Should a theme park have the legal authority of state county?

Disney World is now embroiled in a dispute with the state of Florida over some local "gay" legislation. This post is NOT about that dispute, but the fact that Disney World was given the legal authority of a county. The park has special tax laws, and can enact laws, just like any other county in Florida. Yeah, Disney World is a huge money maker for the state, but do you think a theme park should have the same legal authority as a Florida county?
Again, this thread is NOT about the gay act Disney World is a "private enterprise". So, why do they have the same legal authority as Dade County?
Florida Threatens to Revoke Disney’s Self-Governing Authority Over LGBTQ Bill Feud… Wait, Hang on, Disney’s What Now? (msn.com)
 

Last edited:
I don't know what exactly you are referring to but, I personally think that any private enterprise should have the right to impose its own conditions. Nightclubs are permitted to refuse entry to persons dressed improperly, and quite right too.
 
I don't know what exactly you are referring to but, I personally think that any private enterprise should have the right to impose its own conditions. Nightclubs are permitted to refuse entry to persons dressed improperly, and quite right to
i 'm sorry. It's hard to separate the hoopla of the "gay" part. This thread has nothing to do with that. But the fact that Disney World can enact LEGAL laws, just like any county in Florida. Disney World was given that authority by the Stae of Florida. My question is should a theme park have the same legal authority as a legitimate county of a state? You hit it right on the nose, Disney World is a "private enterprise". So, why do they have the same legal authority as Dade County?
 
Florida gave them that privilege back in 1967. Way past time to remove...
I remember that, I was living in Florida at the time. Everyone was really excited about making Orlando and the area a money making tourist destination. At that time Orlando was a sleepy little cow town with almost zero tourists. And Disney had lots of money.

Why couldn't it be removed? I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me the legislature did this, they could undo it as well.
 
The Governor of Florida has the right to revoke the perks given to Disney Enterprises back in 1967. Heck, they even have the right to build their own nuclear power plant, which they wouldn’t do since going woke and joining the ‘go green’ team. They announced just the other day that they won’t even be using the term “boys and girls” anymore due to their siding with the LGBTQ society.
 
The Governor of Florida has the right to revoke the perks given to Disney Enterprises back in 1967. Heck, they even have the right to build their own nuclear power plant, which they wouldn’t do since going woke and joining the ‘go green’ team. They announced just the other day that they won’t even be using the term “boys and girls” anymore due to their siding with the LGBTQ society.
That could rebound on them and lose the support of families who don't want their children confused by this sort of thinking.
 
Heck, they even have the right to build their own nuclear power plant, which they wouldn’t do since going woke and joining the ‘go green’ team.
If they saw a big profit potential I'd bet they would. That's the kind of green Disney best understands.
That could rebound on them and lose the support of families who don't want their children confused by this sort of thinking.
I can be a no win thing... No right answer.
 
It's an interesting question that could become very important for large agricultural companies located in rural areas.

Imagine companies like Tyson, Perdue, or Cargill being able to make and enforce the laws in sparsely populated rural counties where they have large facilities.

I wonder what would happen if DisneyWorld became insolvent and could not meet its obligations as a county? :unsure:
 
I wonder what would happen if DisneyWorld became insolvent and could not meet its obligations as a county? :unsure:
It's confusing, as it's really not a County, as in a subdivision of the state, probably quasi - governmental in nature, not subject to the Constitutional provisions as in the Pruneyard/Robins case.
 
Disney, with help from lawyers who were unaware of who their client was, and shell companies, was able to acquire the 27,000 acres that make up Disney World for only $5 million dollars, a bargain even in 1965. Once the land was secured, the campaign for total control over the area began.

Disney petitioned the Florida legislature for a special district that would allow the corporation control over sewage, roads, building permits, and many other facets of municipal control in the area. They got it, and in 1967, the "Reedy Creek Improvement District" was created.
This district, including the two municipalities inside it, Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, give the corporation an unprecedented level of control. Only landowners in the district can vote to on governance for the district, thus giving Disney the upper hand in decision making. The powers granted are far-reaching--for example, Disney can issue their own liquor licenses to themselves. They largely do not use surrounding counties infrastructure, instead building their own water, fire departments, transportation, and emergency services.
Disney World is what it looks like if you give a corporation full control over an area of land as big as San Francisco.
 
Disney, with help from lawyers who were unaware of who their client was, and shell companies, was able to acquire the 27,000 acres that make up Disney World for only $5 million dollars, a bargain even in 1965. Once the land was secured, the campaign for total control over the area began.
Yep, as I say I lived near there then and remember it well.

Much of the land was seasonal wetland, flooded in rainy months and only intermittently dry. Disney did a lot of excavation to create the attractive and naturally appearing "lakes" and "streams" we see today, they are not natural. The excavated soil was used to build up the remaining land. In the process there was extensive habitat and wetland destruction. Not what we think of the supposedly "green" Disney doing.

And the small boy that lost his life to an alligator a few years ago - that happened in one of those Disney made lakes. No gators there naturally.

Carl Hiaasen's book Team Rodent - How Disney Devours the World is a good read. http://www.carlhiaasen.com/book-detail.shtml?bid=16
 
If they saw a big profit potential I'd bet they would. That's the kind of green Disney best understands.

I can be a no win thing... No right answer.
As most Floridians know, Disney World is situated along I-4, which I have traveled a good bit being that our home sits on the Gulf. I have never gone west to east on I-4 without coming upon at least one accident. Traffic is always excessively heavy and delays are almost a certainty, especially around Disney. Once I get past Disney, travel flows fairly decent and they even have express lanes you can use to get through Orlando, if you are willing to pay the tolls. I did see that they are now building express lanes on the west side of Disney, which should aid in keeping traffic moving. I have an EZ Pass transponder in my vehicle, which I use to pay tolls most anywhere I travel. EZ Pass is now being accepted on most toll roads, including the NYC bridges, which aren’t cheap.
 
Disney World is now embroiled in a dispute with the state of Florida over some local "gay" legislation. This post is NOT about that dispute, but the fact that Disney World was given the legal authority of a county. The park has special tax laws, and can enact laws, just like any other county in Florida. Yeah, Disney World is a huge money maker for the state, but do you think a theme park should have the same legal authority as a Florida county?
Again, this thread is NOT about the gay act Disney World is a "private enterprise". So, why do they have the same legal authority as Dade County?
Florida Threatens to Revoke Disney’s Self-Governing Authority Over LGBTQ Bill Feud… Wait, Hang on, Disney’s What Now? (msn.com)
Disney has been a horrible company and for a very very very long time. Long history of treating its employees terribly. One of the only issues they were good at was treating the gay community well.

My cousin was a musician. Played a Disney cruise. They treated him so badly, he resigned, mid cruise. The captain literally locked him in his cabin, as if he was a criminal, merely for quitting a job from an abusive boss. Endless stories. I bet if you Google Disney as a horrible employer, many websites will come up.

Government in general, whether federal, state of local, has given over way too much authority to businesses. Government is supposed to be a check on businesses. Businesses are not supposed to usurp the role of government. It makes money the final decision maker in the affairs of people. Whatever makes the most money for a business, becomes the law. The government is supposed to guarantee that whatever serves society and is fair, becomes the law. Not what makes Disney or some other company, the most money.

I know of another Disney as horrible example. There was a labor issue. Disney was making their brand of kids pajamas in Haiti. Paying the workers HORRIBLE wages. I think, if I remember correctly (this was the 90s), that Disney was paying them 40 cents per hour! And they were only asking for a raise to 55 cents per hour! And I remember the costs involved. It was something like paying them the extra money would force Disney to raise the price of a $20 clothing item, by either 5 or 10 cents. And they were entirely unwilling to do even that.

And that is why you need government. First of all...to compel Disney and all US corporations, to not allow them to pay slave wages in foreign countries, if they want to do business in America. Some basic standards of decency. Not some free for all, to make as much money as possible and to heck with the consequences.

And note that it is across the board. So, it is not just low wages, but unsafe and unhealthy workplaces, where people get sick and injured. Real human cost. Even in the US, Amazon had warehouses without air conditioning and ground floor temperatures in some Southern warehouses were over 110 degrees!!! This is America. People are not supposed to be forced to work in 110 degree heat.
 
I don't know what exactly you are referring to but, I personally think that any private enterprise should have the right to impose its own conditions. Nightclubs are permitted to refuse entry to persons dressed improperly, and quite right too.
the law is somewhat more nuanced.

Every business exists within the United States.

All businesses must have an environment that conforms to US law.


Businesses can not act as an "oasis" from US law.

So, for example, a restaurant can ask an unruly person to leave. But a restaurant cannot ask a person to leave, because they do not like that person's race.

The US law supercedes whatever rules businesses want to engage. Of course, one of the big problems in society, is getting companies to, in fact, obey the US law in workplace settings.

Companies often act in defiance of US law. And, they will lobby government to change laws that they don't like.
 
Not a fan of giving corporations this kind of power but communities, cities, states etc have been giving concessions to get businesses there for decades. More current deals are usually tax breaks and/or the local community doing things like adding or widening roads, traffic control etc. Some have learned and charged that company for all the preliminary work and/or infrastructure.
 

Back
Top