> 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

> 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rights for the owner(s) of the special district, meaning that those are, in fact, rights, not just privileges to be withdrawn at a whim.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.