Disney wasn’t unregulated. The constant search for a contradiction is disingenuous from the start. The district’s compliance with state regulation is one of the issues with the criteria established by the original dissolution legislation.
We can agree to disagree. I don’t know how just asking whether people support the Governor‘s actions or not is baiting. That makes no sense to me. They still asked that same question but then added color that could be disputed by both sides as skewed.
Disney never had power over a local general government. They had no power over Orange or Osceola counties where they operated. They had control over a special tax district (1,800 of which exist in FL alone). While the district had broader powers than most special district it was still very limited in scope compared to a general local government. Part of the issue is people don’t understand that and don’t understand what RCID actually did and more important didn’t do. If you told me Universal was going to have control over the Orlando local government I would have a huge problem with that. If they want a special district for their train station that they want control over I have no problem with that.
I agree that this arrangement with RCID should be examined, see if it is still appropriate, and modified or ended as necessary. BUT Unfortunately the governor has made this not about RCID but about the question of whether the government has the right to punish a corporation for free speech. I think that the reactions would be very different without the political envelope that this is taking place in. I think it is hard to judge RCID and it's necessity within this atmosphere.
You’re forgetting Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista.
Yes. In fact, unless there's several medical emergencies happening simultaneously within the park, they are generally strategically positioned backstage for a quick response.
What I am saying though - is if you really read that question - word for word, line by line, I can't find a partisan bit in it. It's almost like a 1970's journalist wrote it. We have become so used to everything politicized in every word we read, I think it may be hard to recognize a truly unbiased question.
^exactly this
Yes, Reedy Creek Emergency Services handles medical as well as fire first response services.
As we’ve seen repeatedly, many didn’t actually understand the arrangement. A good many are issues with Florida, not the specific one situation.
I guess we can agree to disagree. It’s a political poll so they can’t leave the Governor’s name out.
I believe this was a national poll, and unless you follow politics daily, you're almost certainly not going to be aware of an inconsequential (for the average American) feud between Florida and Disney.
Exactly. My guess is the majority of those polled would pick answer 3 (not sure or unknown). Once you introduce bias into the design of the question it’s impossible to know whether the person is responding based on actual knowledge of the situation or based on how you framed the situation. So as I said I could write the question differently and get a very different answer. That’s not to say it’s completely useless information, but it is flawed based on how the question was asked.
I actually decline to participate in polls where I don’t know all the facts of the questions are phrased poorly.
Not all. Some are genuinely beneficial, or serve a purposes that neither state nor local governments want to handle.
Based on an alleged "special tax status" that suggests Disney was receiving a tax break not available to anyone else. If the question has the facts wrong, then the result is useless.
