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

[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.

 

[Andrew C]

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.

 

[lewisc]

Either way, any company can say what they want about legislation without fear of retribution from the government, which is corruption and abuse of power on its face.

Obviously this isn't true. Florida did just that.

I agree it's abuse if power.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

 

[LittleBuford]

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]

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

 

[flynnibus]

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

That’s what happens when their position is a predetermined opinion and not a rationalized conclusion.

There is no point in trying to present it in a different perspective for him… he’s not using logic. Just ‘its my opinion’ with a closed mjnd

 

[LittleBuford]

View attachment 697949

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.

 

[Brian]

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]

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.

 

[Brian]

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's a long story, but it all started when a gorilla named Harambe was murdered.

 

[GoofGoof]

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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

There’s also a lot of really gross uses and affiliations with the meme.

 

[Brian]

There’s also a lot of really gross uses and affiliations with the meme.

I was not aware of such affiliations, but in the interest of ensuring cordial dialogue, I will remove it.

 

[mikejs78]

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.