It’s somewhat frightening that the biggest thing currently blocking the authoritarian impulses of politicians like DeSantis or a former president is their sheer incompetence. The dissolution of Reedy Creek is on its face an unconstitutional action (given that it as explicitly done to punish Disney for exercising its free speech rights), and the implementation of the punishment was done in such a way that within days it was obvious that the worst case for Disney is that they end up with a financial windfall and potentially have to negotiate about regulations with local governments who would likely be bending over backwards to appease the house of mouse.
> local governments who would likely be bending over backwards to appease the house of mouse.
This part isn't necessarily guaranteed. Over in California, Disneyland frequently has trouble with Anaheim/Orange County when seeking approval for new projects. They've had entire hotels and parking structures designed, publicly announced, and then canceled because the local government wouldn't play ball.
The only thing that guarantees Disney's continued ability to build whatever in Florida is if they continue to be their own local government.
You might want to browse over the definition of authoritarian. That's not facetious. You are being hyperbolic, but it seems that people leaning progressive and liberal are capable of amazing contortions when it comes to the meaning of words.
The creation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District had no sunset clause or date. The new law, passed as written in SB-4C, dissolves the 6 special districts (out of 1844) that were not specifically re-established after the Florida constitution was updated in 1969. There was no requirement that existing districts be re-established until SB-4C was passed, which retroactively and implicitly requires re-establishing special districts.
I have not been following the story as closely as others, but how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism? That only seems authoritarian relative to anarcho capitalism or extreme libertarianism.
> how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism?
Making decisions about public goods explicitly as political retaliation for failing to support unrelated positions of the ruling party is authoritarianism. It's *particularly jarringly authoritarian from a faction that is simultaneously arguing that “free speech” is being violated when private actors choose not to actively relay their speech.
From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights, and in fact give them unfair legal advantages that nobody else can have, and therefore shouldn't be protected from infringement in the same way that rights are.
I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant, as if they are entitled to those privileges.
> From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights
Not being retaliated against government for political speech is, in the US, a right, whether or not the retaliation is via a thing that is itself or right.
This is super important, because most interactions with government are not things that are a matter of individual right outside the rights to not being singled out on an impermissible basis, so if you erase that last bit you enable widespread arbitrary government discrimination.
> I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant
Basically no one is defending that, they are defending substantive due process rights, which are what prevent government from making all other rights moot by how they allocate costs and benefits that are not themselves otherwise matters of Constitutional right.
I make this point more thoroughly in another comment, but I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Retaliation implies harm, and I am making the case that removing an unfair advantage, that shouldn't have ever existed in the first place, is not harm. If it's a neutral action (or neutral-positive), then it's not retaliation.
> I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation.
Well, yes, nothing looks like retaliation when you ignore motivations. Motivations define retaliation.
Starting out with selectively ignoring the facts most relevant for assessing whether a thing fits into a particular category is a singularly bad way of assessing whether that is the case.
There is no debate that Disney is worse off with the action, so it is harmful.
Even your argument upthread is that this is an adverse change that Disney deserves for other reasons than the actual motivation, not that it is not an adverse change.
You're finally understanding my point. Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege. Considering the full context makes it not actual harm.
Put it another way: Imagine a law that said white people get 10% off of every purchase. Now that law is repealed, and white people say: "I'm being harmed!" Are they?
> Imagine a law that said white people get 10% off of every purchase. Now that law is repealed, and white people say: "I'm being harmed!" Are they?
Sure. Slave-owners were also harmed when the slaves were freed. The fact that a harm is just does not make it not harm.
Put another way, would you really claim that someone put in prison for assaulting someone was not harmed? In most cases it's going to be pretty clear they were, yet it can still be just for the sake of protecting others.
Kudos for answering, I think the person I was replying to is worried about making a similar response, although it is consistent with their other statements. I disagree that it is harm.
>Put another way, would you really claim that someone put in prison for assaulting someone was not harmed?
How is that the same? In my example, I was removing an exclusive and special benefit. I don't see how putting someone in prison is removing an exclusive and special benefit, unless your view is that the default state is everyone should be imprisoned.
Well, let's actually try to apply your scenario and actually make it analogous to the Disney scenario for a moment. Imagine said law exists. Now imagine "Joe" speaks vocally against a law proposed by the "FiFi" party, which currently happens to hold the majority in the legislature and executive branch office. Now the "FiFi" party is suddenly pushing to remove the discount from "Joe" and no one else.
THAT is what's happening here. Disney is hardly the only business which has negotiated preferential treatment. Stadiums and factories are the two most common examples, but there are plenty of examples of States including Florida providing tax breaks and other special treatments to a variety of businesses. But now it seems you can only negotiate with them if you tow the party line. Disagree and any special treatment you've negotiated will be revoked, while everyone who stayed silent gets to keep theirs.
Now, is "Joe" harmed by losing his discount while everyone else gets to keep theirs? Can you really argue that the above isn't the government suppressing free speech?
>Disney is hardly the only business which has negotiated preferential treatment.
Are you making the case that it's very common, and so it's not special nor unfair? I am very skeptical that more than %0.001 of businesses (1 in 100,000) benefit from these special government privileges. Especially if you consider all people, since corporations are legally people. It smells like crony capitalist corruption to me...far from normal, and very unfair to everyone else. Shouldn't be happening. Take it all away, I don't care what the motivation is, because to me, it's not harm to remove corruption.
Define common. It's common enough that every single one of the 50 states and the Federal government has a variety of special arrangements at some level or another with multiple private entities. But uncommon in that most business aren't large enough, publicly popular enough, or have sufficient lobbying power to negotiate them. I wouldn't even contest your ratio.
Usually these will be around tax breaks but also special water rights, rights to self govern certain things, rights to use public land, exemptions from certain laws, etc. Usually the justification is that it benefits the local economy exactly the same as the justification for Disney's. Yet somehow here Disney is the only one being targeted. Apparently you are allowed to negotiate these things, but the government will renege on it's agreements if you later dare to speak against them.
If Florida was pushing to kill ALL of these arrangements it would be a non-issue (or rather a very different issue). Instead they are targeting only Disney, for daring to speak against their party line, in a clear attempt to silence their speech. No amount of trying to re-frame the issue changes that.
Every one of the 50 states and the fed having provisions for special arrangements doesn't, to me, say that the arrangements themselves are common, only that corruption is common.
I agree, if Florida attempted to kill all of the special arrangements, it would definitely appear less biased to people (although impractical, it could still be purely political cover). If you're making the case that targeting Disney's special privileges vs the other company's special privileges is what makes it unfair, I could get behind that more than other arguments that I've seen. But my response to that would be to expand the removal of these privileges. Since that is far less likely to happen, I'm comfortable with using politically motivated reasons (of any side, I don't care who does it and why) to accomplish it.
> Since that is far less likely to happen, I'm comfortable with using politically motivated reasons (of any side, I don't care who does it and why) to accomplish it.
I cannot begin to fathom this position. Your describing "you can negotiate special privileges if you have enough influence, but only if you never speak against me" as less corrupt than "you can negotiate special privileges if you have enough influence".
Yes, I believe the former is a less corrupt position in a democracy, because it has a natural balance: the opposing side will work to remove those special privileges. In the latter, there is no check to balance it, so it is more corruptible.
> Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege.
Yes, so (independent of whether the status quo is just or not) the act is:
(1) harmful to Disney, and
(2) motivated by Disney’s exercise of its first amendment rights.
> Considering the full context makes it not actual harm.
No, it doesn't. It makes it harmful in a way you believe is warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation.
But the fact that an adverse government action would be warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation does not make taking the same action in retaliation for exercise of Constitutional rights permissible.
I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example, since I think that make it very clear why you're against the actions against Disney, and why I am for them.
> I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example
Your white privilege example includes no impermissible motivation, and assumes an initial state that would not merely be undesirable policy, but bright line prohibited by the 14th Amendment.
While the Disney special district may be undesirable in some model of fairness, it is not unconstitutional, and the action to remove it does have an impermissible motivation. So the analogy fails on key points.
The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?
> The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?
Obviously, yes, they are worse off after the change.
> Ok, we disagree on the definition of harm is all.
Yeah, I just don't get the “if I stab you, but you actually deserved it, you aren't actually harmed by it.”
Whether or not that's how you view harm, that's not the understanding of harm that is operative in law. Justification is a separate consideration from harm there, even if you conflate them together.
Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm, but thanks for totally misrepresenting my position as a last minute jab to an otherwise civil conversation.
> Puncturing someone's body with an edged weapon is clearly harm
So, now your position is that the rule that whether or not there is justification for an act which causes someone to be worse off than previously determines whether that change constitutes harm is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off, not generally?
Your concept of “harm” becomes less clear the more you say about it.
But it remains the case that it's not the usually definition of harm, or the one applicable to whether it is acceptable, under the Constitution, for government to act in a certain way in response to the exercises of Constitutionally-guaranteed free expression.
>is only applicable to certain kinds of changes which make the subject worse off
Yes. It's not a difficult concept. Children often get upset about rules that are enforced on them, and feel "worse off." Doesn't mean it's harm. Context matters. The world isn't binary.
Also, it's ok to just disagree, since it's clear we disagree on the definition of harm. No need to start constructing strawmen of my position.
> Children often get upset about rules that are enforced on them, and feel "worse off." Doesn't mean it's harm.
Are you saying that losing the benefit of the special district doesn't actually make Disney worse off, and that they are just an immature corporate child lacking the maturity to understand the benefit Daddy DeSantis and Mommy Leg are giving them by taking away their Reedy Creek sucker?
Or is this a complete non-sequitur to distract from the fact that Disney would, in fact, be worse off after the change?
Despite the way it has been spun, Disney's special district status is not particularly unique. There are 1844 active special districts enshrined in Florida state and county law. Disney, Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, all have special districts to allow them control over the development of their properties.
> Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.
Retaliation is about the why, not the what. Retaliation is me doing B because of A.
def: Retaliation: The act of retaliating, or of returning like for like; retribution; now, specifically, the return of evil for evil
In this case, it's about Disney acting in a way that pols don't like. "But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state." - FL Rep Randy Fine
No, and you're twisting what you know retaliation to be, to pretend that is merely "cause and effect." That's very deceptive, because I think you know that it doesn't make much sense to say "He gave me a nice gift, so I retaliated with my own nice gift."
transitive verb
to repay in kind retaliate an injury
Words have dictionary definitions, legal definitions, and connotations (note: the especially). Your usage above is consistent with both the dictionary and legal definitions of retaliate, but would be confusing to most English speakers because of the connotations.
The retaliatory motivation of this law is clearly documented in articles, speeches, Tweets, and other forms.
The structure of the law reinforces the retaliatory nature of the legislation: the law goes into effect immediately and dissolves the 6 special districts a year from now. The 6 special districts may petition the government to re-establish their special districts after they have been dissolved. This places a massive and unique burden on Disney since Disney and the two counties that it's property spans (Orange and Osceola), must take on an enormous amount of work and expense, to transition infrastructure and services to the counties before the special district is dissolved on July 1, 2023. Then, if the government grants the petition to re-establish the RCID, the counties and Disney will have to unwind all that work to transition the infrastructure and services from the counties back to the RCID. That wasted transition work will cost both Disney and the two counties' taxpayers 10s or even 100s of millions of dollars, and will have served no rational legislative or business purpose.
If the goal of the bill was to simply to require the re-establishment of the 6 special districts that were not re-established since the update to the state constitution, then the bill should have allowed the special districts to petition for re-establishment any time starting now, before dissolution, rather than requiring the special districts to dissolve before they can petition for re-establishment.
And I bet that Disney's petition to re-establish the district will not be passed, if it is passed at all, at the same pace as the law to strip them of the special district rights in the first place. The SB-4C bill was submitted, passed with no debate in either House or Senate, and no public comment, and signed into law--including a change to the special session rules that allowed it to be considered and passed--all in the span of 96 hours. Most bills take weeks or months--not just 4 days--and go through substantial debate and public comment periods to get through that process.
In principle I agree with you that I corporation shouldn't have special privileges. I strongly disagree however with the idea that it's fair those privileges be targeted for any reason. The first amendment specifically prohibits the government punishing free speech. If those special privileges are revoked for expressing an opinion that goes against the establishment, when they would otherwise continue, it's a clear attempt of the government to suppress dissenting speech.
That's where we disagree then: if exclude the political bend of the actions, only Disney views the action as "punishment", while to everyone else, it is "fair." Is it punishment to remove an unfair advantage? Certainly to the entity benefitting from the unfair advantage. To everyone else, no, it's not punishment, it's a return to a level playing field.
If Disney got more special privileges as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. If Disney had neutral actions taken as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. So the "punishment" aspect is key to making it a violation, but I am making the case that it is not actually punishment, when considering the context of the rest of society.
Yes, if we exclude the thing that people are complaining about, there is no basis for complaint.
Let's suppose the federal government adopted 30 percentage point higher tax rates for everyone who registered as a Republican, donated to a Republican party committee or candidate, or voted in a Republican primary.
Now, particular tax rates are not themselves a matter of right, so by the same logic that there is no basis to complain about the political retaliation against Disney since it is not via something that is a matter of right, Republicans would have no valid basis for complaint.
I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of those privileges, even if it was an explicit result of that person exercising their free speech.
EDIT>> Oh I think I see now, you are comparing the introduction of a special tax hike on a group of people with removing special privileges from Disney. Those aren't the same at all.
How is an adverse change in government treatment not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right not analogous to an adverse change in government treatment not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right in the only way at all relevant to discussion of whether the fact that the issue is not (aside from motivation) violating a matter of right makes an adverse change in government treatment permissible?
Disney's (and 1844 other entities) special district status is enshrined in Florida state and/or county law. At that point, those "privileges" become legal rights:
> RCID operates in accordance with its Charter and Chapter 189, Florida Statutes, The Uniform Special Districts Accountability Act. Additional information contained in legislation. Click here to view the District Charter: https://www.rcid.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/RCID-Charter...
Further, the first amendment to the US Constitution grants people (and corporations due to rulings like Citizens United, et al.) the right to publicly voice their opinions (good or bad) about the government's actions without fear of government retaliation, except in very narrow cases where that speech is deemed illegal. This is the real crux of the issue: if this legislation was retaliatory--and there are ample indications that it was in the public record--then the legislation violates Disney's first amendment rights.
Whether the corporate rights exist in law for Disney (and other theme parks) is a matter of public record. Whether those rights should be granted at all is a topic worthy of debate, but it actually orthogonal to this particular issue, though they are clearly related.
And the harm to Disney and Orange and Osceola counties is that they must transition all of the infrastructure and services that are operated by the RCID to the counties before the dissolution of the RCID on July 1, 2023. On or after July 1, 2023, Disney can petition the government to re-establish the special district. If approved, then Disney and the counties will have to transition the infrastructure and services back to the newly re-established RCID. The time, effort and cost of those two transitions will be born by Disney and the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers and will like run in the 10s to 100s of millions of dollars, with no business, legislative, or regulatory benefit for the expenditure.
> From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights...
Disney's "special rights" are not all that special or uncommon in Florida. There are 1844 active special districts in Florida, 76 of which have ad valorem taxation rights. Other theme parks in Florida, such as Sea World and Universal, also have special districts to manage their properties.
The definition of a special district enshrines into law specific rights for the owner(s) of the special district, meaning that those are, in fact, rights, not just privileges to be withdrawn at a whim. And Florida specifically pledged to honor those rights both by writing the law that established the RCID, and further committing to not dissolve the district unless all bond debts were paid--the separate law that is referenced in the original article.
If you want to argue against special districts existing at all, that's fair. But to argue that Disney shouldn't have one, but the rest of the special districts, including those of Disney's competitors, are acceptable is not a good-faith argument.
The “rights” we are talking about is mostly the right to run their own utility and trash services. That’s about it and whatever else the government usually provides. Street repair. Security. They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal.
That's an abhorrent lie. Their independent tax district is absolutely a sweetheart deal. The ability to privately govern the land that it owns (i.e. not pay state/property taxes) outright flies in the face of the first clause in 14th amendment. Their special privileges would not hold up to scrutiny in the court of law.
Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false. In fact, the special tax district is allowed to (and does) charge Disney additional taxes over the state maximum to provide services like utilities and infrastructure.
Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture.
If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
If it's not beneficial in any way for Disney, then why are they saying they are being retaliated against? You're attempting to paint the removal of these special corporate privileges as a positive thing for Disney. If that's the case, then the State is doing them a favor, and it's not retaliation from Disney's perspective.
It is beneficial, just not from a financial aspect.
With Reedy Creek, Disney doesn't need to worry about whether local politicians will approve expansions or meet the needs of the Walt Disney World complex since the local government is purely serving Disney.
If you take a look at Disneyland in California, Disney is going up against Anaheim and Orange County councils on a pretty routine basis to get new things built.
They would be worse off in the same sense that a child who doesn't get to eat cookies for dinner is worse off: they didn't get a thing that they really wanted. And in the same way, a child isn't harmed by denying them cookies for dinner.
So, what's your opposition to the special district that provides Disney with the ability to maintain it's property is a manner that is consistent with their business needs--which surpass the normal requirements of either Orange or Osceola counties?
Sure it's a benefit to Disney, but it's also a benefit to the county taxpayers:
* Disney subsidizes both counties' services and infrastructure by paying property taxes to pay for services/infrastructure, but not consuming them, or contracting for them where needed.
* Allows counties to avoid costly legal and procedural issues when Disney wants to add new features, attractions, or services at their park, or wish to ensure consistency of services provided by the two different counties.
Yeah, I'm sure that not following the building codes in the state of Florida is financially beneficial to Disney.
> Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false.
It is absolutely true. Stop lying.
> The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
The district, in turn, provides services, including fire response, emergency medical services, water and sewage treatment, and can issue municipal bonds to finance infrastructure projects, which comes with tax advantages which are shared by no other corporation or individual in the nation. The arrangement gives Disney control over municipal services and autonomy when it comes to how the land is used and developed, exempting it from a number of regulations. Again, a privilege enjoyed exclusively by Disney Corp.
> > Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false.
> It is absolutely true. Stop lying.
Disney paid $780 million dollars in state and local taxes in FY 2021. Florida law does not allow an entity to be charged a different county property tax rate than other citizens. That's why, if the special district is dissolved, every property owner in Orange and Osceola will be facing a 20% property tax hike: the counties can't simply charge Disney a higher property tax rate to cover the costs of providing Disney infrastructure and services.
> which comes with tax advantages which are shared by no other corporation or individual in the nation.
You mean not shared by any of the 1844 other special districts in Florida, including Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, HOAs, fire and water districts, law libraries, energy facilities, etc.?
Can you be more explicit about the tax advantages of municipal bonds compared to corporate bonds that you are referring to? You make an overly broad claim, here.
> Again, a privilege enjoyed exclusively by Disney Corp.
And, again, you are wrong. That privilege ("right", really, since it's enshrined in law), is afforded to a number of other entities in Florida (see above). And similar arrangements exist in many, if not most, other states.
They pay county property taxes, state sales taxes, etc., just like everyone else. In fact, Florida law requires that Disney pay the same rate as everyone else.
They consume no county services that property taxes generally cover (by agreement with the counties). The RCID then levies additional taxes, 2-3x more than the county property tax, on RCID residents which pay for infrastructure and services within the RCID. In some cases, the RCID contracts back to the counties (e.g., the sheriff's office for ~$13 million) to provide services within the RCID.
The result: Disney subsides property taxes in both Orange and Osceola counties, and RCID residents pay 3x more in property taxes than Orange or Osceola counties do, and 2-3 times more than Florida law would allow outside of a special district.
The real benefit that the RCID confers to Disney is control of the consistency and quality of infrastructure and services that they have on their property. And it avoids contention between the counties and Disney in cases of zoning or other civil issues like alcohol licensing, where the two counties may differ, forcing Disney to either have to cater to the most restrictive policies of the two counties, if the policies are compatible, or have different levels of service depending on which county a particular piece of Disney's property sits. Imagine being able to buy alcohol on one side of the park, but not the other, or having great roads on one side of the park, but not the other?
> They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal.
What tax breaks does Disney get? They pay Orange and Osceola property tax, despite receiving no services or infrastructure support from the county (except those that they contract for). Florida law requires that all property taxes be levied equally, so Disney pays the same rate as everyone else in the counties.
The RCID levies additional property taxes on RCID residents (almost all Disney), to pay for the infrastructure it provides to the district. Those amount to ~2-3 times more than the county taxes, and 3 times more than state law would allow the county to charge outside of an independent special district.
The ability for the RCID to charge taxes is a result of its status as an "independent" special district, meaning that it has ad valorem taxation rights (the ability to levy taxes on the residents of it's property beyond state and county taxes). Florida state law requires that any special district that is not completely encompassed with a single municipal boundary be chartered as an independent special district. Since Disney's property spans both Orange and Osceola counties, it is required to be an independent special district. Disney could have requested independent special district status, but in this case it was moot.
The idea that a corporate entity gets to have a say, politically speaking, when they don't even pay taxes is abhorrent. Equality looks like oppression to those who are privileged. And make no mistake, Disney is privileged; they don't pay state taxes. What's authoritarian is influencing Florida's policies while not being subject to Florida's policies. "Rules for thee, but not for me." Equalizing the field is fair game. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.
What taxes does Disney fail to pay? They actually are taxed at a much higher rate than Florida law would allow if they did not have the rights conferred to them as part of an independent special district. Disney paid more than $780 million in state and local taxes in FY 2021.
However, even ignoring that, your premise is still fundamentally flawed: Every citizen has rights afforded to them via the first amendment to representation and to redress the government for grievances, regardless of how much they pay in taxes. And corporations have some status as a person, so they share those same rights.
I agree that corporations sometimes don't pay their fair share of taxes. However, that does not seem to be the case with Disney, at least in this particular instance. And it's actually a bad-faith deflection from the real issue of the violation of Disney's first amendment rights against government retaliation for voicing opposition to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill (now law).
Yeah, the left is making a big mistake here, defending a company town in the 21st century. This special district should never have existed in the first place.
Regardless of whether Disney should have ever gotten this deal, the taking away of the deal is unconstitutional because it is punishing free speech. That's it. This is not a "left" thing. It is a Constitution thing.
I can both dislike Disney and believe this move was unconstitutional at the same time.
If there was a law that said "white people get 10% off of every purchase." If it was being repealed for some politically motivated reason, and white people said "I am being harmed!" would you agree with them? Or would you say "that law was unjust to everyone else, there is no harm to you."
> If there was a law that said "white people get 10% off of every purchase."
If a state had such a law would be pretty clearly unconstitutional ab initio.
> If it was being repealed for some politically motivated reason, and white people said "I am being harmed!" would you agree with them?
Assuming the law not only existed on the books but was enforced by the state prior to the repeal, yes, they would obviously be being harmed for an unconstitutional purpose in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
(If any remedy was available, it wouldn't involve preserving the policy, because that policy is a violation of other people's Constitutional rights, but since we haven't been discussing remedies in the Florida case and no one has argued that the special district exceeds Florida’s Constitutional power, that aspect of the hypothetical is not relevant to the discussion.)
Laws are never enacted or repealed without some politically motivated reason. And every time a law is enacted or repealed there are winners and losers, be it politically, socially, financially, or whatever.
I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, but, you are not currently making a good argument to defend it.
Well, it's allegedly a punishment for exercising speech (I mean, it looks like that, but I doubt that's enough to win a constitution case).
The smoking gun would be a leaked text from De Santis saying "We'll get the woke bastards. We'll take away their special district." But I don't think any evidence has emerged yet showing that was indeed his motivation.
Having said that, it was voted through by Florida lawmakers; it would only take a handful of loudmouth politicians saying to camera "See? We're winning the war on woke at Disney!" for a plausible case to start emerging.
Florida’s Lt Gov was on Newsmax a few days ago [1] and was asked if they’d consider allowing Disney to maintain special district status should they change their political position. He responded in the affirmative.
The left, as I know it, is concerned about the entire first amendment.
Free speech
Free press
Freedom of association
Freedom of religion
Non-establishment of religion
That folks paint the first amendment as "free speech" and stop there is problematic. To deny that anti-lgbt and anti-abortion legislation is motivated by anything but deeply held and oft-cited religious belief is dishonest. If the politicians pushing this crap were Muslim, there would be a deafening outcry about Sharia law. Since it's Christian law, it's a partisan issue. This isn't just a free speech issue, it's an every last word of the first amendment issue (well, okay, this doesn't really touch on the free press).
It's so strange to see the right concerned about corporate personhood. Swipes like that don't advance the conversation though.
What I do think is that this is the first major case of a fascist pushing the limits of the first amendment. The revocation of the special status was explicitly a direct consequence of Disney's protected speech.
I also believe that corporations should not govern. I would support revoking this district for basically any other reason. But that this targeted punishment due to the content of speech is undeniable, both because of desantis' statements and because The Villages, another special district that is very conservative did not have its status revoked.
Libertarians are moderates and not part of the Right. They only look like part of the Right because we have no actual far right groups in the US and because of our tradition of liberty.
If you talk to literal fascists they don't like corporate personhood either.
That's the legal notion that corporations have the same rights as real people, but the special district would still be objectionable if a real person had been allowed to set up their own private local government.
And I agree with that. What I don't agree with is why this is happening. And even if we look past this particular instance, should we not also be dissolving The Villages and whatever other special districts exist? Why just this one that opposes the Governor?
It's almost as if the constitution binds the Florida government while not binding businesses like Twitter. It isn't strange at all when you don't conflate two different concepts.
It is strange that the entirely of "the left" takes the blame for private actions taken by business, which is then used as some strange "well they started it" reaction by Republican lawmakers to do a much more egregious version of exactly what they repeatedly claim they are against.
That's a very important legal distinction, but it's absolutely irrelevant to the principle.
An honest call for freedom of speech would defend it against all censorship, public and private.
Indeed, between the two, I find censorship by private "oligarchs" more threatening. Public officials come and go, but the oligarchs remain.
(Edit in response to Volundr: We're not talking about small magazines about Harleys here. Someone who has billions of users and power that rivals governments and changes the outcome of elections must be prevented from abusing that power.)
> An honest call for freedom of speech would defend it against all censorship, public and private.
I cannot disagree with this statement more. What speech you choose to publish and not is a vital part of free speech. If I publish a motorcycle newsletter, and choose to publish a letter to the editor about why Harley's are great, and don't publish another about why Harley's suck that is part of my protected speech. It arguably makes my magazine worse, but that's for my readers to decide. Perhaps they are tired of reading endless articles ragging on Harley's and are pleased to have a publication where they can escape it.
And it's not your responsibility to enforce false equivalency, either. You are not required to give equal time to all views. That's one of the ways that disinformation has vaulted into the national dialog so easily: media was offering equal air time to opposing parties and/or viewpoints, even if they knew that one of them was objectively untrue in an effort to be viewed as "unbiased".
Even if we ignore the legal distinction here, you seem to be arguing that it is fine to abandon this principle in this particular case. You've even framed this as "[T]he left is making a big mistake here, defending a company town in the 21st century." It's almost like the rules are set so that the left can never win. When the right's actions blatantly violate the principle of free speech, rather than accept the newly shared common ground with the left and actually defend the principle, it is spun as a bad thing.
The principle was abandoned a long time ago. I'd love to see a renewed commitment to the principle, but not on an ad hoc basis, case by case, only when it serves someone's interests. An ad hoc call for free speech is not a call for free speech at all.
Edit in response to below: The courts will enforce the law without any input from us. We can only wait and see what they do, if anything. So I'm not discussing that, I'm discussing the hypocrisy in advocating for the principle only when it suits you.
Second edit: It's possible that people simply have different interpretations of the principle, but if that was the case, I'd expect to see a lot more objections to schools that force mandatory ideology on their students, failing them if they disagree; more objections to Canada and European countries when they punish people for their expression; and fewer concerns about Musk taking over Twitter.
What I see instead is people who only call for free speech to defend speech they agree with. Which, as I said before, isn't free speech at all.
> I'm discussing the hypocrisy in advocating for the principle only when it suits you.
Maybe the difference is that not everyone agrees with your expansive definition of the principle of free speech. So what appears to you as advocating for the principle only when it suits your opponents, is simply that not everyone agrees with your particular take on the principle itself.
Its fairly easy to support the interpretation of free speech where the state cannot use its expansive power to punish people for their expression. A forceful (via law) application of this principle to private entities would impact their rights in other ways (such as free association) so it isn't surprising that fewer people agree with this more extreme version of the principle.
> I'm discussing the hypocrisy in advocating for the principle only when it suits you.I'm discussing the hypocrisy in advocating for the principle only when it suits you.
Only, you're the one who has defined "the principle" in your own terms. I prefer to read "the Constitution." The position that I defend is the one backed by the Constitution. You can portray that as flip-flopping every time I go from defending a company's right to curate content that it broadcasts to attacking government attempts to enforce religious beliefs through censorship and legislative retaliation to speech, but my position is unwavering.
I'm really not following your argument here. It seems like you are saying that free speech is an important principle more expansive than what is currently codified in the constitution, but that because some parts of society have "abandoned" this principle (as if there was ever universal agreement on your interpretation of the broader principle) that now even enforcing the existing law would be too ad-hoc and a violation of the principle. This really seems like a throwing out the baby because there are a few remaining drops of bathwater on it kind of situation.
> how is reversing special privileges for a corporate titan (Disney), that give it abilities that nobody else is allowed to have, authoritarianism?
Because 1844 other special districts exist in Florida, including Sea World, Universal, and other theme parks, HOAs, fire districts, water districts, law libraries, development holdings, etc. So Disney does not have rights that nobody else has, and those rights exist to allow those entities to have control over their property to avoid unnecessary, costly, and unproductive conflicts with county rules.
> not educated enough to think critically and realize their tax dollars will now subsidize the millions (billions?) of dollars of infrastructure
For what it's worth, it's likely residents of Orange and Osceola Counties will be taking up most of that extra tax burden. Both of those counties are relatively blue, and neither of them voted for DeSantis... so that's probably just gravy to him.
What's the backstop for the counties declaring bankruptcy?
Given I don't know what's what here, but I wonder if either of these counties could then apply some sort of out-of-county tax to Disney visitors to make up for this? Like say they work with Disney and anyone who doesn't live in those counties pays an extra $10 on their ticket. I think I read the estimated additional tax cost was around $250 for the average family/year.
I'm sympathetic, but stooping to childish words lowers the quality of your argument. Your statement would have been more effective by just saying "Desantis" and "four years of Trump".
GP isn't interested in communicating. They are pandering. You can tell by the coded language: "orange" "45" "owned da libz" "uneducated" etc.
It's more important to GP to score points and signal that they are part of team blue and (big E) "Engaged" than to communicate, actually engage in a discussion, or even (ironically) think critically or be correct about their statements. GP is so busy calling republicans stupid and talking about how they vote against their interests that it never even occurred to GP that this may actually be a carefully crafted plan that actually targets left leaning counties nearly exclusively. In other words, Republicans may actually have "owned da libz" in this situation but GP is hilariously incapable of seeing it due to their disdain for the other side.
I don't understand why you'd say that in response to a 2nd-party person calling out the 1st-party rather than in response to the 1st-party person themselves.
i.e. me calling them out despite (I'm guessing) likely agreeing with their general politics is the opposite of "allowed to behave like children".
A corporation being granted the permission of owning an entire chunk of the American public's land and taking over all local and state governance for itself is also rather unconstitutional.
It's sophomoric and clownish of people to assert constitutionality upon an issue such as this one. It's unconstitutional all the way down.
> A corporation being granted the permission of owning an entire chunk of the American public's land and taking over all local and state governance for itself is also rather unconstitutional.
Is it? What provision(s) of the constitution does it violate?
The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 - equality under the law. Why should disney be exempt from property taxes? From state taxes? What gives Disney Corp the right to influence the policies of Florida whey they do not subject themselves to those same policies?
Florida's Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the Reedy Creek Improvement Act did not violate any provision of Florida's constitution. To apply the Federal constitution, a federal court case requires there to be an aggrieved party (and Florida state judges likely won't/can't revisit this to apply US constitution). Which leaves just Florida, which has no standing to challenge its own law after being enjoined by its own legal process, and leaves Disney which only gains from the contortions of the State of Florida and would also not challenge. All residents of Reedy Creek are Disney employees and their children, a major disincentive for any of them to be the political activist and challenge it, they are poorly paid and their rent is cheap ($75/month for space if using a mobile home).
The Florida State Legislatures and the Florida Executive Administrators disagree, which is why they are removing their special tax exemption status. Disney should not and cannot influence Florida's policies when they (and their employees) are exempt from the very policies they influence. No taxation, no representation. If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.
> which is why they are removing their special tax exemption status.
You are going to need to provide a citation to back up the assertion that Disney is somehow tax exempt. Disney receives no special tax exemptions resulting from the RCID, that I am aware of. Disney paid over $780 million in local, county and state taxes in FY 2021. And Florida law does not allow counties to charge it's residents different property taxes. That is why the residents of Orange and Osceola counties are facing a 20% property tax increase if the RCID is dissolved: the counties cannot simply charge Disney a higher tax rate than the rest of the county property owners.
> If they want their free speech, they need to pay for it like the rest of us.
Free speech, as defined in the first amendment, is a right afforded to all citizens of the United states. That right is not predicated on paying anyone anything. That's why it's a right. It's not transactional: a homeless person has the same first amendment rights that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have. Corporations, like Disney, have protections under the first amendment due to "personhood" enshrined in "Citizens United" and other laws.
Your arguments fly in the face of the first amendment's core precept--that the right of free speech is not a privilege only afforded monied landowners or government. It is an inherent right of every citizen to freely criticize government without fear of retribution and to seek redress from government harm, regardless of financial status.
> The Florida State Legislatures and the Florida Executive Administrators disagree
Again they do? With a quick search I can't find any statement made by either the legislature or the administration that the arrangement is unconstitutional. Yes, they are attempting to repeal it, but simply repealing it doesn't imply unconstitutionality. In fact I think we can safely infer that they don't given that there is no attempt to revoke similar arrangements with stadiums and other such situations in which private businesses get a variety of advantages not available to the average business or taxpayer.
I really am amused by the power of being able to have lawyers that understand the law better than the people that wrote or passed the law. I think Disney has that power. Its not that they necessarily understand it better although that can be a factor, its that they can warp realities with unrelated variables to create their desired reality.
Given that this law went from draft to law in under 96 hours, it's hardly surprising that the implications were not fully reviewed or understood by the legislature. Further, a number of the points being discussed here were brought up in conversations before the law was passed, so it's not like the legislators couldn't have, or shouldn't have known--they just chose to ignore the issues rather the spend time to understand and address them.
They DO pay the taxes! That’s the point. This district controls resources and Disney alone pays for it. If it is dissolved, the state pays it, and that’s the issue. Disney saves $1Bn in debt payment because the debt is owned by the district that they’re the only taxpayer of.
> A corporation being granted the permission of owning an entire chunk of the American public's land
Disney owns the land that RCID operates. It's not public lands and most, if not all of it, was bought from private landowners during the '60s. The term "public lands" refers to government-owned property. Sometimes public lands are loaned, licensed, or leased to private entities (e.g., for logging, oil-drilling, public services like gas stations, etc.) but that's not the case here.
> taking over all local and state governance for itself is also rather unconstitutional.
Florida has specific legislation allowing entities to take on portions of local, county and state governance as part of it's Special District laws. 1844 entities have been granted these rights, including Disney. See https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s...
Genuine question: how do you figure it’s unconstitutional?
Don’t states have pretty broad sway in how they manage their municipalities? It’s not like this is the first time a company owned a company town
edit: also it seems like they mostly took over local governance - fire, sewer, cops, trash, etc. I haven’t read anything about them not being subject to the state laws of Florida
As noted elsewhere in this thread: the special district laws and the RCID, specifically, have survived constitutional review by the Florida Supreme Court. The state certainly understands that these laws we deemed constitutional.
> they failed to notice an obscure provision in state law that says the state could not do what legislators were doing — unless the district’s bond debt was paid off
> In essence, the state had a contractual obligation not to interfere with the district until the bond debt is paid off
If it was written into the contract, yes, and maybe the state can't just break the contract willy-nilly. If, however, the bond matter was written into the law that made these special districts possible rather than into the contract, then no, it's not part of the contract, and no legislature can be bound by statutes passed by past legislatures.
The bond promise is not covered in the law that was effectively repealed by SB-4C which is s. 189.072(2), which covers how special districts could be dissolved prior to SB-4C. The bond issue is covered elsewhere, hence the "obscure provision" designation.
> (2) Notwithstanding s. 189.072(2), any independent special23
district established by a special act prior to the date of24
ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968,25
and which was not reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise26
reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5,27
1968, is dissolved effective June 1, 2023.
I.e., the legislature in 2022 does not feel bound by the legislature in 2021, and just to be sure they came up with a specific constitutional rationale for that beyond the traditional one.
It also says that the Reedy Creek district can re-apply to become an independent district again.
In any case, SB-4C doesn't address the bond issue at all, and it doesn't say that 189.072 doesn't apply as to bonds.
189.072 says, about bonds:
> (4) DEBTS AND ASSETS.—Financial allocations of the assets and indebtedness of a dissolved independent special district shall be pursuant to s. 189.076.
and 189.076 says:
> (2) Unless otherwise provided by law or ordinance, the dissolution of a special district government shall transfer the title to all property owned by the preexisting special district government to the local general-purpose government, which shall also assume all indebtedness of the preexisting special district.
So I assume that continuity will be provided: the financial obligations of the special district will become the financial obligations of the two counties spanned by Disney's special district.
That doesn't seem in the least mysterious. I'm sure there will be court cases, but ISTM that the text in question is pretty straightforward.
This whole situation is such a mess. Disney World is clearly working great today. The company is happy since it has autonomy. Guests are happy because they get a great experience. The state is happy from all the jobs and tax revenue Disney (its largest employer) brings in.
Now DeSantis has to throw a wrench into all this because of his presidential aspirations. I'm (thankfully) not a resident of the state, but the prospect of long term economic loss over the ambitions of one man would make me furious.
>Well obviously Disney got a plum deal back in the day, which should probably be migrated to fairer terms now.
This is the tough thing about subsidies. Orange County's population has grown 10x since 1950, which has been a huge boon to Florida (from a tax base perspective, from a representation in Federal government perspective, etc.).
You could argue that the subsidy is now too 'sweetheart' of a deal since Disney can't exactly move the park, but isn't that the literal opposite of the Republican economic platform?
>that it will not in any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Reedy Creek Act, until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with any act or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are fully met and discharged.
For clarity, "exemption from taxation" can be better thought of as "exemption from double taxation" or "exemption from external government taxation" since the special district is currently allowing Reedy Creek to tax itself for its own self-provided services.
Disney is not exempt from paying taxes for services in the way people think it's exempt. It's not paying zero. On the contrary, it's reportedly currently taxing itself 3x the maximum tax rate the city or county is allowed to tax.
From what I see, the state statute grants the ability for RCID to issue bond contracts. I don't believe the statute grants the state any ability to interfere with those contracts.
That article doesn't add anything new. Again, a statutory promise is not a contractual clause and cannot bind a future legislature.
I'm sure there will be interesting court cases out of this.
That is, whether cancelling the special district interferes with the extant bonds will be an interesting question for the courts, but if Disney can pay... And anyways, the legislature could always make it so the counties inherit the bonds (and the 3x tax power until they're paid off, maybe), so it seems unlikely that the legislature can do nothing here.
they could secede from the state of Florida. the First Mouse War.
I bet a lot of people would want to immigrate to the Great State of Disney. Orderly management and mandatory morning sing alongs would probably be a great comfort.
While I get the politics surrounding Reedy Creek, I think DeSantis is making a huge mistake. Regardless of what you want to say about Disney's politics, one can't deny that they have been very good stewards of the Reedy Creek district. And while it may seem wired that a company gets to govern itself, when you're actually on Disney property it starts to make more sense. The property is freaking massive, like medium sized town massive. The government can take the district back but now they are on the hook for providing services to the place and I think that's going to cost the taxpayer in Florida a pretty penny.
> I think that's going to cost the taxpayer in Florida a pretty penny
It might, but Disney becomes a taxpayer as well and the county/state would not necessarily be under an obligation to maintain the roads and property to the same level that Disney presently does. This presents a huge challenge to Disney, because they need the property to be maintained at this level and need to have the flexibility that the special district affords them. Can you imagine the regular government permitting required to do what they do? Right now if they need to fill in a wetland area to build a hotel—no one outside of Disney need be involved in the yes or no of that decision.
Whether or not it’s legal will be for the courts to decide…however, should it stick, make no mistake…this hurts Disney far more than it hurts the local tax payers. If it didn’t Disney would have ended this special deal long ago.
> The property is freaking massive, like medium sized town massive.
Large city massive: Disney's property in Florida is roughly the same size as the city of San Francisco, though the vast majority of it is undeveloped.
> The government can take the district back but now they are on the hook for providing services
Yes, but there is no requirement that they continue to provide services at the same level of quality that the special district provides. The Disney experience will suffer (and tourism and tax revenue will fall) if the counties cannot provide services that are consistent across the two different counties, and consistent with Disney's current level of service.
Disney is a mega-corp. Florida is a state. Politics are involved in the current situation. Politics were very involved in the prior situation in which Disney received special treatment. You can read the law, the case law and the contract agreements all you want but the error bars on "which way is this gonna go" are massive.
Anyone saying anything with any sort of certainty is not to be taken seriously.
Reportedly, per this article, the the "special treatment" is being allowed to tax itself 3x more than the maximum city/county tax rate so it can provide services to itself in the manner it feels are appropriate for Disney and its customers.
I mean, sure, but Disney also has significantly fewer streets than a typical city, and what streets they do have typically see less vehicle wear than cities as well.
Having been "backstage" at Disney to dive in the aquarium in Epcot, I can tell you it's not just the streets, it's everything, even things most people will never see. It's a part of the Disney culture. Railings are repainted, flowerbeds are maintained, and many other things, every night so that they always appear neat and clean. There are very few maintenance issues that are visible or perceivable to guests.
There is no way that the counties will be able to maintain the same level of service to Disney if they take over all the services. They don't have the money, the will, or the culture to do so, nor should they (probably).
Honest question: why do it this way instead of just hiring employees/contractors to do the stuff needed on your private property? Presumably Six Flags still has people picking up litter without needing to have the power to levy taxes, so why not Disney World?
Disney's land straddles two counties. That raises a number of logistical challenges such as zoning, level of service, different priorities between the counties, which would ultimately all translate to a lower, less guest-friendly environment in the park. These are not resolvable using contractors/employees if you do not have control of the services/infrastructure.
A couple of hypothetical examples:
* What if one county is dry, but not the other? Does Disney allow purchase/consumption of alcohol on one side of the park, but not the other?
* What if the response time of EMS was significantly different between the two counties (meaning outcomes on one side of the park were far better than the other side)?
* What if the roads on one side are well maintained, but the other side is filled with cracks and potholes (like most city streets), so your initial perception of the park depended on which county you ended up entering the park from?
* What if Disney wants to open a new attraction, but they can't get commitment from the counties to provide the additional power and zoning for it?
How would those things affect your opinion of the park as a guest?
* What if one county is dry, but not the other? Does Disney allow purchase/consumption of alcohol on one side of the park, but not the other?
Fair point, but unrelated to the question about taxation.
* What if the response time of EMS was significantly different between the two counties (meaning outcomes on one side of the park were far better than the other side)?
OK but why tax themselves to fund a public EMS service instead of just contracting a private ambulance company?
* What if the roads on one side are well maintained, but the other side is filled with cracks and potholes (like most city streets), so your initial perception of the park depended on which county you ended up entering the park from?
Why tax yourself to fund public roads that only you use? Just build private roads on your own property with your own money.
* What if Disney wants to open a new attraction, but they can't get commitment from the counties to provide the additional power and zoning for it?
Again, why tax yourself to build public power infrastructure that only you use? Why not build it yourself out of your own money?
The article does a pretty good job of lining up some directions that this can go, without making prophecies. One thing seems certain, lawyers are going to have a field day with this.
To be honest Disney is not your usual housing estate. Tax may be a name. But that is for maintaining service and I suspect they pay more to maintain it. 3x reported. Possible. Anyway this is a good show how property rights are relate to politics. Let us see.
That's a very disingenuous way of putting it. There is a lot more at play here that just "special privileges". There is the increased tax burden on the surrounding counties that will now be responsible for upkeep/services/etc and the fact that this was very clearly backlash motivated by the company voicing support against the recently passed "Don't say gay" bill. Further more from what I can tell this was a mutually beneficial arrangement, it wasn't just "special privileges" for free.
You are very disingenuous. It's not a "Don't say gay" bill, it's a "Parental Rights in Education" bill. The idea that Disney Corp and its employees have special tax exemptions that is enjoyed by nobody else in the nation while advocating that they should be able to teach sexually explicit topics to kindergardeners to 3rd graders - and hide the fact they're doing so from their parents is abhorrent.
> It's not a "Don't say gay" bill, it's a "Parental Rights in Education" bill
It has been commonly referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, rather than the official name of "Parental Rights in Education" bill in a wide variety of forums, which I'm sure you are aware of. Don't be willfully obtuse.
Disney's special district status is not unique. More than 1800 entities ranging from theme parks, HOAs, libraries, energy district, etc., all have similar rights. Take some time to read this: https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s...
Disney is far less of "unique snowflake" than the outspoken FL Republicans would like you to believe.
> There is the increased tax burden on the surrounding counties that will now be responsible for upkeep/services/etc
They don’t have to provide upkeep/services/etc to the same level that Disney currently does. Drive around the greater Osceola/Kissimmee area and ask yourself “Is Disney going to be ok with their roads and common spaces in this condition?” Pretty sure the answer there is “no” and Disney will still maintain the roads to their standard and this will ease the burden on the counties…and pay taxes to boot. Disney has a golden goose that they have paid a whole lot of money for over the last 50 years to shit golden eggs, they aren’t going to slaughter the goose just because the price of goose feed goes up.
I think giving a company what amounts to governmental rights is extraordinarily dystopian regardless of any benefits the government may get from such an agreement. Why shouldn't we turn San Fransisco into a city controlled by Google? Surely it could be beneficial to both.
Second, I don't think it was retribution for going against the Parental Rights bill. The opposition to the bill (and the arrest of some Disney employees involved with human trafficking) is the catalyst that brought Disney's special privileges to the forefront. It is not the reason they are losing the privileges. There would have been calls to remove the special privileges regardless of Disney's opposition to the bill.
So why aren't you advocating for the repeal of the 1843 other special districts in Florida, which also include Sea World, and Universal, as well as HOAs, and wide variety of other businesses?
No, they can't. Florida state law specifically prohibits that: all county residents must pay the same tax rate. The only way that Disney can pay more taxes than county residents is by forming a...drumroll, please...independent special district.
The state of Florida is dissolving, unilaterally, and without taking any public comment from Disney, the county, the county residents, or the rest of the state, the very vehicle that would allow what you are talking about.
* Disney's status as an "independent special district" in Florida. (Note that there are 1800+ active special districts in Florida, so Disney's not unique in that regard.)
* The government's retaliatory actions in SB-4C that the government has said pretty explicitly are due to Disney's public opposition to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill (see https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/15172454664...), which is in direct violation of the first amendment.
These should be argued separately because they each deal with very different matters of law, governance, policy, etc.
I don't see people going out to defend that. It's the fact that it's naked retribution for not supporting one of their other agendas, which itself is flat out designed for political theater.
Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place.
I find it most humorous that the ones calling it retribution would generally support this measure if it had been forced on, say, Koch Industries in a red district of a purple state.
> Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place.
Sure. But rolling back those privileges within an act of overt political revenge - that insures it becomes yet another expensive, taxpayer funded bench-slap.
Thanks for the links! I agree with you that it's almost certainly related to recent events and probably not the best course of action to save taxpayer money in the short term.
To restate my position - I don't believe that Disney (or any other corporation) should ever have the ability to levy taxes in their own special district as that is explicitly a function of government.
Instances of political revenge, especially in this day and age, are not rare or limited to one side of the political spectrum. I oppose any attempts to target groups of non-affiliated people (by race, sexual orientation, etc), but can't be too upset when the casualty is a mega corp like Disney.
So, your position is that it's OK if it's political revenge against Disney, because they make lots of money?
You realize that is a very slippery slope, right? The first amendment confers free speech as a right regardless of your financial status. If you start to erode that right, and say "if you are 'rich' it's OK if your rights are trampled," then the subjective definition of "rich" will just be adjusted to match the person currently in the crosshairs, until one day, the person in the crosshairs is you.
Some of us are ok with pointing out issues regardless of "whose side" is involved. It would be nice if there were more of us like that.
edit: @stuxnet I can't reply to your reply so I'll amend here:
I'm not a Disney fan either but that's not the concern being addressed -- it's the "reasoning" behind it and the fact that it fits into a pattern of harassments and intimidation of all who do not support them.
Punishing others as political theater is dangerous territory and it only seems to be accelerating. Public officials/applicants are advocating for death to all who oppose them. If that doesn't bother you because you're on the right team then I encourage you to revisit that and examine how that might not be good for society.
I'm not particularly a fan of Disney or the Florida legislature so I totally agree with your second point.
The point I was trying to make is that regardless of the recent motivations, the end result is that a mega corporation is stripped of privileges that they shouldn't have had in the first place. I would support that in this case and also the other fictional case I presented with Koch Industries.
So I guess the point of contention is in the motivation, but that doesn't matter to me as long as the end result is the same.
It's your interpretation that Disney should never have had those rights. The state of Florida clearly strongly disagrees with you, given that they have granted the same/similar rights to thousands of entities over more than 200 years (yes, before Florida was even a state). 1800 different active entities currently have special district rights in Florida.
I think debating whether special districts should be allowed at all would be a good discussion to have, but it is completely separate from whether what the government did in passing SB-4C is a violation of Disney's (and possibly the Orange and Osceola county taxpayers') first amendment rights.
Most people had no clue Disney had special privileges. Due to the extra eyes on Disney because of their opposition to the Parental Rights in Education bill and the arrest of some Disney employees on human trafficking charges people learned about the special privileges. Once people learned about the special privileges the lawmakers decided to remove them due to the public support of doing it. Doing what the people want is what politicians are supposed to do.
I think there would have been calls to remove the special privileges regardless of Disney's opposition to the bill.
Desantis’ lap dog Rep. Randy Fine says that Disney must be punished for not behaving property. "It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state.
But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state."
They didn't say it was due to their opposition to this bill but for misbehaving. Disney has been doing quite a bit of things that Floridians don't like. Bringing a young kid on ABC (owned by Disney) to promote transgenderism in prepubescent kids for example. This has been brewing for a long time.
Like I said, the bill was the catalyst of this, but not really the reason.
Just the characterization of Disney's opposition to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill as "misbehaving", is telling. Voicing you opposition of government legislation is a right enshrined in the first amendment. It's not "misbehaving"--it's exercising a constitutional right.
What happens if the Florida legislature flipped Blue next election, and started passing legislation against right-leaning entities for "misbehaving" by voicing opposition to more liberal social policies?
What happens if the legislature decides to use eminent domain to repossess your house because they disagree with a Tweet you made?
Hopefully, you can see how these actions are pernicious attacks on the first amendment.
> They didn't say it was due to their opposition to this bill but for misbehaving.
Not precisely. They clarified Disney's misbehavior was having "CA Values" in FL.
It’s time for them to remember that we are not CA. They are a CA company. And we are not interested in their CA values here in this state.
This and other "We're going after Disney" statements were made days/hours after Disney voiced it's objections to the Don't Say Gay bill. The legislators' messaging is fairly unambiguous here.
The implication that dissolving RCIC was already destined to happen at this time, that seems disingenuous given that the Governor's staff had - only last year - carved out Disney from FL's unconstitutional SM law.
I think it was the opposition to the Parental Rights bill that allowed for the widespread support of removing the special privileges. I think that many in Florida including the some representatives wanted to remove the privileges before but couldn't find any reason that was popular enough. Things like promoting prepubescent trans children on TV never made the headlines so they couldn't run on that. When Disney opposed a bill whose stated goal is to protect children, which the majority of people in Florida regardless of political party support, while at the same time Disney had multiple employees arrested for human trafficking it opened an opportunity. The politicians took it and removed the privileges.
I don't believe it would have happened at this time if Disney had not opposed the Parental Rights bill. Like I said above I believe it opened the opportunity up to do it. If Disney hadn't opposed this bill the next time they did something unpopular with the average Floridian they would have lost their special privileges.
I think there is a long list of things that Disney has been supporting for years that the average Floridian opposes and considers CA values. I think promoting trans kids and putting warnings on old movies are good examples.
I think the politicians who gave Disney an exception wanted to use Disney, but I don't think they actually supported Disney. Disney's support for various woke thing was widely known by conservatives. I doubt those involved with the exception supported Disney back then. They just didn't have the opportunity to implement what they wanted.
> I think it was the opposition to the Parental Rights bill that allowed for the widespread support of removing the special privileges.
Except that it wasn't "removing special privileges" from anyone but Disney:
* What about the special privileges that 1800+ other entities have under Florida's special district laws? Why are they not also being discussed for dissolution?
* Why was the bill introduced, passed with no debate in either house, and signed into law in a 4 day period and in a special session that was not even called for the purpose of debating special districts (it was amended by DeSantis to specifically allow this bill to be passed)?
* Why is the bill structured to force Disney to transition all of the RCID infrastructure and services to Orange and Osceola counties before dissolution on July 1, 2023, but Disney cannot petition for the special district to be re-established until on or after July 1, 2023? That provision means Disney has to transfer all infrastructure/services to the county, petition the government to re-establish the special district, then transition all the infrastructure/services back to the RCID if the petition is granted. All the costs of that mandated, obviously useless double-transition, will be borne by both Disney and the counties taxpayers, and will likely be in 10s-100s of millions of dollars, each.
PS: Yes, the final bill SB-4C dissolves a total of six special districts, mostly to obscure the fact that this was specifically targeting Disney, but none of the other five will suffer even a tiny fraction of the same financial or ongoing business impacts that Disney and Orange and Osceola counties and their taxpayers will.
That is not what I am referring to. I should have been clear. I was primarily talking about Desmond Napoles, but there are other cases that ABC has been involved with as well. This sort of thing has been going on for years.
Where are those calls prior to Disney's opposition to the "Parentel Rights in Education" bill? Special districts are widely used in Florida. It's not like it's some great secret.
This whole saga feels like something that makes for great frontpage headlines for current politicians, with the expectation that all the problems teased out in court will only play out in the backpage stories.
