[daenz]

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]

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]

What you just described absolutely has financial benefits, in time and opportunity costs.

[dragonwriter]

So...Disney would be worse off without it?

[daenz]

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]

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?