nearly every legislator in the session demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge of how the district actually operates. DeSantis himself even stated he didn’t even know about it a month ago.

Yes, but that's not an answer to my question. My question was (paraphrase) ... What happens if the legislature does something and one member of the legislature has a clear first amendment-infringing motive and one member of the legislature has a clear public policy purpose (and everyone else in the legislature is silent)?

 

[Dranth]

How convenient not to mention a majority of democrats voted for the bill No only those evil Republicans

Which bill? The one that started all this had one yes vote from democrats in the house and none in the senate. I believe zero or a very small number of democrats voted in the special session for RCID to be removed.

 

[Tha Realest]

First amendment challenges have gone pro-corporate the vast majority of
The time since the early 1970’s

Think “anti business” is a winner now?

I agree a corporation can assert a constitutional right. My question is, 1) who has sufficient standing to assert that right (a hugely significant question that can and does make many a constitutional case) and 2) is this district a “right” or interest that implicates 1A/14A issues.

 

[peter11435]

RCID owns the power station; RCES just operates it.

EDIT: I just re-read what you wrote. I'll change it: What happens if one member of the legislature doesn't like that RCID doesn't charge RCES enough to operate the power plant?


Yes, but that's not an answer to my question. My question was (paraphrase) ... What happens if the legislature does something and one member of the legislature has a clear first amendment-infringing motive and one member of the legislature has a clear public policy purpose (and everyone else in the legislature is silent)?

I answered your question. If one member of the legislature has a clear public policy concern with the district there are enforcement mechanisms in place to deal with that. I have roughly outlined some of them. Legislature dissolution is not the answer to your hypothetical problem.

 

[peter11435]

Which bill? The one that started all this had one yes vote from democrats in the house and none in the senate. I believe zero or a very small number of democrats voted in the special session for RCID to be removed.

The vote to dissolve RCID went along party lines

 

[peter11435]

How many were there before?

There were 5 and now they operate 2 still in operation.

 

[JoeCamel]

There were 5 and now they operate 2 still in operation.

Yeah, shame about that

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I agree a corporation can assert a constitutional right. My question is, 1) who has sufficient standing to assert that right (a hugely significant question that can and does make many a constitutional case) and 2) is this district a “right” or interest that implicates 1A/14A issues.

They have to show actual or imminent injury and I don't think they can. "We don't get to approve our own permits anymore" isn't an injury. And even if it was, I'm not sure Disney wants to even try and make that argument in court.

 

[MandaM]

How convenient not to mention a majority of democrats voted for the bill No only those evil Republicans

Well, it is convenient because not a single Democrat voted to dissolve Reedy Creek. Only those evil Republicans did. And I believe a grand total of 1 Democrat voted for the don’t say gay bill. I have no idea what bill you’re claiming a majority of Democrats voted for, but it’s not either one of the bills that is relevant to this discussion. What are you talking about?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I answered your question. If one member of the legislature has a clear public policy concern with the district there are enforcement mechanisms in place to deal with that.

... and one of those legally available enforcement mechanisms is to dissolve the special district. And that's the one this legislator (in my hypothetical) picked. So what happens?

 

[peter11435]

They have to show actual or imminent injury and I don't think they can. "We don't get to approve our own permits anymore" isn't an injury. And even if it was, I'm not sure Disney wants to even try and make that argument in court.

They never got to approve their own permits. And here you go again thinking everything revolves around permits.

You also have a governor openly stating that Disney is going to pay more taxes now as a result.

 

[peter11435]

... and one of those legally available enforcement mechanisms is to dissolve the special district.

Not exactly.

 

[Polkadotdress]

Jumping back in to provide some info from the OC Tax Collector about “creating a new tax”, which is what many have suggested happen. It won’t.

 

[peter11435]

How convenient not to mention a majority of democrats voted for the bill No only those evil Republicans

I know I already commented on this but I’m really curious… why did you choose to lie about something that’s easily disproved

 

[Prince-1]

How convenient not to mention a majority of democrats voted for the bill No only those evil Republicans

Hey, why don't you give us a grand total of the number of democrats that voted for the bill.

Edit to add...damn, didn't see the post above mine.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

They never got to approve their own permits.

That's a huge part of my point. Technically, they (Disney) never got to approve their own permits so they can't march into court and say we've been injured because we don't get to approve our own permits anymore. All that has changed is the entity that approves the permits.

You also have a governor openly stating that Disney is going to pay more taxes now as a result.

This is a stronger argument (taxes), but why and how are the taxes going up? You have Democrat elected officials proclaiming that the state legislature's action just gave Disney a major tax forgiveness. You have the guy who wrote the bill and the Governor saying that's wrong and that ultimately (the key word) the company's taxes will go up. But that's not enough to prove standing ("ultimately something bad is going to happen"). Disney would have to show in court how this dissolution (not something that happens a year from now in a different bill) caused their taxes to go up. I don't think they can because I don't think it does.

 

[Nubs70]

If anyone thought this development would be the topic during the 50th Anniversary, what could possibly be the topic of the 60th??

 

[AdventureHasAName]

If anyone thought this development would be the topic during the 50th Anniversary, what could possibly be the topic of the 60th??

Probably "Do we think they'll try and start and finish that Splash Mountain re-theme before the anniversary celebration starts?"

Or maybe ... "I wonder if Tron will be finished."

Or ... "I really hate that DeSantis AA in the Hall of Presidents. I don't think it's tasteful that the FDR AA is now giving him the finger."

 

[peter11435]

That's a huge part of my point. Technically, they (Disney) never got to approve their own permits so they can't march into court and say we've been injured because we don't get to approve our own permits anymore. All that has changed is the entity that approves the permits.


This is a stronger argument (taxes), but why and how are the taxes going up? You have Democrat elected officials proclaiming that the state legislature's action just gave Disney a major tax forgiveness. You have the guy who wrote the bill and the Governor saying that's wrong and that ultimately (the key word) the company's taxes will go up. But that's not enough to prove standing ("ultimately something bad is going to happen"). Disney would have to show in court how this dissolution (not something that happens a year from now in a different bill) caused their taxes to go up. I don't think they can because I don't think it does.

Again you are obsessed with permits. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of other details to this arrangement.

If you can’t see how even just threatening higher taxes if you don’t say what we want you to say is abridging free speech then I really can’t help you.