DeSantis and Perdue have some things in common with ... AOC (2 Viewers)

[SoBeDad]

First, there is his belief that government can do a better job than Disney in running Reedy Creek. Then, he says that he's not in favor of Twitter relocating to Florida, because it would increase living expenses in the Sunshine State. That's sounds a lot like AOC and her battle with Amazon. Given that Florida has many of the least affordable cities for renters, maybe he and AOC are right. Meanwhile, many mayors disagree with DeSantis.

>>Importing some tech company from San Francisco has not been high on our list,” DeSantis said in a press conference in Jacksonville on Monday. When technology companies like Twitter relocate, they drive up the cost of living for existing residents and the state is instead focused on attracting industrial and manufacturing businesses, he said.<<

DeSantis Says He Won’t Lure Twitter to Florida Because of Increased Costs

 

[The Commish]

First, there is his belief that government can do a better job than Disney in running Reedy Creek. Then, he says that he's not in favor of Twitter relocating to Florida, because it would increase living expenses in the Sunshine State. That's sounds a lot like AOC and her battle with Amazon. Given that Florida has many of the least affordable cities for renters, maybe he and AOC are right. Meanwhile, many mayors disagree with DeSantis.

>>Importing some tech company from San Francisco has not been high on our list,” DeSantis said in a press conference in Jacksonville on Monday. When technology companies like Twitter relocate, they drive up the cost of living for existing residents and the state is instead focused on attracting industrial and manufacturing businesses, he said.<<

DeSantis Says He Won’t Lure Twitter to Florida Because of Increased Costs

It's larger than this.  It's rather clear he believes that government can do a better job than businesses in general in making decisions for said businesses.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I seriously doubt that DeSantis thinks that the state of Florida will run Reedy Creek better than Disney does.  I think he just wants to stick it to Disney.  

 

[John123]

I seriously doubt that DeSantis thinks that the state of Florida will run Reedy Creek better than Disney does.  I think he just wants to stick it to Disney.  

Not just Disney.  He wanted to send a message to corporations that they should keep politics out of their business.  Which they used to do.  And we've seen since this issue that corporations ARE more hesitant to mix politics and business.  So it seems his messaging worked to some extent, at least in the short term.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not just Disney.  He wanted to send a message to corporations that they should keep politics out of their business.  Which they used to do.  And we've seen since this issue that corporations ARE more hesitant to mix politics and business.  So it seems his messaging worked to some extent, at least in the short term.

Agreed.  Seems obvious.  

 

[The Commish]

Not just Disney.  He wanted to send a message to corporations that they should keep politics out of their business.  Which they used to do.  And we've seen since this issue that corporations ARE more hesitant to mix politics and business.  So it seems his messaging worked to some extent, at least in the short term.

If anyone wanted evidence of the GOP sprint to the right, it's this shift.  Remember when corporations were people too?  I thought it was a stupid thing to stand for, but they did it and they fought for it to be so.  Now?  Nope...shut your mouths if you disagree with us  

ETA:  Do we have a list of corporations that would be voicing their opinions right now that aren't?  I don't follow much outside my state.  Hadn't heard about this.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Not just Disney.  He wanted to send a message to corporations that they should keep politics out of their business.  Which they used to do.  And we've seen since this issue that corporations ARE more hesitant to mix politics and business.  So it seems his messaging worked to some extent, at least in the short term.

If Disney had come out strongly in favor of the PRE/Don't Say Gay law, do you think DeSantis would still have felt the need to send them a message? Or are those messages just reserved for those with the "wrong" politics? 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Remember when corporations were people too? 

What's your view on this topic?  Do corporations have first amendment rights that the government can't infringe upon?  Or should we exclude them from any direct role in lobbying or other forms of policy-making?  (Edit: I don't mean to present this as some sort of total dichotomy -- feel free to elaborate if your views are more nuanced).  

I'm asking because I'm very firmly in the "corporations are people, too" camp and I feel pretty comfortable criticizing folks like DeSantis when they violate that principle.  But I've always been led to believe that I'm in the minority on that, so I'm kind of surprised to find so many people suddenly on my side.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If Disney had come out strongly in favor of the PRE/Don't Say Gay law, do you think DeSantis would still have felt the need to send them a message? Or are those messages just reserved for those with the "wrong" politics? 

I'm trying to think of an example of where a politician intentionally punished somebody for agreeing with them, and I'm coming up empty.  So I'm going to guess that this a "wrong politics" situation.  DeSantis basically said as much, right?

This thread feels like the product of a bunch of people trying to rationalize why DeSantis went after Disney when DeSantis pretty much told us exactly what he was going after Disney, and his explanation is actually worse than the motives that his opponents are attributing to him.  

 

[Alex P Keaton]

First, there is his belief that government can do a better job than Disney in running Reedy Creek. Then, he says that he's not in favor of Twitter relocating to Florida, because it would increase living expenses in the Sunshine State. That's sounds a lot like AOC and her battle with Amazon. Given that Florida has many of the least affordable cities for renters, maybe he and AOC are right. Meanwhile, many mayors disagree with DeSantis.

>>Importing some tech company from San Francisco has not been high on our list,” DeSantis said in a press conference in Jacksonville on Monday. When technology companies like Twitter relocate, they drive up the cost of living for existing residents and the state is instead focused on attracting industrial and manufacturing businesses, he said.<<

DeSantis Says He Won’t Lure Twitter to Florida Because of Increased Costs

He’s a populist.  A lot like AOC.  Both are populists.  I don’t trust populists.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I'm trying to think of an example of where a politician intentionally punished somebody for agreeing with them, and I'm coming up empty.  So I'm going to guess that this a "wrong politics" situation.  DeSantis basically said as much, right?

This thread feels like the product of a bunch of people trying to rationalize why DeSantis went after Disney when DeSantis pretty much told us exactly what he was going after Disney, and his explanation is actually worse than the motives that his opponents are attributing to him.  

Right. He hasn't really tried to hide his motives. The most obvious tell is the fact that literally no one was talking about Reedy Creek until Disney came out against PRE. 

I've pushed back against most of the overheated rhetoric toward DeSantis being a proto-authoritarian, but this Disney thing is the scariest thing he's done, and really worries me that if he ever became president, he would accelerate the US's descent to Orbanism. It really boggles my mind that more people don't recognize that, whatever you think of him or Disney or homosexuality or whatever, using the power of the state to punish companies for their speech is a really dangerous precedent. And I would say the exact same thing if Gavin Newsom were doing this to Hobby Lobby.

 

[moleculo]

Not just Disney.  He wanted to send a message to corporations that they should keep politics out of their business.  Which they used to do.  And we've seen since this issue that corporations ARE more hesitant to mix politics and business.  So it seems his messaging worked to some extent, at least in the short term.

nothing like using the powers of the government to stifle free speech, huh? 

What a country!

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

What's your view on this topic?  Do corporations have first amendment rights that the government can't infringe upon?  Or should we exclude them from any direct role in lobbying or other forms of policy-making?  (Edit: I don't mean to present this as some sort of total dichotomy -- feel free to elaborate if your views are more nuanced).  

I'm asking because I'm very firmly in the "corporations are people, too" camp and I feel pretty comfortable criticizing folks like DeSantis when they violate that principle.  But I've always been led to believe that I'm in the minority on that, so I'm kind of surprised to find so many people suddenly on my side.  

I can't say I've thought this all the way through, but my instinct is to say that corporations have some free speech rights but not necessarily the same as individuals. If they have zero rights, the risk is that government can force them to do its bidding. If their rights are unlimited -- particularly in terms of money equaling speech -- that can give them outsized power to make government do their bidding. 

As to where that line should be drawn, or what the difference is between a company spending millions on political speech vs. the CEO of that company doing the same thing, I'll admit my views aren't fully formed. I'm in favor of whatever minimizes the two risks I identified.

 

[John123]

ETA:  Do we have a list of corporations that would be voicing their opinions right now that aren't?  I don't follow much outside my state.  Hadn't heard about this.

https://www.newsweek.com/pr-company-told-companies-not-comment-abortion-coca-cola-netflix-starbucks-1704399

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-many-brands-have-kept-their-voices-down-on-roe-v-wade-so-far-11652140246

 

[Rich Conway]

Not just Disney.  He wanted to send a message to corporations that they should keep politics out of their business.  Which they used to do.  And we've seen since this issue that corporations ARE more hesitant to mix politics and business.  So it seems his messaging worked to some extent, at least in the short term.

They used to do this, when exactly?

When was the last year Disney didn't give money to politicians?

 

[The Commish]

https://www.newsweek.com/pr-company-told-companies-not-comment-abortion-coca-cola-netflix-starbucks-1704399

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-many-brands-have-kept-their-voices-down-on-roe-v-wade-so-far-11652140246

Sorry....I meant because of situations similar to this where politicians were bullying companies.  I didn't mean to include things like not commenting on things that haven't been officially decided (newsweek link above).  That just makes sense.  There's zero reason for any business to take a position on something that isn't official yet...business 101.  Kinda absurd that the PR company feels the need to tell them this honestly.   I can't get to the WSJ article, maybe that's closer in line with the subject at hand?

 

[The Commish]

What's your view on this topic?  Do corporations have first amendment rights that the government can't infringe upon?  Or should we exclude them from any direct role in lobbying or other forms of policy-making?  (Edit: I don't mean to present this as some sort of total dichotomy -- feel free to elaborate if your views are more nuanced).  

I'm asking because I'm very firmly in the "corporations are people, too" camp and I feel pretty comfortable criticizing folks like DeSantis when they violate that principle.  But I've always been led to believe that I'm in the minority on that, so I'm kind of surprised to find so many people suddenly on my side.  

Well....the "corporations are people too" part really revolved around the money corporations were allowed to give to politicians right?  That was the crux of the whole thing.  I am under no illusions that it was some sort of noble "representation" issue.  I don't like money being allowed in the political machine in this country.  Whether that money comes from individuals or corporations.  I think it should be eliminated across the board.  I guess that's a lot of words to say I don't buy this notion that "money" = "speech".  I reject that completely, without exception.  So to the issue of actual free speech, I don't see why a company can't take position X or position Y free of government backlash.  In that regard they are "people too".  If people want to revolt when they take said position, they are free to do that.  THAT is where the calculus should come from IMO....the relationship between business and customer.  They shouldn't be worrying about what the government is going to say/do.

It's interesting that you say the bold because I"m pretty sure you told me I was making mountains out of mole hills (in essence) in the Florida thread every time I brought up more rules/laws that came down from the Governor telling business what they can/can't do in his state.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Well....the "corporations are people too" part really revolved around the money corporations were allowed to give to politicians right?  That was the crux of the whole thing.  I am under no illusions that it was some sort of noble "representation" issue.  I don't like money being allowed in the political machine in this country.  Whether that money comes from individuals or corporations.  I think it should be eliminated across the board.  I guess that's a lot of words to say I don't buy this notion that "money" = "speech".  I reject that completely, without exception.  So to the issue of actual free speech, I don't see why a company can't take position X or position Y free of government backlash.  In that regard they are "people too".  If people want to revolt when they take said position, they are free to do that.  THAT is where the calculus should come from IMO....the relationship between business and customer.  They shouldn't be worrying about what the government is going to say/do.

It's interesting that you say the bold because I"m pretty sure you told me I was making mountains out of mole hills (in essence) in the Florida thread every time I brought up more rules/laws that came down from the Governor telling business what they can/can't do in his state.  

I was generally supportive of DeSantis on this issue until he (IMO) crossed a line by punishing Disney on the Reedy Creek thing.  That was very obviously government retaliation for Disney exercising their first amendment rights in an admittedly stupid but totally legal manner.  I was highly critical of that.

Most of the time, I try very hard to praise people for doing stuff I approve of and criticize people for doing stuff I disapprove of.  Sometimes those people happen to be the same guy.  This was one of those times. 

 

[Joe Mammy]

They used to do this, when exactly?

When was the last year Disney didn't give money to politicians?

Exactly. Nailed it. DeSantis threw down as soon as Disney said they were stopping campaign contributions.

"What? No dough? This means war!"

 

[The Commish]

I was generally supportive of DeSantis on this issue until he (IMO) crossed a line by punishing Disney on the Reedy Creek thing.  That was very obviously government retaliation for Disney exercising their first amendment rights in an admittedly stupid but totally legal manner.  I was highly critical of that.

Most of the time, I try very hard to praise people for doing stuff I approve of and criticize people for doing stuff I disapprove of.  Sometimes those people happen to be the same guy.  This was one of those times. 

On what issue?  telling businesses what they can/can't do?  Sorry, not following.

Remember, his whole mantra prior to late 2020 was that businesses and municipalities knew better their circumstances than the state.  This was his argument against statewide mask mandates.  At that point, I was 100% on board and thought "man, this might not be too bad".  Of course that was when the science and narrative were in unison.  As soon as that wasn't the case, he flip flopped.  He's been all over the map.  The only consistency was his inconsistency.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What's your view on this topic?  Do corporations have first amendment rights that the government can't infringe upon?  Or should we exclude them from any direct role in lobbying or other forms of policy-making?  (Edit: I don't mean to present this as some sort of total dichotomy -- feel free to elaborate if your views are more nuanced).  

I'm asking because I'm very firmly in the "corporations are people, too" camp and I feel pretty comfortable criticizing folks like DeSantis when they violate that principle.  But I've always been led to believe that I'm in the minority on that, so I'm kind of surprised to find so many people suddenly on my side.  

I don't think you were ever in the minority. I think interpreting "Congress shall make no law" as having an exception for corporations has always been rather fringe.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I can't say I've thought this all the way through, but my instinct is to say that corporations have some free speech rights but not necessarily the same as individuals. If they have zero rights, the risk is that government can force them to do its bidding. If their rights are unlimited -- particularly in terms of money equaling speech -- that can give them outsized power to make government do their bidding. 

Money doesn't equal speech, which is why contributing money to campaigns can be limited (or, in the case of corporations, banned entirely) without violating anyone's right to free speech.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Money doesn't equal speech, which is why contributing money to campaigns can be limited (or, in the case of corporations, banned entirely) without violating anyone's right to free speech.

You're talking about the money going in. But when it comes to speech, we're usually talking about what's coming out, ie, spending. And the Supreme Court threw out spending limits.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You're talking about the money going in. But when it comes to speech, we're usually talking about what's coming out, ie, spending. And the Supreme Court threw out spending limits.

Yes. Suppose Texas passes a law saying that no woman is allowed to spend more than $500 in her lifetime on getting abortions. Any district court would strike that down under Casey (at least until Dobbs comes out). That doesn't mean that money equals abortion. It means that allowing people to exercise their constitutional rights necessarily entails allowing them to spend money doing so.

Similarly, "you can speak all you want as long as you don't spend money on publishing" isn't going to cut it under the First Amendment, but that doesn't mean that money equals speech.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

On what issue?  telling businesses what they can/can't do?  Sorry, not following.

Remember, his whole mantra prior to late 2020 was that businesses and municipalities knew better their circumstances than the state.  This was his argument against statewide mask mandates.  At that point, I was 100% on board and thought "man, this might not be too bad".  Of course that was when the science and narrative were in unison.  As soon as that wasn't the case, he flip flopped.  He's been all over the map.  The only consistency was his inconsistency.

I was supportive of DeSantis when it came to the general issue of getting gender ideology and other quasi-religious instruction out of public schools.  This is absolutely an issue that is proper for government leaders to address.  Public schools are operated by the state, the state funds them with taxpayer dollars, and the state sets all sorts of curricular standards either directly or indirectly.  If the state feels like K-12 schools have gotten weird on ideological issues -- and there's really good evidence that they have IMO -- then it's fine for legislators and the governor to step in to address the problem.

The part about punishing Disney just out of spite is where DeSantis crossed a line.

 

[The Commish]

I was supportive of DeSantis when it came to the general issue of getting gender ideology and other quasi-religious instruction out of public schools.  This is absolutely an issue that is proper for government leaders to address.  Public schools are operated by the state, the state funds them with taxpayer dollars, and the state sets all sorts of curricular standards either directly or indirectly.  If the state feels like K-12 schools have gotten weird on ideological issues -- and there's really good evidence that they have IMO -- then it's fine for legislators and the governor to step in to address the problem.

The part about punishing Disney just out of spite is where DeSantis crossed a line.

In Florida?  We'll agree to disagree unless you know of something happening here that I don't. If you're good with "Im going to legislate in my state because of things happening in other states" we'll also have to agree to disagree. If ever there was a slippery slope, thatd be it. But glad you clarified what you were talking about. Would never have connected the dots given the discussion prior to the clarification tou provided. Thanks.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

First, there is his belief that government can do a better job than Disney in running Reedy Creek. Then, he says that he's not in favor of Twitter relocating to Florida, because it would increase living expenses in the Sunshine State. That's sounds a lot like AOC and her battle with Amazon. Given that Florida has many of the least affordable cities for renters, maybe he and AOC are right. Meanwhile, many mayors disagree with DeSantis.

>>Importing some tech company from San Francisco has not been high on our list,” DeSantis said in a press conference in Jacksonville on Monday. When technology companies like Twitter relocate, they drive up the cost of living for existing residents and the state is instead focused on attracting industrial and manufacturing businesses, he said.<<

DeSantis Says He Won’t Lure Twitter to Florida Because of Increased Costs

This thread has gone off in a few different directions, but DeSantis not wanting Twitter to move here is IMO the most interesting part. DeSantis' performance as governor and the Miami tech boom have been two of the bigger stories of the past year, but despite the obvious linkage between the two -- many of the people who moved here cited the lack of Covid restrictions in Florida -- I've seen very little commentary on how they intersect. The only instance I can remember was this paragraph from a Sept. 2021 NYMag article on Miami:

DeSantis may have deeper objections to Miami’s becoming a tech tub. For one thing, according to a Republican political operative, DeSantis doesn’t believe Florida has sufficient high-end resources to accommodate hordes of rich newcomers. “When I spoke to him,” the operative told me, “I got the impression that the last thing he wants is wealthy Republican donors who moved from New York calling to complain about how they can’t get into country clubs.” DeSantis is also acutely aware of how neighboring states have drifted purple in recent years and of the effect the Austin tech boom has had on statewide Texas elections, which Republicans have been winning by increasingly narrow margins. “He’s like, Why do I want to incentivize companies that will bring thousands of employees, most of whom will hate me?”

I thought of that when I read this line from the Bloomberg link @SoBeDad posted:

When technology companies like Twitter relocate, they drive up the cost of living for existing residents and the state is instead focused on attracting industrial and manufacturing businesses, [DeSantis] said.

My theory: While getting a major Silicon Valley company like Twitter would be a huge win for Florida's economy and probably help his re-election chances, DeSantis isn't particularly worried about this fall. He's focused on 2024, and wants to position himself firmly in the camp of his rural, blue-collar MAGA base and against things like tech, big cities, etc.

And as is often the case with DeSantis, all of this is ultimately meaningless posturing, since if Musk is going to move Twitter anywhere, it would be to Austin. (Besides which, it's looking increasingly unlikely Musk ever gets control of Twitter anyway).

 

[Captain Cranks]

On what issue?  telling businesses what they can/can't do?  Sorry, not following.

Remember, his whole mantra prior to late 2020 was that businesses and municipalities knew better their circumstances than the state.  This was his argument against statewide mask mandates.  At that point, I was 100% on board and thought "man, this might not be too bad".  Of course that was when the science and narrative were in unison.  As soon as that wasn't the case, he flip flopped.  He's been all over the map.  The only consistency was his inconsistency.

I don't remember it that way. I recall him fighting both federal and municipal mask mandates, going as far to tell businesses and schools to ignore the decisions of their local boards. Everything revolves around him and his power. He's a true tyrant.

 

[SoBeDad]

This thread has gone off in a few different directions, but DeSantis not wanting Twitter to move here is IMO the most interesting part. DeSantis' performance as governor and the Miami tech boom have been two of the bigger stories of the past year, but despite the obvious linkage between the two -- many of the people who moved here cited the lack of Covid restrictions in Florida -- I've seen very little commentary on how they intersect. The only instance I can remember was this paragraph from a Sept. 2021 NYMag article on Miami:

I thought of that when I read this line from the Bloomberg link @SoBeDad posted:

My theory: While getting a major Silicon Valley company like Twitter would be a huge win for Florida's economy and probably help his re-election chances, DeSantis isn't particularly worried about this fall. He's focused on 2024, and wants to position himself firmly in the camp of his rural, blue-collar MAGA base and against things like tech, big cities, etc.

And as is often the case with DeSantis, all of this is ultimately meaningless posturing, since if Musk is going to move Twitter anywhere, it would be to Austin. (Besides which, it's looking increasingly unlikely Musk ever gets control of Twitter anyway).

Regarding the potential move of Twitter to Florida, note that Miami's Republican mayor Francis Suarez, has been openly courting the tech and finance industry from NY and SF, with success. Lucy Guo, the 27 year old billionaire Silicon valley transplant recently bought a half-floor condo in the Hadid building in downtown Miami. The mayor of Jacksonville, also a Republican, said his city would be a great place for a Twitter relocation. I don't see either being competitive with Austin, if Twitter moves. Can't Twitter employees work from anywhere?

An issue I see is gentrification, just like with AOC and Amazon moving to Queens. But instead of poor people being displaced, middle class renters and buyers are being displaced and outbid by Manhattan and SF finance and IT workers. It's happening all over the state, but is worse in SE Florida and Tampa. Over 100% increase in rents in Sunny Isles, 70% in Miami Beach since the pandemic. Lots of unhappy long-time resident renters being forced to move. It's happening even in less desirable locations. It's a crisis and DeSantis is aware. These virtual undustries could get up and leave again, whereas tourism, industry and manufacturing are better long-term bets. DeSantis is ok with the $30,000 to $80,000 jobs, but not the $100,000 to $200,000 jobs and he has a point. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

nothing like using the powers of the government to stifle free speech, huh? 

What a country!

..and a front runner for next POTUS, ladies and gentlemen!  

 

[BladeRunner]

I don't remember it that way. I recall him fighting both federal and municipal mask mandates, going as far to tell businesses and schools to ignore the decisions of their local boards. Everything revolves around him and his power. He's a true tyrant.

The true Tyrant, huh?

I'm thinking the people of cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela, North korea, etc can probably explain to you what a true tyrant is.  

 

[sho nuff]

nothing like using the powers of the government to stifle free speech, huh? 

What a country!

Just don't let a social media company do it.

Free speech...as long as its not woke stuff.  And definitely don't kneel in protest either.  

 

[The Commish]

I don't remember it that way. I recall him fighting both federal and municipal mask mandates, going as far to tell businesses and schools to ignore the decisions of their local boards. Everything revolves around him and his power. He's a true tyrant.

I guess it depends on when national media started covering him, but it happened exactly as I described.  At the very beginning there was an outcry to "shut down spring break" and he rejected it.  There were outcries to shutdown beaches too.  He rejected it.  And his reasons in both places were that the local municipalities knew better what was going on than the state, so there was not going to be a state wide anything.  The same thing happened with masks.  He punted to the more local decision makers.  A decision I praised at the time, in the Florida Politics thread.  This was all during the time where the science and the narrative were pretty much in line.  As more science came out and as it became more obvious the two weren't going to really work all that well together, he chose narrative.  One of the first steps in that direction was attempting to tell cruise lines how they were going to run their ships if they were docking in any of our state ports.  It grew from there.  As his Presidential odds grew, so did his hate for those mandates.  

 

[Captain Cranks]

I guess it depends on when national media started covering him, but it happened exactly as I described.  At the very beginning there was an outcry to "shut down spring break" and he rejected it.  There were outcries to shutdown beaches too.  He rejected it.  And his reasons in both places were that the local municipalities knew better what was going on than the state, so there was not going to be a state wide anything.  The same thing happened with masks.  He punted to the more local decision makers.  A decision I praised at the time, in the Florida Politics thread.  This was all during the time where the science and the narrative were pretty much in line.  As more science came out and as it became more obvious the two weren't going to really work all that well together, he chose narrative.  One of the first steps in that direction was attempting to tell cruise lines how they were going to run their ships if they were docking in any of our state ports.  It grew from there.  As his Presidential odds grew, so did his hate for those mandates.  

This article ties everything together pretty well. The common theme between the two regimes is he was against mandates and shutdowns because they hurt business. 

 

[The Commish]

This article ties everything together pretty well. The common theme between the two regimes is he was against mandates and shutdowns because they hurt business. 

Yes, by this time in 2021, that was his narrative.  That's when the overreach began.  In summer of 2020 he was singing a much different tune.  He was all about letting local governments choose what to do until he wasn't.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Regarding the potential move of Twitter to Florida, note that Miami's Republican mayor Francis Suarez, has been openly courting the tech and finance industry from NY and SF, with success. Lucy Guo, the 27 year old billionaire Silicon valley transplant recently bought a half-floor condo in the Hadid building in downtown Miami. The mayor of Jacksonville, also a Republican, said his city would be a great place for a Twitter relocation. I don't see either being competitive with Austin, if Twitter moves. Can't Twitter employees work from anywhere?

An issue I see is gentrification, just like with AOC and Amazon moving to Queens. But instead of poor people being displaced, middle class renters and buyers are being displaced and outbid by Manhattan and SF finance and IT workers. It's happening all over the state, but is worse in SE Florida and Tampa. Over 100% increase in rents in Sunny Isles, 70% in Miami Beach since the pandemic. Lots of unhappy long-time resident renters being forced to move. It's happening even in less desirable locations. It's a crisis and DeSantis is aware. These virtual undustries could get up and leave again, whereas tourism, industry and manufacturing are better long-term bets. DeSantis is ok with the $30,000 to $80,000 jobs, but not the $100,000 to $200,000 jobs and he has a point. 

Gentrification is a huge issue. More broadly, a lot of people in Miami don't want us to blindly recreate the SF tech scene here.

These are all valid concerns that I 100% guarantee you play zero role in DeSantis' thinking. As with everything else he does, this is all about playing to his MAGA base

 

[dickey moe]

I don't remember it that way. I recall him fighting both federal and municipal mask mandates, going as far to tell businesses and schools to ignore the decisions of their local boards. Everything revolves around him and his power. He's a true tyrant.

By allowing people to make their own decisions? I don't think you know what tyrant means. 

 

[Rich Conway]

By allowing people to make their own decisions? I don't think you know what tyrant means. 

You mean the part where he forbid schools and businesses from making their own decisions?

 

[Joe Mammy]

He's called the legislators back in for special sessions regarding the totally screwed up homeowner's insurance mess. Most are looking at another annual double digit increase. I've had to shop my policy the last two years.

Maybe we can see some positive productivity?

 

[SoBeDad]

He's called the legislators back in for special sessions regarding the totally screwed up homeowner's insurance mess. Most are looking at another annual double digit increase. I've had to shop my policy the last two years.

Maybe we can see some positive productivity?

The insurance crisis should've been addressed during the regular session, not 2 weeks before the start of the hurricane season after a few hundred thousand insurance policies have been dropped as insurers leave the state or go under. The political pandering agenda took up too much oxygen in the room. The crisis is not DeSantis' fault, but this was known to be a problem in the making last year.

 

[Captain Cranks]

By allowing people to make their own decisions? I don't think you know what tyrant means. 

If you think it's about putting power in the people's hands, we'll agree to disagree.

I'll refer you to his verbal assault on students who dared wear masks behind him on a podium to show how important people making their own decisions are to him. 

 

[The Commish]

By allowing people to make their own decisions? I don't think you know what tyrant means. 

Businesses are people too and they definitely ARE NOT allowed to make their own decisions here  

 

[Zow]

Not just Disney.  He wanted to send a message to corporations that they should keep politics out of their business.  Which they used to do.  And we've seen since this issue that corporations ARE more hesitant to mix politics and business.  So it seems his messaging worked to some extent, at least in the short term.

Do you think that’s a good thing? If so, do you think businesses don’t have a right to have a political voice?

 

[John123]

Do you think that’s a good thing? If so, do you think businesses don’t have a right to have a political voice?

1) In the case of Disney, their original stance on the issue was to not get involved.  Only due to the activists within their organization did they change their mind, and I'm pretty sure they regret doing so now.

2)  I'm not the biggest fan of this particular decision to "punish" Disney.  Generally, I don't think government should try to punish businesses, big or small.

3)  However, I wasn't aware that Disney essentially was able to run their own city down there.  What other company has that deal?  When i think of company towns I think of the towns that used to essentially enslave their employees.  But Disney was getting a special deal that other corporations don't get.  I'm not a fan of special treatment for one business over others.  So, Florida just chose to remove that special deal.

So, to me (2) and (3) pretty much cancel each other out on this and at the end of the day I'm just kind of like Meh.  If other corporations learn something from it and stop with their virtue signaling social justice BS I think it will have had a positive effect though. 

 

[John123]

If so, do you think businesses don’t have a right to have a political voice?

I'm going to answer this question separately than the Disney issue.  I don't think businesses have a right to a political voice.  I think them being given one is maybe the biggest issue we have in this country today.  I don't know on what planet people think that an entity that has no living pulse should have the power over the political process that businesses do and if I were king they wouldn't. 

 

[The Commish]

3)  However, I wasn't aware that Disney essentially was able to run their own city down there.  What other company has that deal?  When i think of company towns I think of the towns that used to essentially enslave their employees.  But Disney was getting a special deal that other corporations don't get.  I'm not a fan of special treatment for one business over others.  So, Florida just chose to remove that special deal.

I'm curious what "deal" you think they got.  They have to pay all the same taxes as everyone else.  The special district DOES afford them the ability to cut out red tape in terms of permits, applications, approvals etc in terms of how the land is developed.  They still have to follow all the rules that everyone else does.  The counties DON'T have to pay for things like police, fire, emts etc.  They don't have to pay for all the infrastructure projects for electricity, water etc.  That's all done by the district.  The district also allows them to raise money via bond purchase to raise funds for these things.  

To the bold, The Villages are a special district afforded many of the same "deals".  Of course they aren't in danger of losing their "deal".  We have a BUNCH of special districts like this in the state.

 

[BladeRunner]

1) In the case of Disney, their original stance on the issue was to not get involved.  Only due to the activists within their organization did they change their mind, and I'm pretty sure they regret doing so now.

2)  I'm not the biggest fan of this particular decision to "punish" Disney.  Generally, I don't think government should try to punish businesses, big or small.

3)  However, I wasn't aware that Disney essentially was able to run their own city down there.  What other company has that deal?  When i think of company towns I think of the towns that used to essentially enslave their employees.  But Disney was getting a special deal that other corporations don't get.  I'm not a fan of special treatment for one business over others.  So, Florida just chose to remove that special deal.

So, to me (2) and (3) pretty much cancel each other out on this and at the end of the day I'm just kind of like Meh.  If other corporations learn something from it and stop with their virtue signaling social justice BS I think it will have had a positive effect though. 

My position said perfectly and eloquently by you.

Thanks. 

 

[rustycolts]

I'm curious what "deal" you think they got.  They have to pay all the same taxes as everyone else.  The special district DOES afford them the ability to cut out red tape in terms of permits, applications, approvals etc in terms of how the land is developed.  They still have to follow all the rules that everyone else does.  The counties DON'T have to pay for things like police, fire, emts etc.  They don't have to pay for all the infrastructure projects for electricity, water etc.  That's all done by the district.  The district also allows them to raise money via bond purchase to raise funds for these things.  

To the bold, The Villages are a special district afforded many of the same "deals".  Of course they aren't in danger of losing their "deal".  We have a BUNCH of special districts like this in the state.

Yep almost 2000. Seems ripe for some shenanigans to go on.

My Mormon with a manbun candidate for US Senate was on the board of one of these districts in S. Florida.

 

[John123]

I'm curious what "deal" you think they got.  They have to pay all the same taxes as everyone else.  The special district DOES afford them the ability to cut out red tape in terms of permits, applications, approvals etc in terms of how the land is developed.  They still have to follow all the rules that everyone else does.  The counties DON'T have to pay for things like police, fire, emts etc.  They don't have to pay for all the infrastructure projects for electricity, water etc.  That's all done by the district.  The district also allows them to raise money via bond purchase to raise funds for these things.  

To the bold, The Villages are a special district afforded many of the same "deals".  Of course they aren't in danger of losing their "deal".  We have a BUNCH of special districts like this in the state.

You ask me what deal they got and then go on to list special things that only Disney has.  Weird.  I don't know that much about all of this.  I don't know what you mean when you refer to "the Villages."  Are those run by corporations?   As I said, I hadn't heard of Disney getting special treatment before this whole dust up.  But, if as you're suggesting, they didn't get special treatment why are people bothered by their "not special treatment" being taken away?   If other corporations are getting special treatment I'm in favor of removing that too, regardless of their political stances.

 

[The Commish]

Yep almost 2000. Seems ripe for some shenanigans to go on.

I don't disagree.  I think that's why they have the onus of all the additional paperwork/reporting that regular counties don't.  I understand the point of them, but you're right....it could go sideways quickly if people don't pay attention.