The statements are about what is going to happen vs. the possibility of having the debts of RCID (which benefitted only Disney) being dumped on other entities which could have happened if the district was just dissolved.
It feels like there are one of two (three?) things going on. Especially since we can assume at a generic very stereotypical level Disney would prefer some amount of Republican government, at least in the past if not now or not this specific.
They're the state's largest single taxpayer and second largest employer.
There’s been some suggestion on here Disney winded up paying more in taxes by virtue of its RCID issues, which leads back to the “harm” issue in terms of standing for a shareholder (if Disney being decoupled from RCID actually means they spend less money)
It’s the fallacy of appeasement. People accept the false grievances at face value and therefore wrongly assume if they just handle this it’ll all be over and go away. It’s this problem where as a general rule we’re a bit too trusting and assume others might as we would act. If we had an issue and it was addressed, that would be the end of it. Most of us don’t go around making things up to get concessions from others so we just don’t make the connection.
Just because people disagree with what the law of the land should be doesn't mean they aren't obligated to follow it or expect others to follow it, especially once ruled upon by the Supreme Court. If the law of the land is that corporations have free speech rights, then people of both left and right persuasions are obligated to follow the law equally, and should expect the law of the land to be applied equally. The left "lost" that particular battle, it's not inconsistent that they should proceed to acceptance of the outcome, the expectation that it be followed and there should be consequences if violated.
Of course, but concerns about the bigger picture aren’t allowed here because it’s political.
Because when the business as a whole is experiencing secular changes maybe the small amount of brand and political capital you have available to you is better used elsewhere.
And keep In mind his comment about paying their fair share of taxes was in reference to the original plan where the district was to be dissolved. The average person reading that assumes that Disney when it had RCID did not pay its fair share of taxes but Ron is fixing that now. It was lie when he said it and it came back to bite him when he changed the plan and didn’t dissolve the district. So now anyone who believed the original statement (so believed that with a special tax district Disney got a tax break) thinks he caved and let Disney keep their special district with a big tax break. People in his own party, including a special neighbor he is soon to be at odds with, are sure to point that out to anyone who will listen.
“I’m concerned that we’re solving a problem that isn’t serious, or doesn’t really exist," Lepinski said.
Emotional meeting ends with DeSantis' New College of Florida board abolishing diversity office
Cutting New College's Office of Outreach and Inclusive Excellence, which handles diversity issues, is one of the revamped board's first big moves.www.usatoday.com
What kinds of decisions will DeSantis’ cronies possibly make regarding Disney?
You are glossing over key distinctions - It's not a requirement that any gov agency with authority over you be elected... but for certain types, there is, including those with taxing authority.
When we talked about this a gazillion pages back someone posted a link to a database of FL special districts where you could filter on different criteria. When we filtered on government appointed board and authority to assess tax there were very few examples. Of the ones that did exist they all had government appointed boards that required the board members to be landowners of the district. Simple concept of no taxation without representation. These were non profits like regional medical centers and appeared to be structured that way to avoid the cost and hassle of running an election for the seats. We found no example of a special district with a board appointed by the Government that had taxing authority and allowed board members from outside the district. This one would be a first.
I don’t necessarily disagree, as I said several pages back in a likely deleted post relenting that this is likely a strategic mistake.
The state didn’t hire Disney, they govern the entities within RCID. That’s not the same.
Let me see if someone can. I’ll be in Disneyland.
