I never implied it was. I'm saying the people who buy their movie tickets, merchandise, streaming service, vacation packages and various other sources of revenue are the free market. Disney has every right as a company to renounce or support anyone they choose. And the consumers have the same rights where Disney is concerned. 2023 will not be kind to the mouse.
If the Disney company only depended on robust theme park revenue to stay afloat, I would agree with you.
You're right, no one is going to see Disney's movies anymore.
Where do you think the company is failing? There are some areas they are struggling but politics has nothing to do with it.
Then the Walt Disney Company should be just fine this time next year. No worries!
They will be
Here’s what’s not difficult:
Wasn’t the question…it was more who needs more towels after this “wet work”?
The bold part is the whole ballgame. Only way around that is an amendment to the state constitution to eliminate Disney’s right to representation while continuing to tax them. Seems like a horribly slippery slope to go down. I can’t imagine any corporation even considering moving any jobs to FL if that’s the law of the land. That could have extreme negative long term impacts on the state and local economies.Disney Spat Leaves DeSantis Few Options for Reedy Creek District
Disney’s Reedy Creek district—or something like it—will almost certainly be in place for the foreseeable future in Florida, either by court intervention or legislation. The question now is how much oversight the state will enjoy over this uniquely powerful and corporate-controlled district, says...news.bloombergtax.com
“If Florida attempts to place Reedy Creek under state control, Disney will have a much stronger court case than if the state simply dissolved the district. Depending on who you ask, Disney already had a claim that dissolving the district was unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech in violation of the First Amendment. However, that claim was not entirely clear, as it would be unusual for a court to step in to say a state cannot dissolve one of its own subdivisions based on an alleged improper motive.
Disney’s right to elect its representatives is much stronger than its right to have Reedy Creek exist at all. Disney, as property owner, was granted the statutory right to elect the district’s board of supervisors. If Florida tried to replace it with state political appointees, the situation would go from the state managing its own subdivisions to the state taking away a landowner’s right to vote for its local representatives—an action courts are much more accustomed to stepping in to prevent. Florida cannot avoid this control issue by simply creating a new district with a different governing body, as the state Constitution would require Disney to approve any special district with taxing powers like Reedy Creek.”
To put your mind at ease:
What Julius Caesar calls “Clusterus Maximus Disasterica”
Does Florida need approval from RCID/Disney to amend the Reedy Creek Improvement Act to replace the landowner elected Board with a Governor appointed Board? I would think and hope so. Is there something in the Florida Constitution that would pertain to such a scenario?
