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

[TP2000]

Disney isn't going to pull out of Florida. However it will remind certain members of the Florida Legislature, privately, of the approximately $75.2B it annually contributed to the economy of Central Florida and the over $5B it contributes to tax revenues.

Versus what? California's governor kept Disneyland Resort closed entirely for 13 months, and was openly hostile to allowing Disneyland to reopen.

Florida's governor only kept Disney World closed for six weeks, then gave them free reign to reopen as quickly as possible.

If you were a company CEO, which governor would you rather work with?

 

[mikejs78]

They did not prevent the free speech. The speech happened. Good luck on the second part. That is like suing the federal government. Everyone has the right to take the federal government to court, if the federal government decides it is a good case.
Also, legally speaking, a company is not a someone.

To quote everyone's favorite new trilogy Star Wars film, everything in that statement is wrong.

The retaliation doctrine expressly talks about retaliation for speech that is already been made.

Suing the federal government happens all the time, an individual is often win. Yesterday, individuals who sued the federal government won when the masked mandate on planes was removed.

And finally, the supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals in the citizens United case.

So, try again.

 

[celluloid]

So why are they being penalized for it?

That is not the definition of suppress.

 

[LAKid53]

They did not suppress it. The company can say what they want all day long and still can.

To threaten to revoke a special district that was created for that corporation and is operated by the corporation IS a suppression of speech.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Disney and others is fine doing business in China and many other areas with questionable moves. I don't think even if things got rough that they will pull the billions they make out of Florida to this one that the majority people have no strong aversion to.

1. China is irrelevant to this subject. firstly, it's not the topic at hand. Secondly, the China deals were Iger's baby, not Chapek's. Pulling out of those deals isn't something that can just be done on a whim - and if you think that speaking out against the Chinese government will change the behavior of the Chinese government, then you haven't been paying attention.

2. The point isn't that Disney will pull their billions of dollars of attractions and hotels out of FL. It's that Disney could reconsider moving more jobs to FL and that other companies will certainly think about this issue when deciding if they want to move jobs to or create new jobs in FL. It's common for states to lure a business from another state by giving them tax incentives. How much weight do tax incentives really hold in FL now that the government is setting the precedent that they will take away (or attempt to take away) those incentives if you commit the horrible un-American sin of stating your opinion?

 

[castlecake2.0]

Passed by party line vote in House committee: 14-7.

So what happens next?

 

[mkt]

That is not the definition of suppress.

Lawmakers who voted for this legislation are on record saying that this is in retaliation for Disney's stated opinion.

How is this not retaliation?

 

[LAKid53]

That is not the definition of suppress.

You can't throw a corporation in jail. But going after it's ASSETS as retaliation for speech is suppression.

See Citizens United. SCOTUS granted corporations the same status as an individual when it comes to speech.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

This, to me, really seems to be the crux of the issue.

However you feel on the legislation, you can vote the way you want and spend your money where you want to. When the government starts retaliating against corporations for stating their opposition to a piece of legislation, that really seems like creeping authoritarianism. I would have thought that everyone would find this being done so openly as chilling for what it says about the health of democracy in Florida if not the whole country.

That a segment of elected officials have latched onto challenging our democracy should be raising red flags in the mind of every American. I find the fact that it isn't, and that some Americans seem to love it, extremely unsettling.

 

[celluloid]

To quote everyone's favorite new trilogy Star Wars film, everything in that statement is wrong.

The retaliation doctrine expressly talks about retaliation for speech that is already been made.

Suing the federal government happens all the time, an individual is often win. Yesterday, individuals who sued the federal government won when the masked mandate on planes was removed.

And finally, the supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals in the citizens United case.

So, try again.

Yes, that confirms my point the federal government decides when a case is valid. I did not say individuals never win, I said good luck with it because the federal government does decide when a case is valid.


I don't need to try again, you have been constantly wrong here. This is why what is happening is happening and you are continually frustrated by it. You don't have to agree with it, but they are acting within the law.

 

[durangojim]

I know most people are not in management, but Bob C. was under moral obligation to support his staff just like Eisner did back in the day when the all powerful religious organizations threatened to boycott WDW because they allowed Guy Day to happen. He knew like Bob did that a large portion of CM's are part of LGBQA. Financially Disney's strength makes Florida seem like a pauper. They have unlimited resources available to not only outlive Gov. DiSenseless and aren't really looking at him as not much more then a minor annoyance.

There's a difference between supporting your employees by paying them lip service and then actually supporting them by making sure actions don't put their jobs in danger by creating a hostile environment for the company they work at by the government of the state they work in which may lead to job losses.
My personal example is this. I don't talk politics with my patients. I don't post political or controversial things on social networks and I don't support political statements on those platforms either. Why? Because I'm sure half of my patient's would disagree with me and if I lose patients I lose revenue and I'd have to let employees go. However when I had a patient who told me that did not want to see or have her blood drawn by my best medical assistant who only works with me because she is African American, I told the patient she would need to find a new doctor and I fired her on the spot. I also didn't post about it anywhere or feel the need to tell others about it until just now. There's a big difference between virtue signaling (I think it's called) and actually making a difference in people's lives for the better.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

They did not prevent the free speech. The speech happened. Good luck on the second part. That is like suing the federal government. Everyone has the right to take the federal government to court, if the federal government decides it is a good case.
Also, legally speaking, a company is not a someone.

You really have no understanding of any of the legal concepts you're attempting to discuss.

 

[LAKid53]

Some scary rhetoric here.

A guest that contributes a significant amount of cash to the state's coffers.

 

[mikejs78]

I specifically referenced the Board of Supervisors. Quoting from AllEars.Net:

RCID receives all its income from taxes and fees imposed within its boundaries. A board of five supervisors elected by the landowners conducts the business of the district at monthly board meetings. The supervisors must also be landowners. Since Disney owns the land in the district, Disney sells five-acre blocks of undeveloped land to the supervisors. On completion of their terms, these individuals sell their land back to the company. Votes are strictly proportional to the acreage owned, so the company basically governs its own property. The law permits supervisors to vote on contracts between the district and their own companies.​

I wouldn't quote AllEars as the authority on RCID.

 

[JohnD]

Assuming Musk bought land in FL, something tells me that if the State of Florida offered a special district with all the same powers of the RCID so that he could develop SpaceX and Tesla and build a campus for Twitter or another social media platform, the same people in opposition to the bill that would dissolve the RCID would be singing a very different tune.

 

[LAKid53]

I wouldn't quote AllEars as the authority on RCID.

Certainly after the ladies retired.

 

[mkt]

Which is still a 1A violation

Correct.

 

[LAKid53]

The state of Florida is an investor in Twitter through their state pension fund. According the the article I shared, that much is true. That is the apparent reason for the gov's interest in the case, according to him. I am not saying I agree with it or not...or whether or not that is the real reason for him wanting to look at it. I am only saying that is what he is pointing out as the state's stake/interest in Twitter. You can agree with him or disagree.

The SBA invests in a lot of companies. Enron was one.

 

[monothingie]

Lawmakers who voted for this legislation are on record saying that this is in retaliation for Disney's stated opinion.

How is this not retaliation?

Remember when some politician once bragged about elections having consequences before ramming controversial legislations through?

The legislation will pass, the courts will uphold it against any challenges, and that will be the end of the story.

The best bet Disney can do right now, is come groveling back and beg for foregivness.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Assuming Musk bought land in FL, something tells me that if the State of Florida offered a special district with all the same powers of the RCID so that he could develop SpaceX and Tesla and build a campus for Twitter or another social media platform, the same people in opposition to the bill that would dissolve the RCID would be singing a very different tune.

Or perhaps the ones supporting this dangerous precedent would suddenly oppose it?