11 ms·

It’s somewhat frightening that the biggest thing currently blocking the authoritarian impulses of politicians like DeSantis or a former president is their sheer

by dhosek 5y ago

It’s somewhat frightening that the biggest thing currently blocking the authoritarian impulses of politicians like DeSantis or a former president is their sheer incompetence. The dissolution of Reedy Creek is on its face an unconstitutional action (given that it as explicitly done to punish Disney for exercising its free speech rights), and the implementation of the punishment was done in such a way that within days it was obvious that the worst case for Disney is that they end up with a financial windfall and potentially have to negotiate about regulations with local governments who would likely be bending over backwards to appease the house of mouse.

daenz 5y ago
I have not been following the story as closely as others, but how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? That only seems authoritarian relative to anarcho capitalism or extreme libertarianism.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? Making decisions about public goods explicitly as political retaliation for failing to support unrelated positions of the ruling party is authoritarianism. It's *particularly jarringly authoritarian from a faction that is simultaneously arguing that “free speech” is being violated when private actors choose not to actively relay their speech.
  - daenz 5y ago
    From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights, and in fact give them unfair legal advantages that nobody else can have, and therefore shouldn't be protected from infringement in the same way that rights are. I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant, as if they are entitled to those privileges.
    - mescaline 5y ago
      The “rights” we are talking about is mostly the right to run their own utility and trash services. That’s about it and whatever else the government usually provides. Street repair. Security. They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal.
      - codeguro 5y ago
        That's an abhorrent lie. Their independent tax district is absolutely a sweetheart deal. The ability to privately govern the land that it owns (i.e. not pay state/property taxes) outright flies in the face of the first clause in 14th amendment. Their special privileges would not hold up to scrutiny in the court of law.
        dave5104 5y ago
        Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false. In fact, the special tax district is allowed to (and does) charge Disney additional taxes over the state maximum to provide services like utilities and infrastructure. Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture. If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
        daenz 5y ago
        If it's not beneficial in any way for Disney, then why are they saying they are being retaliated against? You're attempting to paint the removal of these special corporate privileges as a positive thing for Disney. If that's the case, then the State is doing them a favor, and it's not retaliation from Disney's perspective.
        dave5104 5y ago
  - codeguro 5y ago
    The idea that a corporate entity gets to have a say, politically speaking, when they don't even pay taxes is abhorrent. Equality looks like oppression to those who are privileged. And make no mistake, Disney is privileged; they don't pay state taxes. What's authoritarian is influencing Florida's policies while not being subject to Florida's policies. "Rules for thee, but not for me." Equalizing the field is fair game. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      Yeah, the left is making a big mistake here, defending a company town in the 21st century. This special district should never have existed in the first place.
      - somebehemoth 5y ago
        Regardless of whether Disney should have ever gotten this deal, the taking away of the deal is unconstitutional because it is punishing free speech. That's it. This is not a "left" thing. It is a Constitution thing. I can both dislike Disney and believe this move was unconstitutional at the same time.
        leereeves 5y ago
        It's so strange to see the left concerned about free speech. Is that concern really about the principle, or is it purely partisan?
        jtgeibel 5y ago
        It's almost as if the constitution binds the Florida government while not binding businesses like Twitter. It isn't strange at all when you don't conflate two different concepts. It is strange that the entirely of "the left" takes the blame for private actions taken by business, which is then used as some strange "well they started it" reaction by Republican lawmakers to do a much more egregious version of exactly what they repeatedly claim they are against.
- digsy 5y ago
  There are 1800+ special districts in Florida. Special priviledges are hardly limited to Disney.
- colburnmh 5y ago
  > how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? Because 1844 other special districts exist in Florida, including Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, HOAs, fire districts, water districts, law libraries, development holdings, etc. So Disney does not have rights that nobody else has, and those rights exist to allow those entities to have control over their property to avoid unnecessary, costly, and unproductive conflicts with county rules.
TYPE_FASTER 5y ago
The Disney change served as a distraction from the recent redistricting. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/florida/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps...
refurb 5y ago
According to Wall Street Journal the deal expires regardless so it’s more of a non-renewal.
- colburnmh 5y ago
  The creation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District had no sunset clause or date. The new law, passed as written in SB-4C, dissolves the 6 special districts (out of 1844) that were not specifically re-established after the Florida constitution was updated in 1969. There was no requirement that existing districts be re-established until SB-4C was passed, which retroactively and implicitly requires re-establishing special districts.
7speter 5y ago
IntelMiner 5y ago
- dave5104 5y ago
  > not educated enough to think critically and realize their tax dollars will now subsidize the millions (billions?) of dollars of infrastructure For what it's worth, it's likely residents of Orange and Osceola Counties will be taking up most of that extra tax burden. Both of those counties are relatively blue, and neither of them voted for DeSantis... so that's probably just gravy to him.
  - hansthehorse 5y ago
    I think they are solid blue. Orange went +23% Biden and Osceola +13% Biden.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    What's the backstop for the counties declaring bankruptcy? Given I don't know what's what here, but I wonder if either of these counties could then apply some sort of out-of-county tax to Disney visitors to make up for this? Like say they work with Disney and anyone who doesn't live in those counties pays an extra $10 on their ticket. I think I read the estimated additional tax cost was around $250 for the average family/year.
- eatonphil 5y ago
  > Clownsantis > and 4 orange years I'm sympathetic, but stooping to childish words lowers the quality of your argument. Your statement would have been more effective by just saying "Desantis" and "four years of Trump".
  - usrn 5y ago
    This is HN now. And of course only one side is allowed to behave like children while the other is just silenced.
    - 5y ago
dave5104 5y ago
> local governments who would likely be bending over backwards to appease the house of mouse. This part isn't necessarily guaranteed. Over in California, Disneyland frequently has trouble with Anaheim/Orange County when seeking approval for new projects. They've had entire hotels and parking structures designed, publicly announced, and then canceled because the local government wouldn't play ball. The only thing that guarantees Disney's continued ability to build whatever in Florida is if they continue to be their own local government.
AndrewUnmuted 5y ago
A corporation being granted the permission of owning an entire chunk of the American public's land and taking over all local and state governance for itself is also rather unconstitutional. It's sophomoric and clownish of people to assert constitutionality upon an issue such as this one. It's unconstitutional all the way down.
- Volundr 5y ago
  > A corporation being granted the permission of owning an entire chunk of the American public's land and taking over all local and state governance for itself is also rather unconstitutional. Is it? What provision(s) of the constitution does it violate?
  - codeguro 5y ago
    The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 - equality under the law. Why should disney be exempt from property taxes? From state taxes? What gives Disney Corp the right to influence the policies of Florida whey they do not subject themselves to those same policies?
    - vmception 5y ago
      Florida's Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the Reedy Creek Improvement Act did not violate any provision of Florida's constitution. To apply the Federal constitution, a federal court case requires there to be an aggrieved party (and Florida state judges likely won't/can't revisit this to apply US constitution). Which leaves just Florida, which has no standing to challenge its own law after being enjoined by its own legal process, and leaves Disney which only gains from the contortions of the State of Florida and would also not challenge. All residents of Reedy Creek are Disney employees and their children, a major disincentive for any of them to be the political activist and challenge it, they are poorly paid and their rent is cheap ($75/month for space if using a mobile home).
      - codeguro 5y ago
jansen555 5y ago
upsidesinclude 5y ago
You might want to browse over the definition of authoritarian. That's not facetious. You are being hyperbolic, but it seems that people leaning progressive and liberal are capable of amazing contortions when it comes to the meaning of words.
- _moof 5y ago
  I looked it up. Florida's actions are authoritarian.

by dhosek 5y ago

daenz 5y ago

I have not been following the story as closely as others, but how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? That only seems authoritarian relative to anarcho capitalism or extreme libertarianism.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? Making decisions about public goods explicitly as political retaliation for failing to support unrelated positions of the ruling party is authoritarianism. It's *particularly jarringly authoritarian from a faction that is simultaneously arguing that “free speech” is being violated when private actors choose not to actively relay their speech.
- daenz 5y ago
  From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights, and in fact give them unfair legal advantages that nobody else can have, and therefore shouldn't be protected from infringement in the same way that rights are. I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant, as if they are entitled to those privileges.
  - mescaline 5y ago
    The “rights” we are talking about is mostly the right to run their own utility and trash services. That’s about it and whatever else the government usually provides. Street repair. Security. They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal.
    - codeguro 5y ago
      That's an abhorrent lie. Their independent tax district is absolutely a sweetheart deal. The ability to privately govern the land that it owns (i.e. not pay state/property taxes) outright flies in the face of the first clause in 14th amendment. Their special privileges would not hold up to scrutiny in the court of law.
      - dave5104 5y ago
        Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false. In fact, the special tax district is allowed to (and does) charge Disney additional taxes over the state maximum to provide services like utilities and infrastructure. Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture. If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
        daenz 5y ago
        If it's not beneficial in any way for Disney, then why are they saying they are being retaliated against? You're attempting to paint the removal of these special corporate privileges as a positive thing for Disney. If that's the case, then the State is doing them a favor, and it's not retaliation from Disney's perspective.
        dave5104 5y ago
- codeguro 5y ago
  The idea that a corporate entity gets to have a say, politically speaking, when they don't even pay taxes is abhorrent. Equality looks like oppression to those who are privileged. And make no mistake, Disney is privileged; they don't pay state taxes. What's authoritarian is influencing Florida's policies while not being subject to Florida's policies. "Rules for thee, but not for me." Equalizing the field is fair game. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    Yeah, the left is making a big mistake here, defending a company town in the 21st century. This special district should never have existed in the first place.
    - somebehemoth 5y ago
      Regardless of whether Disney should have ever gotten this deal, the taking away of the deal is unconstitutional because it is punishing free speech. That's it. This is not a "left" thing. It is a Constitution thing. I can both dislike Disney and believe this move was unconstitutional at the same time.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        It's so strange to see the left concerned about free speech. Is that concern really about the principle, or is it purely partisan?
        jtgeibel 5y ago
        It's almost as if the constitution binds the Florida government while not binding businesses like Twitter. It isn't strange at all when you don't conflate two different concepts. It is strange that the entirely of "the left" takes the blame for private actions taken by business, which is then used as some strange "well they started it" reaction by Republican lawmakers to do a much more egregious version of exactly what they repeatedly claim they are against.
digsy 5y ago
There are 1800+ special districts in Florida. Special priviledges are hardly limited to Disney.
colburnmh 5y ago
> how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? Because 1844 other special districts exist in Florida, including Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, HOAs, fire districts, water districts, law libraries, development holdings, etc. So Disney does not have rights that nobody else has, and those rights exist to allow those entities to have control over their property to avoid unnecessary, costly, and unproductive conflicts with county rules.

TYPE_FASTER 5y ago

The Disney change served as a distraction from the recent redistricting. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/florida/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps...

refurb 5y ago

According to Wall Street Journal the deal expires regardless so it’s more of a non-renewal.

colburnmh 5y ago
The creation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District had no sunset clause or date. The new law, passed as written in SB-4C, dissolves the 6 special districts (out of 1844) that were not specifically re-established after the Florida constitution was updated in 1969. There was no requirement that existing districts be re-established until SB-4C was passed, which retroactively and implicitly requires re-establishing special districts.

7speter 5y ago

IntelMiner 5y ago

dave5104 5y ago
> not educated enough to think critically and realize their tax dollars will now subsidize the millions (billions?) of dollars of infrastructure For what it's worth, it's likely residents of Orange and Osceola Counties will be taking up most of that extra tax burden. Both of those counties are relatively blue, and neither of them voted for DeSantis... so that's probably just gravy to him.
- hansthehorse 5y ago
  I think they are solid blue. Orange went +23% Biden and Osceola +13% Biden.
- ericmay 5y ago
  What's the backstop for the counties declaring bankruptcy? Given I don't know what's what here, but I wonder if either of these counties could then apply some sort of out-of-county tax to Disney visitors to make up for this? Like say they work with Disney and anyone who doesn't live in those counties pays an extra $10 on their ticket. I think I read the estimated additional tax cost was around $250 for the average family/year.
eatonphil 5y ago
> Clownsantis > and 4 orange years I'm sympathetic, but stooping to childish words lowers the quality of your argument. Your statement would have been more effective by just saying "Desantis" and "four years of Trump".
- usrn 5y ago
  This is HN now. And of course only one side is allowed to behave like children while the other is just silenced.
  - 5y ago

dave5104 5y ago

> local governments who would likely be bending over backwards to appease the house of mouse. This part isn't necessarily guaranteed. Over in California, Disneyland frequently has trouble with Anaheim/Orange County when seeking approval for new projects. They've had entire hotels and parking structures designed, publicly announced, and then canceled because the local government wouldn't play ball. The only thing that guarantees Disney's continued ability to build whatever in Florida is if they continue to be their own local government.

AndrewUnmuted 5y ago

A corporation being granted the permission of owning an entire chunk of the American public's land and taking over all local and state governance for itself is also rather unconstitutional. It's sophomoric and clownish of people to assert constitutionality upon an issue such as this one. It's unconstitutional all the way down.

Volundr 5y ago
> A corporation being granted the permission of owning an entire chunk of the American public's land and taking over all local and state governance for itself is also rather unconstitutional. Is it? What provision(s) of the constitution does it violate?
- codeguro 5y ago
  The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 - equality under the law. Why should disney be exempt from property taxes? From state taxes? What gives Disney Corp the right to influence the policies of Florida whey they do not subject themselves to those same policies?
  - vmception 5y ago
    Florida's Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the Reedy Creek Improvement Act did not violate any provision of Florida's constitution. To apply the Federal constitution, a federal court case requires there to be an aggrieved party (and Florida state judges likely won't/can't revisit this to apply US constitution). Which leaves just Florida, which has no standing to challenge its own law after being enjoined by its own legal process, and leaves Disney which only gains from the contortions of the State of Florida and would also not challenge. All residents of Reedy Creek are Disney employees and their children, a major disincentive for any of them to be the political activist and challenge it, they are poorly paid and their rent is cheap ($75/month for space if using a mobile home).
    - codeguro 5y ago

jansen555 5y ago

upsidesinclude 5y ago

You might want to browse over the definition of authoritarian. That's not facetious. You are being hyperbolic, but it seems that people leaning progressive and liberal are capable of amazing contortions when it comes to the meaning of words.

_moof 5y ago
I looked it up. Florida's actions are authoritarian.