peter11435
Well-Known Member
That had already been litigated in 1968. There was nothing unconstitutional about the original charter.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
No, that's literally what free speech means with regards to the government. Consequences from consumers? Fair game. Consequences from the government? Expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Nobody should be okay with governments punishing speech. Not in America.
CaptainMickey
Well-Known Member
Florida special districts are part of the Florida government, not part of any company. So what was technically the retribution to Disney? The legislature changing a Florida government board structure? Did Chapek get thrown in jail or something? What free speech rights did they lose? If the legislature did break home rule laws a lawsuit will correct things. I'm sure Disney looked at it and doesn't think it's worth the fight.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The state had already done that.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
This sums up the whole problem. Nobody is saying individuals cannot disagree with Disney and as a result there would be consequences in the form of less sales and/or attempts to organize boycotts. Nobody is saying the government or individual politicians cannot disagree with Disney on an issue. Happens all the time. The big issue is politicians using the power of the government given to them by the people to attack a political opponent. That should never be allowed and should never be tolerated no matter which side of an issue someone is on.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
The retribution wasn’t against the special district, it was against Disney which is a company. Members of the legislature and the Governor himself said publicly many times this action was being done to punish Disney for speaking out against a bill. That’s the definition of attempting to suppress free speech. Nobody has to be thrown in jail.
flynnibus
Premium Member
There is no distinction when we are talking about the Government pushing consequences.
Know your basic civics
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
But that kind of reiterates my (deleted) point that the states always had the power to influence them, taking away their liquor license over red shirt days for example, and hasn’t.
Everyone’s throwing around scenarios of how the state can now punish Disney if they don’t like something they do but the states always had that power to punish them through the dozens of other state agencies and never used it.
Florida now has 101 ways to influence and punish Disney instead of the 100 they had last week, this bill is troubling to all of us because we’re viewing it from a first amendment perspective but Disney doesn’t seem too concerned about it, probably because they know it doesn’t really change anything for them.
CaptainMickey
Well-Known Member
I actually agree with you.
I'm asking is government changing a government entity legally retribution?
There must be some legality to it or they wouldn't do it.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The state is also on a different tragetory and level of focus now then they have been in the past.
Just because they didn't in the past doesn't mean anything about the future when they are actively demonstrating more explict action now. The recent RCID change simply is a new tool for which these ambitions can be flexed through. That's the point.
Normally we can say "the constitution prevents that from happening" -- but the state is pushing that boundary and expanding more and more. The past isn't relevant anymore - what matters is the government now.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Have you never heard of a law being overturned?
flynnibus
Premium Member
This has been covered before - so please don't make us relive groundhog day for the 18th time.
1) Right to change a law is not the same thing as 'right to do anything we want' - there are still limits
2) You do not have to do direct action to someone to be considered chilling their speech. If you are a political activist, and the government jails your wife as retailiation... don't you think you'll feel the pressure?
"there must be some legality to it or they wouldn't do it"? You are aware that laws get thrown out by the courts all the time right? There is no standard of legality in the legislative body - That's why we have a system of checks and balances.
CaptainMickey
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course. Not arguing that at all.
my question was is government changing a government entity legally retribution?
flynnibus
Premium Member
Imagine a place where the state doesn't like a certain... population... let's say. The state changes the law on voting standards and voting districts to disenfranchise that population. Those are all things the state controls right? The state just changing state defined stuff. You don't think that's an issue either... because the state can just change state stuff right?
Last edited by a moderator:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Even without the why there are legal issues with both laws. There’s a reason that when the legislature studied the district they didn’t conclude either route was a viable option.
Last edited by a moderator:
Notypeo
Member
One difference is that statewide agencies are generally supposed maintain at least a pretense of treating different businesses equally. CFTOD won’t need to worry about that — it can “crack down” on WDW without worrying about the implications for anyone else it regulates.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I'm done reading the bill! But... were any of you smartypants here who had already read this bill going to tell me before I went to do the same thing that it was 189 pages long?!? Single-spaced!
But you can probably understand my sense of relief when I got to Page 5 and then realized the next 76 pages were nothing but a long list of geo-coordinates and street directions for the land encompassed by the RCID (AKA, Disney World!). Phew!
From Page 82 onward though, it did get to be quite a slog. Lots of inane blather about mosquito-control and drainage canals and underground utility codes, then dozens of pages about bond sales all staying the same, board meetings being open to the public, etc., etc.
There were a few things that popped out at me that I'll get to in a moment, but for the most part I think this summary from an NPR article I read today sums up exactly what this bill does and doesn't do:
"The [bill] would largely leave the district and its abilities intact but change its name to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District and require the governor to appoint a five-member oversight board. Members previously were named through entities controlled by Disney." -NPR
The original one is referenced several times in the new bill, specifically the RCID bills passed by the Florida legislature in September and November of 1966. The new 2023 bill on pages 188 and 189 sums up the multiple references to the original 1966 law, which is that nothing has changed from the 1966 law except the name of the district and the five appointed board members can no longer be picked and paid for by Disney.
The one question I did have came up on Page 104, Section 14. It states...
Transportation.-To own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, equip, operate, maintain, extend, and improve common, private, or contract carriers, buses, vehicles, railroads, monorails, airplanes, helicopters, boats, and other transportation systems and facilities as may be determined from time to time by the board of supervisors to be useful or appropriate to meet the transportation requirements of the district and activities conducted within the district. In addition, the district may own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, equip, operate, maintain, extend, and improve helipads and sites for vertical takeoff and landings within the boundaries of the district.
Is that something new, or is it carryover boilerplate language from the 1966 law? Or put another way, does RCID now own and operate the WDW Monorail, Bay Lake boats, WDW buses, DAK Railroad and Magic Kingdom Railroad? If so, I could see a concern about those CM's reporting to the new CFTOD board instead of to TDO management.
Or are those attractions and transportation systems (trams, buses, ferry boats, etc.) all still owned and operated by WDW themselves, and this is just leftover language from '66 assuming EPCOT would be a city of thousands of people with civic transportation systems?
Anyone know how that works currently with RCID and WDW Transportation attractions/systems?
Originally, at Disneyland in the 1950's into the 1970's, the Disneyland Monorail and Railroad were owned and operated by a separate Walt-owned entity called Retlaw (Walter backwards). Those CM's were technically Retlaw employees and were paid/managed by Retlaw instead of Disneyland. I believe that the Enchanted Tiki Room also came under Retlaw management, at least when it opened in 1963.
The old Retlaw concept is what perked up my eyes when I came across Page 104 with language about monorails and railroads.
Last edited:
flynnibus
Premium Member
Like you say... one has far more political value to be spun. While the other is under the table dirty pool leverage you use to force someone's hand. It's optics.
You are 100% right.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Translation - I said I was going to read the bill, but instead I'll just use this thinned out article as conclusions instead.
Incorrect. Those are not the only changes.
That language has nothing to do with taking over anything. That's defining the scope and powers within the district to be tasked and enable to do those kinds of functions. Like build roads, etc.