Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

tableturner

(1,840 posts)
10. Not according to FL Statute 189.072, Section 2a, plus would abridge free speech.
Mon May 16, 2022, 02:05 PM
May 2022

Link to the text of the statute:




Here is the relevant part:

"In order for the Legislature to dissolve an active independent special district created and operating pursuant to a special act, the special act dissolving the active independent special district must be approved by a majority of the resident electors of the district or, for districts in which a majority of governing body members are elected by landowners, a majority of the landowners voting in the same manner by which the independent special district’s governing body is elected. If a local general-purpose government passes an ordinance or resolution in support of the dissolution, the local general-purpose government must pay any expenses associated with the referendum required under this paragraph."

As it states, an act by the Florida Legislature dissolving a special district such as Reedy Creek must be approved by the majority of resident electors or landowners in the district. It would be the latter if the majority of governing body members are elected by landowners. The latter is in fact the case, so Disney must approve this.

Also, more importantly, when you use the power of the government to retaliate against an entity for disagreeing with those in government who are in power, that is a violation of the First Amendment.

Disney could win in court using either of the two approaches.

Edited to add a quote mark.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

How is this possibly legal? leftieNanner May 2022 #1
What the state grants, the state can take away. Zeitghost May 2022 #12
Binding contracts are only for schmucks like us lame54 May 2022 #13
I'm not aware of any contract Disney had with the state Zeitghost May 2022 #14
The state cannot take it away as a result of Disney saying something the state doesn't like In It to Win It May 2022 #15
Kind of Zeitghost May 2022 #16
and I'm sure that'll be their argument to the court if it ever gets to that stage In It to Win It May 2022 #18
Say Goodbye To Disney pressbox69 May 2022 #2
Disney's not going anywhere. maxsolomon May 2022 #6
DeSantis is giving the public his bullshit In It to Win It May 2022 #11
He can say they are, but that means nothing obamanut2012 May 2022 #3
For now, I think it's all talk to give red meat to his rabid voters In It to Win It May 2022 #4
Of course they will sue. Baitball Blogger May 2022 #9
What does "take over" mean exactly? Raven123 May 2022 #5
RCID would be disolved Zeitghost May 2022 #17
Of course the state will take over Reedy Creek. HubertHeaver May 2022 #7
Disney owns everything now. rownesheck May 2022 #8
Not according to FL Statute 189.072, Section 2a, plus would abridge free speech. tableturner May 2022 #10
Umm... the DePutin quote coming from WJAX-TV and picked up by other outlets is baffling... allegorical oracle May 2022 #19
It doesn't. He doesn't care that it doesn't make sense either. In It to Win It May 2022 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»State will likely take ov...»Reply #10