(04-27-2023 10:15 AM)Eagleyed Wrote:  I find it funny that people are framing this as a DeSantis vs Disney thing when Disney has said they hate the ever loving guts of anyone on the right. From any state. They didn't fire Gina Carano because of anything to do with Desantis. They fired her for having views on the right while they allowed Pedro Pascal to write that anyone on the right is Nazi's and he's fine still working there. They have flat out stated that their mission is to bring through political propaganda in movies leftist viewpoints to the world. But, some people on the right are just hoping Disney wins to own Desantis. It's not just Florida that Disney has campaigned against. Other states with abortion billls. Other states that have pulled back on public funding for pride parades etc. Disney is acting more as a government institution with propaganda, and their own laws for their land, than a corporation.

Personally, I think it stupid of Disney to 'get involved' politically in the manner that they explicitly did re: the passage of the Florida law. I dont wish to see, nor pay to have a niece or nephew see, a 'Disney political message' entertainment selection. Much like I have deliberately stopped viewing entertainment from other 'politically-bent' actors.

Notwithstanding that, I'm actually a little torn on this.

I think Florida has every right to reform the special district.

Disney has every right to criticize the State of Florida, De Santis, or however one wishes to frame it.

And, every person has every right to boycott or not support Disney if/when they choose to become a political actor.

And, every Disney shareholder has every right to bring this out in terms of a potential class action saying that in becoming a political actor, Disney violated the paramount duty to its business and shareholder value in that process.

But I am also not a champion of a state exercising a power that looks to be a political muzzle against Disney, let alone any person or entity.

(04-27-2023 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm actually a little torn on this.

I think Florida has every right to reform the special district.

Disney has every right to criticize the State of Florida, De Santis, or however one wishes to frame it.

And, every person has every right to boycott or not support Disney if/when they choose to become a political actor.

And, every Disney shareholder has every right to bring this out in terms of a potential class action saying that in becoming a political actor, Disney violated the paramount duty to its business and shareholder value in that process.

What is the conflict between any of these statements? In what way do they contradict?

Quote:I am also not a champion of a state exercising a power that looks to be a political muzzle against Disney, let alone any person or entity.

Disney is only being “muzzled” if you take the view that Disney is entitled to keep the powers of the RCID in perpetuity. I look forward to Disney (or anyone else) explaining why they are entitled to that privilege, even when the State of Florida is opposed.

But leaving the legal/political wrangling to the side, the idea that Disney is being in any way muzzled by this is comical. To the contrary, Disney’s social/political agenda has just become even more in-your-face over the last couple of years than it was before.

(04-27-2023 07:34 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-27-2023 11:33 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm actually a little torn on this.

I think Florida has every right to reform the special district.

Disney has every right to criticize the State of Florida, De Santis, or however one wishes to frame it.

And, every person has every right to boycott or not support Disney if/when they choose to become a political actor.

And, every Disney shareholder has every right to bring this out in terms of a potential class action saying that in becoming a political actor, Disney violated the paramount duty to its business and shareholder value in that process.

What is the conflict between any of these statements? In what way do they contradict?

They dont. But many view the situation solely in a red-blue lens. In that 'red-blue' mode (or 'woke - conservative' mode), those statements might appear at odds with one another. Given the prevailing lens in this forum, I was anticipating that apparent dichotomy under that lens.

Quote:

Quote:I am also not a champion of a state exercising a power that looks to be a political muzzle against Disney, let alone any person or entity.

Disney is only being “muzzled” if you take the view that Disney is entitled to keep the powers of the RCID in perpetuity. I look forward to Disney (or anyone else) explaining why they are entitled to that privilege, even when the State of Florida is opposed.

I dont know the actual formation documents, so I couldnt say what the 'term' for the district would be, nor do I know Fla. law sufficiently to denote a sunset provision or 'by law' expiration of a special district.

I dont think it unreasonable to note a viewpoint that indicates a 'cause/effect' at play. Albeit not explicit one.

Cause: Disney says bad things about Florida lawmaking, policy, or current politicial stance.

Effect: Florida vacates previously held rights by Disney in response to that speech.

I agree it isnt a traditional 1st Amendment issue, where a state passes a law that directly affects speech in a chilling manner. But, when the message is 'group says something re: Florida politics or policy, result is state removing a previously held right' --- I dont think it is a stretch to denote that subsequent legal move as having a chilling effect on speech. And not just a generalized chilling effect -- a chilling effect based on specific speech made by a specific party.

Again, not as in your face as the 'no anti-abortion demonstrators allowed' things that were part and parcel of the 70s and 80s -- but still inducing at least some chilling effect on a very specific party.

Quote:But leaving the legal/political wrangling to the side, the idea that Disney is being in any way muzzled by this is comical. To the contrary, Disney’s social/political agenda has just become even more in-your-face over the last couple of years than it was before.

Again, you have state action that seemingly punishes a specific party for specific speech. Not black letter, but the connection is more than tenuous.

Ask yourself 'is the removal of the special district in reaction to speech'? Kind of hard to say 'no' to that posit.

Then ask 'is that removal of the special district specifically targeting the entity/person producing that message'? Again, kind of hard to say 'no, not at all' for that as well.

Then ask yourself 'is that removal of the special district benefitting the entity/person producing that message based on a specific message, and if that specific message is political in nature (the most highly protected form of speech, mind you)'? Again, hard to say that the action is not because of a specific, political message.

Again, agree with you that it is not the traditional 1st Amendment path, but the three questions above seem to put it straight into the basic 1st Amendment analysis to an amount that I dont think it can be wholly discounted.

And, I also think the Takings Clause issues are going to be a much better angle for Disney to move down in this matter.

Nothing on the 1st Amendment above is 'solid in stone', but I think the issues noted above are pretty much in line with a traditional 1st analysis. Just food for thought.

(04-27-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I don't think it unreasonable to note a viewpoint that indicates a 'cause/effect' at play. Albeit not explicit one.

Cause: Disney says bad things about Florida lawmaking, policy, or current politicial stance.

Effect: Florida vacates previously held rights by Disney in response to that speech…

And, I also think the Takings Clause issues are going to be a much better angle for Disney to move down in this matter.

I guess we need to clarify what “rights” are being “vacated”? What is being “Taken”?

The State of Florida is not trying to confiscate any of the real estate owned or controlled by Disney. Neither is Florida trying to impose any sort of special tax or financial penalty on Disney or its proxies/employees/etc. Florida passed a law that specifically and precisely benefited a class of one (1) corporation, which owned a significant amount of land. That corporation is now claiming, in effect, that the law cannot be amended without its own consent.

The fact that there is a political cause/effect at work here is irrelevant to me. The logic of that argument is that, so long as there is some political conflict between the parties, then the State of Florida is prohibited from taking legal action which Disney considers adverse.

(04-27-2023 08:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-27-2023 08:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I don't think it unreasonable to note a viewpoint that indicates a 'cause/effect' at play. Albeit not explicit one.

Cause: Disney says bad things about Florida lawmaking, policy, or current politicial stance.

Effect: Florida vacates previously held rights by Disney in response to that speech…

And, I also think the Takings Clause issues are going to be a much better angle for Disney to move down in this matter.

The State of Florida is not trying to confiscate any of the real estate owned or controlled by Disney. Neither is Florida trying to impose any sort of special tax or financial penalty on Disney or its proxies/employees/etc.

It actually ends Disney's ability to have a say in developmental issues and restrictive covenant issues. Even though Disney is apportioned and pays 90% or thereabouts of the taxes in the District.

Florida unilaterally ended the structure of the Reedy District, one which that Disney was the largest landholder and had by far the largest tax bill.

And put into issue the comprehensive plans developed by Reedy *and* approved by Florida previous to the issue of Florida attacking Disney based on expression of a political point of view.

Quote: Florida passed a law that specifically and precisely benefited a class of one (1) corporation, which owned a significant amount of land. That corporation is now claiming, in effect, that the law cannot be amended without its own consent.

That really isnt what Disney is claiming in its lawsuit complaint.

Quote:The fact that there is a political cause/effect at work here is irrelevant to me. The logic of that argument is that, so long as there is some political conflict between the parties, then the State of Florida is prohibited from taking legal action which Disney considers adverse.

The other aspect of the above is: Is it proper for a state to attack a company based on its expression of a political position.


It is very hard to state anything *but* the extensive attack on the Reedy District (and on Disney's position in that District) is based *only* on the position that Disney took with respect to the Florida school/ teaching sexual orientation issues. The record is replete with Florida officials directly linking the actions to end and boot Disney *to* Disney's speech on its positions to the issue.

Quote:Let it be known .... that here, in the free state of Florida, it is 'We the People', not 'woke' corporations.

The press conference of April 17, from which the above quote is taken, is replete with massive statements that tie the actions taken by Florida specifically to and nothing but not just Disney's public statements, but Disney's position even without speech issues.

I understand the issue above that 'a state can undo a grant.'

But I am not so comfortable with the concept of 'a state can undo an official action (like the formation and structure of the Reedy district) based on the object having a certain political position, much less speaking on that political position.

If a state wants to undo a 'Reedy District'-type setup under the law, I am comfortable with that happening in the normal course of business.

I am not so comfortable with it being in the course of retributive action based on speech, or on having a specific political view.

The sooner some level of compromise is reached the better off for DeSantis. The longer this drags on the more of a problem it is him if he declares for the GOP nomination. Its just a distraction that he will not need.

(04-28-2023 08:57 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The sooner some level of compromise is reached the better off for DeSantis. The longer this drags on the more of a problem it is for him if he declares for the GOP nomination. It’s just a distraction that he will not need.

What do you think the possible terms of a compromise would be?

(04-28-2023 08:57 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The sooner some level of compromise is reached the better off for DeSantis. The longer this drags on the more of a problem it is him if he declares for the GOP nomination. Its just a distraction that he will not need.

There's no compromise to reach. There's no middle position. Even if you believe DeSantis and Florida will win the suit no one has even attempted to offer a reason for DeSantis' actions aside from he didn't like Disney's statement. Disney is not going to apologize and say the bill is great and they were wrong. DeSantis can't back down at this point without looking like a complete wimp. It's not like there's some dispute over a dollar figure they can just meet in the middle on.

(04-28-2023 10:52 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-28-2023 08:57 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The sooner some level of compromise is reached the better off for DeSantis. The longer this drags on the more of a problem it is him if he declares for the GOP nomination. Its just a distraction that he will not need.

There's no compromise to reach. There's no middle position. Even if you believe DeSantis and Florida will win the suit no one has even attempted to offer a reason for DeSantis' actions aside from he didn't like Disney's statement. Disney is not going to apologize and say the bill is great and they were wrong. DeSantis can't back down at this point without looking like a complete wimp. It's not like there's some dispute over a dollar figure they can just meet in the middle on.

Precisely. The only thing I’ll add to that is that the revocation of RCID was not an executive decision made solely by the Governor. The Florida legislature signed off on this.

(04-28-2023 11:04 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-28-2023 10:52 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-28-2023 08:57 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The sooner some level of compromise is reached the better off for DeSantis. The longer this drags on the more of a problem it is him if he declares for the GOP nomination. Its just a distraction that he will not need.

There's no compromise to reach. There's no middle position. Even if you believe DeSantis and Florida will win the suit no one has even attempted to offer a reason for DeSantis' actions aside from he didn't like Disney's statement. Disney is not going to apologize and say the bill is great and they were wrong. DeSantis can't back down at this point without looking like a complete wimp. It's not like there's some dispute over a dollar figure they can just meet in the middle on.

Precisely. The only thing I’ll add to that is that the revocation of RCID was not an executive decision made solely by the Governor. The Florida legislature signed off on this.

Yes, factually true, and now the courts will have to decide if the government can take those actions for absolutely zero purpose other than they don't approve of their speech. They haven't even attempted to mask this as applying to all the special purpose districts in the state or offering some fake other reasons for these actions.

One of the most amusing things with all this is how quickly the left went to defending a multi billion dollar corporation continuing to get special tax privileges that other small businesses can't get.

(04-28-2023 12:10 PM)Eagleyed Wrote:  One of the most amusing things with all this is how quickly the left went to defending a multi billion dollar corporation continuing to get special tax privileges that other small businesses can't get.

I think you mean liberals and not the left. Liberals support corporations as long as they signal culturally the way they'd like. The left would like to see both of these groups lose somehow, but would probably lean in this battle of 2 evils rooting for DeSantis since it sets a precedent of being able to legislate to weaken corporate power and influence.

Both sides have flip flopped. The "right' now seemingly supports government selectively choosing to punish an entity based upon the political speech by that entity.

Didn't support government intrusion political speech re: Twitter, not really supporting a governmental punishment of Disney because of Disney's political speech. Notwithstanding I don't support Disney's position on the Florida bill that they came out against nor many of the stances Disney takes re: many of their messages in political matters.

Seems like Disney's playing a very dangerous game. As it stands, they have everything to pending the actual nature of their bonds.

um --- thnx for the videos. Neat insights into the nuts and bolts of the bond issue in the Reedy Creek.

I didnt catch from the caster whether the new special district affirmed the existing Reedy Creek bonds or is allowing them to go into instant 'default' (?, not sure it the right word there). Nor did I catch what the issuing agreements pledge for any of the bonds for Reedy Creek.

Seems to me that if the state of Florida 'killed' the Reedy District without providing for the bond question, Disney may have an even stronger basis for a takings case. But I dont know if the enabling legislation to kill the Reedy District and put the CFT District in its place provides for that question in the first place.

If it didnt, the state of Florida really screwed over the outside bond investors, and didnt help themselves in the underlying issue of retaliation based on speech and political stance that Disney seems to bring.

(04-28-2023 09:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  um --- thnx for the videos. Neat insights into the nuts and bolts of the bond issue in the Reedy Creek.

I didnt catch from the caster whether the new special district affirmed the existing Reedy Creek bonds or is allowing them to go into instant 'default' (?, not sure it the right word there). Nor did I catch what the issuing agreements pledge for any of the bonds for Reedy Creek.

Seems to me that if the state of Florida 'killed' the Reedy District without providing for the bond question, Disney may have an even stronger basis for a takings case. But I dont know if the enabling legislation to kill the Reedy District and put the CFT District in its place provides for that question in the first place.

If it didnt, the state of Florida really screwed over the outside bond investors, and didnt help themselves in the underlying issue of retaliation based on speech and political stance that Disney seems to bring.

It seems like Disney's point of political retribution and that Disney has the right to free speech hinges on whether or not Disney was, in fact, Reedy Creek Development.

The state of Florida dissolved Reedy Creek.

Disney claims that dissolution of a state body was political retribution in an attempt to punish Disney for its speech.

How could Disney be punished simply because the state dissolved one governmental body and replaced it with another.

If Disney is claiming that Disney was in fact Reedy Creek then the bonds Reedy Creek has issued were fraudulent because they were issued as government bonds.

This is just what I'm gathering from listening to these videos.


So...

Disney was punished because their board was dissolved, which means they've been defrauding investors by claiming these were government bonds.

or...

Disney was not punished because the board was not Disney and was actually a separate governmental entity established by the state at their whim.