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

[Brian]

Okay, I have a failure to communicate here. I don't believe for one second that Florida is trying to take down woke Disney. I am saying that DeSantis and the Legislature used that as a big misdirection play, and so far it is working exactly as designed.

Gerrymandering = retained power. That is the end game, and the politicians don't want the voters to interfere.

I've seen this theory several times in this thread, but what it doesn't take into consideration is that courts don't get distracted like the public. The new congressional map has already been challenged in court, despite the constant negative press covfefe about the RCID legislation. If the map as illegal as some will have you believe, it will be struck down, and the media will still have a field day attacking their second favorite scapegoat (Gov. DeSantis).

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

From Gov. DeSantis' press secretary:

via Twitter

“A plan is coming soon” is government code for:
“We have no clue what the hell it is we think we’re doing here”

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Fact: "The Ready Creek Improvement Act was signed into law in May 1967 by Gov. Claude Kirk in response to lobbying efforts by Disney."

But Disney is not in the bill.

We know why it was created signed…and if you know your history, Hayden Burns was the governor who proposed it. One was a democrat…the other Republican.

But you can’t teleport back and put their name on it to make a legal case now.

 

[lazyboy97o]

None. These are municipal bonds. The only tangible connection to WDW is the fact that they are the largest taxpayer in the District - and as a giant corporation with a very small chance of going belly-up in the near future, they would be viewed as a positive for the District (whereas high taxpayer concentration would normally be a negative for a municipality issuing debt). A corporation cannot take on the liability of municipal debt. That would be altering the contract and you can't do that once the bonds are issued.

And even if you could somehow divide it between the landowners, I’d love to know under what authority the State can force the federal government to assume debt.

Fact: "The Ready Creek Improvement Act was signed into law in May 1967 by Gov. Claude Kirk in response to lobbying efforts by Disney."

That doesn’t change the mechanics of how things actually work.

 

[flynnibus]

From Gov. DeSantis' press secretary:

via Twitter

Our plan is so awesome we have to wait to tell anyone what it is! It will be the greatest plan you’ve ever seen!

The attempt at calling out partisan politics after this partisan session is comical. I don’t know what reality these people wake up in every day

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Our plan is so awesome we have to wait to tell anyone what it is! It will be the greatest plan you’ve ever seen!

The attempt at calling out partisan politics after this partisan session is comical. I don’t know what reality these people wake up in every day

You took the words right out of my mouth in your last 2 sentences.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why didn’t Disney try to engage in the potentially illegal activity we’re trying? That’s the question coming from the politicians saying the tax and bond issues are lies. It’s this awful acceptance of the end justifying the means. “They’re always lying so everyone else must be lying, so it’s all okay to lie and deceive for your desired end.

 

[Willmark]

If this were another company besides Disney, would people here be so strongly behind them?

I’m guessing likely not.

And I have no particular dog in this squabble in Florida.

 

[UNCgolf]

If this were another company besides Disney, would people here be so strongly behind them?

I’m guessing likely not.

And I have no particular dog in this squabble in Florida.

I certainly would. There are far reaching negative implications to this in multiple legal areas.

 

[lazyboy97o]

If this were another company besides Disney, would people here be so strongly behind them?

I’m guessing likely not.

And I have no particular dog in this squabble in Florida.

Yes. Free speech is a human right. The validity of contracts is important to the function of a rule based society.

 

[correcaminos]

If this were another company besides Disney, would people here be so strongly behind them?

I’m guessing likely not.

And I have no particular dog in this squabble in Florida.

I would

 

[Willmark]

Yes. Free speech is a human right.

It is but this is not the political forum and not my question, so I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Dranth]

If this were another company besides Disney, would people here be so strongly behind them?

I’m guessing likely not.

And I have no particular dog in this squabble in Florida.

Yes. What is going on is just wrong.

I think the bigger question is would we have heard about it if it was another company beside Disney? They do tend to grab the headlines whenever something happens.

 

[UNCgolf]

Yes. Free speech is a human right. The validity of contracts is important to the function of a rule based society.

I'm iffier on the free speech aspect, in that I'm not sure the First Amendment should apply to corporate speech, but since the Supreme Court has already ruled that it does that's a moot point. I also think that even absent the First Amendment there should be some kind of remedy to prevent the government from actively seeking to punish/retaliate against corporations for legal activities.

 

[trainplane3]

From Gov. DeSantis' press secretary:

via Twitter

The fact that a politician used a freaking emoji in a statement just makes me laugh. Come on, act professional. This isn't some edgy forum post.

(This applies to both parties)

 

[correcaminos]

Personally I tend to side towards the government keeping their noses as far out of businesses as possible.

To me the squabble seems fairly dumb on the surface.

The differences here are really through whether one views it through team red or team blue (I’ve been watching and reading it off in on) I’m sure other view it similarly, but as with all things these days YMMV.

I'm team neither truthfully. I refuse to align with just one party and my voter registration reflects that. Not everyone is just one sided.

This was a very clear to me, knee jerk reaction. Legislators even said as much. That is never okay. Not just dumb, but wrong.

 

[Willmark]

Point being, the response was yes, we'd defend those companies as well if they were in this situation because its' not a matter of politics, it's a matter of a blatant 1st Amendment violation (I don't recall anyone here saying they wouldn't). If you'd read through the thread, you'd already know that.

I’m sure people believe that, whether or not they would?

Maybe?

 

[Willmark]

I'm team neither truthfully. I refuse to align with just one party and my voter registration reflects that. Not everyone is just one sided.

This was a very clear to me, knee jerk reaction. Legislators even said as much. That is never okay. Not just dumb, but wrong.

It’s part of a broader issue in the cultural war imo. I’m also of the opinion it’s not going to be the last one either.

Interesting times and all.

Personally Florida is pretty dumb if they think they come out winners here and a useless battle IMO.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I’m sure people believe that, whether or not they would?

Maybe?

As to the thread itself, see my response above.

I'm going to go slightly off-topic for a second, as this is related to the question of whether people can honestly support a company whose politics they disagree with.

We recently had a big hub-bub in one of our town Facebook groups. A restaurant owner added a charge to every receipt to help make up for the rise in costs, and instead of calling it a "Rise in Costs Fee" or some other benign name, he called it the "Let's Go Brandon Charge". Big surprise...someone posted it on Reddit, and the restaurant was hit with 6000 negative reviews by people who'd never eaten there and a few Board of Health complaints that were totally bogus.

Naturally, those supporting the restaurant owner posted in the group and were complaining about the reviews and BoH reports - which is totally understandable. But when a handful of us commented that we supported the business owner's right to say whatever he wants, but that he should have expected blow-back after making an antagonistic political statement and alienating potentially 50% of his customers, we were attacked, name-called, etc. etc., EVEN AFTER agreeing that the false negative reviews and BoH reports were wrong.

So everyone involved in the discussion supported the owner's right to say what he wanted and that the negative reviews were wrong - there was nearly 100% agreement on those 2 points - but as soon as it was pointed out that he took a risk in the choice he made (which he did), everything went south.

I'm not sure what more the opposing side can do when they're openly supporting someone whose politics they don't agree with and still getting attacked, but this whole situation illustrates that yes - people can and will openly support someone (or a business) whose politics they don't agree with if it is clear that party has been wronged.

(Edited to fix a blunder...it's "Let's Go Brandon", not "Let's Go Biden"...oops!)

 

[homerdance]

This site is absolutely ridiculous with it's over-censoring of political discussion, but it's obvious that's it's really only one side that gets censored.

How to Create a Forum Website for Discussion & Customer Service

Forums help build a sense of community and facilitate meaningful discussions. Learn how you can build a forum website and how your audience can benefit.

blog.hubspot.com