Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site cca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!cca!dee
From: dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Disneyland assigns jobs by looks
Message-ID: <845@cca.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 11:26:38 EST
Article-I.D.: cca.845
Posted: Thu Nov  8 11:26:38 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 06:44:10 EST
References: <5588@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Computer Corp America, Cambridge
Lines: 24

The only things that I know of that are a bit funny about Disneyworld
are the Reedy Creek Improvement District (sp?) and the restriction on
advertising.  I didn't think the District was particularly different
from any similar water conservation or other utility district.  It can
issue tax exempt bonds backed by revenue and property taxes on the land
inside the district, which is most of Disneyworld.  They just arrange it
so there are only five people who reside on that land and who elect
themselves the governing body of the district.  Effectively Disney can
do a lot of the things such districts usually do with tax exempt
financing.  But if instaed of Disneyword, there were 10 or 50 or 500
landowners who wanted water conservagtion, sewage treatment, etc., they
would form such a district in all likelihood.  Why should Disneyworld be
penalized because it is a single land owner?

The advertising restriction adopted by the Florida state legislature is
much worse in my mind.  As I understand it, it is illegal in Florida to
advertise that you are X miles, or some other particualr distance, from
Disneyworld.  However, you can print a map in your ad and let people
figure it our for themselves.

						Donald
-- 
	+	Donald E. Eastlake, III
	ARPA:	dee@CCA-UNIX		usenet:	{decvax,linus}!cca!dee