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

[LittleBuford]

sure thats what lawyers call it when a question is asked in court which the asker did not know the answer beforehand

I think you understood my question as I intended it. Democratic governments aren't supposed to punish individuals or companies for "unforced errors". You might like what's happened on a personal level because it aligns with your politics, but you ought to ask yourself whether the principle that's been established—that private individuals and companies should curtail their legally protected free speech in order not to face government retribution—is really one you're OK with.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disney probably is gonna play a long game and start gathering dirt on DeSantis and his cronies while watching how badly DeSantis's fools mismanage reedy creek. This may seem like a capitulation for now but disney always manages to win in the end. That is why disney has never had to sell itself unlike its rival theme park competitors. Honestly in the grand scheme DeSantis is now a fish slowly eating a bait on a hook and its only a matter time before disney pulls DeSantis into a fight he has never had to face before.

How does Disney win by allowing the district to be mismanaged? It’s not just Disney who could be harmed. Mismanagement of the district could result in other consequences like environmental damage.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

Yes. Every state has different rules. In FL the law has changed many times but most recently in 2018 they clarified the rule to include people holding state office running for President or Vice President. As others have pointed out the legislature can just pass a new bill reversing the rule but as it stands today he would need to step down.

The intent of the law is to prevent people from using their current state office as a platform to move on to national positions. It also ensures that if someone is focusing on a national campaign and spending a lot of time out of state that someone local who is focused on the state steps in.

Thanks to both for answering…I only asked because in NJ, when Christie ran for POTS, he remained in office while declared.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

It all goes back to Disney interjecting themselves into a bill that has nothing to do with their business. In laymen's terms "unforced error"

It has to do with their employees and their customers, so…their business.

And I suppose if the Rosa Parks protest happened today, Disney should just stay out of it? At what point is it not their moral obligation to do the right thing? Is the right thing unclear to you in that example?

Is that a principle in law, too?

Such a feisty tone for you!

RCID only exists as a weird perversion of democracy that comes straight from a Henry Ford fever dream.

It exists because of an agreement made based on the conditions on the ground at the time. Disney wanted to gamble big on some unwanted swampland. Now that it’s paid off, we (FL) should renege on the deal?

 

[el_super]

They are residents. They’re also not the only parties involved with standing.

It would probably look a whole lot better if some non-disney entity came out to fight it. Where are they? Shouldn't they have released statements if they were being impacted?

 

[MAGICFLOP]

I think you understood my question as I intended it. Democratic governments aren't supposed to punish individuals or companies for "unforced errors". You might like what's happened on a personal level because it aligns with your politics, but you ought to ask yourself whether the principle that's been established—that private individuals and companies should curtail their legally protected free speech in order not to face government retribution—is really one you're OK with.

No, I think everyone should think / speak for themselves and act for themselves and no government retaliation for any speech.

with that said, If a group speaks thats fine as long as they all support that position, but at the company I work at, I would be angry if they put out a statement on behalf of all employees we feel that xxxx (something I dont agree with)

I dont care about the issue of the bill that Disney weighed in on, I care more that they weighed in on a matter not directly related to their business.

 

[lazyboy97o]

RCID isn't worth saving, no matter the reason for its demise.

Are you under the impression the district is being dissolved?

 

[el_super]

No, but it would have made getting these bills to his desk more difficult and possibly with alteration.

So what makes more sense? A direct assault thru the courts and battling a state government that is almost completely opposed to you, or taking a step back and exercising your first amendment rights to quietly change minds over the course of years?

Disney knows what they are doing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, I think everyone should think / speak for themselves and act for themselves and no government retaliation for any speech.

with that said, If a group speaks thats fine as long as they all support that position, but at the company I work at, I would be angry if they put out a statement on behalf of all employees we feel that xxxx (something I dont agree with)

I dont care about the issue of the bill that Disney weighed in on, I care more that they weighed in on a matter not directly related to their business.

You were just telling us it was fine for the government to retaliate. You personally not liking Disney’s decision is not equivalent to government retaliation.

 

[el_super]

Are you under the impression the district is being dissolved?

No I am not.

Let me clarify by saying, Disney's control of RCID isn't worth saving.

 

[UNCgolf]

No I am not.

Let me clarify by saying, Disney's control of RCID isn't worth saving.

That's really misframing the issue. It's not about Disney's control; it's about local control. The state government taking control and eliminating any local involvement isn't a better outcome -- it's just obfuscated by the fact Disney is a giant corporation.

This sets a precedent that the state could do exactly the same thing with any municipality. There would be a much larger outcry if the state government was replacing the mayor and city council of Orlando with governor appointees, but it's essentially the same thing that's happening with the former RCID.

 

[mmascari]

RCID only exists as a weird perversion of democracy that comes straight from a Henry Ford fever dream.

Which part does this?

Can you state an example of something RCID does that’s fits this description?

 

[Drdcm]

No, I think everyone should think / speak for themselves and act for themselves and no government retaliation for any speech.

with that said, If a group speaks thats fine as long as they all support that position, but at the company I work at, I would be angry if they put out a statement on behalf of all employees we feel that xxxx (something I dont agree with)

I dont care about the issue of the bill that Disney weighed in on, I care more that they weighed in on a matter not directly related to their business.

If you aren’t happy with their actions, you can choose not to give them your business. Market pressure determines the intelligence of those decisions.

As for the employees, the disgruntled employees can choose not to work for them if the company doesn’t share their values. That works both ways.

Personally, I chose to leave a hospital that I felt had despicable practices regarding psychiatric patients even though it used to pay me a lot more than I earn now.

Either way, the government shouldn’t be retaliating against people who speak out with legal action.

 

[el_super]

That's really misframing the issue. It's not about Disney's control; it's about local control.

But.. it's not. Someone in Burbank California decides who lives there.

 

[el_super]

Which part does this?

Can you state an example of something RCID does that’s fits this description?

See above.

 

[UNCgolf]

But.. it's not. Someone in Burbank California decides who lives there.

That's completely irrelevant, though. It makes no difference to the precedent being set.

You're falling into the trap of missing the forest for trees -- which is why I made the Orlando example. There's no special legal carveout because Disney is a giant corporation with decisions being made in Burbank.

 

[mmascari]

See above.

Above what? There are no examples above.

 

[el_super]

That's completely irrelevant, though. It makes no difference to the precedent being set.

Yes it does. When the governor comes to dissolve Orange County, we can go over app the ways that is different.

 

[AshaNeOmah]

the disgruntled employees can choose not to work for them if the company doesn’t share their values.

I wish everyone really believed this. We'd hear a lot less complaining about workplaces and 'bad' corporations and more actual quitting.

 

[mmascari]

None of the published analyses I've read since the news broke interpret the statement as other than a full concession on Disney's part

None of the reporting or analysis can even explain how RCID functions correctly. Certainly none of the opinion pieces have explained it correctly. The reporting is so bad with even basic facts, it’s no wonder any analysis is poor.