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

[pdude81]

they don't mind spending money.

I don't know that I'd go that far

 

[flynnibus]

Disney lawyer: "If you were told by counsel to the OCTOD Board of Supervisors and the state attorney general that this Agreement between RCID and TWDC executed on February 8, 2023 was invalid, void, illegal, why did you take the legislative step to pass a bill that LEGISLATIVELY invalidated it and have the governor sign it into law?

“Nuke it from orbit… it’s the only way to be sure”

Besides… who is the lawyer going to ask that to, who is both the district and the legislature? These are two different groups moving within their own lanes

 

[peter11435]

As I say, folks are free to speculate as to why, but the state always had the power to do it, and it was considered many times over the decades and was previously decided it was more trouble than it was worth.

Its looking like they were right.

Disney is powerful and they don't mind spending money.

Except there is no reason to speculate as to why. The state has been abundantly clear as to why they have done this. They have repeatedly claimed and boosted that it was done as retaliation to punish Disney for exercising their first amendment right. They have not only stated this in the media but also in official debate on the house floor. There is no speculation.

 

[Disstevefan1]

It’s not speculation - it’s government retaliation. That’s a fact.

Universal really needs to speak up soon - for both the way another theme park is being treated and for the way their LGBT team members are being treated by the state.

RCID was a perk given to TWDC from the State. They are within their power to take it away; they don't need a reason.

If I was the gov, I would have let it be.

 

[flynnibus]

Why do you keep repeating lies that you know full well are lies? Especially since you’ve repeatedly acknowledged that your statements are false? What is the purpose? Is it just for the lolz?

Slow thread… time to toss some stink bombs

 

[peter11435]

RCID was a perk given to TWDC from the State. They are within their power to take it away; they don't need a reason.

If I was the gov, I would have let it be.

RCID was not a perk. And from a legal standpoint it was not given to TWDC

 

[CaptainAmerica]

repeatedly stating an agreement is invalid, void, illegal, etc., then passing legislation to invalidate said agreement tends to undercut one's argument in court.

That cuts both ways, and Disney did the exact same thing.

Jeff Vahle's February 10 statement read, in part, "we are focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework," which is a puzzling thing to say if you later plan to claim that the new framework was an illegal retaliatory measure taken in violation of your First Amendment rights.

RCID was not a perk. And from a legal standpoint it was not given to TWDC

If it wasn't a perk, then how is losing it retaliatory?

 

[peter11435]

If it wasn't a perk, then how is losing it retaliatory?

Is not being arrested a perk?

 

[lazyboy97o]

That cuts both ways, and Disney did the exact same thing.

Jeff Vahle's February 10 statement read, in part, "we are focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework," which is a puzzling thing to say if you later plan to claim that the new framework was an illegal retaliatory measure taken in violation of your First Amendment rights.

That’s not a legal statement.

If it wasn't a perk, then how is losing it retaliatory?

If you say something I don’t like and then I smash your neighbor’s car because I thought it was yours, is that not retaliation?

 

[Disstevefan1]

RCID was not a perk. And from a legal standpoint it was not given to TWDC

We can agree to disagree on this.

You are free to think what was given to TWDC to bring WDW to Florida was or wasn't.

You are free to think that RCID was independent from TWDC.

I know, I know, "from a legal standpoint"....

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If you say something I don’t like and then I smash your neighbor’s car because I thought it was yours, is that not retaliation?

Sure, but I don't have a cause of action against you in that case. My neighbor is the one who suffered an "injury in fact" so he's the one with standing.

 

[flynnibus]

Sure, but I don't have a cause of action against you in that case. My neighbor is the one who suffered an "injury in fact" so he's the one with standing.

‘Chilling of speech’

Not injury

Next…

 

[peter11435]

We can agree to disagree on this.

You are free to think what was given to TWDC to bring WDW to Florida was or wasn't.

You are free to think that RCID was independent from TWDC.

I know, I know, "from a legal standpoint"....

You are welcome to disagree as long as you understand that disagreeing makes you factually and legally wrong.

No where in the 1967 charter does it say the word Disney. No power was given to Disney.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

‘Chilling of speech’

Not injury

Next…

What?

You have to have suffered an injury to have legal standing for a lawsuit.

 

[Lilofan]

States have the lawful power to arrest people. Arresting someone is not unconstitutional. Arresting someone for expressing their right to free speech IS unconstitutional.

However opinions (free speech ) by some in regards to hate speech aren't always protected by 1A.

 

[Disstevefan1]

You are welcome to disagree as long as you understand that disagreeing makes you factually and legally wrong.

No where in the 1967 charter does it say the word Disney. No power was given to Disney.

You are absolutely correct, "from a legal standpoint"...

Disney knew what they were doing.

The reality was Disney had all the power. In reality RCID was controlled by Disney.

But yes, I am, "factually and legally wrong". The reality was different.

Legally and reality are two different things.

So, you are right, but I knew the reality.

 

[pdude81]

However opinions (free speech ) by some in regards to hate speech aren't always protected by 1A.

Hate speech itself is protected. How you may use it in commission of another crime is not.

 

[peter11435]

However opinions (free speech ) by some in regards to hate speech aren't always protected by 1A.

Hate speech by itself is also protected. But that’s irrelevant here because there was no hate speech involved.

 

[Lilofan]

Hate speech itself is protected. How you may use it in commission of another crime is not.

If hate speech involves intimidation you can get arrested so speaking your mind in a hateful way with words can get you to spend time in jail.

 

[Chi84]

The state from day 1 always had the lawful power to dissolve RCID. They just chose to let it be until now.

Folks are free to speculate as to why they chose to act now, but that does not make the dissolution of RCID unconstitutional.

Do I think this whole thing is a circus and is bad for Disney, the gov, and Florida, YES!

Even a legal act, if done for the wrong reasons, can be an illegal act.