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

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
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?
I wasn’t commenting on the apparent fight between Disney and the state of Florida. I was only making a point as to why Disney seems to be on the radar of people generally, in a negative manner.

They can say what they want at the end of the day.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I'm just trying to pin down the argument here. Not having much success.
It’s like when some rather known criminal gets off on a technicality. People get mad that someone they wanted to be punished doesn’t get punished. They can recognize that the technicality has an importance, but ultimately aren’t happy that it is an impediment to the desired punishment. People want Disney to be punished. They recognize that they can’t really support this avenue but they’re not going to get too upset and water it down because they like that punishment is occurring.
 
Last edited:

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I'm just trying to pin down the argument here. Not having much success.
I know we’ve compared it to victim-blaming, but it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that some here don’t view Disney as a victim at all. In their eyes, Disney has been appropriately cut down to size, and the means by which this happened are of secondary importance. I’m reminded of how people might respond to news of a criminal being assaulted—they won’t deny that what happened was illegal, but nor will they regret the outcome.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
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.

No - that citation simply confirms the hierarchy of government, makes clear subordinates are not immune from state law. It doesn’t counter what lazyboy was highlighting
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
Is this a meme, or are you actually agreeing with what I said? If it’s the former, you’ll have to explain its meaning to me.
I am agreeing with what you said, while also self-identifying as a member of the group you described, a group which I'm guessing you would not also consider yourself a part of. The latter is a typical use for the meme.
 

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
I know we’ve compared it to victim-blaming, but it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that some here don’t view Disney as a victim at all. In their eyes, Disney has been appropriately cut down to size, and the means by which this happened are of secondary importance. I’m reminded of how people might respond to news of a criminal being assaulted—they won’t deny that what happened was illegal, but nor will they regret the outcome.
Just shows how much they despise LGBTQ people. :(
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I wasn’t commenting on the apparent fight between Disney and the state of Florida. I was only making a point as to why Disney seems to be on the radar of people generally, in a negative manner.

They can say what they want at the end of the day.
Apparently in the state of FL you actually cannot say what you want without retaliation from the government :(.

My comment still stands. We are all consumers with the free choice to do business with whoever we want for whatever reason, or in this case avoid doing business. If Disney is “on people’s radar” it’s not hard to just avoid them. Aside from voting (or not voting) with your wallet it’s also possible to organize boycotts, attempt to influence shareholders who control the board or reach out to management directly expressing your opinion in an attempt to make changes. As I’ve said all along I don’t believe very many people actually care that much. If asked in a casual conversation they will have an opinion but not one strong enough to change their actions. Kinda like Chic-fil-A.

I think the other thing that factors in is the number of people actually upset with Disney for their leanings is much smaller than many people perceive. About 1/3 of the adult population isn’t registered to vote. Of those registered about 30% are registered Republican. So about 20% of the adult population is registered to vote Republican. About half the independents lean right but also not every registered Republican opposes Disney. The point is that when we talk political arguments there’s a perception that it’s 50/50 but that’s not really true. A small base on both sides cares (maybe 10-15%) and the 70-80% in the middle don’t necessarily care all that much.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
Quoting from Lake Worth Utilities v. City of Lake Worth:

In ruling that Chapter 69-1215 did unconstitutionally transfer municipal powers to the Authority, the court focused on the last part of the first sentence of article VIII, section 2(b), Florida Constitution:​
(b) Powers. Municipalities shall have 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. Each municipal legislative body shall be elective.​
The court held that the limiting prepositional phrase, "except as otherwise provided by law," modifies only the clause, "and may exercise any power for municipal purposes." To read the words of limitation otherwise, the court held, would nullify the change represented by the 1968 constitutional revision and return the municipalities to their pre-1968 dependence on the legislature for grants of power. "Each time municipal authority, or change in municipal authority, was sought, it would be necessary to approach the legislative *217 branch of government," the court reasoned.​
Such an interpretation misapprehends the import of the 1968 revision and unduly denigrates the supremacy of the legislature as a state policy-making body. Before the adoption of article VIII, section 2(b) in 1968, municipalities were creatures of legislative grace. Article VIII, section 8, Florida Constitution of 1885, provided, in pertinent part, "The Legislature shall have power to establish, and to abolish, municipalities to provide for their government, to prescribe their jurisdiction and powers, and to alter or amend the same at any time." Thus, the municipalities were inherently powerless, absent a specific grant of power from the legislature. The noblest municipal ordinance, enacted to serve the most compelling municipal purpose, was void, absent authorization found in some general or special law.​
The clear purpose of the 1968 revision embodied in article VIII, section 2 was to give the municipalities inherent power to meet municipal needs. But "inherent" is not to be confused with "absolute" or even with "supreme" in this context. The legislature's retained power is now one of limitation rather than one of grace, but it remains an all-pervasive power, nonetheless.
Thus, the words "except as otherwise provided by law" must be read as modifying the entire sentence preceding it. Such a reading is supported by historical analysis, grammatical precepts, and common sense. It finds further support in the commentary to the 1968 Florida Constitution provided by the reporter for the Constitutional Revision Commission, Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte:​
The provisions in the subsection were new with the Revision Commission proposal, but the 1885 Constitution granted the power to the legislature to prescribe the jurisdiction and powers of municipalities ki by law in Article VIII, Section 8. The apparent difference is that under the new language, all municipalities have governmental, corporate and proprietary powers unless provided otherwise by law, whereas under the 1885 Constitution, municipalities had only those powers expressly granted by law.​

Per the 1968 FL constitution, a municipality is assumed to have the power to perform its functions "unless provided otherwise by law." Prior to that, a municipality only had the powers expressly granted to it by the legislature.

You're still misunderstanding something. The legislature can take certain municipal powers to itself or to the state for all municipalities. In other words, they can take a general power that was applied to municipalities and apply it at the state level, like the example of the building codes.

What they cannot do is single out one municipality and strip it of its powers.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
2023 time machine - So the Liberals are defending Big Cooperate Business now and Conservatives are attacking it. How did we get to opposite world? 🤣
It is kinda crazy to see, but I think we are starting to see an evolution of the parties to some extent. Not sure if it’s a permanent change but this is not an isolated incident. There’s a reason we’ve seen major changes in how suburban voters are voting.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
You said “taking away powers.” Which is not what they did here. They took control of those powers. Powers they wouldn’t have been able to unilaterally grant themselves in the first place.
Of course they could. They created RCID. As it’s creator, they could change up the composition as they see fit.

Look, Disney’s impressive cadre of lawyers and lobbyists appear to agree with this view. You, lazyboy97o, and others can wish-cast all you want about what should have been done/should be done, but clearly Disney’s been advised - by again, their high paid roster of lawyers and lobbyists - that this is not a fight they’ll win.
 
Last edited:

Brian

Well-Known Member
Apparently in the state of FL you actually cannot say what you want without retaliation from the government :(.
I don't think you can use this one isolated instance of inappropriate wielding of government power to make such a broad statement. If there were a consistent pattern of these kinds of overreaches, I'd agree with your assessment, but I think that this was a one-off used to rally DeSantis' base and give him additional press coverage/name recognition in conservative circles in preparation for a potential 2024 run for POTUS. Part of his campaign stump speech might even include something like: "If I can take on Disney, I can take on the D.C. swamp."
 

thomas998

Well-Known Member
Of course they could. They created RCID. As it’s creator, they could change up the composition as they see fit.

Look, Disney’s impressive cadre of lawyers and lobbyists appear to agree with this view. You, lazyboy97o can wish-cast all you want about what should have been done/should be done, but clearly Disney’s been advised - by again, their high paid roster of lawyers and lobbyists - that this is not a fight they’ll win.
The reality is while a corporation can fight a state government, they cannot win if the state decides it is a fight worth fighting. At best a corporation can slow down a change by a state government. But unless the federal government does something to stop the state the state will eventually win even if the courts rule against them. The states have all the money and time in the world to make any changes necessary to win. It is a reason why corporations should refrain from poking the bear. I could see Disney having a reason to get involved in something the state was doing if it impacted Disney directly... but this instance was stupid on their part. Whether the management sided with either side of the argument, the argument wasn't something that impacted Disney and they should have thought about Michael Jordan that has a history of staying out of politics. Disney was only going to upset one side or the other, so it was a stupid battle to inject themselves into.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I don't think you can use this one isolated instance of inappropriate use of government power to make such a broad statement. If there were a consistent pattern of these kinds of overreaches, I'd agree with your assessment, but I think that this was a one-off used to rally DeSantis' base and give him additional press coverage/name recognition in conservative circles in preparation for a potential 2024 run for POTUS. Part of his campaign stump speech might even include something like: "If I can take on Disney, I can take on the D.C. swamp."
How many incidents are necessary before we acknowledge it’s a problem? I would agree with you more if the Governor was doing this using executive orders but this action was taken with the blessing and support of the legislature too. Those people aren’t all running for President. IMHO this was a clear statement from 2 of 3 branches of the state government that corporations should be on notice. Defy our party and we will yield the full power of the state government to punish you and damage your business.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
The reality is while a corporation can fight a state government, they cannot win if the state decides it is a fight worth fighting. At best a corporation can slow down a change by a state government. But unless the federal government does something to stop the state the state will eventually win even if the courts rule against them. The states have all the money and time in the world to make any changes necessary to win. It is a reason why corporations should refrain from poking the bear. I could see Disney having a reason to get involved in something the state was doing if it impacted Disney directly... but this instance was stupid on their part. Whether the management sided with either side of the argument, the argument wasn't something that impacted Disney and they should have thought about Michael Jordan that has a history of staying out of politics. Disney was only going to upset one side or the other, so it was a stupid battle to inject themselves into.
Disney is not just any corporation. If it was a country, it’s annual revenues would put it on par with the GDP of Luxembourg, Panama, and Costa Rica.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom