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

[Chi84]

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.

They are within their power to take it away - as long as they are not violating someone's Constitutional rights in doing so.

For example: Most employment in this country is "at will," which means the employment relationship can be ended by either party at any time. It's commonly said that an employer can fire an employee "for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all."

But the employer is limited by an employee's legal rights. The employee has a right under the first amendment to advocate forming a union. So even though the employer could have fired the employee for no reason at all, if they fire the person for advocating a union, the employee will have a cause of action for retaliatory discharge based on violation of his first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.

Intent matters, and in court it's an issue of fact. The employer will come in with evidence of various legal reasons for firing the employee (lateness, poor performance, etc.) and the employee will counter with evidence that his performance was considered satisfactory until he exercised his first amendment right. The fact finder will decide what the true reason was for the firing.

Here, the governor has made the intent issue pretty easy.

 

[Disstevefan1]

They are within their power to take it away - as long as they are not violating someone's Constitutional rights in doing so.

For example: Most employment in this country is "at will," which means the employment relationship can be ended by either party at any time. It's commonly said that an employer can fire an employee "for a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all."

But the employer is limited by an employee's legal rights. The employee has a right under the first amendment to advocate forming a union. So even though the employer could have fired the employee for no reason at all, if they fire the person for advocating a union, the employee will have a cause of action for retaliatory discharge based on violation of his first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association.

Intent matters, and in court it's an issue of fact. The employer will come in with evidence of various legal reasons for firing the employee (lateness, poor performance, etc.) and the employee will counter with evidence that his performance was considered satisfactory until he exercised his first amendment right. The fact finder will decide what the true reason was for the firing.

Here, the governor has made the intent issue pretty easy.

It this is so clear cut and easy.

Is Disney… er I mean, (the former RCID) fighting this as unconstitutional?

Why isn’t Disney (on behalf of the former RCID ) fighting this as unconstitutional?

 

[flynnibus]

It this is so clear cut and easy.

Is Disney… er I mean, (the former RCID) fighting this as unconstitutional?

Why isn’t Disney (on behalf of the former RCID ) fighting this as unconstitutional?

You were here when this was discussed before. Please stop trying to rehash old stuff in some feigned gotcha attempt.

 

[Disstevefan1]

You were here when this was discussed before. Please stop trying to rehash old stuff in some feigned gotcha attempt.

I was asking the question. I apologize.

 

[Chi84]

It this is so clear cut and easy.

Is Disney… er I mean, (the former RCID) fighting this as unconstitutional?

Why isn’t Disney (on behalf of the former RCID ) fighting this as unconstitutional?

There could be any multitude of reasons. Legal rights don't expire until quite some time after an actionable wrong, so they lose nothing at all by waiting. Lawyers are notorious for waiting until the last minute to file lawsuits; that says nothing at all about the strength of the case.

I've said several times that we can speculate all we want but we don't know all the facts about this situation. For example, no one knew about the development agreements until the new board brought them to light. Disney can choose other avenues to fight the state's actions without jeopardizing their first amendment claim.

In short, lawyers like to drag things out.

 

[JusticeDisney]

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!

Actually, there is no need to speculate as to why. DeSantis is on record multiple times saying exactly why.

 

[JusticeDisney]

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.


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

An arrangement that is mutually beneficial to both sides is not a perk. And losing the benefit of an arrangement can be retaliatory.

 

[GoofGoof]

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!

Except they didn‘t dissolve RCID. The governor seized control of the district to wield its authority against Disney to punish them for first speaking out and now for outplaying him and embarrassing him on a national stage. If you want to argue a valid reason to dissolve the district is to remove an unfair advantage Disney shouldn’t have that’s a different debate. What happened is not that.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

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.

I very much understand why Universal wouldn't want to wade into this, but I must admit that on a personal level this whole incident isn't increasing any warm and fuzzy feelings toward Universal. It reinforces the idea that Disney is a cultural institution whereas Universal operates theme parks.

 

[Disstevefan1]

There could be any multitude of reasons. Legal rights don't expire until quite some time after an actionable wrong, so they lose nothing at all by waiting. Lawyers are notorious for waiting until the last minute to file lawsuits; that says nothing at all about the strength of the case.

I've said several times that we can speculate all we want but we don't know all the facts about this situation. For example, no one knew about the development agreements until the new board brought them to light. Disney can choose other avenues to fight the state's actions without jeopardizing their first amendment claim.

In short, lawyers like to drag things out.

The development agreement was a cool power move by Disney, er, I mean, the former RCID. A real "oversight" by the new oversight district, missing that that happening out in the open. It shows you the power and smarts of Disney, er, I mean the former RCID.

In my opinion, it would be smart for Disney, er, I mean the former RCID (why do I keep doing that), to drag this out till the gov is out of office.

 

[GoofGoof]

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

Disney didn’t just lose the so called perk of having RCID. That district is under hostile Government control now and the Governor is using authority the district has and some it may not even have to try to control Disney and punish them.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Except they didn‘t dissolve RCID. The governor seized control of the district to wield its authority against Disney to punish them for first speaking out and now for outplaying him and embarrassing him on a national stage. If you want to argue a valid reason to dissolve the district is to remove an unfair advantage Disney shouldn’t have that’s a different debate. What happened is not that.

We can split hairs at the definition of dissolved. We can call it "Reskinned" as we like to call it in the theme parks.

The state always had the power to do it, whatever you want to call it.

How, why, when the gov chose to do it is an embarrassment on the national stage for him in my opinion.

This only hurts him politically (ironically the only reason he did it) and he is in so deep now, there is no turning back and it's going to get worse for him.

For a while there I thought this was going to be bad for Disney, but I will go back to my old saying...

TWDC and its theme parks are....... Invincible.

 

[GoofGoof]

I very much understand why Universal wouldn't want to wade into this, but I must admit that on a personal level this whole incident isn't increasing any warm and fuzzy feelings toward Universal. It reinforces the idea that Disney is a cultural institution whereas Universal operates theme parks.

In Universal’s defense the parent company Comcast was a signer of the petition opposing the same bill along with a boat load of other Fortune 500 companies. If Disney never spoke out at all and if the Governor still wanted a crusade to benefit his political goals we could very well be having this same discussion about Universal right now. He could have taken the signing of that petition and blown it up into a battle against a woke FL corporation. Disney was a much more juicy target and they also had the RCID play to improve the attack against them.

 

[Chi84]

The development agreement was a cool power move by Disney, er, I mean, the former RCID. A real "oversight" by the new oversight district, missing that that happening out in the open. It shows you the power and smarts of Disney, er, I mean the former RCID.

In my opinion, it would be smart for Disney, er, I mean the former RCID (why do I keep doing that), to drag this out till the gov is out of office.

Did you read the articles cited earlier about why RCID was created and how it was set up? There's a really thorough (but long) one that explains the relationship between Disney and the RCID. There's no need for the "er." The relationship that existed between RCID and Disney was the one intended by both the state and Disney.

 

[GoofGoof]

We can split hairs at the definition of dissolved. We can call it "Reskinned" as we like to call it in the theme parks.

The state always had the power to do it.

How, why, when the gov chose to do it is an embarrassment in the national stage for him. In my opinion, this only hurts him politically and he is in so deep now, there is no turning back and its going to get worse

What are you talking about? The district is not dissolved. There is no hair to split. It was renamed and they changed the make up of the board. If it was dissolved there would be no board to hold meetings or contract to dispute. The state always had the right to remove the special district. The state should not have the right to take control of the district and wield it against a corporation. Two completely different things. I think you know that.

 

[matt9112]

Of course they were retaliatory.

But I don't have an exhaustive library of the relevant case law in my head to say with certainty that it meets the legal standards that would need to be proven to prevail in a lawsuit.

Retaliatory government action has a long history in this nation from both parties.

 

[Disstevefan1]

What are you talking about? The district is not dissolved. There is no hair to split. It was renamed and they changed the make up of the board. If it was dissolved there would be no board to hold meetings or contract to dispute. The state always had the right to remove the special district. The state should not have the right to take control of the district and wield it against a corporation. Two completely different things. I think you know that.

not dissolved, not dissolved, not dissolved, not dissolved

The rest of my post seems reasonable, if not, I apologize.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Disney didn’t just lose the so called perk of having RCID. That district is under hostile Government control now and the Governor is using authority the district has and some it may not even have to try to control Disney and punish them.

I think your logic is doing some leap-frogging there.

I completely agree with you that the elimination of RCID and the creation of CFTOD was retaliatory, but I question whether that action alone constituted injury to Disney.

The fact that the CFTOD board is hostile to Disney would certainly constitute injury, but I'm not sure it's illegal. I don't like when my town raises my property taxes, but they certainly CAN.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Of course they were retaliatory.

But I don't have an exhaustive library of the relevant case law in my head to say with certainty that it meets the legal standards that would need to be proven to prevail in a lawsuit.

"legal standards" is Disney's cloak of invisibility.

 

[flynnibus]

I think your logic is doing some leap-frogging there.

I completely agree with you that the elimination of RCID and the creation of CFTOD was retaliatory, but I question whether that action alone constituted injury to Disney.

The fact that the CFTOD board is hostile to Disney would certainly constitute injury, but I'm not sure it's illegal. I don't like when my town raises my property taxes, but they certainly CAN.

Missing from your analogy is the part when not only did the town make a change, but they took away your right to elect who was the town leadership.