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

[lazyboy97o]

The Florida constitution explicitly allows laws to be passed to abolish counties and cities:

ARTICLE VIII​

LOCAL GOVERNMENT​

​

SECTION 1. Counties.—​

(a) POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS. The state shall be divided by law into political subdivisions called counties. Counties may be created, abolished or changed by law, with provision for payment or apportionment of the public debt.​

​

SECTION 2. Municipalities.—​

(a) ESTABLISHMENT. Municipalities may be established or abolished and their charters amended pursuant to general or special law. When any municipality is abolished, provision shall be made for the protection of its creditors.​

​

So this quote from Variety is correct:

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

There is a whole process involved in dissolving cities. It is something that can take years and even decades. It is not done instantly. Unincorporating Bithlo, a community east of Orlando, took nearly 60 years to accomplish.

The Florida Constitution also requires home rule, so while boundaries can be adjusted and reorganized, at a minimum a municipality that does end would still be part of a locally controlled county. There is no authority for state controlled local government.

 

[GhostHost1000]

The first one being wrong is a matter of opinion and not illegal.
The second is illegal.

I completely agree with that. Always have.

 

[lazyboy97o]

i completely agree with that. Always have.

Then why do you keep making analogies that state otherwise?

 

[GhostHost1000]

Then why do you keep making analogies that state otherwise?

Because some fail to see the target Disney put on their own back. It’s been a combination of things.

It shouldn’t matter however or have a shot taken at them like this, but I still stand my by original statement, this all could have been avoided. Whether some want to acknowledge that or not is ok. That’s my opinion just like others have their opinion and why we talk about it on here.

Florida taking away Reedy Creek is also not illegal. We can’t forget that part. It’s illegal to do it because of Disney saying whatever they want however. So I feel what Florida is doing or has done to Disney is wrong.

 

[GoofGoof]

I completely agree with that. Always have.

One nuance to this that may help people understand your point of view. You agree with #2 the government response was illegal and wrong. On Disney speaking out against the bill do you believe that speaking out was wrong or do you just disagree with their position on the issue? I think that’s what people don’t get. It seems like the same thing but is actually very different. It’s perfectly legit for someone to have the opinion that the original bill is good and that Disney should not oppose it. That’s an opinion. It’s not OK to think Disney shouldn’t speak out. That’s opposing free speech.

 

[jeanericuser001]

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.

Basically it strengthens Disney's case in the the eventual court battle as well as the eventual civil suit that will take place. This also will be seen as an example to other companies not to trust the GOP in Florida. That will be crucial in the next election as the GOP without a regular source of revenue will be unable to compete with the democrats who likely will be getting extra backing from companies hoping to remove an anti business legistlature as well as a governor who uses his office to settle personal scores. When the establishment is against you its very hard to get the win.

 

[Drdcm]

Because some fail to see the target Disney put on their own back.

It shouldn’t matter however or have a shot taken at them like this, but I still stand my by original statement, this all could have been avoided. Whether some want to acknowledge that or not is ok. That’s my opinion just like others have their opinion and why we talk about it on here.

Florida taking away Reedy Creek is also not illegal. We can’t forget that part. It’s illegal to do it because of Disney saying whatever they want however. So I feel what Florida is doing or has done to Disney is wrong.

Ok here’s my issue with your logic…

With your statements, I can acknowledge that you are in agreement that Florida should not be targeting Disney.

You also say that this is happening because Disney put a target on its back and that it could have been avoided.

Saying it “could have been avoided” implies Disney should have expected govt retaliation. Which you simultaneously say is wrong. If that’s the case, why would Disney have expected that to be the consequence?

Otherwise, you have to believe that the two events are unrelated.

 

[Ayla]

I get it. I said both were wrong…not legal or illegal.

Except one is illegal, or at least, it used to be...and it ain't what Disney said.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Except one is illegal, or at least, it used to be...and it ain't what Disney said.

Agreed

 

[GhostHost1000]

Again with the doublespeak. Either you think what DeSantis did was wrong and illegal or you don't. There is no "but but but."

I can go swimming with sharks and throw bait in there with me. Not illegal, but probably not smart and anything might happen.

Disney should never have to worry about what Florida is doing or did regardless, but Disney isn’t smart imo to play in the crazy political world we live in these days. So many questionable things go on (both sides) that are wrong and should be illegal but still occur. Sadly it’s the world we live in, so don’t poke the bear if you don’t have to.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Basically it strengthens Disney's case in the the eventual court battle as well as the eventual civil suit that will take place. This also will be seen as an example to other companies not to trust the GOP in Florida. That will be crucial in the next election as the GOP without a regular source of revenue will be unable to compete with the democrats who likely will be getting extra backing from companies hoping to remove an anti business legistlature as well as a governor who uses his office to settle personal scores. When the establishment is against you its very hard to get the win.

A local government is allowed to be mismanaged to some broad extents. Even if a civil suit was successful it would be to overturn one or a few closely related decisions. You wouldn’t be able to undo huge swaths of decisions, replace board members or undo the new legal structure.

 

[Drdcm]

A local government is allowed to be mismanaged to some broad extents. Even if a civil suit was successful it would be to overturn one or a few closely related decisions. You wouldn’t be able to undo huge swaths of decisions, replace board members or undo the new legal structure.

What do you do for work? I’m genuinely curious if you have a law background. Or is it that you’ve done a lot of research on this issue? You seem to have more knowledge about FL state law than most people.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

A local government is allowed to be mismanaged to some broad extents. Even if a civil suit was successful it would be to overturn one or a few closely related decisions. You wouldn’t be able to undo huge swaths of decisions, replace board members or undo the new legal structure.

This.

Mismanagement happens all the time. Governments a few things up and mismanage their obligations the time. That doesn’t mean there is a judicial remedy for it. Any civil suit that stems from the Reedy Creek saga is going to fall into 1 of 2 broad category’s. 1) the legislation that is eventually passed is unconstitutional. Or 2). Once the new legislation goes into effect, the new board attempts to do something that is outside their legal authority. Running the district into the ground would be terrible, but not illegal or arguably actionable.

 

[Chi84]

I can go swimming with sharks and throw bait in there with me. Not illegal, but probably not smart and anything might happen.

Disney should never have to worry about what Florida is doing or did regardless, but Disney isn’t smart imo to play in the crazy political world we live in these days. So many questionable things go on (both sides) that are wrong and should be illegal but still occur. Sadly it’s the world we live in, so don’t poke the bear if you don’t have to.

So you believe Disney has a right to free speech but it shouldn't have exercised it in this particular instance because it was sure to upset the Florida government in this current political climate.

 

[LittleBuford]

I can go swimming with sharks and throw bait in there with me. Not illegal, but probably not smart and anything might happen.

The analogy is irrelevant, because sharks aren’t bound by laws and precedent. In a democracy, “anything might happen” isn’t a thought we should ever have when it comes to government.

 

[Chi84]

Disney could avoid a lot of culture wars by populating with shows and movies with just straight white characters, but should they?

They shouldn't and they don't, and they're willing to risk a business hit for doing what they believe is right. What they don't have to "take" or "risk" is government action in response.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So you believe Disney has a right to free speech but it shouldn't have exercised it in this particular instance because it was sure to upset the Florida government in this current political climate.

Which is pretty much the definition of chilling speech which means there is no actual freedom of speech. This of course all hindsight and nobody was suggesting at the time that Disney needed to be careful because the state might retaliate.

 

[Chi84]

Which is pretty much the definition of chilling speech which means there is no actual freedom of speech. This of course all hindsight and nobody was suggesting at the time that Disney needed to be careful because the state might retaliate.

I'm just trying to pin down the argument here. Not having much success.

 

[GoofGoof]

Or. They could do things like not lying about Georgia voting laws, give Tiana her own attraction rather than sloppy seconds, stop pretending that emancipation wasn’t important, and stop putting people into leadership positions that view this country as irredeemable.

These are reasons why a good chunk of the general population looks at them weirdly.

You know the simple answer right? Don’t buy the product. Don’t visit their parks. Don’t watch their movies. Don’t watch their networks or streaming service. Problem solved. A state government has no business attempting to influence a private company into changing their content. Is that really what we want to see?

 

[lazyboy97o]

This PDF from the Local Solutions Support Center provides a nice overview of Florida's Home Rule. Of particular note:

In 1968 Florida amended its constitution to grant municipalities home rule authority. Article VIII, § 2 gives municipalities all “governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law.”​

​

The Florida Supreme Court has clarified that the phrase “except as otherwise provided by law” in Article VIII, § subordinates municipalities to the legislature. That is, a city’s “inherent” power is not “absolute” or “supreme,” and the legislative power to overrule cities is “an all-pervasive power.”​

Florida Home Rule is not what you think it is. The legislature still rules.

Yet another novel theory based on your favorite phrase.

Supremacy of authority does not negate local rule. It does not give the legislature authority to hand control over to the executive. We’re right back to you arguing that the constitution is meaningless and the state can do anything and everything.

At the turn of the century the state replaced the locally adopted building codes with the Florida Building Code. Local governments cannot disregard portions but are allowed to have more stringent requirements. The legislature would absolutely have issues with trying to make it so that a single city or county’s amendments were controlled by them or governor appointees. They can provide the operating framework which everyone uses, they don’t get to decide for specific localities of their choosing.