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

[fgmnt]

When did they become too big to pay for their own services and should have started sharing those costs with taxpayers?

Maybe they should get back into owning major professional sports teams.

 

[Bullseye1967]

But a business shouldn't have to fear retaliation from the government due to the first amendment.

There is a huge difference between Disney speaking out about something and customers boycotting them versus a government punishing them for exercising their right to free speech.

It does risk alienating its customers and facing retaliation from them. But in our country, it does not risk retaliation from the government.

Government retaliations should not be one of those choices. That being the calculus is a huge problem. This is also not about a single incident and issue. At some point somebody was going to realize that the Reedy Creek Improvement District was a target to try and influence Disney’s creative and management decisions, which is exactly what is happening.

But the business does not have to factor in government retaliation. That’s prohibited by our constitution.

I can give you all the same answer. I certainly do not condone what has happened here. Government retaliations should never happen, but they do by both political parties. When you make a choice, there will be a reaction by someone. It may be good for your company, it may be bad, or it may have no result. This is why a business usually looks deep into a choice they make, rather than a knee jerk reaction to some noise on social media.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I can give you all the same answer. I certainly do not condone what has happened here. Government retaliations should never happen, but they do by both political parties. When you make a choice, there will be a reaction by someone. It may be good for your company, it may be bad, or it may have no result. This is why a business usually looks deep into a choice they make, rather than a knee jerk reaction to some noise on social media.

Again, we are not talking about a single choice related to a single issue. You are in effect arguing that all content and management decisions at Disney, across the globe, should try to avoid political retaliation in Florida, because that is what this is actually about.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I agree that free speech without retaliation is a bedrock of democracy.

But what Disney uniquely enjoys with RCID is a corporatocracy.

The RCID started because the county and the state did not have the means to provide for all the infrastructure that Disney needed because, at the time, Disney was far from utility services and the local counties were mostly farmland and swamps.

Disney received this benefit of building the infrastructure at no extra cost to the county or state. What a deal that was having to pay for it themselves!

In fact, Disney then paid county property taxes to the county on top of that without receiving from the county any of the utility services that other parks get, like Universal.

Universal expands and the county pays for part of the new roads needed to handle the crowds. Universal is getting county services from the taxes it paid to the county. (And also from the taxes Disney paid to the county.)

Disney doesn't get back any utilities or services from the county even though they're paying county taxes.

So, there is a trade off here. Disney gets utility services as they would like it, but, they're paying 100% for it. *AND* Disney is paying county taxes on top of that for which they get no return.

Now, should that deal end? Maybe. Is Orange and Osceola counties ready to take over the utilities of WDW? Not at all. Not without raising the taxes on everyone in the county, including Universal.

Disney is not costing the taxpayers anything. And on top of that, Disney pays taxes for the services that taxpayers enjoy.

Some corpratocracy. Disney pays twice.

But ending that RCID arrangement isn't really the biggest sticking point. Notice that DeSantis and the Republican legislature aren't looking to end it!! But that's what they promised!!!

Instead, they're allowing it to continue because they realize the corporatocracy is to their benefit so that they don't have to pay for Disney's infrastructure.

Instead, they want to control it as punishment for Disney having a political opinion. And the ability to have leverage over Disney if Disney dares to air another constitutionally protected opinion.

 

[Bullseye1967]

Again, we are not talking about a single choice related to a single issue. You are in effect arguing that all content and management decisions at Disney, across the globe, should try to avoid political retaliation in Florida, because that is what this is actually about.

I am not aware of any issue, other than things in Florida that have been mentioned in regards to the RCID fight. I did notice that Disney+ dropped an episode of The Simpson's from their streaming service yesterday that the PRC objected to. Did they have the right to have it on Disney+? Yes, but I guess they decided it was in their best interest to drop it to avoid issues with the PRC. It had to do with a joke about slave labor in China.

 

[Chi84]

I can give you all the same answer. I certainly do not condone what has happened here. Government retaliations should never happen, but they do by both political parties. When you make a choice, there will be a reaction by someone. It may be good for your company, it may be bad, or it may have no result. This is why a business usually looks deep into a choice they make, rather than a knee jerk reaction to some noise on social media.

There is no requirement for a business or an individual in this country to carefully choose their words in order to avoid government retaliation. Our constitution guarantees freedom of speech and limits the power of both federal and state governments to retaliate.

If a business makes unwise decisions it risks a lot of bad publicity as well as driving away its customers. But in this country, it does not risk being punished by the government. It’s not that such retaliation “should not” happen. It’s illegal.

 

[mikejs78]

Yes, but I guess they decided it was in their best interest to drop it to avoid issues with the PRC. It had to do with a joke about slave labor in China.

So what you're saying is that Florida is like the People's Republic of China and Ron DeSantis is like Xi Jinping.

Got it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But ending that RCID arrangement isn't really the biggest sticking point. Notice that DeSantis and the Republican legislature aren't looking to end it!! But that's what they promised!!!

The proposed legislation does include a requirement for the board to make periodic (every 5 years) recommendations to the state on powers to be withdrawn from the district.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am not aware of any issue, other than things in Florida that have been mentioned in regards to the RCID fight. I did notice that Disney+ dropped an episode of The Simpson's from their streaming service yesterday that the PRC objected to. Did they have the right to have it on Disney+? Yes, but I guess they decided it was in their best interest to drop it to avoid issues with the PRC. It had to do with a joke about slave labor in China.

The politicians involved have been talking about all sorts of issues with “Woke Disney”. When this started the lieutenant governor outright said the matter would be reconsidered if Disney recanted on their social positions and promised to make changes to their content. The governor has made speeches about curtailing corporate speech in the state.

 

[Andrew C]

So what you're saying is that Florida is like the People's Republic of China and Ron DeSantis is like Xi Jinping.

Got it.

I guess difference being Ron was actually elected. Maybe a few others. Hah

 

[Bullseye1967]

I am not talking about a requirement. I am talking about cause and effect. They knew the political climate they were wading into. See my above reference to the PRC. They choose not to fight that fight. They could have even taken a half step. They could have spoken out against the legislation but Chapek had to go the extra mile and say they would do everything they could to strike the bill down. They knew they were going head to head with the governor. Probably not the best choice.

 

[Brian]

The difference is that Disney has to keep paying the bills for the infrastructure while the housing developer gets to pass those off to others. You’re still barking up the tree of Disney avoiding some burden. The District implemented a regulatory environment where one largely did not exist. Disney isn’t getting a whole host of services for which they pay the counties.

But surely Disney would not have kept RCID around for 50+ years, or lobby for its creation back in the 60s, if it did not provide a net benefit. Sure, there may be some trade offs, but I think we can all agree that Disney benefits from RCID's existence more than it loses from it.

When did they become too big to pay for their own services and should have started sharing those costs with taxpayers?

When Treasure Planet came out. If they could afford to make a movie with such gravitas and nuance as that one, you know they made it to the big leagues.

 

[Bullseye1967]

So what you're saying is that Florida is like the People's Republic of China and Ron DeSantis is like Xi Jinping.

Got it.

No, I am saying sometimes you pick your battles. I have learned this in life, the military, my business, and my marriage. You may shoot from the hip every time with no regard for what the consequences are. I, however choose to hold my tongue on most occasions.

 

[Bullseye1967]

The politicians involved have been talking about all sorts of issues with “Woke Disney”. When this started the lieutenant governor outright said the matter would be reconsidered if Disney recanted on their social positions and promised to make changes to their content. The governor has made speeches about curtailing corporate speech in the state.

Can you cite some of this? I must have missed it. I am far from perfect. Just ask my wife.

 

[Chi84]

No, I am saying sometimes you pick your battles. I have learned this in life, the military, my business, and my marriage. You may shoot from the hip every time with no regard for what the consequences are. I, however choose to hold my tongue on most occasions.

But should they have to worry (or even think twice) about unfavorable legislation if they unwisely pick the wrong battle?

 

[Andrew C]

But should they have to worry (or even think twice) about unfavorable legislation if they unwisely pick the wrong battle?

I would say no. And our laws seem to say no at least in the general sense. But all companies do still worry about this. Whether you’re a social media platform, an oil and gas company, or a baker.

In a nutshell, politicians are pretty sleazy.

 

[fgmnt]

But surely Disney would not have kept RCID around for 50+ years, or lobby for its creation back in the 60s, if it did not provide a net benefit. Sure, there may be some trade offs, but I think we can all agree that Disney benefits from RCID's existence more than it loses from it.

I do not think anyone is arguing RCID as-is is a bad deal for the company. I also have yet to see anyone bring any convincing evidence it's a bad deal for the state in its current form. If the state is not initiating a change to the status quo for a tangible and realizable economic benefit, what are we left to assume is the reason other than for the governor to extract a pound of flesh? I am dying for an answer to this that makes sense.

 

[mikejs78]

No, I am saying sometimes you pick your battles. I have learned this in life, the military, my business, and my marriage. You may shoot from the hip every time with no regard for what the consequences are. I, however choose to hold my tongue on most occasions.

You're missing the point. The PRC isn't a free country. They don't hold the freedom of speech to high regard. Cross the PRC, even a little, and they'll nationalize your business, kick you out, arrest your employees, etc.

That's not the way we are supposed to do things in the United States of America. Yet here we are.

 

[Bullseye1967]

But should they have to worry (or even think twice) about unfavorable legislation if they unwisely pick the wrong battle?

This is why huge companies like Disney have huge PR firms and a ton of lawyers and everything gets run by everyone before the make a statement. This did not happen here. You stand on bad legislation which it is, but back to cause and effect. Was it wise to both speak against it ( a position) and say you will try to overturn it ( an action). You did say unwisely. People like you and I do unwise things. Multi billion dollar companies usually think it through first.

 

[mikejs78]

But surely Disney would not have kept RCID around for 50+ years, or lobby for its creation back in the 60s, if it did not provide a net benefit. Sure, there may be some trade offs, but I think we can all agree that Disney benefits from RCID's existence more than it loses from it.

Of course it benefits them. What's wrong with that?

It also benefits the state and the taxpayers.

Now I'll ask you - other than "Big evil corporation", what about RCID is problematic in any way? And what does this bill specifically do that addresses those supposed problems?