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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Unviersal Studios has part of its properties in a special district,
So the whole "limited to 40 something people in the district" was a bit of a stretch.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.
Those 40 something elect the city councils of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista.So the whole "limited to 40 something people in the district" was a bit of a stretch.
So the whole "limited to 40 something people in the district" was a bit of a stretch.
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.Those 40 something elect the city councils of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista.
Separate issues.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.
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.
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.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.
I just noticed I’ve used present tense here, but the way Disney’s acting it kind of feels like a government in exile.The landholders are for the RCID board and do not live in the district. They aren’t Disney employees either.
Exactly! The land is landlocked in the middle of swamp anyway, they couldn’t live there if they wanted to.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.
Funny, but Eskamani’s a Democrat from Winter Park. She submits these trolling amendments all the time.
I love it but if you are going for it anyway I would have also required that he pay the legal fees in pennies that he personally must deliver and count out
Thanks for correction, got it fixedFunny, but Eskamani’s a Democrat from Winter Park. She submits these trolling amendments all the time.
I would have required purchase of Genie+ for X percent of Disney guests until the equivalent of legal fees is attained....I love it but if you are going for it anyway I would have also required that he pay the legal fees in pennies that he personally must deliver and count out![]()
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.