4 ms·

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

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
      The Florida State Legislatures and the Florida Executive Administrators disagree, which is why they are removing their special tax exemption status. Disney should not and cannot influence Florida's policies when they (and their employees) are exempt from the very policies they influence. No taxation, no representation. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.
      - vmception 4y ago
        okay. I really am amused by the power of being able to have lawyers that understand the law better than the people that wrote or passed the law. I think Disney has that power. Its not that they necessarily understand it better although that can be a factor, its that they can warp realities with unrelated variables to create their desired reality.
        colburnmh 4y ago
        Given that this law went from draft to law in under 96 hours, it's hardly surprising that the implications were not fully reviewed or understood by the legislature. Further, a number of the points being discussed here were brought up in conversations before the law was passed, so it's not like the legislators couldn't have, or shouldn't have known--they just chose to ignore the issues rather the spend time to understand and address them.
      - Volundr 4y ago
        > The Florida State Legislatures and the Florida Executive Administrators disagree Again they do? With a quick search I can't find any statement made by either the legislature or the administration that the arrangement is unconstitutional. Yes, they are attempting to repeal it, but simply repealing it doesn't imply unconstitutionality. In fact I think we can safely infer that they don't given that there is no attempt to revoke similar arrangements with stadiums and other such situations in which private businesses get a variety of advantages not available to the average business or taxpayer.
      - colburnmh 4y ago
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    They DO pay the taxes! That’s the point. This district controls resources and Disney alone pays for it. If it is dissolved, the state pays it, and that’s the issue. Disney saves $1Bn in debt payment because the debt is owned by the district that they’re the only taxpayer of.
    - colburnmh 4y ago
      The state doesn't, the taxpayers of Orange and Osceola counties pay for it.
seo-speedwagon 4y ago
Genuine question: how do you figure it’s unconstitutional? Don’t states have pretty broad sway in how they manage their municipalities? It’s not like this is the first time a company owned a company town edit: also it seems like they mostly took over local governance - fire, sewer, cops, trash, etc. I haven’t read anything about them not being subject to the state laws of Florida
- colburnmh 4y ago
  As noted elsewhere in this thread: the special district laws and the RCID, specifically, have survived constitutional review by the Florida Supreme Court. The state certainly understands that these laws we deemed constitutional.
colburnmh 4y ago
> A corporation being granted the permission of owning an entire chunk of the American public's land Disney owns the land that RCID operates. It's not public lands and most, if not all of it, was bought from private landowners during the '60s. The term "public lands" refers to government-owned property. Sometimes public lands are loaned, licensed, or leased to private entities (e.g., for logging, oil-drilling, public services like gas stations, etc.) but that's not the case here. > taking over all local and state governance for itself is also rather unconstitutional. Florida has specific legislation allowing entities to take on portions of local, county and state governance as part of it's Special District laws. 1844 entities have been granted these rights, including Disney. See https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/special-districts/special-district-accountability-program/florida-special-district-handbook-online/introduction-to-special-districts https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s...

Volundr 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y ago
    The Florida State Legislatures and the Florida Executive Administrators disagree, which is why they are removing their special tax exemption status. Disney should not and cannot influence Florida's policies when they (and their employees) are exempt from the very policies they influence. No taxation, no representation. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.
    - vmception 4y ago
      okay. I really am amused by the power of being able to have lawyers that understand the law better than the people that wrote or passed the law. I think Disney has that power. Its not that they necessarily understand it better although that can be a factor, its that they can warp realities with unrelated variables to create their desired reality.
      - colburnmh 4y ago
        Given that this law went from draft to law in under 96 hours, it's hardly surprising that the implications were not fully reviewed or understood by the legislature. Further, a number of the points being discussed here were brought up in conversations before the law was passed, so it's not like the legislators couldn't have, or shouldn't have known--they just chose to ignore the issues rather the spend time to understand and address them.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > The Florida State Legislatures and the Florida Executive Administrators disagree Again they do? With a quick search I can't find any statement made by either the legislature or the administration that the arrangement is unconstitutional. Yes, they are attempting to repeal it, but simply repealing it doesn't imply unconstitutionality. In fact I think we can safely infer that they don't given that there is no attempt to revoke similar arrangements with stadiums and other such situations in which private businesses get a variety of advantages not available to the average business or taxpayer.
    - colburnmh 4y ago
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  They DO pay the taxes! That’s the point. This district controls resources and Disney alone pays for it. If it is dissolved, the state pays it, and that’s the issue. Disney saves $1Bn in debt payment because the debt is owned by the district that they’re the only taxpayer of.
  - colburnmh 4y ago
    The state doesn't, the taxpayers of Orange and Osceola counties pay for it.

seo-speedwagon 4y ago

Genuine question: how do you figure it’s unconstitutional? Don’t states have pretty broad sway in how they manage their municipalities? It’s not like this is the first time a company owned a company town edit: also it seems like they mostly took over local governance - fire, sewer, cops, trash, etc. I haven’t read anything about them not being subject to the state laws of Florida

colburnmh 4y ago
As noted elsewhere in this thread: the special district laws and the RCID, specifically, have survived constitutional review by the Florida Supreme Court. The state certainly understands that these laws we deemed constitutional.

colburnmh 4y ago

> A corporation being granted the permission of owning an entire chunk of the American public's land Disney owns the land that RCID operates. It's not public lands and most, if not all of it, was bought from private landowners during the '60s. The term "public lands" refers to government-owned property. Sometimes public lands are loaned, licensed, or leased to private entities (e.g., for logging, oil-drilling, public services like gas stations, etc.) but that's not the case here. > taking over all local and state governance for itself is also rather unconstitutional. Florida has specific legislation allowing entities to take on portions of local, county and state governance as part of it's Special District laws. 1844 entities have been granted these rights, including Disney. See https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/special-districts/special-district-accountability-program/florida-special-district-handbook-online/introduction-to-special-districts https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s...