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

[mmascari]

Has there been any polling done to indicate if Floridians find the actions against Reedy Creek acceptable?

There isn't even any reporting the correctly describes what is being done. Everyone likes to say "it's just a technicality" or a "distinction that doesn't matter". None of the reporting ever gets into how RCID actually works. All of those distinctions and what RCID actually does are critical to understanding what is actually being done. Without it, no poll would ever be correct.

A poll asking "Should Disney get to run its own government" is likely to get "no" answers. Because of all the implied stuff in that statement.

A poll asking "Should residents of Miami get to elect their mayor instead of the governor appointing the mayor" is going to get the reverse results.

Yet, they are the exact same thing.

 

[mkt]

Disney is choosing not to do that, for multiple reasons. Disney choosing not to fight back, is not a sign that the system is broken.

Or Disney is waiting to see what their actual damages are before filing suit, if at all.

There isn't a 24 hour statute of limitations. They've got several years to wait it out.

 

[flynnibus]

I can't decide if you're doing this intentionally or you're actually this obtuse, but this is a completely different discussion than the one you started. It's not even moving the goalposts; it's moving to a separate stadium.

 

[mkt]

So specifically, does Disney/Reedy Creek have an avenue to remedy whatever legal torts have been foisted upon them?

Wait and see. Define actual damages vs potential damages. File suit at the last possible minute.

 

[flynnibus]

Who will the misinformation baton get passed to in the next 12hrs?

It’s like groundhog day in here.

 

[Figgy1]

Is it a polka dot dress?

I'm not sure about her but I have a couple that I wear

 

[mkt]

the law, as written, prohibits age-inappropriate material from being presented to minors in government-funded public schools.

The law doesn't define what is and isn't age appropriate.

That's why it's vague.

 

[peter11435]

Has there been any polling done to indicate if Floridians find the actions against Reedy Creek acceptable?

What is the governor/legislature's approval rating at? Any sign of disagreement from the people of Florida?

I don’t think polling would be an accurate measure since Floridians have been mislead about what was really going on in RCID and what was actually included in the 1967 charter.

 

[peter11435]

They are absolutely not the same thing.

But they are

 

[Chi84]

That companies have the right to control how their resources are used by employees?

The reason I asked is because laws just don't get made up out of whole cloth based on what the electorate wants or votes for. The authority for making laws is granted to the legislatures by the federal and state constitutions. Any law requiring action by a citizen or corporation would have to find its inception within the powers granted by those constitutions.

States are given broad powers to make laws concerning the health and safety of its citizens, so that's a possible avenue. But those laws would be subject to challenges that the law as written is too vague to be followed or overly broad (it requires more than necessary to achieve its intended purpose). Any legal challenge would be controlled by what authority exists for making the law, what deficiencies it might have preventing its proper application, and whether it serves its purpose without impacting others' legal rights.

It's difficult to discuss laws in the abstract.

 

[Polkadotdress]

Is it a polka dot dress?

Good one!

I do love to "Rock the dots", but sadly I don't have a red/white one like my FAV mouse wears.

 

[el_super]

The point of government protections is to remove them from government excesses, no matter how the electorate feels about it.

So the electorate should have no say? Or more closely, saying that the electorate of some distant past, should have more say than the current one?

 

[Chi84]

So the electorate should have no say? Or more closely, saying that the electorate of some distant past, should have more say than the current one?

Right. The electorate has no say when it comes to violating a person's constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. Same for that person's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

 

[el_super]

Again, the Citizens United ruling says corporations are people. Personally, I don’t agree with that

Then why advocate for it?

 

[BringMeTheHoriz]

Then why advocate for it?

If corporations have the same rights I do, and are punished for exercising those rights, then I too can expect to be punished when I exercise those same rights. It’s called “precedent.” Until that changes, the States infringement on Disneys rights is a canary in the coal mine for my rights as a citizen of the state of Florida.

 

[el_super]

The impacted electorate fighting it or not fighting it has no impact on if this is the same or not.

It makes all the difference here. Disney isn't fighting back because there is no guarantee they will win and the political costs and brand image for Disney is not worth the fight. That wouldn't be true for the city of Miami would it? Ignoring the context doesn't automatically make two things the same.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Again, the Citizens United ruling says corporations are people. Personally, I don’t agree with that but 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices found that to be true, and thus it’s the law. In this country under the law, corporations have the same rights as living and breathing humans. If you don’t want to allow that argument in this discussion then I suggest you take it up with the side that so adamantly demanded those rights.

Reality is that despite the leading managers of said corporations making statements on behalf of the corporation still essentially are just speaking for themselves. The living breathing people that comprise the work force of said corporation each have their own opinions and thoughts that (surprise!) may or may not be in agreement with said corporations' official statements. The opinions and statements of the individuals cannot be drowned out by some corporate head's statements. In actuality the ruling is a wash.

 

[mmascari]

Corporations shouldn't have the power and authority that Disney was granted.

Which RCID power should Disney not have?

Disney as the only resident within the district (mostly, practically).

 

[BringMeTheHoriz]

Reality is that despite the leading managers of said corporations making statements on behalf of the corporation still essentially are just speaking for themselves. The living breathing people that comprise the work force of said corporation each have their own opinions and thoughts that (surprise!) may or may not be in agreement with said corporations' official statements. The opinions and statements of the individuals cannot be drowned out by some corporate head's statements. In actuality the ruling is a wash.

Understand that, however I’m making the argument from the perspective of how we define a person in this country. Regardless of who speaks on behalf of a corporation, regardless of how that corporation may or may not be retaliated against for the actions of the people that work there, that corporation made up of all those individuals is still one entity with all the same first amendment rights as the people who work there.

 

[mmascari]

It makes all the difference here.

It's makes no difference. No matter how many times you say it.

If you steal a souvenir from Disney and run out the door. You have shoplifted. It doesn't matter if Disney tacks you down and presses charges or not. You've shoplifted either way.

If you cannot post any reason at all that would be different between the governor taking over RCID and taking over Miami except that more people would understand that it was wrong.