It is amazing how many progressives are defending special privileges for one of the wealthiest and influential companies in the world.
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.
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.
Those counties can raise their taxes on the land Disney inhabits in order to recoup those "losses".
"The current tax rate is three times higher than the maximum amount allowed by cities and counties"
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.
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.
* 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 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 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.
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.
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.
Sure. But rolling back those privileges within an act of overt political revenge - that insures it becomes yet another expensive, taxpayer funded bench-slap.
Two of FL's legal money-drains - see FL mention: https://www.project-disco.org/competition/033122-despite-war...
and there's this: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/scott-maxwell-commen...
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.
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.
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.
It's retribution.
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."
ref: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/22/florida-republican-govt-...
Like I said, the bill was the catalyst of this, but not really the reason.
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 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 had too search for it. I found a PSA that I think you might be referring to: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/06/disney-networks-among-outlet...
Do you take issue with its contents?
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.
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.