|
|
Post by oldhalfelf on Apr 19, 2023 14:04:55 GMT -5
Oh Look......... SQUIRREL!!!   says to self: "Is that an Incredi-pass I see?" |
|
|
|
Post by helenabear on Apr 19, 2023 14:31:58 GMT -5
Sciurus carolinensis says to self: "Is that an Incredi-pass I see?" Good luck tomorrow little guy..... no later than 6am and I'm sure it will go swimmingly  |
|
|
|
Post by SuzanneSLO on Apr 20, 2023 20:12:57 GMT -5
Now that the State of Florida has determined that it not age appropriate for even high school seniors to receive education on gender identity except in reproductive health classes, I hope Disney never backs down. Florida representatives like to say that the state’s motto is “Free” but to me it looks more like “Hate.”
|
|
|
|
Post by leftcoaster on Apr 20, 2023 20:16:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SuzanneSLO on Apr 21, 2023 8:41:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Adelard of Bath on Apr 21, 2023 9:14:05 GMT -5
No name calling, no bashing, no saying dumb things. |
|
|
|
Post by cornbread on Apr 21, 2023 11:40:48 GMT -5
But you're missing some of the facts in your analysis. It's not that Disney disagreed with the laws the Florida legislature created. It's that Disney then said they would put campaign money and their large PR business behind opposing that legislation and the politicians who enacted it. That was an opening salvo. And that's where I think they crossed the line. If the statement had simply been they disagreed with the law and why, then they're completely entitled to that opinion. And anything the Florida legislature did would have been nothing but retaliatory. But keep in mind that Florida had that special district because they had been working the Florida legislature for years. They donated to candidates they liked who would support their business. They used their influence to help themselves. That's what companies do. And they're entitled to do that. Now they can choose to not support any candidate. But if they declare open war on a sitting legislature for something that has no direct on the effect on their business, then they should not expect that legislature to continue giving them a benefit especially carved out for them. To give you another analogy, let's say you have a family BBQ restaurant. Your child becomes a vegetarian and wants you to stop serving meat. So then your child leads a group of protesters to blockade the front entrance to your restaurant preventing any customers from entering. Therefore you can't do any business. And your child lives in your home, with you paying for his medical insurance, housing and food. Are you going to be inclined to want to continue paying for those expenses when your child prevents you from earning the money to pay for that? It's a direct threat to your well-being. That is what Disney did. They directly threatened the careers of those Florida legislators. Of course it was going to get personal. Disney started it! That's the mistake they made. They should have just said they disagreed with the law and why. But then taking the action to unseat those politicians was a step too far. It may have been what their California cast members wanted, but it was not in the company's best interest and therefore it wasn't in the shareholders best interest.
Should corporations be able to support candidates or not? For better or for worse, Citizens United confirmed that corporations can do so. We either need to allow it for all or none. If Disney shouldn't put campaign money behind an issue, then no corporation should be allowed to for any politician or PAC. I'd support that, but that's certainly not what Governor DeSantis (or most politicians) wants. I don't hear anything about him wanting to block such campaign contributions. He only wants to block ones to candidates/causes that oppose him.
Disney should face the consequences of their decisions and speech from their customers. Whether that be campaign/issue support, pricing, rules, labor relations, etc.. They are certainly far from a noble entity solely out for the greater good- plenty to agree and disagree with. Governor DeSantis should be free to rail against them and call for boycotts and debate positions with them. But to punitively wield the power of the state against them and threaten to do more to try and cow them?
Your BBQ/threatening legislators' livlihood example scares me. Should any corporation or even a person be at risk of retaliation by elected officials for opposing them? Hearing public threats from a government official to take punitive action against those who disagree with him, and then passing legislation to do so... Regardless of where anyone falls on the political spectrum, this is frightening.
Got a little deep there, but liked tomandrobin's squirrel, so ending with a funny baby yoda video:
|
|
|
|
Post by cornbread on Apr 21, 2023 11:52:56 GMT -5
What's missed in all the hoopla about Reedy Creek is that it seems to be a unique success story around a kind of privatizing of government services. Disney's "governing" of itself, as detailed in link above, is really focused around utilities, roads, & development process/rules. The quality of these services seem to exceed what's in place elsewhere at a cost they are willing to bear. Now, there's a big catch in that while Disney pays for all of it, they are also the primary beneficiary of the services and would suffer should the quality be cut back too far. There's generally not such a direct link/consequence in most privatization schemes. Maybe it wouldn't be possible to replicate this anywhere else. But I wonder if just maybe there's a lesson that could be drawn on linking all the stakeholders together to better avoid the quality/corruption/profiteering issues that arise elsewhere. Or, it may just be a unique situation due to a single party effectively being the supplier and consumer of services and having to look out for itself from all angles.
|
|
|
|
Post by broganmc on Apr 21, 2023 15:54:40 GMT -5
But you're missing some of the facts in your analysis. It's not that Disney disagreed with the laws the Florida legislature created. It's that Disney then said they would put campaign money and their large PR business behind opposing that legislation and the politicians who enacted it. That was an opening salvo. And that's where I think they crossed the line. If the statement had simply been they disagreed with the law and why, then they're completely entitled to that opinion. And anything the Florida legislature did would have been nothing but retaliatory. But keep in mind that Florida had that special district because they had been working the Florida legislature for years. They donated to candidates they liked who would support their business. They used their influence to help themselves. That's what companies do. And they're entitled to do that. Now they can choose to not support any candidate. But if they declare open war on a sitting legislature for something that has no direct on the effect on their business, then they should not expect that legislature to continue giving them a benefit especially carved out for them. To give you another analogy, let's say you have a family BBQ restaurant. Your child becomes a vegetarian and wants you to stop serving meat. So then your child leads a group of protesters to blockade the front entrance to your restaurant preventing any customers from entering. Therefore you can't do any business. And your child lives in your home, with you paying for his medical insurance, housing and food. Are you going to be inclined to want to continue paying for those expenses when your child prevents you from earning the money to pay for that? It's a direct threat to your well-being. That is what Disney did. They directly threatened the careers of those Florida legislators. Of course it was going to get personal. Disney started it! That's the mistake they made. They should have just said they disagreed with the law and why. But then taking the action to unseat those politicians was a step too far. It may have been what their California cast members wanted, but it was not in the company's best interest and therefore it wasn't in the shareholders best interest.
Should corporations be able to support candidates or not? For better or for worse, Citizens United confirmed that corporations can do so. We either need to allow it for all or none. If Disney shouldn't put campaign money behind an issue, then no corporation should be allowed to for any politician or PAC. I'd support that, but that's certainly not what Governor DeSantis (or most politicians) wants. I don't hear anything about him wanting to block such campaign contributions. He only wants to block ones to candidates/causes that oppose him.
Disney should face the consequences of their decisions and speech from their customers. Whether that be campaign/issue support, pricing, rules, labor relations, etc.. They are certainly far from a noble entity solely out for the greater good- plenty to agree and disagree with. Governor DeSantis should be free to rail against them and call for boycotts and debate positions with them. But to punitively wield the power of the state against them and threaten to do more to try and cow them?
Your BBQ/threatening legislators' livlihood example scares me. Should any corporation or even a person be at risk of retaliation by elected officials for opposing them? Hearing public threats from a government official to take punitive action against those who disagree with him, and then passing legislation to do so... Regardless of where anyone falls on the political spectrum, this is frightening.
Got a little deep there, but liked tomandrobin's squirrel, so ending with a funny baby yoda video:
My barbecue restaurant analogy was to explain the positions of both the Florida legislature and Disney. In that example the parents who own the barbecue restaurant would be the Florida legislature. And the child who was actively working to harm the restaurant would be Disney. I use that analogy to explain the motivations behind both sides. To put it simply, the Florida legislature and Disney are arguing over which one is more important to the other. It's stupid because we know Disney is never going to pull up stakes and move Disney World out of the state. Just as we know Florida is not going to kick them out. They need each other. So they should respect each other. I see childishness in both Disney and the Florida legislature. I think the big difference here is a lot of people in this thread don't recognize the childishness of Disney. It's fine that they express an opinion and opposed the Florida government. But when they started working deals behind the scenes to "get one up on" the state that's when they lost me. It tells me they want to enjoy the benefits of being in Florida while flaunting Florida's government and by extension they're people. That behavior is beneath them. Just as DeSantis tossing out threats such as building prisons or imposing toll roads on Disney is beneath him. |
|
|
|
Post by helenabear on Apr 21, 2023 16:09:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SuzanneSLO on Apr 21, 2023 16:46:05 GMT -5
Should corporations be able to support candidates or not? For better or for worse, Citizens United confirmed that corporations can do so. We either need to allow it for all or none. If Disney shouldn't put campaign money behind an issue, then no corporation should be allowed to for any politician or PAC. I'd support that, but that's certainly not what Governor DeSantis (or most politicians) wants. I don't hear anything about him wanting to block such campaign contributions. He only wants to block ones to candidates/causes that oppose him.
Disney should face the consequences of their decisions and speech from their customers. Whether that be campaign/issue support, pricing, rules, labor relations, etc.. They are certainly far from a noble entity solely out for the greater good- plenty to agree and disagree with. Governor DeSantis should be free to rail against them and call for boycotts and debate positions with them. But to punitively wield the power of the state against them and threaten to do more to try and cow them?
Your BBQ/threatening legislators' livlihood example scares me. Should any corporation or even a person be at risk of retaliation by elected officials for opposing them? Hearing public threats from a government official to take punitive action against those who disagree with him, and then passing legislation to do so... Regardless of where anyone falls on the political spectrum, this is frightening.
Got a little deep there, but liked tomandrobin's squirrel, so ending with a funny baby yoda video:
My barbecue restaurant analogy was to explain the positions of both the Florida legislature and Disney. In that example the parents who own the barbecue restaurant would be the Florida legislature. And the child who was actively working to harm the restaurant would be Disney. I use that analogy to explain the motivations behind both sides. To put it simply, the Florida legislature and Disney are arguing over which one is more important to the other. It's stupid because we know Disney is never going to pull up stakes and move Disney World out of the state. Just as we know Florida is not going to kick them out. They need each other. So they should respect each other. I see childishness in both Disney and the Florida legislature. I think the big difference here is a lot of people in this thread don't recognize the childishness of Disney. It's fine that they express an opinion and opposed the Florida government. But when they started working deals behind the scenes to "get one up on" the state that's when they lost me. It tells me they want to enjoy the benefits of being in Florida while flaunting Florida's government and by extension they're people. That behavior is beneath them. Just as DeSantis tossing out threats such as building prisons or imposing toll roads on Disney is beneath him. In my view, Disney did not take the actions it took to “get one up on” the state. Disney had a short window with a friendly governing body and used that window to protect its investment into the future. And again, if Florida decided that it would change the control for all 1800 Special Districts, I might disagree with that but still find it to be an appropriate exercise of legislative and judicial power. But when they change how 1 Special District is controlled while letting the others go on their merry way, it seems entirely rational for Disney to take those actions it deemed necessary to protect its economic investment. Further, Disney’s actions likely put it in no worse position than if they had done nothing. They are still subject to the State appointed Board and if the contracts are voided, then that control will extend to all things the Special District formerly known as Reedy Creek controlled. The only way Disney ends up worse is if a Court looking at the recent contracts says that all 50+ years of actions by Reedy Creek are void. Finally, I’m not sure how DeSantos gets anything out of continued legal wrangling that could easily last years. Once you look stupid, weak and helpless — to other Republicans — you can never be their Presidential nominee. And what does the State get out of this? Disney is going to fight the State for as long as it takes — and even close down its Florida operations — before it will give final script approval on all its projects — movies, TV shows, theme parks rides - to a committee appointed by the Governor of Florida. |
|
|
|
Post by cornbread on Apr 21, 2023 20:38:57 GMT -5
My barbecue restaurant analogy was to explain the positions of both the Florida legislature and Disney. In that example the parents who own the barbecue restaurant would be the Florida legislature. And the child who was actively working to harm the restaurant would be Disney. I use that analogy to explain the motivations behind both sides. To put it simply, the Florida legislature and Disney are arguing over which one is more important to the other. It's stupid because we know Disney is never going to pull up stakes and move Disney World out of the state. Just as we know Florida is not going to kick them out. They need each other. So they should respect each other. I see childishness in both Disney and the Florida legislature. I think the big difference here is a lot of people in this thread don't recognize the childishness of Disney. It's fine that they express an opinion and opposed the Florida government. But when they started working deals behind the scenes to "get one up on" the state that's when they lost me. It tells me they want to enjoy the benefits of being in Florida while flaunting Florida's government and by extension they're people. That behavior is beneath them. Just as DeSantis tossing out threats such as building prisons or imposing toll roads on Disney is beneath him.
I'm purposely avoiding the original dispute over the law in question, not because it's not important, but a.) it is a political discussion which we like to avoid here and b.) it doesn't matter in regard to what bothers me here. If a Democratic governor/legislature was misusing their authority to punish Disney for opposing a law that did the opposite of everything in this one, I'd feel the same way. The power of the state should not be wielded as a weapon to punish those who disagree with you.
There's nothing wrong with Florida's Governor/Legislature & Disney arguing & debating. They can both be as right or wrong as they want in their eyes or anyone else's. Florida passing a law that punished Disney for expressing an opinion is what was way over the line. And then when it turned out Florida overreached with its targeted law that affected only Disney (didn't see any other improvement districts being disolved) because they did a poor job and missed the $1B in debt, they again took punitive action (appointing cronies to the board who threaten to gum up the district with increased taxes and delays unless Disney started acting like they wanted). But if you have to get past two blatant misuses of government authority to find something comparable done by Disney, I think that says something about both sides not shouldering equal blame here.
Governor DeSantis has vocal supporters who fund his campaigns and funded publicity for the passage of the original law that kicked all this off. If he did nothing wrong with targeting Disney for campaigning against the law, then that says that future Florida governors or legislators would be well within their rights to publicly go after those supporters with punitive laws tailored to affect just them. Guess each of them should get a prison next to their house their taxes raised, and the government entering into competing businesses to theirs, etc... I'd be vehemently opposed to that too. That's not the kind of government any of us should have.
The BBQ example doesn't quite fit. Opposing a politician's actions/positions or supporting their opponent is in no way an excuse for open season because the politician's livelihood is affected. It's literally the how a multi-party system works and people and corporations and other organizations fund opponents of those they disagree with. And all the lobbying of which there is too much. But in the US, we don't let the winning candidates persecute the losing ones or their supporters.
I expect corporations to look out for their own interest which won't always align with my interests or the the public's. And I expect government to punish violation of laws and use their authority responsibly.
And regardless of what happens, I expect my DVC dues, park ticket prices, and food/souvenir prices to ever creep upward. Be it from the improvement district spending, more taxes, or more Disney profits, it will all come out of my pocket just the same. But, we still find value from the experience, so we'll keep paying until we don't. So there's still magic left in our eyes. I hope it continues for a while to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by cornbread on Apr 21, 2023 22:10:29 GMT -5
The podcast someone posted was an interesting listen. The statement that popped the most was that the new board was upset that the restrictions agreed just before their takeover would limit them to maintaining the roads and infrastructure. What else were they expecting to do? Isn't that the point of this district? Or was it:
But in effect, DeSantis said last week, the board will also serve as a moral arbiter.
"When you lose your way, you gotta have people that are going to tell you the truth," the governor said. "All these board members very much would like to see the type of entertainment that all families can appreciate."
|
|
|
|
Post by rigby on Apr 22, 2023 9:10:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BWV Dreamin on Apr 22, 2023 9:17:26 GMT -5
So I am in the middle on this. No one side is right. This is a power play, sorry started by Disney. If Disney thinks they are going to become, stay, their own entity, it’s over. This will be a long drawn out event if some type of negotiations don’t start happening on both sides. And Iger, get out from behind your pompous attitude and start negotiating. This is going to be an example where the governor is going to show big business you are not above the government.
|
|
