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

[Bullseye1967]

One thing I will say is that the right to free speech and the ability to reason on whether or not to exercise it would be my whole take on the start of this. When I ran a hotel, I spent a lot of time interacting with my guests. Sometimes I knew them by first name, year after year when they stayed with us. Do you know how many of them knew my politics? None! It just made no sense. I certainly didn't have a banner endorsing one party behind the front desk. Did I have that right? Yes, I certainly did because I owned the hotel. Did it make good business sense? No, because it would alienate half of my guests. Another example: I am a retired LEO. I had a "Back the Blue" window decal on my car in Chicago. During the Summer of 2020 someone broke out 3 of my car windows while I was dining out with my wife. Did I have the right to have that window decal on my car? Of course I did. Should I have had the common sense to remove due to the backlash against police that was going on at the time. Yes, I wish I would have done just that. Hind sight is 20/20 but having a "right" and choosing whether it is a good idea to exercise that right are two different things. We all agree that Disney has the right to say many things under the 1st amendment, but is it always the best choice for business to do so?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Got it, but that is kind of my point. RCID itself is not providing a direct special power that somehow only Disney has and that seems to be what a lot of people (not you) are trying to argue while ignoring the fact that other companies can do similar if and when it makes sense for their business.

There are unique powers not typically found in other districts. Other districts don’t necessarily control zoning or building; electrical service in the state has since been partitioned amongst the typically commercial providers. I think they might be able to issue bonds others typically cannot. Reedy Creek Improvement District absolutely has unique powers, but the advantage they confer isn’t the one typically presented, that they allow Disney to avoid expenses and regulation.

 

[fgmnt]

I just don't want my home insurance to double every year in this nightmare of a state.

It's fascinating to me that under trifecta control, the cost of living in Florida has become such an insane problem, and the reward for those in charge last cycle was resounding re-elections.

 

[Dranth]

Careful what you say out loud. If the Governor hears he may take offense and create a special district over your property to punish you.

Only after he has used more Florida tax payer money to ship additional immigrants in Texas to the north east. There is an order to these things you know.

 

[lazyboy97o]

One thing I will say is that the right to free speech and the ability to reason on whether or not to exercise it would be my whole take on the start of this. When I ran a hotel, I spent a lot of time interacting with my guests. Sometimes I knew them by first name, year after year when they stayed with us. Do you know how many of them knew my politics? None! It just made no sense. I certainly didn't have a banner endorsing one party behind the front desk. Did I have that right? Yes, I certainly did because I owned the hotel. Did it make good business sense? No, because it would alienate half of my guests. Another example: I am a retired LEO. I had a "Back the Blue" window decal on my car in Chicago. During the Summer of 2020 someone broke out 3 of my car windows while I was dining out with my wife. Did I have the right to have that window decal on my car? Of course I did. Should I have had the common sense to remove due to the backlash against police that was going on at the time. Yes, I wish I would have done just that. Hind sight is 20/20 but having a "right" and choosing whether it is a good idea to exercise that right are two different things. We all agree that Disney has the right to say many things under the 1st amendment, but is it always the best choice for business to do so?

This is completely disingenuous. We’re not talking about customers deciding not to patronize Disney.

 

[lightningtap347]

It's fascinating to me that under trifecta control, the cost of living in Florida has become such an insane problem, and the reward for those in charge last cycle was resounding re-elections.

Well it isn't like the education system is getting any better here either. Can't even blame gerrymandering, it seems people overwhelmingly want to be destitute in the name of hurting "others."

It's a strange phenomena.

 

[fgmnt]

One thing I will say is that the right to free speech and the ability to reason on whether or not to exercise it would be my whole take on the start of this. When I ran a hotel, I spent a lot of time interacting with my guests. Sometimes I knew them by first name, year after year when they stayed with us. Do you know how many of them knew my politics? None! It just made no sense. I certainly didn't have a banner endorsing one party behind the front desk. Did I have that right? Yes, I certainly did because I owned the hotel. Did it make good business sense? No, because it would alienate half of my guests. Another example: I am a retired LEO. I had a "Back the Blue" window decal on my car in Chicago. During the Summer of 2020 someone broke out 3 of my car windows while I was dining out with my wife. Did I have the right to have that window decal on my car? Of course I did. Should I have had the common sense to remove due to the backlash against police that was going on at the time. Yes, I wish I would have done just that. Hind sight is 20/20 but having a "right" and choosing whether it is a good idea to exercise that right are two different things. We all agree that Disney has the right to say many things under the 1st amendment, but is it always the best choice for business to do so?

What's interesting is that none of your fun anecdotes involve the State punishing you, explicitly nor implicitly, for your speech... just private citizens. The Constitution does not protect you from consequence of your speech between private transactions, but it is supposed to safeguard private citizens and the entities they own, operate, and manage from reprisal by the State.

 

[Tha Realest]

Reedy Creek Improvement District absolutely has unique powers, but the advantage they confer isn’t the one typically presented, that they allow Disney to avoid expenses and regulation.

Huh? RCID allowed Disney to get a jump on Universal, allowing it to open a full year before its competitor due to the comparatively streamlined permitting process.

 

[Bullseye1967]

Do you think this new board for RCID will allow people to live within the district now? Are they planning to take the land from Disney and give it to others or force them to sell?

This is just alarmist. What purpose would this serve? On what grounds could they do this?

 

[fgmnt]

Huh? RCID allowed Disney to get a jump on Universal, allowing it to open a full year before its competitor due to the comparatively streamlined permitting process.

Magic Kingdom opened about 18 years before USF.

 

[Bullseye1967]

This is completely disingenuous. We’re not talking about customers deciding not to patronize Disney.

We are talking about a business making a choice on how to speak or not speak about something whether it would cause backlash from a political party, a religion, or a government. Everyone wants to scream "They have a right to say what they want" . I am not questioning that. I am saying sometimes you weigh what a choice may result in down the road.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Huh? RCID allowed Disney to get a jump on Universal, allowing it to open a full year before its competitor due to the comparatively streamlined permitting process.

Disney and Universal never would have followed the same permitting process. In the 1980s the City of Orlando was allowed to enforce the EPCOT Building Code as one of the four model codes local governments were required to enforce (a law that came after the Magic Kingdom opened).

 

[Tha Realest]

Magic Kingdom opened about 18 years before USF.

Disney MGM opened a year before USF

 

[Ghost93]

We are talking about a business making a choice on how to speak or not speak about something whether it would cause backlash from a political party, a religion, or a government. Everyone wants to scream "They have a right to say what they want" . I am not questioning that. I am saying sometimes you weigh what a choice may result in down the road.

But a business shouldn't have to fear retaliation from the government due to the first amendment.

There is a huge difference between Disney speaking out about something and customers boycotting them versus a government punishing them for exercising their right to free speech.

 

[Andrew C]

They rule on all kinds of things; but their legitimacy in the public consciousness depends on how congruent the public's understanding of citizens' rights is to the court. The court has no real, functional check on its power once a justice gets their seat; they can be impeached and convicted but outside of a violent state crime, I can't see that ever happening. That people can choose to think the court is not a legitimate institution is the closest check the people have on the power of the court. At some point, that could become a problem for those on the bench.

People can choose to think whatever they want. That’s why we call it a choice. But it’s not a check. And it doesnt change the constitution as it relates to the courts. Unless of course we change the the constitution.

What is a problem is when the other, coequal branches, threaten the courts. Flirt with retaliation. In this thread, I know people care about retaliation.

 

[Chi84]

One thing I will say is that the right to free speech and the ability to reason on whether or not to exercise it would be my whole take on the start of this. When I ran a hotel, I spent a lot of time interacting with my guests. Sometimes I knew them by first name, year after year when they stayed with us. Do you know how many of them knew my politics? None! It just made no sense. I certainly didn't have a banner endorsing one party behind the front desk. Did I have that right? Yes, I certainly did because I owned the hotel. Did it make good business sense? No, because it would alienate half of my guests. Another example: I am a retired LEO. I had a "Back the Blue" window decal on my car in Chicago. During the Summer of 2020 someone broke out 3 of my car windows while I was dining out with my wife. Did I have the right to have that window decal on my car? Of course I did. Should I have had the common sense to remove due to the backlash against police that was going on at the time. Yes, I wish I would have done just that. Hind sight is 20/20 but having a "right" and choosing whether it is a good idea to exercise that right are two different things. We all agree that Disney has the right to say many things under the 1st amendment, but is it always the best choice for business to do so?

It does risk alienating its customers and facing retaliation from them. But in our country, it does not risk retaliation from the government.

 

[lazyboy97o]

We are talking about a business making a choice on how to speak or not speak about something whether it would cause backlash from a political party, a religion, or a government. Everyone wants to scream "They have a right to say what they want" . I am not questioning that. I am saying sometimes you weigh what a choice may result in down the road.

Government retaliations should not be one of those choices. That being the calculus is a huge problem. This is also not about a single incident and issue. At some point somebody was going to realize that the Reedy Creek Improvement District was a target to try and influence Disney’s creative and management decisions, which is exactly what is happening.

 

[Chi84]

We are talking about a business making a choice on how to speak or not speak about something whether it would cause backlash from a political party, a religion, or a government. Everyone wants to scream "They have a right to say what they want" . I am not questioning that. I am saying sometimes you weigh what a choice may result in down the road.

But the business does not have to factor in government retaliation. That’s prohibited by our constitution.

 

[fgmnt]

People can choose to think whatever they want. That’s why we call it a choice. But it’s not a check. And it doesnt change the constitution as it relates to the courts. Unless of course we change the the constitution.

What is a problem is when the other, coequal branches, threaten the courts. Flirt with retaliation. In this thread, I know people care about retaliation.

I explicitly said it was as close to a check you could have on an entity that is without any functional checks.
Also, you can totally constitutionally threaten the court; the 32nd president did it. Whether the state is within its constitutional rights to issue reprisal against an entity for its speech is the discussion in here.

 

[Andrew C]

Also, you can totally constitutionally threaten the court; the 32nd president did it.

I wasn’t speaking constitutionally. I just said it’s a problem. The courts just came up because that is actually where a lawsuit by Disney would end up. If it got to that point.