| From: | Stephen Delear <c715591@******.MISSOURI.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Fwd: Re: Disney |
| Date: | Thu, 23 Apr 1998 15:42:05 -0500 |
>Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 14:58:59 EDT
>Reply-To: TWBurton <TWBurton@***.COM>
>Sender: NPPA Discussion List <NPPA-L@*****.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
>From: TWBurton <TWBurton@***.COM>
>Subject: Re: Disney
>To: NPPA-L@*****.CSV.CMICH.EDU
>
>>Tim and All,
>>
>>Please excuse any ignorance shown by my question but if Disney is
>>incorporated as a Municpal Utility District (MUD) are they not a
>>government enity? What are the laws in Florida and elsewhere? If
>>they are a MUD, are they subject in FL to any state open records or
>>meetings laws? Or the Bill of Rights (the first and fourthh
>>admendments would seen to apply here)? I believe that MUD's are
>>considered subject to the state open records and meetings act here in
>>TX and I would assume that would extend to open censorship of the
>>media by a MUD. Does anyone know for sure?
>>
>>Matthew
>>Texas A&M University
>>NPPA MEMBER #33259
>
>Matthew,
>
>Disney's unique situation is very confusing and it leads to lawsuits.
However,
>the story about the confiscated video tape has nothing to do with their
>special status. That seems to be simply a case of an individual overstepping
>their boundaries. And in the case of "forbidden" pictures or limited access,
>Disney as a corporation is applying their rights as a private business on
>their own property.
>
>On the bigger scene: In 1967 the Florida Legislature approved the creation of
>the Reedy Creek Improvement District. The 24,000-acre district is not
entirely
>owned by Disney, but nearly so. Landowners in the district elect the Reedy
>Creek board and only 50 people live in Reedy Creek - all of them Disney
>employees or spouses who rent tailers owned by Disney. When land not owned by
>Disney has been developed for residential use it has been de-annexed from
>Reedy Creek.
>
>Reedy Creek is not a traditional municipality, but it does control its own
>planning, zoning, transportation, fire protection and utilities. It can
>condemn property while paying for infrastructure improvements by taxing the
>property owners. Nearly all the property is owned by Disney. This allows
>Disney to finance, build and oversee its own development without interference
>from other governments. Disney and Reedy Creek both claim that the
Improvement
>District is independent but most observers say that's as real as Tinker Bell.
>
>The records of Reedy Creek are open, but there was a lawsuit last year where
>the courts decided that the records of Disney's security operation are not
>subject to open records laws. Reedy Creek has, under its charter, the ability
>to hire services from law enforcement agencies such as a local sheriff's
>department but they never have done that, relying instead on Disney security.
>This case was brought by a family whose son was killed in a high speed chase
>on Disney property. The State Attorney's Office and The Orlando Sentinel
>joined the case as interested parties and the Sentinel dropped their
corporate
>attorney when he defended Disney in this trial. The court ruled that Disney
>security, even on the public roads of the Reedy Creek District, is operating
>in the interest of the company and its "guests" and not in the interest of
>public safety and is therefore not required to have open records.
>
>It can be confusing.
>
>Tom Burton
>The Orlando Sentinel
>
Stephen Delear
University of Missouri-Columbia
Check out my Photo Message Board at http://www.missouri.edu/~c715591
"Sometimes I do get to places just when God's ready to have somebody click
the shutter" Ansel Adams
