Ok, I'll take that at face value that others are saying that.That Disney is free of state oversight and doesn’t have to follow codes has been one of the lies told to justify action against the District. By saying the plans to fix that “problem” are reasonable you are giving validity to the lie. The regulations are already aligned, exceeded or the same.
So some entities should be given special treatment? What are the guidelines for this special treatment?
I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is, Reedy Creek serves a decent purpose that is good for the state, and good for Disney. But the scenario that RCID was created for no longer exists, and tidying things up isn't a bad thing. I'm arguing for the opposite of special treatment.
The problem is this has become wrapped up in the separate issue of the governor's retribution. So of course since it's now all political, we can't possibly have a conversation about the merits of special district reform.
Last edited by a moderator: