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

[Heath]

It doesn't matter if you think the special district is a privilege, not a right. That fact the the government, through its legislative power, decided IT would provide oversight for a PRIVATE corporation in retaliation for that private corporation exercising its constitutionally protected speech is the point. And that it could harm the corporation in the process and interfere with the corporation's operation of private property it owns. The board members have been repugnantly gleeful in their statements about "bringing Disney to task", "telling it what content the board will allow", etc. There's been court cases at both the state & federal level that have declared such behavior on the part of the government unconstitutional.

That you fail to grasp this important concept is anissue.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I see it as playing devils advocate and free examination. A few remarked how there are other self governing status in the state. That’s engaging comments I appreciate that educate me.

That information is in Disney’s complaint that you describe as flimsy…

 

[GoofGoof]

Several posters here think like you do, but I’ll never understand it. For me, it’s a small world is one of the foundational attractions of Fantasyland, and I would hate to see it relocated.

I like it. But why move it? Build another EPCOTy IASW attraction in EPCOT.

Why not? As we will have several Moana attractions in multiple parks.

I hear you guys and don’t disagree on either point. IASW would be a perfect fit for the transition into World Showcase. It’s also perfectly fine in Fantasyland. I don’t think it’s an odd fit as is.

 

[Heath]

One can certainly put a racist message on one's garage door and NOT expect consequences FROM THE GOVERNMENT. Your neighbors or the HOA may be a different matter.

True

 

[GoofGoof]

That’s not what I said. I was questioning what is a consequence versus a privilege nobody else has. I.e I’d one takes away a unique privilege, is that a consequence? I wasn’t claiming a position. I see over reach but playing devils advocate. My assumption is everyone knows and agrees what the first amendment says.

Some case history was posted here earlier on the removal of a privilege. Courts have ruled that the removal of a perk that is not constitutionally protected can still be viewed as retaliation and therefore unconstitutional even if the Government would otherwise have the legal right to remove such a perk. The Court in that case is the same eleventh circuit appeals court that will hear this case should the outcome of the initial judge be appealed which it almost certainly will. Here is the post:

My 2 cents (if worth that) is that that is the wrong precedent for this lawsuit. Instead, the eleventh circuit’s ruling in Gwinnett County is more applicable. Here is the text from the very case they cite:

32 What our decision in Gwinnett County means, and whether it is distinguishable, is a question of law that we decide de novo. See Locke v. Shore, 634 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2011). It is distinguishable. The facts of that case limit the holding of the decision to acts of governmental retaliation that explicitly single out a specific group. In that case, a school board adopted its superintendent’s recommendation to terminate the automatic payroll deduction of membership dues for members of the Georgia Association of Educators (GAE) and its local affiliate, the Gwinnett County Association of Educators (GCAE). 856 F.2d at 143–44. The recommendation came after the superintendent clashed with the GCAE over its representation of school system employees before the board and its affiliation with the National Education Association. Id. at 144 & n.1. The board members admitted that they had terminated the payroll dues deduction services for those reasons. Id. at 144. This Court held that — despite the fact that the teachers union had no constitutional right to automatic payroll deduction of membership dues — the county board of education could not deny the union’s members the benefit of that service as a “sanction[] for the expression of particular views it opposes.” Id. at 145 (quotation marks omitted).The crucial fact in Gwinnett County is that the school board did not adopt a generally applicable policy — it specifically singled out “GAE-GCAE members.”

 

[DisneyHead123]

Freedom of speech is not freedom from all consequences. That’s absolutely true. It is freedom from Government imposed consequences. A KKK group has the right to gather and speak. The Government cannot stop them from speaking even if their words are hateful. However, a group of counter protesters also has every right to show up and drown out the words of those people. Freedom of Speech protects them against the government stopping them from assembling or speaking it doesn’t protect them from fellow citizens drowning out their words with their own protected speech. It also doesn’t protect them from people posting their picture on Facebook and outing them as a KKK member. Those are some possible consequences of free speech but none are government imposed.

I agree with your opinion on the traditional right. I don’t think a lot of these people are traditional right. They embrace certain aspects of “conservative” but not all or even most. Just look at DeSantis. Hard to call him a traditional conservative.

I agree the catchphrase doesn't apply to the government, just saying, I think that's the psychology behind it. There was an underlying anger there and the human impulse to say "I'm rubber and you're glue!"

I do still think the "new" Right is quite libertarian - much more so than the traditional conservative Right. I think that position was cemented during Covid. So I don't buy that they just don't understand Freedom of Speech - I think, again, it's motivated reasoning or outright using the phrase facetiously. I think they are straying from their generally libertarian thinking on this one because the Right is increasingly becoming the populist party, and populist parties are generally defined as being in opposition to "a nefarious elite". I grew up in an impoverished area where this was the mindset and businesses or successful professionals were viewed with suspicion... the government didn't directly target them but let tort abuse run wild in order to play to the voters and be perceived as the hero targeted "the rich". I think people are kinda gobsmacked at DeSantis doing this because it's not a traditionally Republican stance - but honestly he may have his finger on the pulse more than some people realize. I'm not totally sure but I wouldn't rule it out - time will tell I guess.

 

[flynnibus]

I don’t think that’s his point at all. This is a lengthy thread with tons of information and links to sources about what RCID is, why it was created, etc.

If you come in now and ask questions that show little understanding of what was discussed and hashed out earlier in the thread, it leads to starting all over again in terms of providing that information and the discussion ends up going in circles.

There’s no barrier to joining a thread late without reading all the previous posts, but the consequence is that someone may tell you that you’re missing information or misunderstanding something that’s been clarified earlier.

The user has over 40 posts in this thread -nearly all on this very topic of consequence or not... at what point do we just acknowledge it's not an access to information issue?

 

[Heath]

Some case history was posted here earlier on the removal of a privilege. Courts have ruled that the removal of a perk that is not constitutionally protected can still be viewed as retaliation and therefore unconstitutional even if the Government would otherwise have the legal right to remove such a perk. The Court in that case is the same eleventh circuit appeals court that will hear this case should the outcome of the initial judge be appealed which it almost certainly will. Here is the post:

Thank you very much for sharing

 

[Heath]

The user has over 40 posts in this thread -nearly all on this very topic of consequence or not... at what point do we just acknowledge it's not an access to information issue? For me when the case is settled.

 

[mikejs78]

Got it. I don’t read every single previous comment, I often read an article then make a comment. I didn’t know any other entity has ever had self governing like capabilities or municipalities.

I'll take your comments in good faith. To just respond to a few:

The point is in court of law, free speech can be more complex than just saying “read the First Amendment!” After that one sentence that you are extracting, I further tried expound , is one can’t go out in Tines Square like Bruce Willis in a sandwich board and say something offensive and there isn’t “consequences.”

True. There are different levels that have been applied to different types of speech in the course of American history by the courts. However, one type of speech that has consistently been upheld with the highest form of protection is specifically political speech - that is, speech for or against a bill, an opinion on a specific issue, or support for or against a candidate. The courts have always held this to the highest scrutiny because it was particiularly political speech that the founders were concerned about when they wrote the first amendment.

Disney's current situation is a direct result of political speech - they advocated against an issue that had been passed by the legislature, and commented that they would work to change that law, which is their right.

The issue now is that various forms of retaliation have been made against Disney:

• First, they attempted to dissolve the district, which would have returned Disney to be under county jurisdiction.
• Then they figured out that that wouldn't work, because there were too many financial problems associated with doing that.
• So next they decided to create a state takeover of the district, keeping the same powers, but under the thumb of political appointees of Ron DeSantis, who have explicitly stated that they wanted to use the power of the board (i.e. the power of government) to get Disney to modify its content and produce movies/TV shows/rides that were acceptable to the governor.
• When they realized that Disney had entered into a legal contract to lock in zoning for 30 years, and lock in other covenants on what could be built on their property until the death of the last surviving member of King Charles, the state and board decided to punish Disney - by adding new inspections that no other theme park has to have, voiding a legal contract (which is also unconstitutional), and institute regulations to make Disney's life difficult - just because they had an opinion that differed from the governors.

So yes, while speech has consequences, and not all speech is at the same level, political speech is most certainly protected. The only question for Disney is can they prove retaliation, and based on the comments made by the governor and numerous state legislators, Disney's case looks pretty good.

Building on that point in regard to government overreach, I made the point (first off that I DO personally believe it’s zealous government overreach) that the actual wording in the Disney argument seemed flimsy based on the the line, “punishing” for “free speech.”

If not punishing free speech, what would you call it? Again, it's not just dissolving the district - it's putting a new oversight board that applies only to Disney, and using that board to place burdens on Disney that no one else has.

I was questioning from a legal definition of consequence versus a privilege nobody else has. I don’t think anyone’s inference or examination is “peddling” as I don’t claim to know the answers.

As I said before, and to expound on it, numerous entities within FL have self-governing special districts. The Villages (a private development) was mentioned before. Unviersal Studios has part of its properties in a special district, and they are in the process of expanding and adding a new special district so they can build more infrastructure. The Daytona Beach racecourse is within a special district. Special districts in FL are generally used as a way of providing economic or community development, allowing private organizations flexibility and a degree of control over the buildout of infrastructure and services. In exchange, the private companies/developers fund the projects through additional taxes to the district. It's not a special priviledge, but something readily available as part of Florida law for any developer who wants it and can present a good case for having one.

 

[Patcheslee]

I have to ask out of misunderstanding. RCID required supervisor board members to be landowners in the district. Was it a matter of they had to be landowners before elected, or given lands after elected for the term of their role? The politicians called out being required to hold land in the district as why they wanted more broad qualifications. But if it was the later, then land holding wasn't really an issue.

 

[GoofGoof]

The point is in court of law, free speech can be more complex than just saying “read the First Amendment!” After that one sentence that you are extracting, I further tried expound , is one can’t go out in Tines Square like Bruce Willis in a sandwich board and say something offensive and there isn’t “consequences.” Building on that point in regard to government overreach, I made the point (first off that I DO personally believe it’s zealous government overreach) that the actual wording in the Disney argument seemed flimsy based on the the line, “punishing” for “free speech.” I was questioning from a legal definition of consequence versus a privilege nobody else has. I don’t think anyone’s inference or examination is “peddling” as I don’t claim to know the answers.

I know you are saying you understand the first amendment but in your Bruce Willis example if he was arrested or the police intervened to stop him that would be a first amendment violation. They could maybe remove him from the street for his own safety to prevent a more serious crime from occurring if his life was at risk but they cannot stop him from expressing his views. The consequences he would face is getting punched in the face (if he’s lucky that’s all) and that would be a separate crime (assault) but the guy who punched him would not be violating his first amendment right to free speech.

As far as Disney calling the action a punishment that’s exactly what it is. It’s not flimsy. The government taking away a benefit very much can be a punishment. If my kid says something I don’t like and I take his phone away it’s still a punishment even though his phone is a privilege and not a right. My son cannot sue me for violating his first amendment rights because I’m not the government. The first amendment protects free speech by preventing the Government from restricting speech directly or taking punitive action to chill speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have free speech rights too.

The court case revolves around Disney proving the action was done to punish them for Speaking out. Normally that can be difficult to prove in these cases. Fortunately for Disney the Governor took multiple victory laps bragging about taking down woke Disney to anyone who would listen and then doubled down by writing it in a book. It’s going to be hard to argue this wasn’t retaliation.

 

[GoofGoof]

I have to ask out of misunderstanding. RCID required supervisor board members to be landowners in the district. Was it a matter of they had to be landowners before elected, or given lands after elected for the term of their role? The politicians called out being required to hold land in the district as why they wanted more broad qualifications. But if it was the later, then land holding wasn't really an issue.

The board members had to be landowners to serve. Each board member once selected by Disney was deeded a 5 acre plot of land in the district by a subsidiary of TWDC. That subsidiary had the option to buy the land back at any time. The landowners of the district would then vote to elect the board members but the vote was per acre owned not per person so Disney controlled the election of the board anyway. So there was no issue with unqualified board members.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Unviersal Studios has part of its properties in a special district,

Because it keep being mentioned, Universal Orlando Resort North Campus is not in an independent special district. It’s run by the city, not an independent board. The city though does have a significant obligation to provide requested services and improvements within the scope of the district’s purpose.

 

[Patcheslee]

The board members had to be landowners to serve. Each board member once selected by Disney was deeded a 5 acre plot of land in the district by a subsidiary of TWDC. That subsidiary had the option to buy the land back at any time. The landowners of the district would then vote to elect the board members but the vote was per acre owned not per person so Disney controlled the election of the board anyway. So there was no issue with unqualified board members.

So the whole "limited to 40 something people in the district" was a bit of a stretch.

 

[drnilescrane]

So the whole "limited to 40 something people in the district" was a bit of a stretch.

Those 40 something elect the city councils of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista.

 

[GoofGoof]

So the whole "limited to 40 something people in the district" was a bit of a stretch.

Those 40 something elect the city councils of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista.

I don’t think those people were even ever on the board. As far as I know the people living in the cities were all limited to less than 1/2 acre plots so had no actual vote in the RCID landowners meeting since they rounded down to zero. I had read somewhere the board members all had 5 acre plots that were deeded to them once Disney selected them to serve on the board so in theory they could pick from anyone and then deed them the land.

 

[drnilescrane]

I don’t think those people were even ever on the board. As far as I know the people living in the cities were all limited to less than 1/2 acre plots so had no actual vote in the RCID landowners meeting since they rounded down to zero. I had read somewhere the board members all had 5 acre plots that were deeded to them once Disney selected them to serve on the board so in theory they could pick from anyone and then deed them the land.

Separate issues.

The landholders are for the RCID board and do not live in the district. They aren’t Disney employees either.

The residents live in rented trailers (one by Bay Lake, the other near the Buena Vista Palace hotel) and vote in city council elections like any other renter would. They are all employees and family.

 

[maxairmike]

Because it keep being mentioned, Universal Orlando Resort North Campus is not in an independent special district. It’s run by the city, not an independent board. The city though does have a significant obligation to provide requested services and improvements within the scope of the district’s purpose.

The parks and CityWalk aren't, but both parts of Endless Summer are. I always forget that the district doesn't cross I-4 with the exception of Major Blvd.

 

[GoofGoof]

Separate issues.

The landholders are for the RCID board and do not live in the district. They aren’t Disney employees either.

The residents live in rented trailers (one by Bay Lake, the other near the Buena Vista Palace hotel) and vote in city council elections like any other renter would. They are all employees and family.

That makes sense that they are renters. I knew they were all affiliated with Disney but didn’t qualify as landowners but wasn’t sure why. So the old board members were just deeded the land but didn’t live there? I wasn’t sure how that worked either but also makes sense.