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

[Stripes]

I know DeSatis is nuts. I just about said that at the meeting Monday. I know he doesn't want a reasonable solution. However, the courts both Federal and State will want the parties to reach a reasonable solution. While my proposed compromise would get rid of the current Board, if they actually took their jobs seriously they would agree to this as its in everyones best interest. Disney loses complete control but the landowners and tax payers regain the majority and the 2 counties and State get representation and a say on all RCDI issues. It is also a better deal for the Govenor than losing the case in Court.

DeSantis doesn’t have the power to settle though so I doubt the courts are going to push for a settlement, at least in regards to the First Amendment claims and striking down the new governance structure.

With the contracts, I imagine the court will push for some kind of agreement but we’ll see.

 

[LittleBuford]

That's a reasonable proposal, but some around here would balk at the idea of Disney having to make any concessions.

Count me among them. Why shouldn’t we balk at the idea of Disney having to make concessions when they’re the victim in all this?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I know DeSatis is nuts. I just about said that at the meeting Monday. I know he doesn't want a reasonable solution. However, the courts both Federal and State will want the parties to reach a reasonable solution. While my proposed compromise would get rid of the current Board, if they actually took their jobs seriously they would agree to this as its in everyones best interest. Disney loses complete control but the landowners and tax payers regain the majority and the 2 counties and State get representation and a say on all RCDI issues. It is also a better deal for the Govenor than losing the case in Court.

This isn’t a civil suit between two private parties. There is no settling. The court doesn’t have the authority to make the legislature write new laws.

 

[Brian]

Count me among them. Why shouldn’t we balk at the idea of Disney having to make concessions when they’re the victim in all this?

DeSantis has shown zero indication that he is willing to back down from this fight. Heck, even a PAC "encouraging" him to run for POTUS is called "Never Back Down." Should Disney wish to resolve this matter amicably, or be forced to in the event that they do not receive the full relief they are asking the court for, they will have to work with DeSantis, and do it on his terms.

That's not to excuse his retaliatory behavior. It's merely recognizing that he is the way he is, and if the courts do not intervene in Disney's favor by restoring RCID to its original form, they will have to find a way to work with him, or whoever comes after him, since he is term-limited.

 

[LittleBuford]

DeSantis has shown zero indication that he is willing to back down from this fight. Heck, even a PAC "encouraging" him to run for POTUS is called "Never Back Down." Should Disney wish to resolve this matter amicably, or be forced to in the event that they do not receive the full relief they are asking the court for, they will have to work with DeSantis, and do it on his terms.

That's not to excuse his retaliatory behavior. It's merely recognizing that he is the way he is, and if the courts do not intervene in Disney's favor, they will have to find a way to work with him, or whoever comes after him, since he is term-limited.

I largely agree with this assessment, but I’d rather Disney tried to fight and win this in the courts first before making concessions that will, I hope, prove unnecessary.

 

[GoofGoof]

I know DeSatis is nuts. I just about said that at the meeting Monday. I know he doesn't want a reasonable solution. However, the courts both Federal and State will want the parties to reach a reasonable solution. While my proposed compromise would get rid of the current Board, if they actually took their jobs seriously they would agree to this as its in everyones best interest. Disney loses complete control but the landowners and tax payers regain the majority and the 2 counties and State get representation and a say on all RCDI issues. It is also a better deal for the Governor than losing the case in Court.

I think it’s too late for that now. There was reporting last year that Disney worked on a compromise with the legislature and both sides were good with it but the media portrayed it as DeSantis backing down and he threw a fit. I don’t think the Federal Court will or even can ask the sides to work out a compromise. They’d have to do it on their own. Before the board publicly “voided” the contract and Disney filed the lawsuit Iger said he would sit down with DeSantis. We all knew that would never happen and it didn’t.

If Disney loses this case, in the future when Ron is a distant memory Disney can and probably will work with the legislature to create some sort of compromise everyone can work with. Likely a Government appointed board with Disney’s input and individuals that are actually qualified. That board could sign a less “extensive” development agreement too. If the legislature wanted to they could change the board selection process. I think if the Government appoints the board it should be the local counties not the state government. They could also go back to landowners, or both. 1 from each county and 3 from landowners allows for “oversight” and gives the counties some skin in the game.

 

[disneylandtour]

I largely agree with this assessment, but I’d rather Disney tried to fight and win this in the courts first before making concessions that will, I hope, prove unnecessary.

A win in court will make similar attacks go away. Concessions say: this is an effective way to attack a company.

 

[scottieRoss]

I am confused by the posters who think that Disney should have or should compromise with Florida. They want state-appointed or county representatives. Having read the RCID enabling legislation, it seems that the legislation was to work with Disney to create a recreational and tourist development. I do not see anywhere that RCID was designed to regulate them.
Just like any other municipal government, it was designed to serve the residents and landholders of the District.
This is no different than my small town city council. They are here to serve the residents. So if I can gather enough residents to put together my slate of council members and get them elected what is different that what Disney did? It just was a lot easier to find 51 or 98% of the landholders. In my situation, Texas is not going to remove the council and put in their own state-appointed council to regulate our town. This seems to be nothing more than a First Amendment issue. RCID or CFTOB is not a regulator, they are there to serve the residents.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am confused by the posters who think that Disney should have or should compromise with Florida. They want state-appointed or county representatives. Having read the RCID enabling legislation, it seems that the legislation was to work with Disney to create a recreational and tourist development. I do not see anywhere that RCID was designed to regulate them.
Just like any other municipal government, it was designed to serve the residents and landholders of the District.
This is no different than my small town city council. They are here to serve the residents. So if I can gather enough residents to put together my slate of council members and get them elected what is different that what Disney did? It just was a lot easier to find 51 or 98% of the landholders. In my situation, Texas is not going to remove the council and put in their own state-appointed council to regulate our town. This seems to be nothing more than a First Amendment issue. RCID or CFTOB is not a regulator, they are there to serve the residents.

The District does enforce regulations, the most famous being the EPCOT Building Code. It created a regulatory environment where one largely did not exist.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Seriously, can we please stop calling Disney making concessions a compromise? A compromise by definition involves mutual concessions. If someone takes $20 from you it’s not a compromise if they give $10 back.

 

[RamblinWreck]

In O'Hare Truck Service v the City of Northlake, the Court's two most stanch conservatives (Scalia and Thomas) argued that Freedom of Speach protections are limited:

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.​

In Citizens United, the Court's four most liberal justices (Stevens, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer) argued that Freedom of Speach protections can be based on the "speaker's identity":

“Our jurisprudence over the past 216 years has rejected an absolutist interpretation” of the First Amendment. WRTL, 551 U. S., at 482 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.). The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Apart perhaps from measures designed to protect the press, that text might seem to permit no distinctions of any kind. Yet in a variety of contexts, we have held that speech can be regulated differentially on account of the speaker’s identity, when identity is understood in categorical or institutional terms. The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees.​

We have both liberal and conservative justices arguing that Freedom of Speach rights are not absolute, that the Constitution provides only limited protection. Note that both cases involve corporations.

Citizens United is a 5-4 decision, and most of us are old enough to remember that it was (and remains) highly controversial. The news media in particular viciously attacked the ruling.

The current Court has not shied away from overturning precedent they believe was decided wrongly. Indeed, during his confirmation process, there was much hope that Gorsuch would vote to overturn Citizens United, if given the opportunity.

As you note, a decision from the Supreme Court could "significantly change how free speech works for corporations."

I wasn’t paying much attention back then, but I do recall it.

Wasn’t a significant amount of the controversy less to do with whether or not speech was protected, but more to do with whether or not money was considered speech?

 

[Brian]

Wasn’t a significant amount of the controversy less to do with whether or not speech was protected, but more to do with whether or not money was considered speech?

Yes, which is why I don't think the RCID case is the right one for the justices to overturn Citizens. The basis for RCID is government retaliation against a corporation for protected speech, while Citizens was campaign finance contributions made by corporations is protected speech.

 

[mikejs78]

Criticism of Citizens United is not limited to one area. Many have attacked it for many reasons.

Within the context of the dissent, opposition can be broadly grouped into two categories:

1. Money used for corruption (or the appearance of corruption).
2. The disproportionate power of corporations to influence the political process.

The second one in particular applies to Disney. As Stevens wrote in his dissent:

“‘[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation,’” furthermore, “‘are not an indication of popular support for the corporation’s political ideas.’” ... “‘They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection of the power of its ideas.’”​

​

It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their “personhood” often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.​

Yes but Stevens also went on to say

We have long since held that
corporations are covered by the First Amendment, and
many legal scholars have long since rejected the conces-
sion theory of the corporation.

.

His dissent was focused almost exclusively around money and electioneering. In fact, he references back to Bellotti to support his argument, and speaks favorably about that decision. So I think the progressive justices position on this is more nuanced than you're indicating here.

 

[disneylandtour]

Nothing about this from day one has been about ideology…

It’s just the the thirst for power.

And money = power


…there’s your Friday afternoon news dump

I can understand the ideological differences. But I mostly feel as though I'm watching people who make laws also willingly disregard laws when it suits their needs. Not a fan.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The case is going to take forever because Disney will have to keep amending their complaint to add more evidence.

 

[Elijah Abrams]

This is looking like Disney is losing their battle, with today's news.

 

[Disney Analyst]

This is looking like Disney is losing their battle, with today's news.

Huh?

 

[wdwmagic]

This is looking like Disney is losing their battle, with today's news.

That bill signed yesterday was always going to happen and doesn't really seem to change anything about Disney's case.

 

[mkt]

This is looking like Disney is losing their battle, with today's news.

It doesn't. It's just more fuel for the federal lawsuit.

 

[mikejs78]

It's coronation day. Long live all the currently living descendents of King Charles!