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.2023 time machine - So the Liberals are defending Big Cooperate Business now and Conservatives are attacking it. How did we get to opposite world?
Of course they could. They created RCID. As it’s creator, they could change up the composition as they see fit.
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."Apparently in the state of FL you actually cannot say what you want without retaliation from the government.
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.
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.
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.
Legislative acts can be undone by legislative acts. I’m sorry this is a difficult concept for many of you to grasp. But keep making up facts or alternative theories of separation of powers if that makes you feel better.
Agreed. As I understand it, Disney's conciliatory tone is more a function of PR/damage control than the legal merits of a hypothetical lawsuit.
But all these armchair Imagineers-come-armchair lawyers and lobbyists have assured us over the last year this was a slam dunk lawsuit to reverse this. We have a large industry publication quoting those in the know offering the unlikely legal outcome as a major reason why they aren’t fighting this.
Nothing is being undone here. That was the old plan. That was probably just fine, it didn’t impose any new local government requirements on anyone without their say. It had lots of negative impacts, but that’s not the same thing.
On its face there is a strong 1st amendment case here, still is. Disney choosing not pursue that case is a business decision. Even if they felt there was a 95% chance of winning the lawsuit they could have still elected not to pursue it because of the bad press and potential of additional attacks. You are concluding that because Disney isn’t pursuing a lawsuit that means they decided they wouldn’t win. It’s possible they determined that winning the lawsuit could actually still be a loss for them overall.
Why didn’t the legislature come to this conclusion when they studied the matter in the past?
Even that wasn’t entirely the case. The legislature can’t enter into agreements and then just unilaterally end them.
No. The legislation gives the district primacy over the municipalities which is part of why it is so problematic. Under this model the state could now create a Central Florida Municipal Oversight District that encompasses Orlando and Winter Park and make those cities subordinate to that new district on most municipal matters.
I think you have a misunderstanding of the entire process that led to the eventual creation of the RCID and its full assortment of powers.
That is all some people have, might as well let them enjoy it. They will promptly forget that they supported something like this when their "team" ends up on the other side now that this has been established is a viable punishment for disagreeing with the ruling party. People like to think their side will stay in power forever but it doesn't work that way and then the retribution cycle kicks in.
So, basically, if a lawsuit were to be filed, it would have to be from the residents of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista alleging disenfranchisement given that the creation of RCID had to be approved by a referendum of BL and LBV residents, and therefore stripping the landowners of voting power constituted a fundamental change that required a new referendum.
