7 ms·

From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted fo

by daenz 5y ago

From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights, and in fact give them unfair legal advantages that nobody else can have, and therefore shouldn't be protected from infringement in the same way that rights are. I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant, as if they are entitled to those privileges.

mescaline 5y ago
The “rights” we are talking about is mostly the right to run their own utility and trash services. That’s about it and whatever else the government usually provides. Street repair. Security. They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal.
- codeguro 5y ago
  That's an abhorrent lie. Their independent tax district is absolutely a sweetheart deal. The ability to privately govern the land that it owns (i.e. not pay state/property taxes) outright flies in the face of the first clause in 14th amendment. Their special privileges would not hold up to scrutiny in the court of law.
  - dave5104 5y ago
    Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false. In fact, the special tax district is allowed to (and does) charge Disney additional taxes over the state maximum to provide services like utilities and infrastructure. Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture. If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
    - daenz 5y ago
      If it's not beneficial in any way for Disney, then why are they saying they are being retaliated against? You're attempting to paint the removal of these special corporate privileges as a positive thing for Disney. If that's the case, then the State is doing them a favor, and it's not retaliation from Disney's perspective.
      - dave5104 5y ago
        It is beneficial, just not from a financial aspect. With Reedy Creek, Disney doesn't need to worry about whether local politicians will approve expansions or meet the needs of the Walt Disney World complex since the local government is purely serving Disney. If you take a look at Disneyland in California, Disney is going up against Anaheim and Orange County councils on a pretty routine basis to get new things built.
        daenz 5y ago
        What you just described absolutely has financial benefits, in time and opportunity costs.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        So...Disney would be worse off without it?
        daenz 4y ago
        They would be worse off in the same sense that a child who doesn't get to eat cookies for dinner is worse off: they didn't get a thing that they really wanted. And in the same way, a child isn't harmed by denying them cookies for dinner.
      - colburnmh 4y ago
        So, what's your opposition to the special district that provides Disney with the ability to maintain it's property is a manner that is consistent with their business needs--which surpass the normal requirements of either Orange or Osceola counties? Sure it's a benefit to Disney, but it's also a benefit to the county taxpayers: * Disney subsidizes both counties' services and infrastructure by paying property taxes to pay for services/infrastructure, but not consuming them, or contracting for them where needed. * Allows counties to avoid costly legal and procedural issues when Disney wants to add new features, attractions, or services at their park, or wish to ensure consistency of services provided by the two different counties. So, what is the crux of your objection?
  - colburnmh 4y ago
    They pay county property taxes, state sales taxes, etc., just like everyone else. In fact, Florida law requires that Disney pay the same rate as everyone else. They consume no county services that property taxes generally cover (by agreement with the counties). The RCID then levies additional taxes, 2-3x more than the county property tax, on RCID residents which pay for infrastructure and services within the RCID. In some cases, the RCID contracts back to the counties (e.g., the sheriff's office for ~$13 million) to provide services within the RCID. The result: Disney subsides property taxes in both Orange and Osceola counties, and RCID residents pay 3x more in property taxes than Orange or Osceola counties do, and 2-3 times more than Florida law would allow outside of a special district. The real benefit that the RCID confers to Disney is control of the consistency and quality of infrastructure and services that they have on their property. And it avoids contention between the counties and Disney in cases of zoning or other civil issues like alcohol licensing, where the two counties may differ, forcing Disney to either have to cater to the most restrictive policies of the two counties, if the policies are compatible, or have different levels of service depending on which county a particular piece of Disney's property sits. Imagine being able to buy alcohol on one side of the park, but not the other, or having great roads on one side of the park, but not the other?
- colburnmh 4y ago
  > They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal. What tax breaks does Disney get? They pay Orange and Osceola property tax, despite receiving no services or infrastructure support from the county (except those that they contract for). Florida law requires that all property taxes be levied equally, so Disney pays the same rate as everyone else in the counties. The RCID levies additional property taxes on RCID residents (almost all Disney), to pay for the infrastructure it provides to the district. Those amount to ~2-3 times more than the county taxes, and 3 times more than state law would allow the county to charge outside of an independent special district. The ability for the RCID to charge taxes is a result of its status as an "independent" special district, meaning that it has ad valorem taxation rights (the ability to levy taxes on the residents of it's property beyond state and county taxes). Florida state law requires that any special district that is not completely encompassed with a single municipal boundary be chartered as an independent special district. Since Disney's property spans both Orange and Osceola counties, it is required to be an independent special district. Disney could have requested independent special district status, but in this case it was moot.
Volundr 5y ago
In principle I agree with you that I corporation shouldn't have special privileges. I strongly disagree however with the idea that it's fair those privileges be targeted for any reason. The first amendment specifically prohibits the government punishing free speech. If those special privileges are revoked for expressing an opinion that goes against the establishment, when they would otherwise continue, it's a clear attempt of the government to suppress dissenting speech.
- daenz 5y ago
  That's where we disagree then: if exclude the political bend of the actions, only Disney views the action as "punishment", while to everyone else, it is "fair." Is it punishment to remove an unfair advantage? Certainly to the entity benefitting from the unfair advantage. To everyone else, no, it's not punishment, it's a return to a level playing field. If Disney got more special privileges as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. If Disney had neutral actions taken as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. So the "punishment" aspect is key to making it a violation, but I am making the case that it is not actually punishment, when considering the context of the rest of society.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > if exclude the political bend of the actions Yes, if we exclude the thing that people are complaining about, there is no basis for complaint. Let's suppose the federal government adopted 30 percentage point higher tax rates for everyone who registered as a Republican, donated to a Republican party committee or candidate, or voted in a Republican primary. Now, particular tax rates are not themselves a matter of right, so by the same logic that there is no basis to complain about the political retaliation against Disney since it is not via something that is a matter of right, Republicans would have no valid basis for complaint.
    - daenz 5y ago
      I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of those privileges, even if it was an explicit result of that person exercising their free speech. EDIT>> Oh I think I see now, you are comparing the introduction of a special tax hike on a group of people with removing special privileges from Disney. Those aren't the same at all.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights Not being retaliated against government for political speech is, in the US, a right, whether or not the retaliation is via a thing that is itself or right. This is super important, because most interactions with government are not things that are a matter of individual right outside the rights to not being singled out on an impermissible basis, so if you erase that last bit you enable widespread arbitrary government discrimination. > I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant Basically no one is defending that, they are defending substantive due process rights, which are what prevent government from making all other rights moot by how they allocate costs and benefits that are not themselves otherwise matters of Constitutional right.
- daenz 5y ago
  I make this point more thoroughly in another comment, but I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Retaliation implies harm, and I am making the case that removing an unfair advantage, that shouldn't have ever existed in the first place, is not harm. If it's a neutral action (or neutral-positive), then it's not retaliation.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Well, yes, nothing looks like retaliation when you ignore motivations. Motivations define retaliation. Starting out with selectively ignoring the facts most relevant for assessing whether a thing fits into a particular category is a singularly bad way of assessing whether that is the case.
    - daenz 5y ago
      >Motivations define retaliation. Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.
_moof 4y ago
There are over 1,800 special districts in Florida. Politicians have explicitly stated that they are punishing Disney for criticizing a law. There is no gray area here.
colburnmh 4y ago
> From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights... Disney's "special rights" are not all that special or uncommon in Florida. There are 1844 active special districts in Florida, 76 of which have ad valorem taxation rights. Other theme parks in Florida, such as Sea World and Universal, also have special districts to manage their properties. The definition of a special district enshrines into law specific rights for the owner(s) of the special district, meaning that those are, in fact, rights, not just privileges to be withdrawn at a whim. And Florida specifically pledged to honor those rights both by writing the law that established the RCID, and further committing to not dissolve the district unless all bond debts were paid--the separate law that is referenced in the original article. I would encourage you to read through the Florida Special District web page: https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/special-districts/special-district-accountability-program/florida-special-district-handbook-online/introduction-to-special-districts https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s... If you want to argue against special districts existing at all, that's fair. But to argue that Disney shouldn't have one, but the rest of the special districts, including those of Disney's competitors, are acceptable is not a good-faith argument.

by daenz 5y ago

mescaline 5y ago

The “rights” we are talking about is mostly the right to run their own utility and trash services. That’s about it and whatever else the government usually provides. Street repair. Security. They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal.

codeguro 5y ago
That's an abhorrent lie. Their independent tax district is absolutely a sweetheart deal. The ability to privately govern the land that it owns (i.e. not pay state/property taxes) outright flies in the face of the first clause in 14th amendment. Their special privileges would not hold up to scrutiny in the court of law.
- dave5104 5y ago
  Not sure where that idea comes from, but Disney absolutely pays taxes and your claim is false. In fact, the special tax district is allowed to (and does) charge Disney additional taxes over the state maximum to provide services like utilities and infrastructure. Removing the tax district means it is illegal for Orange/Osceola Counties to continue charging the extra taxes to Disney to pay for their infrastruture. If anything, it's a financial sweetheart deal for Florida, not for Disney. The thing Disney gets out of it is being able to maintain their property to the standard of their liking.
  - daenz 5y ago
    If it's not beneficial in any way for Disney, then why are they saying they are being retaliated against? You're attempting to paint the removal of these special corporate privileges as a positive thing for Disney. If that's the case, then the State is doing them a favor, and it's not retaliation from Disney's perspective.
    - dave5104 5y ago
      It is beneficial, just not from a financial aspect. With Reedy Creek, Disney doesn't need to worry about whether local politicians will approve expansions or meet the needs of the Walt Disney World complex since the local government is purely serving Disney. If you take a look at Disneyland in California, Disney is going up against Anaheim and Orange County councils on a pretty routine basis to get new things built.
      - daenz 5y ago
        What you just described absolutely has financial benefits, in time and opportunity costs.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        So...Disney would be worse off without it?
        daenz 4y ago
        They would be worse off in the same sense that a child who doesn't get to eat cookies for dinner is worse off: they didn't get a thing that they really wanted. And in the same way, a child isn't harmed by denying them cookies for dinner.
    - colburnmh 4y ago
      So, what's your opposition to the special district that provides Disney with the ability to maintain it's property is a manner that is consistent with their business needs--which surpass the normal requirements of either Orange or Osceola counties? Sure it's a benefit to Disney, but it's also a benefit to the county taxpayers: * Disney subsidizes both counties' services and infrastructure by paying property taxes to pay for services/infrastructure, but not consuming them, or contracting for them where needed. * Allows counties to avoid costly legal and procedural issues when Disney wants to add new features, attractions, or services at their park, or wish to ensure consistency of services provided by the two different counties. So, what is the crux of your objection?
- colburnmh 4y ago
  They pay county property taxes, state sales taxes, etc., just like everyone else. In fact, Florida law requires that Disney pay the same rate as everyone else. They consume no county services that property taxes generally cover (by agreement with the counties). The RCID then levies additional taxes, 2-3x more than the county property tax, on RCID residents which pay for infrastructure and services within the RCID. In some cases, the RCID contracts back to the counties (e.g., the sheriff's office for ~$13 million) to provide services within the RCID. The result: Disney subsides property taxes in both Orange and Osceola counties, and RCID residents pay 3x more in property taxes than Orange or Osceola counties do, and 2-3 times more than Florida law would allow outside of a special district. The real benefit that the RCID confers to Disney is control of the consistency and quality of infrastructure and services that they have on their property. And it avoids contention between the counties and Disney in cases of zoning or other civil issues like alcohol licensing, where the two counties may differ, forcing Disney to either have to cater to the most restrictive policies of the two counties, if the policies are compatible, or have different levels of service depending on which county a particular piece of Disney's property sits. Imagine being able to buy alcohol on one side of the park, but not the other, or having great roads on one side of the park, but not the other?
colburnmh 4y ago
> They don’t get a lot of financial breaks and what they do get from it is based off efficiency of their models, not some “sweetheart” deal. What tax breaks does Disney get? They pay Orange and Osceola property tax, despite receiving no services or infrastructure support from the county (except those that they contract for). Florida law requires that all property taxes be levied equally, so Disney pays the same rate as everyone else in the counties. The RCID levies additional property taxes on RCID residents (almost all Disney), to pay for the infrastructure it provides to the district. Those amount to ~2-3 times more than the county taxes, and 3 times more than state law would allow the county to charge outside of an independent special district. The ability for the RCID to charge taxes is a result of its status as an "independent" special district, meaning that it has ad valorem taxation rights (the ability to levy taxes on the residents of it's property beyond state and county taxes). Florida state law requires that any special district that is not completely encompassed with a single municipal boundary be chartered as an independent special district. Since Disney's property spans both Orange and Osceola counties, it is required to be an independent special district. Disney could have requested independent special district status, but in this case it was moot.

Volundr 5y ago

In principle I agree with you that I corporation shouldn't have special privileges. I strongly disagree however with the idea that it's fair those privileges be targeted for any reason. The first amendment specifically prohibits the government punishing free speech. If those special privileges are revoked for expressing an opinion that goes against the establishment, when they would otherwise continue, it's a clear attempt of the government to suppress dissenting speech.

daenz 5y ago
That's where we disagree then: if exclude the political bend of the actions, only Disney views the action as "punishment", while to everyone else, it is "fair." Is it punishment to remove an unfair advantage? Certainly to the entity benefitting from the unfair advantage. To everyone else, no, it's not punishment, it's a return to a level playing field. If Disney got more special privileges as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. If Disney had neutral actions taken as a result of their speech, nobody would say their rights were violated. So the "punishment" aspect is key to making it a violation, but I am making the case that it is not actually punishment, when considering the context of the rest of society.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > if exclude the political bend of the actions Yes, if we exclude the thing that people are complaining about, there is no basis for complaint. Let's suppose the federal government adopted 30 percentage point higher tax rates for everyone who registered as a Republican, donated to a Republican party committee or candidate, or voted in a Republican primary. Now, particular tax rates are not themselves a matter of right, so by the same logic that there is no basis to complain about the political retaliation against Disney since it is not via something that is a matter of right, Republicans would have no valid basis for complaint.
  - daenz 5y ago
    I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical. I am against members of any political party receiving unfair privileges. And I would be 100% ok with the removal of those privileges, even if it was an explicit result of that person exercising their free speech. EDIT>> Oh I think I see now, you are comparing the introduction of a special tax hike on a group of people with removing special privileges from Disney. Those aren't the same at all.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights Not being retaliated against government for political speech is, in the US, a right, whether or not the retaliation is via a thing that is itself or right. This is super important, because most interactions with government are not things that are a matter of individual right outside the rights to not being singled out on an impermissible basis, so if you erase that last bit you enable widespread arbitrary government discrimination. > I get why people are up in arms about it (the education bill), but it's really bizarre to see people defend special privileges afforded to a corporate giant Basically no one is defending that, they are defending substantive due process rights, which are what prevent government from making all other rights moot by how they allocate costs and benefits that are not themselves otherwise matters of Constitutional right.

daenz 5y ago
I make this point more thoroughly in another comment, but I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Retaliation implies harm, and I am making the case that removing an unfair advantage, that shouldn't have ever existed in the first place, is not harm. If it's a neutral action (or neutral-positive), then it's not retaliation.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Well, yes, nothing looks like retaliation when you ignore motivations. Motivations define retaliation. Starting out with selectively ignoring the facts most relevant for assessing whether a thing fits into a particular category is a singularly bad way of assessing whether that is the case.
  - daenz 5y ago
    >Motivations define retaliation. Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.

_moof 4y ago

There are over 1,800 special districts in Florida. Politicians have explicitly stated that they are punishing Disney for criticizing a law. There is no gray area here.

colburnmh 4y ago

> From my perspective, Disney should not have had special corporate privileges in the first place, so it's fair game that those special privileges are targeted for any reason since they are not rights... Disney's "special rights" are not all that special or uncommon in Florida. There are 1844 active special districts in Florida, 76 of which have ad valorem taxation rights. Other theme parks in Florida, such as Sea World and Universal, also have special districts to manage their properties. The definition of a special district enshrines into law specific rights for the owner(s) of the special district, meaning that those are, in fact, rights, not just privileges to be withdrawn at a whim. And Florida specifically pledged to honor those rights both by writing the law that established the RCID, and further committing to not dissolve the district unless all bond debts were paid--the separate law that is referenced in the original article. I would encourage you to read through the Florida Special District web page: https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/special-districts/special-district-accountability-program/florida-special-district-handbook-online/introduction-to-special-districts https://floridajobs.org/community-planning-and-development/s... If you want to argue against special districts existing at all, that's fair. But to argue that Disney shouldn't have one, but the rest of the special districts, including those of Disney's competitors, are acceptable is not a good-faith argument.