I disagree. They have a very real incentive to negotiate. There are several buckets of possible outcomes to this:
- Disney refuses to compromise and sues under some State or Federal law claiming the dissolution was illegal and a court agrees and reverses the law returning RCID to where they were before with 100% control
- Disney refuses to compromise and sues under some State or Federal law claiming the dissolution was illegal and a court disagrees and the state either takes control or creates a new district where Disney has no control
- Disney plays ball and agrees not to sue assuming the agreement reached provides them control of the new district minus some rights like building an airport or a nuclear power station that they have no intention of using anyway
So if Disney decides to go the court fight way then 1 or 2 happens. They have to assess the percent likelihood of outcomes. For example let’s say it’s 70% they win in court 30% they lose. So if option 3 leaves them in virtually the same place economically then there’s a 100% chance they succeed. Going the court way they have 70/30 odds they are unharmed economically (minus legal fees). If court is 90/10 they probably have less a desire to negotiate. If it’s 50/50 or less more desire. Only Disney can say how they view a potential lawsuit.
This analysis is looking purely at the economic impact to having RCID. It does not take into account the fact that a court win would help ensure that the government does not attempt this again. So the benefit is beyond basic economics. However, the flip side to that is dragging this out in court could provide some bad PR for the company. Like it or not there are paying customers who agree with the state on this. A quiet resolution helps Disney to move on. While a politician only needs to get 51% of the people to like and vote for him to be successful Disney wants near 100% of those people to be customers. The politicians know this and will use it as leverage in negotiations.
All this being said, I believe the state is wrong here. They have over stepped and this is a dangerous precedent to set. The question for Disney is how much of a potential economic hit (from either potentially losing control of a special district or losing more paying customers) are they willing to risk to see the right thing happen.