Posted on 04/28/2022 7:06:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recently signed legislation that strips Walt Disney World of its independent, special district status after the company objected to the state's new law regarding discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in classrooms. While the motive behind this action is problematic, some of its supporters argue that there is nothing to fret about, since it was time to revoke a cronyist privilege granted to Disney 50 years ago anyway. But if this is really a fight against cronyism, the legislation goes about it the wrong way.
Cronyism is the unhealthy alliance of business and government. It takes the form of government officials at the state, local and federal levels granting special privileges to particular companies or industries. These privileges can include special tax breaks, government loans, direct subsidies or -- as in Florida -- so-called "special districts." I spend a great deal of my work hours researching the harm cronyism causes to citizens. That's because, as my colleague Matthew Mitchell wrote a decade ago, "Whatever its guise, government-granted privilege (to private businesses) is an extraordinarily destructive force. It misdirects resources, impedes genuine economic progress, breeds corruption, and undermines the legitimacy of both the government and the private sector."
So, is Disney benefiting from a handout that should be stripped away? Yes. Disney certainly has been getting an incredible privilege to act as its own government within the limits of Orange and Osceola counties. For instance, it runs its fire department, administers planning and zoning rules, writes building codes, employs its own inspectors and is exempted from local regulations and some $200 million in taxes. It levies the remainder of the taxes it owes.
Removing special district status means these types of responsibilities would be absorbed by the two counties in which Walt Disney World sits. Local taxpayers would then shoulder the cost for all municipal services on the property -- a cost estimated to be $1 billion. The company, in turn, would be subjected to the same subpar local government services and regulations that most of us are accustomed to. In addition, Florida will be tied up in years of costly litigation to figure out how to disentangle the company from the counties.
But maybe untangling this special treatment is worth the cost. Just don't expect it to result in a fairer regime. Indeed, if this setup is so unacceptable -- a claim most Republicans didn't seem to make for the half-century the special district has been in place -- it should also be unacceptable for the other 1,844 Florida special districts. Of these, 1,288 are, like Disney, independent districts. But we aren't hearing significant Republican complaints about these.
In other words, GOPers want to continue the practice of extending privileges selectively. What legislators should have done is decide whether any such special districts are a good idea. If so, access to them should be made available to any company that meets certain minimum and clear criteria and denied to any company that does not.
From a local competition perspective, there is some value to the idea of independent special districts. Indeed, they allow people to see the differences between areas where municipal services are run privately (meaning somewhat efficiently) versus the jurisdictions most of us are subjected to, with unfixed potholes in the streets, broken public bathrooms and unequal police protection.
However, this approach would require consistent thinking and policymaking. And while Florida Republicans are today cheering the removal of Disney's special-district status and the idea that such privileges to large firms are problematic, they had no problem granting Disney's streaming services an unfair exemption from a 2021 tech regulation that imposes daily fines of $250,000 when candidates for statewide office are blocked from a social-media platform for more than 14 days. Lawmakers didn't extend the same exemption to Netflix or Hulu.
This episode should serve as a warning for companies angling to score special privileges from government. Governments give arbitrarily and unfairly, and they take back with equal arbitrariness and unfairness. In addition, when a company's profitability depends heavily on government largesse, it must make sure not to anger its government overlords. Disney obviously failed to do that.
This sad affair has done nothing to change cronyism in the state of Florida, but it has once again exposed the arbitrariness of government in our lives and the cost of depending on its favors.
He wasn’t doing it to advance her libertarian agenda. He was sending a message to every company that there’s a price for default punching-right in the culture wars.
Technically it’s not punishing the mouse as much as equalizing the playing field for all of the other entertainment providers.
Disney is a California company not a Florida one so it deserves no special privileges.
I had a local judge rule against my state bar's decision on a legal matter! Boom! (Yes, the judge said the folks who issue law licenses did not know the law!) Could I challenge the ruling and get it reversed? Yes. Was it cost effective? No! That doesn't matter with any government and should be focused on more IMO
Will Desantis' decision cost the taxpayers money? Yes. Was it the right decision? Yes. But all that mattered in the end was that he was the governor and the arrogant Disney folks made the worng move on the wrong day!
Thank you - it wasn’t punishing the Mouse it was removing the tax advantages [?] and putting the Mouse on the same level as other business...
DisneyCity in Florida is like an own country in the middle of another. Yes, it did show what physical facilities can improve with money. And for a long time, the communities were normal, even Norman Rockwell-esque. But it started showing age, got ugly, and with time, parts are perverted. As the facade cracks, the roaches started coming out.
Five miles from Disney borders had a lot of second tier neighborhoods, where the worker bees live. And a lot of wish-we-were’s and wannabees.
It’s been time , for decades, for Disney to get the same treatment as any other business.
Hong Kong went back to the Chinese. Panama Canal went back to Panama. Disney getting same playing field as everyone else isn’t really that big a stretch.
And that has nothing to do with any Alphabet feckers. That was just the shining light.
What is sad about the gambit?
Disney is shown to be Queerland and a social pariah
Indeed, if this setup is so unacceptable — a claim most Republicans didn’t seem to make for the half-century the special district has been in place — it should also be unacceptable for the other 1,844 Florida special districts. Of these, 1,288 are, like Disney, independent districts. But we aren’t hearing significant Republican complaints about these.
did the operators of these other special districts, have public meltdowns about a law duly passed by the legislature, a law which doesn’t affect their businesses at all, and publicly proclaim they would work to undo the law, including filing lawsuits to get that law overturned?
I think the arguments that have come up as a result of this are valid. How much should the corp. paying tax base bear, versus the local municipalities. Obviously Disney brought in billions and the community should reap the benefits...until Disney starts building concentration camps for their political opponents, that is. Unfortunately that’s where true oligarchies end up! Most people think Disney is committing suicide, but if you look at it historically...they’re just conforming to the political progression of absolute power.
This act by DeSantis will result in one more factor that disrupts Disney’s business. Along with queer content in movies, woke culture domination in all aspects of running the businesses, grooming (and worse) by their employees that will no longer be able to be covered-up, and more. Disruptions in business cause investors to be wary and uncertain which reflects in an unstable stock price.
The stock market loves and rewards stability and predictability and Disney is entering a new phase of unpredictability and disruptions like never seen before. Transgressions that could be hidden out of public and shareholder view in the past will not be wide open. All this means a period of uncertainty for DIS stock and that’s what CEOs and executives get fired for.
I believe it’s time to call the Orkin man and have the mouse exterminated.
First of all, the legislation allows reversal:
"Notwithstanding s. 189.072(2), F.S., the bill dissolves all independent special districts created by special act prior to the ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968, if those districts have not been reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act or general law after that date. The bill provides that dissolution of the affected districts will occur on June 1, 2023, but that such special districts may be re-established pursuant to the requirements and limitations of ch. 189, F.S., on or after that date."
You'd think she might have mentioned that extremely salient point in her rant. But no.
This is much, much more about Igor gooning Chapstik and goading the DIS shareholders to give him back The Haunted Mansion, since he has determined his presidential bid is going nowhere.
What Chapstik ought to do is encourage a DIS shareholder revolt with readiness to sue Igor for tortious interference, simiilar to the way PZZA shareholders threatened Schnatter in 2018.
Exactly…it is not punishing the mouse…it is leveling the playing field…let the woke multi billion corp compete fairly and pay their ‘fair share’….phrases the rats normally like…‘corporate welfare’ and ‘fair share’…
Kill the mouse. Start over.
Politics is political?
And this: “All process arguments are insincere, including this one.”
No. It will tend to push it to corporations that are in good graces with the party in power at the time.
Please remember that in January of 2020 Disney CEO Bob Iger resigned effective IMMEDIATELY when he (apparently) realized that the value of the company was going to decline in the era of Covid. His resignation locked in the value of his stock compensation at a very high level.
Now, I am not saying he did this illegally. Just making a point that MONEY is really important to the people who run these businesses. So they need to stay in their own lane. Or maybe they can run for public office after they leave the CEO jobs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.