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

[TP2000]

The details don’t matter because it’s not a genuine and honest assessment. It’s a distraction just like claiming that mosquito control is the big power of the CFLTOD.

There's a hundred different things RCID does, from mosquito control to drainage canal maintenance to pothole repair to changing lightbulbs in traffic lights to issuing millions of dollars in tax-free bonds.

I used mosquito control as the example because after reading the bill, that's one of the things that would make me chuckle as I read. Mosquitos are funny to Westerners who rarely deal with them.

As for CARB, I use it as an example of a state board that controls the lives of 40 Million Californians, but is made up of entirely un-elected people who don't have to answer to anyone but the friendly Governor who appointed them to the plum job.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They are on a very short list of states that have passed a $15 (or more) minimum wage though, 9 by my count.

That is the result of a constitutional amendment adopted via referendum.

 

[MisterPenguin]

They are on a very short list of states that have passed a $15 (or more) minimum wage though, 9 by my count.

FL's minimum wage is currently $11/hr.

It will go up to $15 by 2026.

It "passed" only thru an amendment to its constitution voted upon by more than 60% of the voters. It bypassed the legislature and governor, neither of which would have made that happen, tho more than 60% of the population obviously wanted it.

 

[TP2000]

I admit I'm not from CA and haven't done more than a cursory search on this. BUT, you aren't telling the entire picture. 12 are appointed by the governor. 5 are chosen from local air pollution districts to represent all the different areas. The members of those districts are elected by the people of those districts. 4 are people who must be experts in a specific field. 2 are members of the public (so people who this directly affects), and a chair. SO, if my math is correct, people in the state (or the area which is affected by their rules) have direct representation of 7 of the 14 total positions (7 of the 12 the governor puts in place). This new district has 0 representation on the board.

No, I'm afraid your research was incorrect. There are only 14 voting members of the board, plus two (2) non-voting members.

12 of those voting CARB members are appointed directly by the Governor. The other two voting members are appointed by (and this is where it gets into absolutely hilarious loony-toon appointment land!)... "The other 2 voting members represent environmental justice communities and are appointed one each by the Senate Rules Committee and the Assembly Speaker."

So, in summary, CARB dictates rules and regulations to 40 Million people, but none of the 14 members who vote on the CARB board are elected by the voters. 12 are appointed directly by the Governor, and 2 are appointed by congressional leadership (AKA, the Governors buddies in state congress).

This involves RCID and the new CFTOD because...

I use the over-reaching and often dictatorial example of CARB as an example of the many, many state boards around the country that are appointed directly by Governors and senior state legislators. It also popped into my mind because it was one of many reasons why I finally moved out of California last year; it's rigid one-party rule and mind numbing government overreach like CARB. Sayonara CARB!

Leadership | California Air Resources Board

The California Air Resources Board consists of 14 voting members and 2 ex officio nonvoting members who are members of the Legislature, one from the Senate and the other from the Assembly. Of the 14 voting members, 12 are appointed by the Governor with Senate confirmation, and include: 6 who...

ww2.arb.ca.gov

 

[peter11435]

No, I'm afraid your research was incorrect. There are only 14 voting members of the board, plus two (2) non-voting members.

12 of those voting CARB members are appointed directly by the Governor. The other two voting members are appointed by (and this is where it gets into absolutely hilarious loony-toon appointment land!)... "The other 2 voting members represent environmental justice communities and are appointed one each by the Senate Rules Committee and the Assembly Speaker."

So, in summary, CARB dictates rules and regulations to 40 Million people, but none of the 14 members who vote on the CARB board are elected by the voters. 12 are appointed directly by the Governor, and 2 are appointed by congressional leadership (AKA, the Governors buddies in state congress).

This involves RCID and the new CFTOD because...

I use the over-reaching and often dictatorial example of CARB as an example of the many, many state boards around the country that are appointed directly by Governors and senior state legislators. It also popped into my mind because it was one of many reasons why I finally moved out of California last year; it's rigid one-party rule and mind numbing government overreach like CARB. Sayonara CARB!

Leadership | California Air Resources Board

The California Air Resources Board consists of 14 voting members and 2 ex officio nonvoting members who are members of the Legislature, one from the Senate and the other from the Assembly. Of the 14 voting members, 12 are appointed by the Governor with Senate confirmation, and include: 6 who...

ww2.arb.ca.gov

But does CARB have the ability to tax you and provide/not provide necessary public services? I’m honestly asking.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

No, I'm afraid your research was incorrect. There are only 14 voting members of the board, plus two (2) non-voting members.

12 of those voting CARB members are appointed directly by the Governor. The other two voting members are appointed by (and this is where it gets into absolutely hilarious loony-toon appointment land!)... "The other 2 voting members represent environmental justice communities and are appointed one each by the Senate Rules Committee and the Assembly Speaker."

So, in summary, CARB dictates rules and regulations to 40 Million people, but none of the 14 members who vote on the CARB board are elected by the voters. 12 are appointed directly by the Governor, and 2 are appointed by congressional leadership (AKA, the Governors buddies in state congress).

I use the over-reaching and often dictatorial example of CARB as an example of the many, many state boards around the country that are appointed directly by Governors and senior state legislators. It also popped into my mind because it was one of many reasons why I finally moved out of California last year; it's rigid one-party rule and mind numbing government overreach. Sayonara CARB!

Leadership | California Air Resources Board

The California Air Resources Board consists of 14 voting members and 2 ex officio nonvoting members who are members of the Legislature, one from the Senate and the other from the Assembly. Of the 14 voting members, 12 are appointed by the Governor with Senate confirmation, and include: 6 who...

ww2.arb.ca.gov

They still have no taxing authority and that makes a big difference. Also, if enough people in the state are annoyed by how the governor and board members are running g things, they can vote for a new governor (who would then appoint their own picks for the board)in the next election. If landowners in RCID are unhappy with the new RCID/CFTOD board, they have very little say in the matter because they make up less than 1% of the eligible voters in the state. They have no ability to elect new board members. For this to be an apples to apples comparison, voters in surrounding states would have to be able to vote for California's governor - and would have to outnumber Californians. Then it might be similar to how voters outside of RCID have a say in who oversees RCID.

 

[TP2000]

But does CARB have the ability to tax you and provide/not provide necessary public services? I’m honestly asking.

Yes, it does. And it has created some of the highest taxes and fee structures in the nation.

It's notorious and infamous Cap & Trade tax on energy production, for example, is a huge tax on energy producers and distributors that is passed directly on to anyone in California who uses electricity, natural gas, and/or gasoline. There are also direct taxes on gasoline and diesel and jet fuel in California that were created by CARB that Californians pay for at the pump, plus sliding-scale fees dictated by CARB that must be paid to the DMV every year for vehicle owners in California. Etc., etc. The CARB fees and taxes are never ending it seems.

As for "necessary public services" being provided by unelected bureaucrats, there's several good jokes in there just waiting to be told.

But the members of CARB would probably argue that CARB provides many "necessary public services" via Climate Justice, even though they don't do stuff directly like spraying for mosquitos or fixing potholes.

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Fact-Sheet-Cap-and-Trade.pdf

 

[TP2000]

They still have no taxing authority and that makes a big difference.

No, that's incorrect. As I showed above, CARB has created some of the highest energy taxes and fee structures in the nation, from everyone from Standard Oil who pays hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes per year to Sacramento, to the little old lady in Pasadena paying $450 a year to register her Dodge.

And one of the key provisions of CARB is to manage and implement those taxes and fees on Californians.

Also, if enough people in the state are annoyed by how the governor and board members are running g things, they can vote for a new governor (who would then appoint their own picks for the board)in the next election.

Yes, exactly. That's how it works with almost all state-appointed boards. And that's how it will work with CFTOD.

OT California aside...
The shame of it all is that many voters in California have no idea the power that some of these Governor-appointed boards like CARB wield over their daily life and how much more in taxes they pay for that privilege. California has been a strict one-party state ruled by a Dem supermajority in Sacramento for many years now. And if you are a Republican in California who dares run against those kind dear leaders, you are labeled a "racist" who wants to kill flowers and bring back the smog from 1972.

Higher California Gas Prices Due to Taxes and Regulation - Econlib

I’ve been wondering for some time why gasoline prices in California are so much higher than in other parts of the country. I know that gasoline taxes are much higher, and they account for the bulk of the difference in prices, but there’s a large portion unaccounted for. A recent Wall Street...

www.econlib.org

 

[TP2000]

I’d like to hear of one instance where Newsom explicitly punished a company merely for disagreeing with him. There is no Democratic version of this tactic. Only DeSantis has been authoritarian enough to do it.

From the Disney-owned ABC affiliate in Los Angeles, Newsom's latest "punishment" of private companies he disagrees with...

To the best of my knowledge, Disney doesn't even shoot anything in Florida - their closest production facility is outside Atlanta.

Wait, I thought Bob Iger was going to stop filming in Georgia because of the way those unfashionable Georgia voters vote their votes?

Disney CEO: Filming in Georgia will be 'very difficult' if abortion law takes effect

Disney CEO Bob Iger said during a Reuters interview that it would be 'very difficult' to film in Georgia if the state's new abortion law takes effect.

www.usatoday.com

Bob Iger: Disney Will Probably Leave Georgia If Anti-Abortion Bill Becomes Law

“If it becomes law I don’t see how it’s practical for us to continue to shoot there,” the CEO said.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[LSLS]

No, I'm afraid your research was incorrect. There are only 14 voting members of the board, plus two (2) non-voting members.

12 of those voting CARB members are appointed directly by the Governor. The other two voting members are appointed by (and this is where it gets into absolutely hilarious loony-toon appointment land!)... "The other 2 voting members represent environmental justice communities and are appointed one each by the Senate Rules Committee and the Assembly Speaker."

So, in summary, CARB dictates rules and regulations to 40 Million people, but none of the 14 members who vote on the CARB board are elected by the voters. 12 are appointed directly by the Governor, and 2 are appointed by congressional leadership (AKA, the Governors buddies in state congress).

This involves RCID and the new CFTOD because...

I use the over-reaching and often dictatorial example of CARB as an example of the many, many state boards around the country that are appointed directly by Governors and senior state legislators. It also popped into my mind because it was one of many reasons why I finally moved out of California last year; it's rigid one-party rule and mind numbing government overreach like CARB. Sayonara CARB!

Leadership | California Air Resources Board

The California Air Resources Board consists of 14 voting members and 2 ex officio nonvoting members who are members of the Legislature, one from the Senate and the other from the Assembly. Of the 14 voting members, 12 are appointed by the Governor with Senate confirmation, and include: 6 who...

ww2.arb.ca.gov

Literally in the link you posted:

"Of the 14 voting members, 12 are appointed by the Governor with Senate confirmation, and include: 6 who serve on local air districts, 4 experts in fields that shape air quality rules, and 2 public members."

So, you obviously left out who those 12 are on purpose, but I'll dive a bit into those 6 from local air districts.

I went and looked up the first of those: Bay Area AQMD (San Francisco Bay Area). It says: "The BAAQMD is governed by a 24-member Board of Directors composed of elected officials from each of the nine Bay Area counties."

So the Governor selects from elected officials. So each region has representation they can elect out.

 

[TP2000]

Literally in the link you posted:

"Of the 14 voting members, 12 are appointed by the Governor with Senate confirmation, and include: 6 who serve on local air districts, 4 experts in fields that shape air quality rules, and 2 public members."

So, you obviously left out who those 12 are on purpose, but I'll dive a bit into those 6 from local air districts.

I went and looked up the first of those: Bay Area AQMD (San Francisco Bay Area). It says: "The BAAQMD is governed by a 24-member Board of Directors composed of elected officials from each of the nine Bay Area counties."

So the Governor selects from elected officials. So each region has representation they can elect out.

Of the thousands of bureaucrats in California that could be chosen by the Governor to serve on the CARB board, are you under the impression that a career politician like Governor Newsom would pick people who don't align strongly with his political positions?

 

[LSLS]

Of the thousands of bureaucrats in California that could be chosen by the Governor to serve on the CARB board, are you under the impression that a career politician like Governor Newsom would pick people who don't align strongly with his political positions?

There are not thousands to choose from, there are 24 elected officials to represent that district (probably more or less in other districts, again, i dont live this so my quick google searches have to suffice). I'm not even getting into the fallacy of the comparison others are, unless you can show me otherwise, he selects from 24 democratically elected officials who he wants on the committee for that district. The people of that district can vote that person out if they choose. There are 6 people on that board who are elected by the people in one form or another, and all districts are represented contrary to what you initially stated.

 

[GoofGoof]

I can't speak for others. But for me, I hate it that "my side" (conservatives) went all-in on this idea that cancel culture is bad across the board. I don't agree with that. Some things deserve to be cancelled. Sometimes by the marketplace, sometimes by government. The right and the left both agree with that and show it by their actions. We just disagree about *what* needs to be cancelled.

I have zero problem with people freely choosing to “cancel“ something. I personally think in a lot of cases it’s ridiculous and people need to get off social media and think more for themselves, but in the end I respect that it’s their decision. We all need to be a little more accepting that others have different points of view and even if we disagree it’s ok to just walk away, everything doesn’t have to be a boycott or an attempt to cancel. Don‘t like a drag show….stop attending them . Don’t like Chic-Fil-A for some political stance they took just don’t eat there, or do what I do…enjoy the chicken and don’t worry about the politics. You don’t need to make a big public stand.


I fundamentally disagree that the government should “cancel” anything that doesn’t actually violate a law and in that case it’s not cancelling it that’s just enforcing a law. I think it happens more often than it should and too many people are accepting it and justifying it by saying things like “in this political environment….” I don’t care how polarized political opinion gets it’s never acceptable for the Government to act this way.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

No, that's incorrect. As I showed above, CARB has created some of the highest energy taxes and fee structures in the nation. And one of the key provisions of CARB is to manage and implement those taxes and fees on Californians.

False. Any non-local taxes in CA require approval by 2/3 of the legislature, so at most CARB could recommend a tax or fee to the legislature and then it's up to the elected officials to introduce and pass the legislation imposing the tax.

 

[MandaM]

From the Disney-owned ABC affiliate in Los Angeles, Newsom's latest "punishment" of private companies he disagrees with...

You’re comparing two entirely different things again. Newsom wants to take action against companies for price gouging. Whether or not you agree with that, it’s 100% not the same as Newsom punishing companies merely because they publicly disagrees with him.

Since you can’t provide any instance of Newsom doing the SAME thing DeSantis did, your claim that it’s ok for DeSantis to revoke free speech because California does it is nonsense.

 

[sullyinMT]

From the Disney-owned ABC affiliate in Los Angeles, Newsom's latest "punishment" of private companies he disagrees with...

An exploration into price gouging or profit margins is nothing new, and both sides of the US aisle were vociferous when gas prices were crazy high a few months back. Similar vocality when the War on Terror sent gas/oil higher twenty years ago.

Wait, I thought Bob Iger was going to stop filming in Georgia because of the way those unfashionable Georgia voters vote their votes?

Disney CEO: Filming in Georgia will be 'very difficult' if abortion law takes effect

Disney CEO Bob Iger said during a Reuters interview that it would be 'very difficult' to film in Georgia if the state's new abortion law takes effect.

www.usatoday.com

Bob Iger: Disney Will Probably Leave Georgia If Anti-Abortion Bill Becomes Law

“If it becomes law I don’t see how it’s practical for us to continue to shoot there,” the CEO said.

www.vanityfair.com

That’s a private company voicing its opinion. Not the same as government retaliation against political speech.

 

[GoofGoof]

Let me just throw a question out there, and please excuse me if it's been discussed somewhere in the previous 466 pages...

If DeSantis had not framed this as retaliating against Disney, but had simply come out and said that he didn't think the current structure of RCID was beneficial to the state of Florida and was ill-advised, and that he and the legislature were going to change it, and then they implemented the legislation that he just signed, would you support it? Everyone opposed seems to be focusing on the motivation behind the changes. But what do you think of the changes themselves absent that specific motivation?

It would be much less of a problem for sure.

I think if the Government of FL legitimately decided it was time for RCID to go then they should have come up with a plan to eliminate the district not just seize control of it. Not the half a$$ plan to dissolve the district they passed last year but a real plan. Let the local counties and Disney in on the planning process. Phase in the change of control of services slowly over time. Have a real plan for paying off the debt that didn't include dumping it on the counties. The district existed for 50 years there’s no major threat that makes it necessary to dissolve in a matter of months. I personally don’t think Disney has a right to the district but I also think it’s fundamentally wrong to have taxation without representation so the 2 viable options should have been keep the district with the landowners(Disney) in control or dissolve the district completely.

 

[scottieRoss]

And this is pretty much where I am at. Disney should have worked with the government and counties to dissolve RCID (or hand over control) decades ago when it first started causing problems. They didn't because they wanted the unfair advantage. As a Disney fan, I think it was a huge mistake for the company to let that go as long as they did.

Around 2018, Josh D'Amaro came out and asked the City of Anaheim to drop the subsidies they had pushed through the city council (mostly against the will of the people) because of the controversy and derision it had caused. I think Disney choosing not to fight for RCID is in that same vein. Disney trying to get out of local politics is a good thing.

If Disney actually wants to make a difference in Florida, and change perceptions, they will need to shed their greedy corporate image, and ditching RCID is the first step toward that.

And this is the problem. You have your right to your opinion, even if every single thing is false. You have no understanding of what RCID is, was or why it was founded. You consider it an arm of the Walt Disney Company when it is not. It was an independent government whose Board of Supervisors was elected by the landholders of the district. The fact that the majority of the land was owned by different parts of the Walt Disney Co. so that it had a very strong majority in elections has no bearing on anything.
It is no different than the small town I live in and the same group of residents controls who is elected to the council and serves on its boards. But the State of Texas has no write to do away with this home rule and permit the governor to appoint a new council from outside my town because they criticized him.
But as long as you keep making false statements your arguments mean nothing

 

[TP2000]

There are not thousands to choose from,

From across the state there is, most certainly.

There are not thousands to choose from, there are 24 elected officials to represent that district (probably more or less in other districts, again, i dont live this so my quick google searches have to suffice). I'm not even getting into the fallacy of the comparison others are, unless you can show me otherwise, he selects from 24 democratically elected officials who he wants on the committee for that district. The people of that district can vote that person out if they choose. There are 6 people on that board who are elected by the people in one form or another, and all districts are represented contrary to what you initially stated.

Setting aside the fact that any Governor, D or R, would only choose politically aligned people to serve on a board that controls massive taxation and policy in that state...

The CARB board has 14 voting members. 12 of them are appointed directly by the Governor, and two are appointed by the Governor's sidekicks in the legislature. Six of the voting members come from the hundreds of politicians who make up many local AQMD Districts across the state that support CARB goals (there is no end to the layers of bureaucracy in California!), and 8 others are appointed directly by the Governor and/or Speaker of the House.

Even if all six of the CARB members (who were still chosen by the Governor) from AQMD Districts suddenly went rogue and turned into Coal Barons who want to remove catalytic converters from every car, they only have six votes. There's still 8 other votes by CARB board members that were directly chosen by the Governor. But this is not a group of bureaucrats and political cronies that is going to go against the Governor that appointed them. And the Governor did appoint them personally, whether you admit it or not.

Example #2,489 of this concept:
In 2022 the CARB Board voted to ban the sale of all gas-powered cars and trucks in California by 2035. The vote of these 14 Governor-appointed CARB members was unanimous, not a single Board member dissented or went against the grain. The CARB Board of Directors is a group of 14 political appointees who have no diversity of thought or opinion. And the legal ability to tax and spend.

California Bans the Sale of New Gas-Powered Cars by 2035

The California Air Resources Board voted unanimously to phase out the sale of new fossil fuel-burning cars in the largest state in the nation, setting the stage for a wider adoption of electric vehicles.

www.govtech.com

 

[TP2000]

False. Any non-local taxes in CA require approval by 2/3 of the legislature, so at most CARB could recommend a tax or fee to the legislature and then it's up to the elected officials to introduce and pass the legislation imposing the tax.

And you are under the impression that a tax recommended by a taxation board made up of 14 people specifically chosen by the Governor, State Senate, and State Speaker of the House would then not be passed by the same people who appointed the board in the first place?

Foxes watching the hen house, indeed.

It doesn't help that California has a one-party Dem supermajority in Sacramento, so the 2/3rds vote is always guaranteed. But I suppose that supermajority could change some day in California. If hell freezes over, or something like that.