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

LAKid53

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
Lilofan said:
I doubt he will be paying for his fantasyland toll increase to retaliate against Disney. He will probably use his EZ pass when using toll roads and claim it as a business expense.
Click to expand...

I doubt the governor drives everywhere. The state has a fleet of aircraft at his disposal.
 
flyakite

flyakite

Well-Known Member
Posted in Orlando Sentinel today:

YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that The April 12 th Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board of Supervisors meeting has been moved to April 19 th at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at The B Resort (Grand ballroom) 1905 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. At that time, they will consider such business as may properly come before them. BY: Tina Graham, Clerk
Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
4/9/23
 
JoeCamel

JoeCamel

Well-Known Member
LAKid53 said:
Even doing that, similar to the one on the Turnpike (in/near Lake County?), will take several months. And disrupt traffic. The one at that point on the Turnpike is on an on ramp.
Click to expand...
Why? They already have the structure....


enter.jpg
 
flyakite

flyakite

Well-Known Member
There is more:

YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday April 19 th at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will hold an Executive Conference with Labor Counsel to discuss labor negotiations with IAFF Local 2117. In attendance will be District Administrator John Classe, Outside Labor Counsel Kevin Shaughnessy, Outside Labor Counsel James Seegers, Outside General Counsel Daniel Langley and Kurt Ardaman, Board Members Chair Martin Garcia, Vice Chair Michael Sasso, Brian Aungst, Bridget Ziegler and Ron Peri at The B Resort (Grand ballroom) 1905 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida.
BY: Tina Graham, Clerk
Central Florida Tourism Oversight District


NOTICE OF MEETING AND DATE CHANGE
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that The April 12 th Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Board of Supervisors meeting has been moved to April 19 th at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at The B Resort (Grand ballroom) 1905 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. At that time, they will consider such business as may properly come before them. BY: Tina Graham, Clerk
Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
4/9/23 7413081

NOTICE OF MEETING
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 19 th at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at The B Resort (Grand Ballroom) 1905 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. At that time and in addition to other business on the agenda, the Board of Supervisors will conduct a reading and public hearing on and consider for adoption Resolution No. 638. A RESOLUTION OF CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT CREATING RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND GOVERNING PROCEDURES, CONDUCT AND DECORUM FOR MEETINGS OF THE BOARD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Board will also conduct a reading and public hearing on and consider for adoption Resolution No. 639. A RESOLUTION OF THE CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT AMENDING ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 6-90 AND ARTICLE 7, CHAPTER 7-20 AND CHAPTER 7-30 OF THE RCID LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Proposed Resolution No. 639 has effects within the entire jurisdictional boundaries of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, including within the incorporated areas. The aforesaid resolutions may be inspected by the public at the Planning & Engineering Department located at 1920 Buena Vista Drive, Suite A, Lake Buena Vista, Florida 32830. Interested parties may appear at the public meeting and hearing to be heard with respect to the proposed resolutions. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of Supervisors with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
BY: Tina Graham, Clerk
Central Florida To
 
LAKid53

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Bellotti represents the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' attempt to limit corporate speech on a matter of public policy. In this case, it was the state legislature's desire to get a state personal income tax approved by referendum. These corporations very much were expressing their opinions on a matter that did not directly affect them.

Quoting from the first sentence of Wiki's article on Bellotti:

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), is a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time.​

Yes, I know, Wiki is not the best source but it tends to do a reasonably well job of explaining legal decisions in laymen's terms.

Disney not only stated their opposition to the law but also stated their intention to use company resources to oppose the law, similar to what happened in Bellotti.

Bellotti directly applies to what happened to Disney.
Click to expand...

Both cases addressed political speech by corporations and whether it was protected under the 1st Amendment. While Belotti concerned corporate speech with regards to proposed legislation and Citizens United with the use of corporate expenditures to pay for campaign ads within a specified period of time prior to an election, decisions from SCOTUS in both cases determined corporate political speech has the same 1A protection as an individual's, no matter if it's a state (Commonwealth of Massachusetts) or the federal government (the FEC) attempting to limit such speech. From the decision on Citizens United: "political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence." In Citizens United, the Court basically reversed its prior ruling in Austin and struck down a section of 2 U.S.C. §441b.

And the whole basis for the First Amendment is that GOVERNMENT cannot punish protected speech, whether it be fines, jail, removal of a district and replacing it with members appointed by government that could chill corporate speech.
 
M

maxairmike

Well-Known Member
flyakite said:
There is more:

NOTICE OF MEETING
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 19 th at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at The B Resort (Grand Ballroom) 1905 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. At that time and in addition to other business on the agenda, the Board of Supervisors will conduct a reading and public hearing on and consider for adoption Resolution No. 638. A RESOLUTION OF CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT CREATING RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND GOVERNING PROCEDURES, CONDUCT AND DECORUM FOR MEETINGS OF THE BOARD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Board will also conduct a reading and public hearing on and consider for adoption Resolution No. 639. A RESOLUTION OF THE CENTRAL FLORIDA TOURISM OVERSIGHT DISTRICT AMENDING ARTICLE 6, CHAPTER 6-90 AND ARTICLE 7, CHAPTER 7-20 AND CHAPTER 7-30 OF THE RCID LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Proposed Resolution No. 639 has effects within the entire jurisdictional boundaries of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, including within the incorporated areas. The aforesaid resolutions may be inspected by the public at the Planning & Engineering Department located at 1920 Buena Vista Drive, Suite A, Lake Buena Vista, Florida 32830. Interested parties may appear at the public meeting and hearing to be heard with respect to the proposed resolutions. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Board of Supervisors with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that, for such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
BY: Tina Graham, Clerk
Central Florida To
Click to expand...
lazyboy97o said:
For reference, the Land Development Regulations:

Click to expand...

The first thing I notice is 6-90.2 (d), given that we know the new board is itching to get rid of Classe as District Administrator, I suspect this will attempt to be addressed in the meeting. I have a feeling that unless there are other restrictions elsewhere (I'm only reading the specified chapters/articles at the moment), the board intends to appoint the Planning Board at this meeting, and I don't expect it will be a "friendly" one. Seems like they might also try to expand the Planning Board's authority/scope under 7-30, or possibly use them as a tool to suggest that the current Comprehensive Plan is, "upon further review," a "failure" (7-30.4).

Seems like there's some mischief that the Board could get up to to waste Disney's time and money involving these sections, and would put their slate of suggested lawyers to work.
 
L

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
maxairmike said:
The first thing I notice is 6-90.2 (d), given that we know the new board is itching to get rid of Classe as District Administrator, I suspect this will attempt to be addressed in the meeting. I have a feeling that unless there are other restrictions elsewhere (I'm only reading the specified chapters/articles at the moment), the board intends to appoint the Planning Board at this meeting, and I don't expect it will be a "friendly" one. Seems like they might also try to expand the Planning Board's authority/scope under 7-30, or possibly use them as a tool to suggest that the current Comprehensive Plan is, "upon further review," a "failure" (7-30.4).

Seems like there's some mischief that the Board could get up to to waste Disney's time and money involving these sections, and would put their slate of suggested lawyers to work.
Click to expand...
DeSantis charging the state $1.9K per hour for his lawyers to investigate Disney who he called a "joke". The Yale undergrad/ Harvard MBA educated lawyer still upset by being outsmarted by Mickey Mouse is still trying to punish Disney. FL tax dollars hard at work. He seems clueless to realize that his two biggest and low paying industries- agriculture and tourism are the biggest drivers of income for the Sunshine State.
 
Last edited:
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Lilofan said:
DeSantis charging the state $1.9K per hour for his lawyers to investigate Disney who he called a "joke". The Yale undergrad/ Harvard MBA educated lawyer still upset by being outsmarted by Mickey Mouse is still trying to punish Disney. FL tax dollars hard at work. He seems clueless to realize that his two biggest and low paying industries- agriculture and tourism are the biggest drivers of income for the Sunshine State.
Click to expand...
Has the Governor retained separate legal counsel on this? I thought most of the lawyers were retained by, and paid by, the new CFTOD.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Well-Known Member
maxairmike said:
The first thing I notice is 6-90.2 (d), given that we know the new board is itching to get rid of Classe as District Administrator, I suspect this will attempt to be addressed in the meeting. I have a feeling that unless there are other restrictions elsewhere (I'm only reading the specified chapters/articles at the moment), the board intends to appoint the Planning Board at this meeting, and I don't expect it will be a "friendly" one. Seems like they might also try to expand the Planning Board's authority/scope under 7-30, or possibly use them as a tool to suggest that the current Comprehensive Plan is, "upon further review," a "failure" (7-30.4).

Seems like there's some mischief that the Board could get up to to waste Disney's time and money involving these sections, and would put their slate of suggested lawyers to work.
Click to expand...
They can declare.it a failure, but I don't think they can do anything to change it without Disney's approval. It's a report, nothing more.
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
Jeez. Please stop with the who has a lawyer and who does not. It is fair to say everyone, in anyway associated with this, has secured legal representation (lawyered up). The lawyers are billing everyone diligently. It has gotten to the point where a program is needed to understand what lawyers and legal firms are representing what clients.
 
mikejs78

mikejs78

Well-Known Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Corporate 1A rights were established by Belotti. In Austin and McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court allowed some corporate restrictions specific to campaign finance. Citizens United struck down even these limited restrictions.

Citizens United is specific to campaign finance. Belotti established that corporate speech rights go beyond the "materially affecting" standard.

As noted in the liberal justices' dissent of Citizens United:

Postratification practice bolsters the conclusion that the First Amendment, “as originally understood,” … did not give corporations political speech rights on a par with the rights of individuals. Well into the modern era of general incorporation statutes, “[t]he common law was generally interpreted as prohibiting corporate political participation,” First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 819 (1978) (White, J., dissenting), and this Court did not recognize any First Amendment protections for corporations until the middle part of the 20th century.​

Prior to Belotti, the materially affecting standard generally applied to corporations, where corporate speech rights were limited to matters that “materially affect[ed] any of the property, business or assets of the corporation.”

Disney's free speech rights regarding Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law don't originate with Citizens United. They originate with Belotti.

Belotti and Citizens United both are 5-4 decisions and both remain controversial. Disney is in a much stronger legal position by making this a contract dispute.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that Belloti was decided by the liberal bloc of justices and Citizens by the conservative block. In any case, stare decisis would fall back to both of these as precident unless there was an overwhelming desire by a majority of justices to overturn both of these, and I don't see that with the current Supreme Court. At most I would see a likely 7-2 decision here in Disney's favor.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom