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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The amendment was already introduced

…I couldn’t be more shocked if I woke up with my head sewn to the carpet

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I don’t disagree, but that doesn’t change my point. You made the argument that Nikki Haley attacking DeSantis over Disney is meaningless because she is only polling at 2% and doesn’t represent the base of the party. My only point is that if that is the metric you want to use and you actually combine everyone attacking him over it it’s 2/3 of the voters in the poll. I don’t think the percent in polling makes much difference and is mostly irrelevant, but that was your point. I don’t think there’s any way to equate a positive or negative from the Disney conflict based on anyone’s polling numbers, even DeSantis himself. Based on interviews done some large donors who previously donated to DeSantis have Sid they don’t like the conflict and are pausing donations. Are they pausing over just that issue? Unlikely. I assume it’s a combination of that and several other issues plus his plummeting polling numbers. Impossible to tell for sure how much Disney impacted it.

He was polling in the mid to upper 30s a few months ago. I don’t think the drop is related directly to this dispute, but it may be related indirectly. DeSantis was seen as an alternative to Trump that could be more electable. There are many in the party who don’t want Trump as the candidate again because they don’t think he can win in the general. DeSantis was supposed to be the adult in the room who attracted moderates and independents. The further right he veers to hope to beat Trump in the primary the more those people drop him. If DeSantis becomes just as unelectable as Trump then why back him? Roll the dice and go with the original instead of the cover band.

He hasn't lost support to other normieCons, he's lost support to Trump, which I attribute in large part to a reactionary "stick it to the libs" effect of the indictment.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

That's factually untrue. Villages are informal divisions that exist within incorporated municipalities, they're not the incorporated municipalities themselves.


New Jersey is structured similarly. And depending on the ranking system, the top 5 states for public K-12 education in the country almost always include Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. So maybe we're doing something right.

But no you're right, we should go with massive school districts with superintendents who make $400,000 so we can save a few dollars by negotiating a unified contract with the bus company.

The AVERAGE superintendent salary in NJ is 150k/year x 599 districts…and to your other comment about villages, in NJ, there are towns, townships, boroughs, cities AND villages ALL independent municipalities…

 

[GoofGoof]

Let's look more closely at the case referenced by David French in his New York Times article, "Disney v. DeSantis, How Strong Is the Company's Lawsuit?"

In O'Hare Truck Service v the City of Northlake, Associate Justice Kennedy wrote the 7-2 majority opinion. The majority included historically liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Kennedy himself was a swing vote. For example, Kennedy was the deciding vote in Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. O'Connor also joined the majority, and she is largely viewed as having shifted from more conservative at the start of her term to more liberal by the end.

However, the Court's two most conservative justices, Scalia and Thomas, dissented. In their dissent, Scalia wrote:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought [original emphasis] to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes. The ability to discourage eccentric views through the mild means that have historically been employed, and that the Court has now set its face against, may well be important to social cohesion. To take an uncomfortable example from real life: An organization (I shall call it the White Aryan Supremacist Party, though that was not the organization involved in the actual incident I have in mind) is undoubtedly entitled, under the Constitution, to maintain and propagate racist and antisemitic views. But when the Department of Housing and Urban Development lets out contracts to private security forces to maintain law and order in units of public housing, must it really treat this bidder the same as all others? Or may it determine that the views of this organization are not political views that it wishes to "subsidize" with public funds, nor political views that it wishes to hold up as an exemplar of the law to the residents of public housing?​

The question then becomes, is the Supreme Court of 2023 more like Scalia and Thomas, or is it more like Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and O'Connor?

David French, the NYT author, has been attacking DeSantis since the fight with Disney began. (For example, see this Washington Post article.) This doesn't make French wrong, but I respectfully suggest looking more closely at articles to understand where the author is coming from and what they are not telling you.

In this post, I provided a more detailed analysis of this case from a First Amendment perspective, focusing on the current makeup of the Supreme Court and their propensity to overturn liberal precedent. IMO, Disney has a strong contract case, but any First Amendment decision will require winning over two conservative justices.

If that logic can be applied in this case then there is no free speech anymore. They are basically saying is if the Government decides that the political views are so unacceptable as to somehow cause public harm then it’s ok to ignore free speech and punish or retaliate. If the Supreme Court took this Disney case and then argued that line of thinking I think it would be devastating to the country. It would basically be there’s only free speech if you agree with whoever is in charge.

 

[GoofGoof]

He hasn't lost support to other normieCons, he's lost support to Trump, which I attribute in large part to a reactionary "stick it to the libs" effect of the indictment.

I attribute it to people who want the party to win….period. They think Trump now has a better shot than DeSantis. I think most would prefer someone else with a better shot in the general than Trump (that was supposed to be DeSantis) but since there’s nobody else right now they are backing Trump. Remember that the MAGA base isn’t even half the Republican Party (last poll I saw was 42% of party). The other 58% are still window shopping.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think we took the election politics talk too far. It’s the last I’ll say in the topic for now. Let’s get back to the RCID case

 

[Smiley/OCD]

More expensive, higher quality.

That's the tradeoff.

Not for me…

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

NO, that’s what we have in NJ there are 599 districts, each with its own superintendent, BOE, separate purchasing (books,etc)…THATS the main reason we have the highest property taxes in the state…EVERY town in the state is its own little fiefdom…I’ll take county SD ANYTIME

Yeah…home rule is an expensive problem…we are aware

More expensive, higher quality.

That's the tradeoff.

And he’s trying to act like it doesn’t result in top 5 public school rankings at all times…which it does.

You get what you pay for 99% of the time

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Not for me…

…you might want to get a uhaul then

 

[LAKid53]

As a DVC owner it is not just the taxes we face but what this Board will do to the value of our points.

If the Board does anything that would negatively impact the terms of the contracts with owners, we'd potentially have cause.

 

[LAKid53]

Disney pays nothing in Florida taxes.

You and I pay these taxes each time we visit WDW!

Disney just collects them from us.

You know that's not true.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

…you might want to get a uhaul then

Soon to be reserved…

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If the Board does anything that would negatively impact the terms of the contracts with owners, we'd have potentially have cause.

It would have to be concrete. Not vague claims about "diminished value" or whatever.

 

[Disney Analyst]

If that logic can be applied in this case then there is no free speech anymore. They are basically saying is if the Government decides that the political views are so unacceptable as to somehow cause public harm then it’s ok to ignore free speech and punish or retaliate. If the Supreme Court took this Disney case and then argued that line of thinking I think it would be devastating to the country. It would basically be there’s only free speech if you agree with whoever is in charge.

I also think it would prove the current theory that the Supreme Court is a deeply flawed and partisan branch that needs serious reforms.

 

[LAKid53]

It would have to be concrete. Not vague claims about "diminished value" or whatever.

It would have to materially affect the terms and conditions of the sales contracts. If value is specified in the sales contracts and the Board takes measures that effect that contractual value, there's grounds for cause. And it's up to a court to determine that. Nothing prevents owners from suing.

 

[Chi84]

There is plenty of free speech. As Scalia wrote in his dissent:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes.​

Scalia is looking at the original intent of the First Amendment, when British subjects were fined and imprisoned for their political views.

This is not the same as the government "subsidizing" (Scalia's word) views it does not agree with.

By changing the makeup of the RCID board, the State of Florida neither fined nor jailed Disney or its employees. Scalia, as an Originalist, reads restrictions on jailing and fining as the original intent of the First Amendment.

Let's consider the current interpretation of ex post facto laws, an interpretation understood by all justices in the United States.

The text of the Constitution states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.​

The plain text reads "no ex post facto laws". Period. No conditions. No exceptions. As worded, it's absolute.

No U.S. Court interprets it this way.

The universal interpretation by all U.S. Courts is that, per Calder, ex post facto law restrictions only apply to criminal punishments, specifically increased fines and imprisonment. (Conversely, ex post facto laws can be applied to civil matters, or can reduce punishments.)

The opinion Scalia expressed in his dissent of O'Hare Truck Service is consistent with the universal interpretation of ex post facto laws.

Jailing and fining was most egregious and therefore what needed to be addressed at the time. But the world has changed. I don’t think they would have been okay with closing down a business, evicting a person from their house, subjecting the person or business to government harassment, etc.

 

[GoofGoof]

There is plenty of free speech. As Scalia wrote in his dissent:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes.​

Scalia is looking at the original intent of the First Amendment, when British subjects were fined and imprisoned for their political views.

This is not the same as the government "subsidizing" (Scalia's word) views it does not agree with.

By changing the makeup of the RCID board, the State of Florida neither fined nor jailed Disney or its employees. Scalia, as an Originalist, reads restrictions on jailing and fining as the original intent of the First Amendment.

Let's consider the current interpretation of ex post facto laws, an interpretation understood by all justices in the United States.

The text of the Constitution states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.​

The plain text reads "no ex post facto laws". Period. No conditions. No exceptions. As worded, it's absolute.

No U.S. Court interprets it this way.

The universal interpretation by all U.S. Courts is that, per Calder, ex post facto law restrictions only apply to criminal punishments, specifically increased fines and imprisonment. (Conversely, ex post facto laws can be applied to civil matters, or can reduce punishments.)

The opinion Scalia expressed in his dissent of O'Hare Truck Service is consistent with the universal interpretation of ex post facto laws.

Ok so not “no free speech” at all, but he’s saying the only thing you are protected against is a fine or imprisonment. That’s some grim stuff. So the Government is free to retaliate in any other way against anyone who opposes them just not with a fine or throwing you in jail.

 

[LAKid53]

To be clear, I was just being snarky.

But...

Disney does not pay Florida state and local taxes using revenue it collects from, for example, toy sales in Massachusetts. Disney does not eat the cost of those taxes from its general funds.

Instead, Disney pays those taxes from revenue it collects from you and I when we visit WDW.

If the state increases taxes, Disney does not eat the cost. Instead, they raise their prices and pass the cost onto us.

So, yes, ultimately, we are the ones who pay these taxes.

I know that.

And I know how sales tax is collected and paid, along with corporate income tax.

Disney pays Florida corporate income tax based on revenues earned in Florida.

We all pay the income tax of corporations when we purchase a commodity or service.

But I'd rather not get too deep into tax accounting in this thread. I'm retired...too much like work.

 

[mikejs78]

Let's look more closely at the case referenced by David French in his New York Times article, "Disney v. DeSantis, How Strong Is the Company's Lawsuit?"

In O'Hare Truck Service v the City of Northlake, Associate Justice Kennedy wrote the 7-2 majority opinion. The majority included historically liberal Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Kennedy himself was a swing vote. For example, Kennedy was the deciding vote in Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. O'Connor also joined the majority, and she is largely viewed as having shifted from more conservative at the start of her term to more liberal by the end.

However, the Court's two most conservative justices, Scalia and Thomas, dissented. In their dissent, Scalia wrote:

The First Amendment guarantees that you and I can say and believe whatever we like (subject to a few tradition based exceptions, such as obscenity and "fighting words") without going to jail or being fined. What it ought [original emphasis] to guarantee beyond that is not at all the simple question the Court assumes. The ability to discourage eccentric views through the mild means that have historically been employed, and that the Court has now set its face against, may well be important to social cohesion. To take an uncomfortable example from real life: An organization (I shall call it the White Aryan Supremacist Party, though that was not the organization involved in the actual incident I have in mind) is undoubtedly entitled, under the Constitution, to maintain and propagate racist and antisemitic views. But when the Department of Housing and Urban Development lets out contracts to private security forces to maintain law and order in units of public housing, must it really treat this bidder the same as all others? Or may it determine that the views of this organization are not political views that it wishes to "subsidize" with public funds, nor political views that it wishes to hold up as an exemplar of the law to the residents of public housing?​

The question then becomes, is the Supreme Court of 2023 more like Scalia and Thomas, or is it more like Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and O'Connor?

David French, the NYT author, has been attacking DeSantis since the fight with Disney began. (For example, see this Washington Post article.) This doesn't make French wrong, but I respectfully suggest looking more closely at articles to understand where the author is coming from and what they are not telling you.

In this post, I provided a more detailed analysis of this case from a First Amendment perspective, focusing on the current makeup of the Supreme Court and their propensity to overturn liberal precedent. IMO, Disney has a strong contract case, but any First Amendment decision will require winning over two conservative justices.

You missed Renquist, who also voted with the majority, and was usually a reliable conservative but not as much so as Scalia and Thomas. So the majority was four liberals, two moderates, and a conservative, with two conservatives dissenting.

I'm assuming that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would side with Disney. I think it's also a pretty safe bet that Roberts will as well - he is very much a believer in stare decisis, so he will go along with Citizens and O'Hare, and I think will vote in Disney's favor. Alito and Thomas will not, making it 4-2.

That leaves Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Gorsuch is more of a libertarian - he wrote the majority opinion in Bostock, for example, which extended the civil rights act to include sexual orientation. Kavanaugh's record tends to show an expansive view of the first amendment, especially for corporations; and Barrett has usually sided more with Roberts and Kavanaugh than Alito and Thomas.

I still see this as a 7-2 or 6-3 decision if it reaches the supreme court.

 

[GoofGoof]

I also think it would prove the current theory that the Supreme Court is a deeply flawed and partisan branch that needs serious reforms.

I’m not so sure the Court even wants to open that can of worms anyway. Just because there is a conservative majority doesn’t mean they will do whatever DeSantis wants because he’s a Republican. It doesn’t work that way. I also think they’d be smart enough to realize almost half the states and the Federal government are currently run by the other side so allowing this activity to go unchecked would open up conservatives to persecution by liberal governments as well.