Can Disney Afford to Abandon Florida?

Pundits and critics often speculate that political tensions might force Disney to leave its treasure trove, Disney World, located in Florida. However, such concerns seem exaggerated given the economic realities and legal challenges involved.

Refuting the Idea of Migrant Parks

The notion that Disney would uproot 80,000 employees and move 27,000 acres of specialized buildings elsewhere is not only impractical but also overly simplistic. The logistics and economic implications of such a move are vast. Moving employees, bringing infrastructure up to par, and setting up new parks are formidable tasks that would require substantial financial and operational resources.

Challenges in Moving Disney World

Logistically, moving Disney World to another state, given the size and nature of the park, is a monumental task. The company would need to find another state that offers a favorable climate, business-friendly policies, and affordable land. Additionally, the financial burden of this transition would be enormous, making it a costly endeavor. Moreover, Florida has offered a straightforward solution by simply replacing the Reedy Creek Improvement District with nothing new, just a name change. This move ensures Disney continues to benefit from local tax policies and administrative privileges without the need for significant changes.

Legal and Constitutional Challenges

Legally, the new anti-Disney law in Florida is not set to take effect until next summer, providing Disney and its legal team time to challenge its constitutionality. Both the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the prohibition on bills of attainder are potential grounds for legal action. Disregarding these protections, the law singles out Disney unfairly and raises significant doubts about its constitutionality.

The Economic Hijacking of Florida's Tax Policies

A common misconception is that Reedy Creek provides tax breaks to Disney. In reality, the district does not offer tax exemptions. Instead, Disney still pays property taxes and other fees on its tourist revenue. The misconception may stem from the autonomy Reedy Creek affords Disney, allowing the company to manage its infrastructure and avoid excessive bureaucratic hurdles.

Consequences of Punitive Measures on Greater Florida

Florida’s push to marginalize Disney comes with broader economic implications for the state. Property owners in Orange and Osceola counties would bear the brunt of a new tax burden, leading to significant hikes. Outside these counties, taxpayers would also face higher borrowing costs as Florida's credit rating gets dinged. Moreover, such actions could deter other large enterprises from investing in Florida, diminishing the state's economic prospects and tax base.

Predicted Compromise

Given the significant economic stakes on both sides, a comprehensive solution seems more likely than an outright abandonment. A compromise could be reached that allows Disney to maintain its current structure and operating conditions while making certain concessions to the state. This outcome would protect Disney's autonomy and provide a face-saving resolution for the Florida authorities.

Ultimately, after November elections, a settlement is predicted that aligns Disney with Florida, while ensuring the state can claim victory in reducing special treatment. Both Mickey Mouse and Governor Ron DeSantis will retain their winning narratives without the disruption of a full-scale exit.