6 ms·

It is amazing how many progressives are defending special privileges for one of the wealthiest and influential companies in the world.

joshstrange 5y ago
That's a very disingenuous way of putting it. There is a lot more at play here that just "special privileges". There is the increased tax burden on the surrounding counties that will now be responsible for upkeep/services/etc and the fact that this was very clearly backlash motivated by the company voicing support against the recently passed "Don't say gay" bill. Further more from what I can tell this was a mutually beneficial arrangement, it wasn't just "special privileges" for free.
- codeguro 5y ago
  You are very disingenuous. It's not a "Don't say gay" bill, it's a "Parental Rights in Education" bill. The idea that Disney Corp and its employees have special tax exemptions that is enjoyed by nobody else in the nation while advocating that they should be able to teach sexually explicit topics to kindergardeners to 3rd graders - and hide the fact they're doing so from their parents is abhorrent.
  - colburnmh 5y ago
    > It's not a "Don't say gay" bill, it's a "Parental Rights in Education" bill It has been commonly referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, rather than the official name of "Parental Rights in Education" bill in a wide variety of forums, which I'm sure you are aware of. Don't be willfully obtuse. Disney's special district status is not unique. More than 1800 entities ranging from theme parks, HOAs, libraries, energy district, etc., all have similar rights. Take some time to read this: 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... Disney is far less of "unique snowflake" than the outspoken FL Republicans would like you to believe.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  I think giving a company what amounts to governmental rights is extraordinarily dystopian regardless of any benefits the government may get from such an agreement. Why shouldn't we turn San Fransisco into a city controlled by Google? Surely it could be beneficial to both. Second, I don't think it was retribution for going against the Parental Rights bill. The opposition to the bill (and the arrest of some Disney employees involved with human trafficking) is the catalyst that brought Disney's special privileges to the forefront. It is not the reason they are losing the privileges. There would have been calls to remove the special privileges regardless of Disney's opposition to the bill.
  - colburnmh 5y ago
    So why aren't you advocating for the repeal of the 1843 other special districts in Florida, which also include Sea World, and Universal, as well as HOAs, and wide variety of other businesses?
- polski-g 5y ago
  > There is the increased tax burden on the surrounding counties that will now be responsible for upkeep/services/etc Those counties can raise their taxes on the land Disney inhabits in order to recoup those "losses".
  - mzs 5y ago
    At this point they can't: "The current tax rate is three times higher than the maximum amount allowed by cities and counties"
  - colburnmh 5y ago
    No, they can't. Florida state law specifically prohibits that: all county residents must pay the same tax rate. The only way that Disney can pay more taxes than county residents is by forming a...drumroll, please...independent special district. The state of Florida is dissolving, unilaterally, and without taking any public comment from Disney, the county, the county residents, or the rest of the state, the very vehicle that would allow what you are talking about.
- kcplate 5y ago
  > There is the increased tax burden on the surrounding counties that will now be responsible for upkeep/services/etc They don’t have to provide upkeep/services/etc to the same level that Disney currently does. Drive around the greater Osceola/Kissimmee area and ask yourself “Is Disney going to be ok with their roads and common spaces in this condition?” Pretty sure the answer there is “no” and Disney will still maintain the roads to their standard and this will ease the burden on the counties…and pay taxes to boot. Disney has a golden goose that they have paid a whole lot of money for over the last 50 years to shit golden eggs, they aren’t going to slaughter the goose just because the price of goose feed goes up.
pstuart 5y ago
I don't see people going out to defend that. It's the fact that it's naked retribution for not supporting one of their other agendas, which itself is flat out designed for political theater.
- stuxnet 5y ago
  Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place. I find it most humorous that the ones calling it retribution would generally support this measure if it had been forced on, say, Koch Industries in a red district of a purple state.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    So what was the motivation for this then? Some of us are ok with pointing out issues regardless of "whose side" is involved. It would be nice if there were more of us like that. edit: @stuxnet I can't reply to your reply so I'll amend here: I'm not a Disney fan either but that's not the concern being addressed -- it's the "reasoning" behind it and the fact that it fits into a pattern of harassments and intimidation of all who do not support them. Punishing others as political theater is dangerous territory and it only seems to be accelerating. Public officials/applicants are advocating for death to all who oppose them. If that doesn't bother you because you're on the right team then I encourage you to revisit that and examine how that might not be good for society.
    - stuxnet 5y ago
      I'm not particularly a fan of Disney or the Florida legislature so I totally agree with your second point. The point I was trying to make is that regardless of the recent motivations, the end result is that a mega corporation is stripped of privileges that they shouldn't have had in the first place. I would support that in this case and also the other fictional case I presented with Koch Industries. So I guess the point of contention is in the motivation, but that doesn't matter to me as long as the end result is the same.
colburnmh 5y ago
There are two separable issues: * Disney's status as an "independent special district" in Florida. (Note that there are 1800+ active special districts in Florida, so Disney's not unique in that regard.) * The government's retaliatory actions in SB-4C that the government has said pretty explicitly are due to Disney's public opposition to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill (see https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1517245466433527809 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/15172454664...), which is in direct violation of the first amendment. These should be argued separately because they each deal with very different matters of law, governance, policy, etc.

joshstrange 5y ago

That's a very disingenuous way of putting it. There is a lot more at play here that just "special privileges". There is the increased tax burden on the surrounding counties that will now be responsible for upkeep/services/etc and the fact that this was very clearly backlash motivated by the company voicing support against the recently passed "Don't say gay" bill. Further more from what I can tell this was a mutually beneficial arrangement, it wasn't just "special privileges" for free.

codeguro 5y ago
You are very disingenuous. It's not a "Don't say gay" bill, it's a "Parental Rights in Education" bill. The idea that Disney Corp and its employees have special tax exemptions that is enjoyed by nobody else in the nation while advocating that they should be able to teach sexually explicit topics to kindergardeners to 3rd graders - and hide the fact they're doing so from their parents is abhorrent.
- colburnmh 5y ago
  > It's not a "Don't say gay" bill, it's a "Parental Rights in Education" bill It has been commonly referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, rather than the official name of "Parental Rights in Education" bill in a wide variety of forums, which I'm sure you are aware of. Don't be willfully obtuse. Disney's special district status is not unique. More than 1800 entities ranging from theme parks, HOAs, libraries, energy district, etc., all have similar rights. Take some time to read this: 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... Disney is far less of "unique snowflake" than the outspoken FL Republicans would like you to believe.
_-david-_ 5y ago
I think giving a company what amounts to governmental rights is extraordinarily dystopian regardless of any benefits the government may get from such an agreement. Why shouldn't we turn San Fransisco into a city controlled by Google? Surely it could be beneficial to both. Second, I don't think it was retribution for going against the Parental Rights bill. The opposition to the bill (and the arrest of some Disney employees involved with human trafficking) is the catalyst that brought Disney's special privileges to the forefront. It is not the reason they are losing the privileges. There would have been calls to remove the special privileges regardless of Disney's opposition to the bill.
- colburnmh 5y ago
  So why aren't you advocating for the repeal of the 1843 other special districts in Florida, which also include Sea World, and Universal, as well as HOAs, and wide variety of other businesses?
polski-g 5y ago
> There is the increased tax burden on the surrounding counties that will now be responsible for upkeep/services/etc Those counties can raise their taxes on the land Disney inhabits in order to recoup those "losses".
- mzs 5y ago
  At this point they can't: "The current tax rate is three times higher than the maximum amount allowed by cities and counties"
- colburnmh 5y ago
  No, they can't. Florida state law specifically prohibits that: all county residents must pay the same tax rate. The only way that Disney can pay more taxes than county residents is by forming a...drumroll, please...independent special district. The state of Florida is dissolving, unilaterally, and without taking any public comment from Disney, the county, the county residents, or the rest of the state, the very vehicle that would allow what you are talking about.
kcplate 5y ago
> There is the increased tax burden on the surrounding counties that will now be responsible for upkeep/services/etc They don’t have to provide upkeep/services/etc to the same level that Disney currently does. Drive around the greater Osceola/Kissimmee area and ask yourself “Is Disney going to be ok with their roads and common spaces in this condition?” Pretty sure the answer there is “no” and Disney will still maintain the roads to their standard and this will ease the burden on the counties…and pay taxes to boot. Disney has a golden goose that they have paid a whole lot of money for over the last 50 years to shit golden eggs, they aren’t going to slaughter the goose just because the price of goose feed goes up.

pstuart 5y ago

I don't see people going out to defend that. It's the fact that it's naked retribution for not supporting one of their other agendas, which itself is flat out designed for political theater.

stuxnet 5y ago
Some call it retribution, others call it reversing a privilege that should not have existed in the first place. I find it most humorous that the ones calling it retribution would generally support this measure if it had been forced on, say, Koch Industries in a red district of a purple state.
- pstuart 5y ago
  So what was the motivation for this then? Some of us are ok with pointing out issues regardless of "whose side" is involved. It would be nice if there were more of us like that. edit: @stuxnet I can't reply to your reply so I'll amend here: I'm not a Disney fan either but that's not the concern being addressed -- it's the "reasoning" behind it and the fact that it fits into a pattern of harassments and intimidation of all who do not support them. Punishing others as political theater is dangerous territory and it only seems to be accelerating. Public officials/applicants are advocating for death to all who oppose them. If that doesn't bother you because you're on the right team then I encourage you to revisit that and examine how that might not be good for society.
  - stuxnet 5y ago
    I'm not particularly a fan of Disney or the Florida legislature so I totally agree with your second point. The point I was trying to make is that regardless of the recent motivations, the end result is that a mega corporation is stripped of privileges that they shouldn't have had in the first place. I would support that in this case and also the other fictional case I presented with Koch Industries. So I guess the point of contention is in the motivation, but that doesn't matter to me as long as the end result is the same.

colburnmh 5y ago

There are two separable issues: * Disney's status as an "independent special district" in Florida. (Note that there are 1800+ active special districts in Florida, so Disney's not unique in that regard.) * The government's retaliatory actions in SB-4C that the government has said pretty explicitly are due to Disney's public opposition to the "Parental Rights in Education" bill (see https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1517245466433527809 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/15172454664...), which is in direct violation of the first amendment. These should be argued separately because they each deal with very different matters of law, governance, policy, etc.