What Disney received was entirely lawful. You just don't like their politics. Party over country. If a Dem gov was doing it to a conservative company you guys would be screaming bloody murder about how ridiculous it was. And rightfully so.
Disney is Central Florida’s largest taxpayer, paying nearly $300 million per year in property taxes to Orange and Osceola counties, as well as about $250 million in other state taxes. Hardly special tax privileges.
The 2200 is a little misleading. It doesn't account for the development costs that Disney would have to pay those counties in the form of impact fees per hotel room, building permit fees that for a ride like Tron could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars etc. Don't even get started having to deal with DOT for the state highway that gets you there and SWFWMD fees. Those two departments can basically hold your development hostage if they want.
so what? this justifies your support of big gov? Just call it what it is & move along. It's not hard.
I'm not sure that's responsive. Obviously I don't know the particulars, but I understood the statistic to refer to already incurred outstanding Bond debt on bond issues taken out by the reedy Creek improvement district that now would need to be the responsibility of Orange County. It may have moved forward in time (accelerated, for lack of a better term although that's not precise) outstanding obligations that are payable over a period of years, although that's not completely unrealistic as I still suspect that it would be an event of default and that it would at least be possible for the current debt to become fully due. But I'm not sure what your post is trying to say assuming that's the issue. Again, I have not seen the detail but from context that is what it appeared was being described
I've already said I'm on the fence about this. If this weren't retaliatory, DeSantis wouldn't really need an excuse to do that. Whether it's good policy is another story, entirely. That said, it probably is retaliatory... and considering that it is retaliatory, the only justification for this is that Democrats would do the same. You don't want to be the one to pull this sort of stuff first. I have no issue with libertarians calling this out. I get it. What I do have issue with is folks who have no problem cudgeling businesses to disassociate from all that is conservative and echo woke talking points, particularly those who have no issue in using government to apply that sort of pressure. To those people, you made your bed, now lie in it.
First, I would never support a Dem governor retaliating against a private business. I actually supported Hobby Lobby’s right to not provide birth control coverage as much as I might have disagreed with it as bad policy . Second, show me an example where a Dem gov threatened a private company in retaliation for their exercise of free speech. I’ll wait here.
I'd have no issue if the state government wanted to revoke Disney's special privileges organically. Doing so to retaliate against them for political speech is, however, a hugely different issue and a massive problem.
If repeatedly violating the Constitution is "towing the line," I don't want to see what is beyond the line.
Youre not the arbiter of what constitutes “clear violations” of the Constitution. That’s what courts are for.
I didn’t think about the First Amendment issue that will be argued. It appears their are lots of cases where SCOTUS upheld Corporate political speech, which this is, and didn’t extend that to advertising until Citizens. This is a classic case of government retaliating against political speech. Florida will lose this in court. Actually when it comes to court costs I’m betting Disney has deeper pockets than Florida. Corporate Speech
"For at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that even though a person has no 'right' to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests—especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to 'produce a result which (it) could not command directly.' Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1342, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460. Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible." Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972)
