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.
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.
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.