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

GladToBeHear

GladToBeHear

Well-Known Member
MagicHappens1971 said:
That's your choice to believe it. But it's not true. The FL legislature/gov violated Disney's first amendment rights. Even if the argument could be said that they didn't, they have repetitively and continually stated on the record that they attacked RCID to punish Disney for speaking out against the Don't Say Gay bill.
Click to expand...
Attacked/retaliated? Yes. Violated their first amendment rights? No.
 
Dranth

Dranth

Well-Known Member
GladToBeHear said:
A lot of us don't seem to understand the first amendment. Disney's freedom of speech was not violated. The First Amendment simply blocks federal and state governments from abridging or preventing expression. It does not protect anyone from the whims of the political (or social) systems in which they reside. The consequences of their speech still adhere to the speakers. Right or wrong, we see states do this all the time. I don't want to speak for @Spokker, but I assume this is one of his points.

You can disagree with the actions the Florida governor/legislature are taking against Disney -- I'm personally still on the fence about it myself -- but let's stop using the first amendment argument.
Click to expand...
You don't consider the state removing your right to representation in a special tax district you volunteered to be a part of because they don't like that you spoke up on a political issue abridging or preventing expression? Florida lawmakers have gone out of their way to tell anyone with a TV camera how this was done to ensure that Disney no longer speaks up, or expresses themselves so how would it not apply in this case?
 
AugieJ

AugieJ

Member
GladToBeHear said:
A lot of us don't seem to understand the first amendment. Disney's freedom of speech was not violated. The First Amendment simply blocks federal and state governments from abridging or preventing expression. It does not protect anyone from the whims of the political (or social) systems in which they reside. The consequences of their speech still adhere to the speakers. Right or wrong, we see states do this all the time. I don't want to speak for @Spokker, but I assume this is one of his points.

You can disagree with the actions the Florida governor/legislature are taking against Disney -- I'm personally still on the fence about it myself -- but let's stop using the first amendment argument.
Click to expand...

You reference "states do this all the time"

Can you reference a specific example in which a state made legislative changes to target one specific company?
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
GladToBeHear said:
A lot of us don't seem to understand the first amendment. Disney's freedom of speech was not violated. The First Amendment simply blocks federal and state governments from abridging or preventing expression. It does not protect anyone from the whims of the political (or social) systems in which they reside. The consequences of their speech still adhere to the speakers. Right or wrong, we see states do this all the time. I don't want to speak for @Spokker, but I assume this is one of his points.

You can disagree with the actions the Florida governor/legislature are taking against Disney -- I'm personally still on the fence about it myself -- but let's stop using the first amendment argument.
Click to expand...
As stated, you are wrong. The government imposing consequences for speech is prohibited. That’s not even close to one of the few, narrow exceptions to freedom of speech.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
You know this thread provides loads of material to add to and update this:
1680217422732.png
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Serious legal question.

Since a Chapter 163 Development Agreement is based on a Florida statute, can't the Florida state legislature undo any agreement created by RCID by passing an ex post facto law?

For example, something along the lines of:

"Notwithstanding s. 163.3202, any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, shall not enter into a developer's agreement until reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968."

Although U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that this only applies to criminal matters.
Click to expand...
I’m no lawyer but when is enough enough with this nonsense. So by this logic any Governor (who also controls the legislature) can undo any contract simply by passing a nonsense law. Does anyone else see a big problem with this? I know some see it as a way for “their guy” to win but there are many other states with “the other side’s guy“ in charge. If we allow politicians to arbitrarily void any contract they see fit it’s a terrible precedent, massively anti-business and just plain short sighted. People need to wake up and realize Ron’s dreams ain’t worth destroying the economy and our way of doing business. He tried….he got outsmarted (twice now on this issue)….time to move on.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
I wonder at this point if the Governor doesn’t pivot back to trying to permanently dissolve the district and/or dissolve and replace with a new district. Since all they did is rename the existing district and change its board the existing contracts remain in place and so far I‘ve only seen “hail marry“ arguments (unlikely to work) to invalidate that contract. If the district is dissolved, most of the contracts are dissolved with it. Then either a new district is created to replace it or the services go to the counties. That would also go back to getting a ”political win“ since the Governor has taken a lot of bad press for giving in and letting Disney keep its ”tax break”.

There is still an issue with the bonds and especially the ones that don’t allow early redemption, but I’m sure with the rise in interest rates the bond holders would be glad to voluntarily dump those bonds if paid full par for them. They have to be valued below 100% at this point. I would also assume the district could ramp up payments to pay off the bonds as soon as possible. It may still take several years but they could be gone before Ronnie leaves office so he can complete his punishment.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Serious legal question.

Since a Chapter 163 Development Agreement is based on a Florida statute, can't the Florida state legislature undo any agreement created by RCID by passing an ex post facto law?

For example, something along the lines of:

"Notwithstanding s. 163.3202, any independent special district established by a special act prior to the date of ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, shall not enter into a developer's agreement until reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5, 27 1968."

Although U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10, clause 1) prohibits states from passing ex post facto laws, the Supreme Court ruled in Calder v. Bull that this only applies to criminal matters.
Click to expand...

I think it would fall under the prohibition against impairing the obligations of a contract.
 
Vegas Disney Fan

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
The funny thing is they are basically doing the same thing on both coasts, Disneyland Forward doesn’t appear to be for an immediate construction project, it‘s to give Disney long term control over their land in CA while they have a Disney friendly council in Anaheim. Get approval now and they don’t need to worry about a hostile council later.

I dont recall anyone in FL complaining that Disney was trying to give themselves long term control over their land in CA.

Disney’s been dealing with gov bureaucracy as long as most people in those governments have been alive, when Anaheim said no to the eastern gateway Disney built the new Pixar garage based on old deals that didn’t need a hostile Anaheim council to approve them… that’s likely where the idea to preemptively get approval from friendly boards came from, open ended approval allows projects no matter who’s in power when you want to finally build them.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom