It doesn't say that. It says that existing plans to invest may be derailed or disrupted by the current board, which is not necessarily due to Disney's unwillingness. Perhaps just incompetence on the part of the board.
I’m sure many companies are hesitant investing in Florida now that it isn’t a business-friendly state anymore. When the government attempts destroy the biggest tax-paying company in the state, takes over part of that company because they criticized the government, and appoints stooges and cronies to try and make the company’s product fall in line with the government’s values, why are you surprised that business wouldn’t want to invest there?
The obvious hostility, lack of communication, and the level of uncertainty from the new board doesn’t build confidence in the eyes of developers.
www.clickorlando.com
gotta love the shotty reporting... "Hundreds of district employees owe over $2M in back taxes" -- No, 2.1M is the total tax liability calculated that is in question. Over 600k of that is actually the district's liability. But that would require actually looking at the material they are reporting on...‘Reedy Creek failed’: Hundreds of district employees owe over $2M in back taxes
In a letter to the IRS, district officials explained that Disney theme park passes and discounts given to employees weren't properly reported as taxable benefits.
A development agreement is not authorization to develop property. It merely sets in place existing development regulations. Without the development agreement Disney is simply subject to the development regulations. And since the district has not even started the process to develop a new comprehensive plan and then change the development regulations, for the time being the development regulations are still the same ones in the development agreement.
‘Reedy Creek failed’: Hundreds of district employees owe over $2M in back taxes
In a letter to the IRS, district officials explained that Disney theme park passes and discounts given to employees weren't properly reported as taxable benefits.
District has already dealt with this in their new stipend program to employees... by trying to cover the tax liability in the amount.
Aren’t Disney benefits like discounts and passes similar to other benefits that say other companies give out to their employees? Like Costco giving out free executive memberships to their employees or Southwest allowing their employees to fly for free when not working?
That’s not really what they said.
Welcome to the new free speech theory of compelled speech where persons and organizations must be forced by the state to support positions to somehow make them neutral.
Too soon for a she's into video joke?
