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

[UNCgolf]

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

No it doesn't -- I get the impression you fundamentally don't understand what's being discussed.

That makes it a waste of time to respond to you because it'll just be talking in circles.

 

[MAGICFLOP]

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.

When did I say I agreed with government retaliation? I missed that one...

 

[Drdcm]

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

Yeah that part is pretty wishful thinking.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

I think it’s perverse that Universal doesn’t want to include the people of Volusia County in paying for the transit improvements they are seeking. It’s disgusting that Universal and the other landowners want to pay for their desired improvements and have a say in that process.

 

[GoofGoof]

When did I say I agreed with government retaliation? I missed that one...

You said this:

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"

Participating in what is supposed to be participatory governance is not an error.

Participate as individual citizens, but not on behalf a company, or else get responded to as a company, which happened.

Isn’t that saying they shouldn’t have spoken out and got what they deserved? What am I missing?

 

[MAGICFLOP]

You said this:



Isn’t that saying they shouldn’t have spoken out and got what they deserved? What am I missing?

You are not reading it as I intended it. Like or not we live in hyper weaponized environment (DOJ, IRS, Judicial and Legislative), Disney or any company wading into any waters that they do not need to go into is dangerous for the company as a whole and even if Disney escaped what FL did, they face losing consumers that fundamentally disagree. We live in a hyper partisan country these days and people get set off easily, G. Bush said once that he hatted broccoli and some people went nuts.

 

[GoofGoof]

You are not reading it as I intended it. Like or not we live in hyper weaponized environment (DOJ, IRS, Judicial and Legislative), Disney or any company wading into any waters that they do not need to go into is dangerous for the company as a whole and even if Disney escaped what FL did, they face losing consumers that fundamentally disagree. We live in a hyper partisan country these days and people get set off easily, G. Bush said once that he hatted broccoli and some people went nuts.

Losing consumers is a completely different issue. Disney as a company decides what values and mission statement they have as a company and want to follow. You can’t please everyone so some won’t agree. The company makes the decision on many issues every day. The proper response to that for a consumer is to not buy the products, organize a boycott, push for new leadership to change the company. All perfectly appropriate. What is completely inappropriate is someone using the power of the government to punish a company for taking a side on an issue. That should never be accepted by anyone. So when you say this was an unforced error that implies they should have known the government would retaliate like this. Not true. If the company faced consumer backlash, issues with park attendance, boycotts from groups due to speaking out publicly that could be as you call it an unforced error. This situation can never be accurately described that way.

 

[flynnibus]

osing consumers is a completely different issue.

Everytime a new thread joiner wants to bring this up in the thread talking about Gov vs RCID.. there should be one response...

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You think he's crazy, some people don't.

That's the beauty of America. I don't think the next governor will make much of a difference from a Disney perspective. You may disagree with a political party/political person but they're all focused on money, so hurting Disney TOO bad is not in any of their best interests.

The numbers say he’s crazy. That’s the beauty of “math”

Honestly Reedy Creek was always on borrowed time, throughout its history both parties at diffrent times tried to get rid or change the rules of the special district. DeSantis just happend to have a majority in the state congress to push this through.
Also I have a feeling on a guest side we're not going to notice much on our end of any changes.

Well thanks to bob(s), wdw is now officially lacking capacity for its customers due to lack of investment over almost 20 years. So watch this be an excuse Hinted at for continued lack of investment and increase in price for 90% old stuff.

It’s not so much what happened but why it happened that should concern us. If there have indeed been earlier attempts to get rid of or reorganise the district (I myself don’t know, but I’ll take your word for it), were they also motivated by an undisguised desire to punish Disney for exercising its legally enshrined First Amendment rights?

Agree 100%

We need less “chaos theory” in public discourse, public policy and the business world

This is dangerous on more of an existential level because it rewards such fringe kinda behavior.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You are not reading it as I intended it. Like or not we live in hyper weaponized environment (DOJ, IRS, Judicial and Legislative), Disney or any company wading into any waters that they do not need to go into is dangerous for the company as a whole and even if Disney escaped what FL did, they face losing consumers that fundamentally disagree. We live in a hyper partisan country these days and people get set off easily, G. Bush said once that he hatted broccoli and some people went nuts.

I’d like for you to expand on this a little bit…because I don’t want to think it’s nonsense off tv…but it kinda smells like it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Everytime a new thread joiner wants to bring this up in the thread talking about Gov vs RCID.. there should be one response...

View attachment 697871

What are you trying to say, Jibroni?

 

[Andrew C]

 

[CaptainMickey]

I’m really baffled by this framing, which makes it seem as if Disney would have been doing something unreasonable or hotheaded by opposing arbitrary government interference.

Variety had an article today with a probable explanation why Disney is not perusing it:

"fighting the law in court would have carried its own downsides. A lawsuit might have dragged on for years, with uncertainty over who was truly in charge of the district and leaving the district staff incapable of executing projects. It would also have embroiled the company further in a local culture war that it has been trying to extricate itself from. There was no guarantee of success, as many observers said that the Legislature has broad latitude to take away authority it had previously given."

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

That’s pretty sad . We should just accept that the governor will attack people???? Sorry, but I will never accept that.

Actually it shouldn’t be tolerated…it used to be called “civics”

 

[GoofGoof]

Actually it shouldn’t be tolerated…it used to be called “civics”

It frightens me to see how many people just blindly accept this type of thing or make excuses for it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Variety had an article today with a probable explanation why Disney is not perusing it:

"fighting the law in court would have carried its own downsides. A lawsuit might have dragged on for years, with uncertainty over who was truly in charge of the district and leaving the district staff incapable of executing projects. It would also have embroiled the company further in a local culture war that it has been trying to extricate itself from. There was no guarantee of success, as many observers said that the Legislature has broad latitude to take away authority it had previously given."

A simple injunction would have handled any uncertainty for the time being.

Disney isn’t getting out the culture war.

The legislature does not have authority to convert local government to state appointed government.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I've spent an evening reading books about various attacks on US-government-sponsored modern art shows during the late-1940s and early-1950s this evening for a project I am working on, and I can't help but ponder how all of what is going on now will look in the future. In that era you had people writing columns, protesting, and literally standing in front of paintings due to the presumed communist character of the artist and/or art. You then had international exhibitions being withdrawn and even sold off in response to the complaints until, ironically, Eisenhower replaced Truman as president and strengthened US government support of modern art as representative of US freedom and individuality, largely regardless of the political beliefs of the artist.

There will undoubtedly be articles, chapters, and perhaps books writing by historians one day about the conflict between the Florida governor and Walt Disney World. Curious to know what they will have about this time in history.

 

[Tha Realest]

Variety had an article today with a probable explanation why Disney is not perusing it:

"There was no guarantee of success, as many observers said that the Legislature has broad latitude to take away authority it had previously given."

I said the same thing numerous times a few months ago:

It’s a creation of the legislature. The public - as it existed at the time in those counties - never had a ballot initiative.

Set aside the merits of whether it was “good” for Florida then and now. I’m not sure why something created by the legislature cannot be likewise undone by the legislature.

I was responding to the question as to whether “the public” had a chance to vote on it. The same “public” that voted for its creation (the legislature) voted for its dissolution. It’s a pretty basic concept in the law that something created via legislation can later be undone by legislation.

How? The legislature passed FL House Bill 486, which was signed into law on May 12, 1967. I’ve seen no record of a public ballot or vote in favor of this move beyond this legislative act, before or after its enactment.

Please show me a public ballot initiative whereby the citizens of those counties or what would become the RCID voted in favor of its creation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I said the same thing numerous times a few months ago:

And how your point is bunk was explained to you. Cities and counties are created by the legislature but can’t just be dissolved, have their officials replaced or be absorbed within a new entity. People outside of a new jurisdiction never get a say on that jurisdiction. Nobody outside of Universal’s proposed community development district will vote on it being created.

 

[Dan Deesnee]

The numbers say he’s crazy. That’s the beauty of “math”

Well thanks to bob(s), wdw is now officially lacking capacity for its customers due to lack of investment over almost 20 years. So watch this be an excuse Hinted at for continued lack of investment and increase in price for 90% old stuff.

Agree 100%

We need less “chaos theory” in public discourse, public policy and the business world

This is dangerous on more of an existential level because it rewards such fringe kinda behavior.

Numbers?