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

[TP2000]

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.

Newsom is out to punish his political enemies in the energy industry, plain and simple. He's not a fan of Chevron, to say the least.

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.

I can't find any instances of any Governor doing something like the RCID To CFTOD change, because that was such a bizarre little thing that's nearly impossible to find an analogy to. A giant corporation with a $180 Billion market capitalization had it's own local government setup for itself with board members the corporation appointed itself to provide public services to itself and issue bonds for itself???

Where in the USA has that ever existed before? I don't know of a place like that, do you?

At this point and after learning what I have here in this thread the past 48 hours, I think it's a minor miracle that the RCID existed in the first place, and was never disbanded 30 years ago when it became evident the goals of 1966 EPCOT were never going to come to fruition.

I think it would be healthy for us Disney fans to be thankful it lasted for as long as it did without much criticism from Tallahassee, and now move towards a more equitable state for all Central Florida theme parks and tourism businesses.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Where in the USA has that ever existed before? I don't know of a place like that, do you?

If you actually did a modicum of research or actually read the thread you’d know some of those other places in Florida, both existing and proposed.

At this point and after learning what I have here in this thread the past 48 hours, I think it's a minor miracle that the RCID existed in the first place, and was never disbanded 40 years ago when it became evident the goals of 1966 EPCOT were never going to come to fruition.

But since you seem intent on continuing to lie, it’s doubtful you actually care about the facts.

 

[Tom P.]

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.

Generally speaking, I agree with you. There has been much debate, however, about whether corporations possess the same free speech rights that individuals do. Many on the left -- the same people who are now screaming that Disney's free speech rights have been violated -- have argued that the Citizens United decision was one of the greatest threats to our democracy to come down the pike. So it seems a tad inconsistent to me.

If corporations do have the same free speech rights that individuals do then, yes, I agree that government punishing them for expressing a point of view is wrong. However, if corporations do not have the same rights as individuals, then the First Amendment argument would fall flat.

I honestly don't think there is a simple answer in the way there would be if we were talking about an individual person expressing a point of view and being punished for it. I just find it ironic that the same people who think Citizens United was wrongly decided also think that DeSantis is violating free speech rights they have previously argued don't exist.

In the end, I come back to my original assessment, which is that this will ultimately be a big nothingburger as far as its actual impact on Walt Disney World. It was designed to make the statement "woke bad; DeSantis tough" and nothing more. It might make a good talking point in the upcoming presidential election but, otherwise, things are going to continue pretty much as normal down around the Magic Kingdom.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

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.

So you acknowledge that you lied when you said they have taxing authority? With 2/3 of the legislature required to impose any tax, that gives voters in the state ample opportunity to vote out anyone they think has voted for an unnecessary or excessive tax. The same cannot be said for RCID/CFTOD anymore, and the fact that you continue to make things up tells me that you know this and are only trying to justify an unjustifiable act because you like the side commiting said act.

 

[GoofGoof]

Newsom is out to punish his political enemies in the energy industry, plain and simple. He's not a fan of Chevron, to say the least.

Why is that acceptable? It isn‘t to me. So you think because the Governor of CA “acts wrong“ and attempts to punish a corporation that somehow justifies the Governor of FL doing the same thing? Are we in kindergarten? This attitude is why I can’t stand politics. It’s ok to think for yourself and oppose both guys on this even if one is “from your side”

 

[TP2000]

If you actually did a modicum of research or actually read the thread you’d know some of those other places in Florida, both existing and proposed.

Are you talking about The Villages? That's similar, and yet very different.

The Reedy Creek Improvement District took on a mythic-like status among Disney fans and urban planning geeks alike because it was so unique and so rare, based on its 1966 structure and governance. I can't think of any corporate owned facility like it anywhere.

But since you seem intent on continuing to lie, it’s doubtful you actually care about the facts.

Stating my opinion on this topic is not lying, it is stating my opinion. By claiming that I am "lying" when I state an opinion, that is simply not fair to me or the discussion here.

You continue to be noticeably grumpy and abusive to me personally in what is an otherwise interesting and enlightening discussion here, but I will continue to engage with you and any others who may have differing opinions. I will continue to value diversity of thought and opinion here on this topic, and others.

 

[GoofGoof]

Generally speaking, I agree with you. There has been much debate, however, about whether corporations possess the same free speech rights that individuals do. Many on the left -- the same people who are now screaming that Disney's free speech rights have been violated -- have argued that the Citizens United decision was one of the greatest threats to our democracy to come down the pike. So it seems a tad inconsistent to me.

If corporations do have the same free speech rights that individuals do then, yes, I agree that government punishing them for expressing a point of view is wrong. However, if corporations do not have the same rights as individuals, then the First Amendment argument would fall flat.

I honestly don't think there is a simple answer in the way there would be if we were talking about an individual person expressing a point of view and being punished for it. I just find it ironic that the same people who think Citizens United was wrongly decided also think that DeSantis is violating free speech rights they have previously argued don't exist.

In the end, I come back to my original assessment, which is that this will ultimately be a big nothingburger as far as its actual impact on Walt Disney World. It was designed to make the statement "woke bad; DeSantis tough" and nothing more. It might make a good talking point in the upcoming presidential election but, otherwise, things are going to continue pretty much as normal down around the Magic Kingdom.

Forget the first amendment. IMHO it is fundamentally wrong for a government or a politician in public office to attempt to “cancel” a corporation because of some position they take on an issue. If individual people wanted to organize against Disney, setup a boycott, protest at the front gates then go for it. If Ron DeSantis the citizen wanted to do some of that on his own time not using any government resources he should go for it. Ron DeSantis the Governor should never be involved in using the power of the state to act against opponents the way he has.

 

[MandaM]

Newsom is out to punish his political enemies in the energy industry, plain and simple. He's not a fan of Chevron, to say the least.

Investigating and/or stopping price gouging isn’t unique to Newsom, and it’s actually quite popular among Americans. It’s merely your opinion, without any evidence to back it up, that this is punishment.

DeSantis, on the other hand, has EXPLICITLY stated that this is punishment, and it’s punishment for speech that is protected under the 1st amendment. It’s impossible not to see the difference. Yet again, you can’t point to a SINGLE instance of CA doing what FL is doing. Since you said that the reason you support DeSantis’ actions is because CA does it (which is truly an elementary school response), the fact that CA doesn’t do it renders your entire argument moot. If you were debating in good faith, you’d admit it. You won’t because you’re not.

 

[TP2000]

So you acknowledge that you lied when you said they have taxing authority?

CARB proposes, creates and imposes taxes on energy and energy-producers in the state of California, in addition to taxing and imposing fees on Californians individually via fees and gasoline taxes. That's not a lie, it's a fact.

For example, every gallon of gas sold in California today is taxed 41 cents by CARB via CARB's Cap-And-Trade tax (23 cents per gallon) and CARB's Low Carbon Fuel Standard tax (18 cents per gallon).

Cap-and-Trade Program | California Air Resources Board

The Cap-and-Trade Program is a key element of California’s strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It complements other measures to ensure that California cost-effectively meets its goals for greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

ww2.arb.ca.gov

A breakdown of the taxes and fees in California gas prices

That difference between the national average of $3.89 and California's average of $6.39 means we are now paying about $2.50 per gallon more here in the Golden State.

www.cbs8.com

 

[lazyboy97o]

I honestly don't think there is a simple answer in the way there would be if we were talking about an individual person expressing a point of view and being punished for it. I just find it ironic that the same people who think Citizens United was wrongly decided also think that DeSantis is violating free speech rights they have previously argued don't exist.

The underlying philosophy that forms the republican form of government in the US is that sovereignty exists in the people as individuals, that through their human rights they bestow power to the government. People have freedom of speech because they are humans. It is is a human right given to them by Nature’s God. It is protected by state and federal constitutions, not created or granted them. Because people as individuals naturally possess a right to speech they do not lose it by associating with other individuals who possess the same right. How many people working together magically removes freedom of speech? Is it 2 or 2,000? Or is it the legal organization of the group, so a corporation is denied speech but a partnership maybe isn’t? But ultimately if a group of people doesn’t have its rights then the entire basis of republicanism falls apart as we can no longer have a government which derives its power from the consent of the governed and no longer can have a right to alter or abolish government that fails to protect our rights.

Citizens United did not create the concepts of corporate personhood or corporate rights to speech. You assume an inconsistency because your starting point is flawed. Thinking there should be limits on corporate speech is not the same as a complete prohibition on speech. Labor unions, political parties and sorts of other organizations that engaged in political speech existed before 2010 and were organized as corporations. Even Citizens United predates its eponymous Supreme Court decision by over 20 years.

 

[Tom P.]

However, I still think there is a different point here. Does Disney even *have* freedom of speech? Is a corporation -- which is a "person" only as a legal fiction and can be created and dissolved by the government -- entitled to the same free speech rights that an actual, human person is? If so, is that right unlimited? Or does the government have more rights to restrict it than they would on an actual, human person? Or are they to be treated exactly the same? I tend to think that corporations right to freedom of speech is -- or should be -- much more limited than that of actual people, but it's an interesting discussion regardless.

 

[GoofGoof]

If they want extra perks and benefits from the state, a business shouldn't be too vocally opposed to that state. It's basic business.

Opposed to that state? I don’t think that’s the case at all. If Disney was opposed to FL why move jobs there? Why continue growing their business there? What Disney expressed was their opposition to a specific bill. That is nowhere near saying they oppose the whole state. Ron DeSantis is just some guy serving the people of FL. Opposing him is not opposing the state. He’s a governor not a monarch.

I actually agree that Disney botched the PR and handling of this from the start but that in no way excuses the government overreach.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

Opposed to that state? I don’t think that’s the case at all. If Disney was opposed to FL why move jobs there? Why continue growing their business there? What Disney expressed was their opposition to a specific bill. That is nowhere near saying they oppose the whole state. Ron DeSantis is just some guy serving the people of FL. Opposing him is not opposing the state. He’s a governor not a monarch.

I actually agree that Disney botched the PR and handling of this from the start but that in no way excuses the government overreach.

…he’s not a monarch the legislature, whom are elected by the people, voted with him.

 

[Tom P.]

I'm saying a company who gets tax benefits and perks from a state needs to use their Government Relations team to handle differences. That's why that team exists.

Disney (Chapek really, but I'm not sure Iger is doing much better at it) blundered their way into this mess and made it worse. They poked the bear. Don't do that! Play nice! Send the Governor and his cronies the usual gift baskets and free tickets like you always do. Don't go on TV and say how awful the Governor is.

Just really bad business.

Disney hired a brand new senior exec to handle Government Relations in early '22, Geoff Morrell. He left three months later, just two months after this DeSantis fight started in February/March '22. I have to wonder if his quick departure was because of being so frustrated that Chapek was handling the situation so poorly and listening to all the wrong people? Or was Morrell the creator of this mess, and then even after he left Chapek and remaining execs couldn't figure out a good clean up strategy? I'm betting it was the first reason, but I can't be 100% sure.

Disney Replaces Public Relations Chief Amid Florida Furor

Walt Disney Co.’s new head of corporate affairs, Geoff Morrell, is leaving after just three months on the job amid the furor over the company’s opposition to a Florida bill restricting discussion of sexual orientation in schools.

www.bloomberg.com

You continually repeat this same argument which is basically discussing the practical realities of politics and how it was perhaps a dumb decision for Disney to act as it did.

But in doing so, you continue to dodge the actual question which is being asked. Namely, do you believe that it is acceptable for a governor to use his governmental power against a company who disagrees with him? Even though my position is closer to yours than to the "other side," I would like a straightforward answer to that question also.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'm saying a company who gets tax benefits and perks from a state needs to use their Government Relations team to handle differences. That's why that team exists.

Disney (Chapek really, but I'm not sure Iger is doing much better at it) blundered their way into this mess and made it worse. They poked the bear. Don't do that! Play nice! Send the Governor and his cronies the usual gift baskets and free tickets like you always do. Don't go on TV and say how awful the Governor is.

Just really bad business.

Disney hired a brand new senior exec to handle Government Relations in early '22, Geoff Morrell. He left three months later, just two months after this DeSantis fight started in February/March '22. I have to wonder if his quick departure was because of being so frustrated that Chapek was handling the situation so poorly and listening to all the wrong people? Or was Morrell the creator of this mess, and then even after he left Chapek and remaining execs couldn't figure out a good clean up strategy? I'm betting it was the first reason, but I can't be 100% sure.

Disney Replaces Public Relations Chief Amid Florida Furor

Walt Disney Co.’s new head of corporate affairs, Geoff Morrell, is leaving after just three months on the job amid the furor over the company’s opposition to a Florida bill restricting discussion of sexual orientation in schools.

www.bloomberg.com

I think we get your point that Disney‘s PR response was poor. That probably was bad business, but does that make the government response OK? You gave us “politics is dirty” to excuse the behavior and then because your old friends at Disney Government Relations did a poor job you think that somehow justifies the government response too then threw out the DeSantis won re-election so whatever he does is the will of the people nonsense, but none of that addresses whether the action itself is justified or appropriate. So my guess is you don’t actually think it is, but you won’t speak out against it because you support DeSantis and his politics. You are free to have that opinion. No need to beat around the bush to try to justify it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The fact that we are having this debate -- for 473 pages now! -- proves quite adequately that there *is* a question about whether or not DeSantis violated Disney's freedom of speech. And the idea that anyone who supports DeSantis' action doesn't support freedom is speech is ludicrous on its face. But I suspect you know that.

However, I still think there is a different point here. Does Disney even *have* freedom of speech? Is a corporation -- which is a "person" only as a legal fiction and can be created and dissolved by the government -- entitled to the same free speech rights that an actual, human person is? If so, is that right unlimited? Or does the government have more rights to restrict it than they would on an actual, human person? Or are they to be treated exactly the same? I tend to think that corporations right to freedom of speech is -- or should be -- much more limited than that of actual people, but it's an interesting discussion regardless.

So you don’t think corporations should have freedom of speech but it’s wrong to say you don’t support corporations having freedom of speech?

The governor’s statements are clear. There is no ambiguity. It’s even become more direct in recent days.

 

[TP2000]

But and I say this with love bad relations should not incur the wrath of the government when it comes to speech

I get that. And in a perfect world, that wouldn't happen. But it does. And it's usually in backroom deals and tense negotiations that never get on TV in the press.

What's different here is that the current Governor of Florida is a guy who has no problem going on TV and bluntly saying what he thinks and feels. He obviously felt that Disney was being unfair to him and his policy goals by feeding into the mis-representations about his Parental Rights In Education bill. He's since gone out there and railed against Disney quite vocally, and that's unusual for any politician of any stripe to do that. But he's a new breed (or a rebirth of an old type like Teddy Roosevelt); a young guy who isn't afraid of a fight and refuses to waffle on his beliefs.

Some people may not agree with his beliefs or policy positions, and it's obvious that many in this thread don't. But when he took on Disney very forcefully and vocally last spring, he was re-elected in a huge landslide six months later. Oops!

This is an ugly situation in Florida, I don't envy Disney that one bit. I thought it was telling that Chapek phoned DeSantis and commiserated that he was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this. It seems as though DeSantis was trying to get Chapek to stand up to the Disney protesters in Burbank, but Chapek wouldn't or couldn't. And here we are.

I used to live in Southern California and have friends that live in LA County. It's an entirely different world there, and you are NOT allowed to disobey in thought or opinion. If you do, the mob comes for you with pitchforks and torches. Chapek was too afraid of the mob.

Not Another Cooking Show posted a lasagna video today

I just made a double batch of Ina Garten's lasagna last night! It's unusually cold here, and we got some snow and some new neighbors this week so I made them lasagna to fuel their unpacking. I'm still hibernating and carb loading! I will have to take a look at that NACS recipe to see how it compares to Ina's, which I adore.

 

[GoofGoof]

I get that. And in a perfect world, that wouldn't happen. But it does. And it's usually in backroom deals and tense negotiations that never get on TV in the press.

What's different here is that the current Governor of Florida is a guy who has no problem going on TV and bluntly saying what he thinks and feels. He obviously felt that Disney was being unfair to him and his policy goals by feeding into the mis-representations about his Parental Rights In Education bill. He's since gone out there and railed against Disney quite vocally, and that's unusual for any politician of any stripe to do that. But he's a new breed (or a rebirth of an old type like Teddy Roosevelt); a young guy who isn't afraid of a fight and refuses to waffle on his beliefs.

Some people may not agree with his beliefs or policy positions, and it's obvious that many in this thread don't. But when he took on Disney very forcefully and vocally last spring, he was re-elected in a huge landslide six months later. Oops!

This is an ugly situation in Florida, I don't envy Disney that one bit. I thought it was telling that Chapek phoned DeSantis and commiserated that he was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this. It seems as though DeSantis was trying to get Chapek to stand up to the Disney protesters in Burbank, but Chapek wouldn't or couldn't. And here we are.

I used to live in Southern California and have friends that live in LA County. It's an entirely different world there, and you are NOT allowed to disobey in thought or opinion. If you do, the mob comes for you with pitchforks and torches. Chapek was too afraid of the mob.



I just made a double batch of Ina Garten's lasagna last night! It's unusually cold here, and we got some snow and some new neighbors this week so I made them lasagna to fuel their unpacking. I'm still hibernating and carb loading! I will have to take a look at that NACS recipe to see how it compares to Ina's, which I adore.

Well there you go. That wasn’t so hard was it. You agree that the action DeSantis took shouldn’t happen. You like DeSantis and his “style” so you are willing to look the other way. You are certainly entitled to that opinion.

 

[TP2000]

You continually repeat this same argument which is basically discussing the practical realities of politics and how it was perhaps a dumb decision for Disney to act as it did.

I think I do that because so many people keep replying to my posts here. I'm trying to politely answer their questions and/or comments to me about how I feel about this topic. Eventually though I'm going to go have some leftover lasagna and watch some TV.

But in doing so, you continue to dodge the actual question which is being asked. Namely, do you believe that it is acceptable for a governor to use his governmental power against a company who disagrees with him? Even though my position is closer to yours than to the "other side," I would like a straightforward answer to that question also.

I do not believe it is acceptable, or even kind, for any elected official to use their power to punish or silence or attempt to diminish opponents or people/organizations they disagree with or oppose.

But do I know that happens in every government organization from Junior High Student Councils to the White House? Yes. It happens.

And it just happened here in Florida.

Was it legal for the Florida legislature and Governor to change and amend the RCID charter from 1966? Yes, it appears to be legal. And it happened.

 

[Chi84]

The fact that we are having this debate -- for 473 pages now! -- proves quite adequately that there *is* a question about whether or not DeSantis violated Disney's freedom of speech. And the idea that anyone who supports DeSantis' action doesn't support freedom is speech is ludicrous on its face. But I suspect you know that.

However, I still think there is a different point here. Does Disney even *have* freedom of speech? Is a corporation -- which is a "person" only as a legal fiction and can be created and dissolved by the government -- entitled to the same free speech rights that an actual, human person is? If so, is that right unlimited? Or does the government have more rights to restrict it than they would on an actual, human person? Or are they to be treated exactly the same? I tend to think that corporations right to freedom of speech is -- or should be -- much more limited than that of actual people, but it's an interesting discussion regardless.

The lead Supreme Court case said that the right to political free speech does not depend on the identity of the speaker. It can be a single person or an association of people such as a union or corporation. I think this is a pretty good explanation.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission | Opinion, Dissent, Significance, & Influence

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 21, 2010, ruled (5–4) that laws that prevented corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for independent “electioneering communications” (political advertising) violated the...

www.britannica.com