[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Half??????? Get real.

The first three links in a google search plus the census.gov site give the percentage of the population identifying as white, non-hispanic as 58% to 60%. That alone is nearly half.

The information I can find says nearly 3.5% of Americans identify as LGB and another 0.3% identify at T which would make the white, non-hispanic, not LGBT population at 56% to 58%.

So sure, if you don't like "half the population" then let's go with "very nearly half the population"

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Let's be more honest. This is NOT a free speech issue. Disney is a publicly traded corporation. As such, it's obligation, in fact it's only legal obligation, is to try to make money for it's shareholders. Does anyone think that Disney is going to enhance it's bottom line by taking a stand in favor of questionable curriculum for 5 year olds???? After all, doesn't Disney stand for family fun and entertainment?
But beyond that, they made the statement that they will spend money to fight similar legislation in other states! That's right, spend SHAREHOLDER money to wage a political battle that flies in the face of what Walt Disney created. I can pretty much guarantee that if they actually spend that money there will be class action lawsuit filed within a day.

BTW, I'm not particularly in favor of overturning these old agreements as retribution, Florida could be cutting off its nose to spite its face

But I like your acquiescence that "corporations are people too"

Funny how I also mentioned that "cutting off the nose to spite the face" saying.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The first three links in a google search plus the census.gov site give the percentage of the population identifying as white, non-hispanic as 58% to 60%. That alone is nearly half.

The information I can find says nearly 3.5% of Americans identify as LGB and another 0.3% identify at T which would make the white, non-hispanic, not LGBT population at 56% to 58%.

So sure, if you don't like "half the population" then let's go with "very nearly half the population"

WHAT?????

Is that some kind of common core math??????

If 3.8% identify as LGBT (3.5 plus 0.3) and 60% are white, that's 2.28% of the population are white LGBTs and 1.52% are non-white LGBTs. Personally, I like the law that caters to the 96.2% of us that don't want this crap taught to our 5 year olds.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Why does anyone have to comment on anything that doesn't concern them? Why do people comment on a woman having an abortion, that is between her and her doctor, but it certainly gets a lot of talking.

Many religions have a "thing" about abortions. But, I remember reading something about the Separation of Church and State in grade school. So, I guess it is not really an issue today?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

It never was an issue until Disney spoke out defending LGBTQ rights. Then within days, it's an end of the world issue. I don't know if it is true, but I expect at least a few of the 50 million people that visit Disney every year, might have gone into that airport at some point.

This type of nonsense is having consequences all over the country, with companies moving or transferring people Even the military has announced they will relocate any members that feel threatened by recent laws in-acted in Florida to bases in other states.

Tell me are we great yet?

That fact about the military is just another in a long and growing list of "unintended consequences".

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I think everyone, including corporations have a right to free speech which the government can not interfere with except in very carefully defined circumstances - same with people. The circumstances include things like speech that can directly lead to death, national security, etc. All RIGHTS can be regulated.

The right to free speech is a right to speak against the government without being incarcerated. However, that right does not prevent you from feeling consequences for your speech. Additionally, that right does have limits.

I cannot speak freely on FaceBook, since it is not a government entity. I cannot freely say I seek the felonious death of a president. I cannot say how badly the IRS is corrupted, and be protected if they decide to more closely audit my last return. There are limits and consequences to free speech, except incarceration.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

...

Like it or not, when you get outside the bubble there are many LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC people (half the population?). Hoping for more Disney characters that look like your LGBTQIA+ or BIPOC children or grandchildren or grandchildren's friends is not indoctrination to me.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The first three links in a google search plus the census.gov site give the percentage of the population identifying as white, non-hispanic as 58% to 60%. That alone is nearly half.

The information I can find says nearly 3.5% of Americans identify as LGB and another 0.3% identify at T which would make the white, non-hispanic, not LGBT population at 56% to 58%.

So sure, if you don't like "half the population" then let's go with "very nearly half the population"

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

WHAT?????

Is that some kind of common core math??????

If 3.8% identify as LGBT (3.5 plus 0.3) and 60% are white, that's 2.28% of the population are white LGBTs and 1.52% are non-white LGBTs. Personally, I like the law that caters to the 96.2% of us that don't want this crap taught to our 5 year olds.

Since you choose to be snarky....

I've included my original post and your highlighting.

1. I didn't claim half the population was LGBTQIA+, as you can see above. I wrote there were many LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC people and wondered if it was half the population

2. If 60% of the population is white, non-hispanic then 40% (100% - 60%) are BIPOC. That is nearly half the population right there.

3. if 3.5% are LGB and 0.3% are T then at least 3.8% are LGBTQIA+. Next, 3.8% of 60% is 2.28% (we'll use 2% to make the math easier). 60% white, non-hispanic less 2% LGBTQ, white, non-hispanic leaves 58% white, non-hispanic, non-LGBTQIA+.

4. If 58% are white, non-hispanic, non-LGBTQUI+ then 100%-58% = 42%, or very nearly half, who are either LGBTQIA+ or BIPOC - which, I think, is what I wrote above.

(snarky comment that didn't move the discussion forward deleted)

You "like the law that caters to the 96.2% of us that don't want this crap taught to our 5 year olds?" I take offense when you direct your misplaced snark at me but even still I cannot believe you are accusing the entire white, LGBTQIA+ population of wanting "this crap" to be taught to 5 year olds! You really don't believe that, do you?

(and as I mentioned earlier, the law says more than just that but I'm concerned about discussing those details under the rules of this forum)

[Babubhat]

This thread belongs in the trash can.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The government of The Villages is based closely on that of the way the Disney developments are financed and governed. The exception I believe is that Disney issues the bond financing to fund their developments, but retains the obligation to repay those bonds. The result is that Disney retains the authority to “govern” the areas using that form of financing.

In the case of The Villages, the obligation to service and repay the bonds used to fund infrastructure development is transferred to home buyers when they close on the purchase of their homes. Governance of The Villages is then transferred to homeowners over a team-year period, after which the homeowners have the authority and responsibility to elect representatives to self-govern.

The question I have is whether the legislation passed yesterday will prevent the issuance of the bonds by The Villages in the first place? That is, will the Developer be required to fund the infrastructure and recreational facilities and then try to repay themselves thru much higher sales prices of new homes?

I haven’t read any analysis of the new Florida law, but it seems to me that it will change the fundamental formula which has permitted over thirty years of successful development of The Villages and rapidly speed the responsibility for providing and all the services normally provided by governmental agencies. The question that follows of course is whether real estate taxes will have to immediately put in place to provide and fund the governance of The Villages which had been provided by the Developer over the initial ten-year period following completion of various phases of the development?

I sure don’t have those answers, max out site seems to follow that the cost of infrastructure development will have to be’ baked in’ to the selling prices of new homes with the residents immediately assuming the responsibility of forming, organizing and paying for all the units of government required.

Somehow, I think, the new law also has to effect residents of The Villages by removing the decision-making currently being provided by The Villages Developer.

An old saying seems to apply… If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Good thoughtful Post. Humpty Dumpty seems to be broken. It may be difficult to put this together again.

[Worldseries27]

Originally Posted by bill14564

as others have mentioned, this particular bill only affects districts in place before 1968 which means it affects disney but would not affect the villages.

The villages is made up of a large number of special districts. To better understand the structure you should really attend the resident academy. That presentation gives a lot of information about how things are set up and how the several districts work with one another to provide services to the villages.

If all our districts were wiped away the counties (sumter, lake, and marion) would suddenly be responsible for providing the services we now use. The maintenance of the town squares, postal stations, recreation centers, pools, roads in the villa sections, flowers in the medians, and gate houses would fall to the county. Wages for the gate guards, recreation department, and community watch would fall to the county. The water, sewer, and irrigation infrastructure would become the county responsibility. And i believe the bond debt would become a county liability.

The county would need to find funding for all of that or the county would drop the services. They might be able to absorb the water and sewer infrastructure and provide service at the same rate we are paying now. Our amenity fee would go away because there would no longer be anyone to collect it. What we now call amenities would become public county facilities. The county could increase taxes to pay for those facilities but the increase would be spread across the entire county and not just the homes north of 44 and east of 301. Maybe the employees that are now paid by the villages would be hired by the county but again, the county would need to collect more taxes in order to pay for those employees.

Dismantling the many special districts that make up the villages would not be easy. "the villages" would cease to exist. Anything paid for now through amenity fees or bond maintenance fees would need to be paid for through county taxes or simply boarded up. The process wouldn't be pretty. I hope i'm long gone before some politician decides to try it.

based on your analysis then all our pools, fields, recreation centers, everything would be open to everyone?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

For the same reason you get to comment on things that don't concern you. If you don't like Disney, you're not obligated to go there. If you live in the Villages, the Governor's decision has zero impact on you at all.

There may be unintended consequences that affect TV Land.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

So, I will politely ask for you to provide ANY proof that Disney is Grooming. expect this will go the same route as the "Big Lie" - no proof, lots of bluster. And a lot of damage to America, by spreading these lies.

Disney Worlds entire business model is to make guests happy So, you are arguing 50 million guests bring their children to be Groomed, because it makes them happy? If not, how many 5 years olds visit Disney every year without their parents there to protect them. If none, then I guess you believe the GOVERNMENT (DeSantis) has the right to tell parents how they can raise their children. Is that hypocrisy I hear rattling around on this thread?

It is so sad how Fox, NewsMax and OAN can Mae a stupid statement like this and suddenly so many people just echo it.

It is sad! And the origins can be found offshore and are directly related to the current war between Democracy and Dictatorship.

[jmpate]

My understanding about Special Districts is this. That some organizations were provided certain tax advantages when they came to Florida, Disney being one of them. The move to dissolve the "special districts" is because of idiological differences between the Disney management, for one and the people of Florida.

I know of at least 5 grand parents who will never again bring their grandchildren to any Disney entity because of their stance on LGBTQ issues.

Originally Posted by Rainger99

I heard on the radio that Florida may abolish special districts. Apparently Disney is a special district.

As a newcomer, I am still confused by the political districts in Florida. Would that impact us?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Elaine Dickinson

Agree! Former McDonald's CEO Ed Rensi is partnering with a team of advocacy groups to launch The Boardroom Initiative, a coalition with a mission to push back against U.S. corporations whose boardrooms are becoming too political.

Rensi will serve as executive chairman of the initiative that comprises conservative advocacy group The Job Creators Network founded by Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus along with two other conservative advocacy groups, The Free Enterprise Group and Second Vote. Their stated goal: to defend shareholders and employees of public companies from "woke" policies and ensure corporate accountability.

"Corporations have no business being on the right or the left because they represent everybody there and their sole job is to build equity for their investors" said Rensi.

Corporations need to be at the forefront of ALL progress - economic, scientific, and SOCIAL. Anything less is going backward, anti-progress.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Worldseries27

based on your analysis then all our pools, fields, recreation centers, everything would be open to everyone?

First, the recent issue does not apply to the Villages so we really don't need to worry about our districts and our pools. Second, I am not a lawyer nor a member of any county board so this is all just my guess.

That said, the pools and other amenities are owned by the district to be used by the residents of the districts. If the district were to no longer exist and all assets and liabilities were turned over to the county then it would make sense that the county would own the pools and they would be open to county residents.

The one catch might be that they amenities sit on land owned by the district. If the district were to be broken up it is possible that the county could not simply take the land and the amenities sitting on it. In that case it all might revert back to the developer who purchased the land in the first place. The developer would then be a large land owner with lots of building, pools, and golf courses who could sell memberships to use those facilities.

But again, this isn't going to happen so it's all just an exercise in "what if."