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

[flynnibus]

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

That’s not how the logic works. Just because you do something via process ABC doesn’t not enable process XYZ. They do not have unlimited power to rewrite the laws unilaterally. The laws they do have the right to change must still abide by the constitution of the state.

You logic is like saying… they created counties… so by that act they are allowed to redefine the county to require you to work a certain job. No - the right to create a county, or change the county, does not empower -any- change they want. The things they can change and how are still bound by the state constitution.

That’s why the discussion is about the change — and how it stands — not a debate on “does the state have the power to change a special district”.

No matter how many times people try to dumb it down to arguments of “the state can change laws”.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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 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.

The city’s argument was that the state did not have the authority to another local subdivision, one whose board they appointed. The state being able to create its subdivisions is not the same as the state being able to give control of specific subdivisions to themselves.

 

[mmascari]

Even that wasn’t entirely the case. The legislature can’t enter into agreements and then just unilaterally end them.

I agree. However it was at least more feasible. Most of those were more contractual. The representation impact is more about how governments are granted authority. Presumably, it would be easier to navigate contractual issues than governance ones.

This has me wondering. One possibility was that Disney was going to just ignore the dissolution as not applying to them. I wonder if they’ll just ignore the new board now. They could take the position that the law is invalid and just ignore it, business as usual. Instead of suing to stop the change, force the state to take measures to enforce it. The state could sue Disney for not complying. The could send in state police to enforce things. Issue arrest warrants for Disney management, or staff. Issue fines, that Disney could just not pay. Almost all of those would create interesting PR moments for everyone.

I’m not saying this is what is going to happen. Just that it’s a possibility. It could be quite the circus.

 

[Tha Realest]

That’s not how the logic works. Just because you do something via process ABC doesn’t not enable process XYZ. They do not have unlimited power to rewrite the laws unilaterally. The laws they do have the right to change must still abide by the constitution of the state.

You logic is like saying… they created counties… so by that act they are allowed to redefine the county to require you to work a certain job. No - the right to create a county, or change the county, does not empower -any- change they want. The things they can change and how are still bound by the state constitution.

That’s why the discussion is about the change — and how it stands — not a debate on “does the state have the power to change a special district”.

No matter how many times people try to dumb it down to arguments of “the state can change laws”.

But you’ve not explained how this is action violates the Florida constitution. Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable. And while you might not like the outcome, the legislature can change the laws - yes, even ones they’ve passed in a prior session.

Again, I get a lot of you had (have?) a lot invested in an outcome that was bad for Florida and Desantis and good for Disney. They’ve chosen not to even challenge this, and have been very clear in their statements. Nevertheless, many persist with these fanciful notions that this doesn’t really mean they’re relenting, or that they’re playing rope a dope, or the lobbying arm will suddenly overcome electoral and demographic trends to undo the GOP’s supermajority in the next election cycle or two. We’ll see! For now, until shown otherwise, it’s clear my initial read on this is shared somewhat by whoever’s advising Disney.

 

[lazyboy97o]

But you’ve not explained how this is action violates the Florida constitution. Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable. And while you might not like the outcome, the legislature can change the laws - yes, even ones they’ve passed in a prior session.

Multiple issues have been very clearly stated. You though have provided no evidence that Disney’s statement and assumed action are based entirely on legal analysis. You have also provided no explanation for why the legislature previously came to different conclusions.

 

[LSLS]

But you’ve not explained how this is action violates the Florida constitution. Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable. And while you might not like the outcome, the legislature can change the laws - yes, even ones they’ve passed in a prior session.

Again, I get a lot of you had (have?) a lot invested in an outcome that was bad for Florida and Desantis and good for Disney. They’ve chosen not to even challenge this, and have been very clear in their statements. Nevertheless, many persist with these fanciful notions that this doesn’t really mean they’re relenting, or that they’re playing rope a dope, or the lobbying arm will suddenly overcome electoral and demographic trends to undo the GOP’s supermajority in the next election cycle or two. We’ll see! For now, until shown otherwise, it’s clear my initial read on this is shared somewhat by whoever’s advising Disney.

You are making such leaps here. Your argument is the only reason to not challenge this is because they think it's correct? So when a company decides to settle instead of going to court, the only reason is because they are in the wrong? And the only reason the other side accepts is because they don't think they have a case? Or is it because when the company factor in the PR, the cost of the suits, etc., it makes more financial sense to settle quietly than drag it out for years? And the person suing, maybe they figure they don't have the financial means to carry on a 5 year lawsuit paying lawyers

 

[Andrew C]

Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable.

The response from disney is definitely interesting. Do they not see this as such a clear case that is easily winnable like a lot of people in here? Do they just think it’s not worth the effort? Are they playing the long game and holding their cards close to their chest? Or was there some type of compromise behind closed doors to resolve the situation without escalating further? My money would be on the last listed.

 

[Tha Realest]

Multiple issues have been very clearly stated. You though have provided no evidence that Disney’s statement and assumed action are based entirely on legal analysis. You have also provided no explanation for why the legislature previously came to different conclusions.

I’ve cited to the Variety article, which appears to be the most authoritative read on Disney’s decision making. If you have additional sources which provide insight into how this went down, I’d love to read them. Until then, we only have 1) Disney’s statement indicating they’re not challenging this, and 2) informative articles that give insight and context to this decision. Legislatures are also not bound by previous opinions or conclusions.

 

[Tha Realest]

You are making such leaps here. Your argument is the only reason to not challenge this is because they think it's correct? So when a company decides to settle instead of going to court, the only reason is because they are in the wrong? And the only reason the other side accepts is because they don't think they have a case? Or is it because when the company factor in the PR, the cost of the suits, etc., it makes more financial sense to settle quietly than drag it out for years? And the person suing, maybe they figure they don't have the financial means to carry on a 5 year lawsuit paying lawyers

Disney made $82.7 billion in revenue last year, which is comparable to the GDP of Sri Lanka.

They could afford the lawyers.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’ve cited to the Variety article, which appears to be the most authoritative read on Disney’s decision making. If you have additional sources which provide insight into how this went down, I’d love to read them. Until then, we only have 1) Disney’s statement indicating they’re not challenging this, and 2) informative articles that give insight and context to this decision. Legislatures are also not bound by previous opinions or conclusions.

As has been explained to you several times now, the Variety article is not a legal analysis nor does it cite one as being the overwhelming factor.

Nobody has said the legislature is bound by prior research. But it’s pretty compelling evidence that when actually dedicating time and resources they came to a very different conclusion. You have not provided any reasoning for how or why they erred in that prior research.

 

[Chi84]

But you’ve not explained how this is action violates the Florida constitution. Clearly Disney doesn’t appear to find any violation actionable. And while you might not like the outcome, the legislature can change the laws - yes, even ones they’ve passed in a prior session.

Again, I get a lot of you had (have?) a lot invested in an outcome that was bad for Florida and Desantis and good for Disney. They’ve chosen not to even challenge this, and have been very clear in their statements. Nevertheless, many persist with these fanciful notions that this doesn’t really mean they’re relenting, or that they’re playing rope a dope, or the lobbying arm will suddenly overcome electoral and demographic trends to undo the GOP’s supermajority in the next election cycle or two. We’ll see! For now, until shown otherwise, it’s clear my initial read on this is shared somewhat by whoever’s advising Disney.

Sometimes it’s possible to violate the law even when you do something you have authority to do.

This isn’t a perfect example but in most states employment is “at will.” That means an employer can fire an employee for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all - unless doing so violates a legal protection extended to the employee.

So even though an employee has no right to continued employment, he may bring a claim for retaliatory discharge against an employer who fires him for advocating joining a union. That’s where issues of intent become relevant. Those issues are usually based on conflicting evidence and resolved by the trier of fact.

Again, this is not a perfect analogy. It’s just meant to show that someone can violate the law by doing what they have the legal authority to do if they violate someone else’s legal protection. Different considers come into play based on different circumstances.

 

[Tha Realest]

The response from disney is definitely interesting. Do they not see this as such a clear case that is easily winnable like a lot of people in here? Do they just think it’s not worth the effort? Are they playing the long game and holding their cards close to their chest? Or was there some type of compromise behind closed doors to resolve the situation without escalating further? My money would be on the last listed.

Its not just “telling,” it’s dispositive.

Really, the Reedy Creek Denialists that think Disney’s just lying in wait to mount a super secret legal challenge to this are no different than the people who think Splash Mountain is coming back or that Lucasfilm will erase the sequel trilogy.

 

[CAV]

Disney has given us no reason to think or hope otherwise. They've capitulated. And they've lost not only the district, but whatever respect they gained by speaking out (albeit belatedly) in support of their CMs. They'd have done better to stay silent if cowardice was the route they were going to take anyway.

They didn't, "speak out in support of their CMs." They spoke out in support of *some* CMs. And it stands to reason, if they did that, they spoke out AGAINST some CMs who agreed with the legislation. Some of those they spoke out against, identify in that community but still agreed with the legislation. And, your words again, they lost "respect" of those they spoke against.

I do agree with you though, they should haven stayed out of this fight. Rather than specifically support or oppose the legislation, they should have stayed neutral, encouraged their employees to to exercise their right to vote and remind their employees all they do, policy wise (benefits) to support them.

 

[CAV]

I disagree. They should have fought their CMs’ corner from the outset, and they should still be fighting now.

You assume all CMs agree with their "fight?"

 

[thomas998]

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.

The revenue for the last 12 months was about 85 billion... Florida's annual budget is 112 billion... See the problem yet?

 

[MAGICFLOP]

Disney made $82.7 billion in revenue last year, which is comparable to the GDP of Sri Lanka.

They could afford the lawyers.

Correct and not only should they be looking at this issue, they have a copyright fight coming, Steam Boat copyright is gone in Jan 2024 and it will take an act of congress to keep the Mickey copyright (Although I am not 100% sure how that one works. Mickey could equal public domain). Disney needs to wade carefully in these waters, there is a president (Biden) claiming that these big companies are not paying their fair share in taxes...

 

[Tha Realest]

The revenue for the last 12 months was about 85 billion... Florida's annual budget is 112 billion... See the problem yet?

That puts Disney on roughly equal footing unlike few other litigants. And that’s before you get to the relative experience and abilities of the state AG and the firms Disney hires.

 

[LSLS]

Disney made $82.7 billion in revenue last year, which is comparable to the GDP of Sri Lanka.

They could afford the lawyers.

So could most major companies that settle (only like 3 % of civil trials reach the end with a jury decision). And I mean, you are in the threads about them needing to cut $5.5 billion this year, eliminating 7000 jobs, $700 mil in capital expenses. You also don't know if they have made a backroom deal on this already.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You also don't know if they have made a backroom deal on this already.

Why would a backroom deal include a bunch of needless expenses?

 

[LittleBuford]

And, your words again, they lost "respect" of those they spoke against.

Which is a calculated risk they took when they eventually issued a statement. They knew they might face boycotts, protests, and press vilification. What they weren't expecting—and should never have had to expect—was government retaliation.

I realise there are different views on the issue of whether, and on whose behalf, Disney should have waded into the "Parental Rights" debate. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether democratic governments should, contrary to precedent and law, punish individuals and companies for exercising their right to free speech. On that issue, at least, we should all be on the same side, for all our sakes.