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

UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
for whatever reason those involved decided to be very open.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's hard to ascertain. The point wasn't really to punish Disney (or at least that wasn't the only point) but to score political points with their base. If they weren't open about why they were doing it, they'd lose the ability to use it for campaign donations and advertisements.
 
freedining

freedining

Member
So, if I’m understanding many of the posts:
- The 1st amendment allows Disney to wade very publicly into state politics, while also protecting Disney from losing its very special RCID status as a consequence.
- The 1st amendment allows our leaders to declare “The Truth” and spread that message using tax payer money, giving cover to legacy and social media (and Disney?) while they shut down all remaining non-Truth speech.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
freedining said:
So, if I’m understanding many of the posts:
- The 1st amendment allows Disney to wade very publicly into state politics, while also protecting Disney from losing its very special RCID status as a consequence.
- The 1st amendment allows our leaders to declare “The Truth” and spread that message using tax payer money, giving cover to legacy and social media (and Disney?) while they shut down all remaining non-Truth speech.
Click to expand...
The first amendment limits only government curtailment of free speech. “Congress shall make no law . . .” The 14th amendment extended this prohibition to state governments. So yes, the 1st amendment prohibits “our leaders” (e.g. state governors) from pushing back when individuals or corporations wade very publicly into state politics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
freedining

freedining

Member
Chi84 said:
The first amendment limits only government curtailment of free speech. “Congress shall make no law . . .” The 14th amendment extended this prohibition to state governments. So yes, the 1st amendment prohibits “our leaders” (e.g. state governors) from pushing back when individuals or corporations wade very publicly into state politics.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Seriously. I was unclear regarding the 14th.

I sincerely wonder what the courts will say regarding RCID after all the lawfare and judge shopping. At least there’s some parity in appointed judges now.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Well-Known Member
freedining said:
Agree 100%, but how do we stop the state targeting anyone and everyone? The political winds change, and so do the targets. I'd say the attacks have been pretty one sided for a while, and now the other side is showing some signs of life. Others would disagree, I'm sure.

I don't have an answer, but following the "not fighting back" strategy is a proven loser.
Click to expand...
"Fighting back" by doing illegal, unconstitutional things is nothing to be proud of.

Saying you are against a law and will fight for it's repeal is also very different than refusing to obey an existing law. For example, I can say that I am against an income tax (I'm not btw, just an example) and say that I am going to petition, protest, and support candidates who are against an income tax. But if I refuse to pay my taxes, I'm going to jail..

In our system of government, two things are true:
* We are all obligated to obey the laws on the books, whether we agree or not
* We are all absolutely free to advocate for a changing of laws via the ballot box, social media, publications, statements, legal means, etc.

What is not allowed in this country is for people to punish someone just because they spoke out against a law or a politician. Otherwise we don't have a democracy.

Not all speech is protected by the first amendment. But political speech most certainly is, and there are no caveats about that.
 
Last edited:
ImperfectPixie

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
mikejs78 said:
"Fighting back" by doing illegal, unconstitutional things is nothing to be proud of.

Saying you are against a law and will fight for it's repeal is also very different than refusing to obey an existing law. For example, I can say that I am against an income tax (I'm not btw, just an example) and say that I am going to petition, protest, and support candidates who are against an income tax. But if I refuse to pay my taxes, I'm going to jail..

In our system of government, two things are true:
* We are all obligated to obey the laws on the books, whether we agree or not
* We are all absolutely free to advocate for a changing of laws via the ballot box, social media, publications, statements, legal means, etc.

What is not allowed in this country is for people to punish someone just because they spoke out against a law or a politician. Otherwise we don't have a democracy.

Not all speech is protected by the first amendment. But political speech most certainly is, and there are no caveats about that.
Click to expand...
Well said. 👏
 
T

thomas998

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
That’s all part of the problem for the state. They can’t just fall back on it’s our right to dissolve this. The why matters in this kind of case. Why now?
Click to expand...
You assume no one had a problem with the special treatment until now. The reality is there were always people and politicians that had issues with it from the day it happened. However they were always in the minority with no chance of doing anything to change things. The stars finally lined up where change was finally possible, and changes were finally made... much like there have always been people that were for legalization of pot or allowing women to vote, it took decades of laws to start to change. They can make all sorts of arguments for why things happened now and one of their biggest problems will be that even if De Santis proclaimed he was changing the law because Disney said something he didn't like, he is only the governor and didn't change the law. He simply signed a bill that was created and passed by the legislator so it isn't as if he himself did it and that will be another problem with Disney claiming he did it as retribution for what Disney said.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Well-Known Member
thomas998 said:
even if De Santis proclaimed he was changing the law because Disney said something he didn't like, he is only the governor and didn't change the law.
Click to expand...

* DeSantis added the bill to the special session agenda

* The leaders of the house and Senate in FL have said the same things about the reasons for the bill as DeSantis

It's perfectly fine for people to think Reedy Creek should be discussed or dissolved. Nothing wrong even with debating it or passing legislation about it. But when the stated intent by many people to pass it is to punish Disney for speaking, then it becomes an unconstitutional use of legislative power.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
thomas998 said:
You assume no one had a problem with the special treatment until now. The reality is there were always people and politicians that had issues with it from the day it happened. However they were always in the minority with no chance of doing anything to change things. The stars finally lined up where change was finally possible, and changes were finally made... much like there have always been people that were for legalization of pot or allowing women to vote, it took decades of laws to start to change. They can make all sorts of arguments for why things happened now and one of their biggest problems will be that even if De Santis proclaimed he was changing the law because Disney said something he didn't like, he is only the governor and didn't change the law. He simply signed a bill that was created and passed by the legislator so it isn't as if he himself did it and that will be another problem with Disney claiming he did it as retribution for what Disney said.
Click to expand...
Are you serious with this??

Reedy creek has been on the books for 55 years and they “just got around” to nixing it? Conveniently when all the cameras from Australia were parked out front?
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
RCID has been challenged and questioned in the past, nothing new. Each time an acceptable legal remedy has been achieved. A fair, though I am sure one group or another will be disappointed, remedy will be achieved this time. "Political and legal challenges:
The status of the district and law have been challenged in the past. For instance, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in the 1968 case State v. Reedy Creek Improvement District that the law did not violate any provision of the Constitution of Florida. In the 1980s, officials from Orange County, Florida threatened legal action against Disney over the charter to RCID. However, the company and officials came to an agreement in 1989 whereby Disney paid $13 million for road improvement outside the property it owned while the county agreed to not challenge the charter of RCID until 1996." Right now, with the current situation it's all speculation.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
thomas998 said:
You assume no one had a problem with the special treatment until now. The reality is there were always people and politicians that had issues with it from the day it happened. However they were always in the minority with no chance of doing anything to change things. The stars finally lined up where change was finally possible, and changes were finally made... much like there have always been people that were for legalization of pot or allowing women to vote, it took decades of laws to start to change. They can make all sorts of arguments for why things happened now and one of their biggest problems will be that even if De Santis proclaimed he was changing the law because Disney said something he didn't like, he is only the governor and didn't change the law. He simply signed a bill that was created and passed by the legislator so it isn't as if he himself did it and that will be another problem with Disney claiming he did it as retribution for what Disney said.
Click to expand...
Quotes from plenty of those involved in the process have been posted, including the sponsor of the bill and Speaker of the House. DeSantis is the one who decided this had to be done now by changing the special session and signing the bill that had no planning involved. DeSantis is also the one claiming to have a plan to deal with the problems surrounding legislation he called for and signed.
 
DisneyDebRob

DisneyDebRob

Well-Known Member
GimpYancIent said:
RCID has been challenged and questioned in the past, nothing new. Each time an acceptable legal remedy has been achieved. A fair, though I am sure one group or another will be disappointed, remedy will be achieved this time. "Political and legal challenges:
The status of the district and law have been challenged in the past. For instance, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in the 1968 case State v. Reedy Creek Improvement District that the law did not violate any provision of the Constitution of Florida. In the 1980s, officials from Orange County, Florida threatened legal action against Disney over the charter to RCID. However, the company and officials came to an agreement in 1989 whereby Disney paid $13 million for road improvement outside the property it owned while the county agreed to not challenge the charter of RCID until 1996." Right now, with the current situation it's all speculation.
Click to expand...
Could you link a article on the legal action from the 80’s? Im generally interested but cant seem to find anything about it when i google. The way it sounds by your post is that they threatened Disney and Disney paid 13 million for roads. Im sure theres more to it and i want to understand what it was about. Thanks.
 
Disstevefan1

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
thomas998 said:
You assume no one had a problem with the special treatment until now. The reality is there were always people and politicians that had issues with it from the day it happened. However they were always in the minority with no chance of doing anything to change things. The stars finally lined up where change was finally possible, and changes were finally made... much like there have always been people that were for legalization of pot or allowing women to vote, it took decades of laws to start to change. They can make all sorts of arguments for why things happened now and one of their biggest problems will be that even if De Santis proclaimed he was changing the law because Disney said something he didn't like, he is only the governor and didn't change the law. He simply signed a bill that was created and passed by the legislator so it isn't as if he himself did it and that will be another problem with Disney claiming he did it as retribution for what Disney said.
Click to expand...
This is all on DeSantis no matter what folks say. Disney was targeted no matter what folks say. The ironic thing is this will backfire; Disney will win big if this goes through Disney getting to dump 1 Billion, some say 2 Billion of debt on to the tax payers, now that’s a tax break for Disney!
 
peter11435

peter11435

Well-Known Member
thomas998 said:
You assume no one had a problem with the special treatment until now. The reality is there were always people and politicians that had issues with it from the day it happened. However they were always in the minority with no chance of doing anything to change things. The stars finally lined up where change was finally possible, and changes were finally made... much like there have always been people that were for legalization of pot or allowing women to vote, it took decades of laws to start to change. They can make all sorts of arguments for why things happened now and one of their biggest problems will be that even if De Santis proclaimed he was changing the law because Disney said something he didn't like, he is only the governor and didn't change the law. He simply signed a bill that was created and passed by the legislator so it isn't as if he himself did it and that will be another problem with Disney claiming he did it as retribution for what Disney said.
Click to expand...
There have always been those with opposition to the district or opposition to Disney in general. That’s not really relevant here when their current actions have been openly stated to be in retaliation for their statement.

DeSantis not only signed the bill, he added it to the special session and called on the legislature to create/pass the bill. And he did so while openly stating it was in response to the companies statement.

There are also numerous members of the Florida legislature who sponsored and or voted on this bill that have made public statement that it was in response to Disneys statement.

So the current events are clearly happening for one reason and one reason only. As for prior opposition, answer two questions. Was there anything unlawful about the prior arrangement; and is there any benefit for changing the current arrangement.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom