Disney faces losing control of its kingdom with Florida bill

The Canadian Press

Published

2 years ago

8 minute read

By Mike Schneider in Orlando

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Disney’s government in Florida has been the envy of any private business, with its unprecedented powers in deciding what to build and how to build it at the Walt Disney World Resort, issuing bonds and holding the ability to build its own nuclear plant if it wanted.

Those days are numbered as a new bill released this week puts the entertainment giant’s district firmly in the control of Florida’s governor and legislative leaders in what some see as punishment for Disney’s opposition to the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” lawchampioned by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Legislature.

“Disney won’t like it because they’re not in control,” said Richard Foglesong, professor emeritus at Rollins College, who wrote a definitive account of Disney’s Reedy Creek Improvement Districtin his book, “Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney World and Orlando.”

With that loss of control comes an uncertainty about how Disney’s revamped government and Walt Disney World, which it governs, will work together — whether the left hand always will be in sync with the right hand as it has been with the company overseeing both entities.

The uniqueness of Disney’ government, where building inspectors examine black box structures holding thrill rides instead of office buildings, also complicates matters. The district essentially runs a midsize city. On any given day, as many as 350,000 people are on Disney World’s 27,000 acres (11,000 hectares) as theme park visitors, overnight hotel guests or employees. The 55-year-old district has to manage the traffic, dispose of the waste and control the plentiful mosquitoes.

“What kind of control is preferable? Control by a private business or corporation, or control by appointed officials, appointed by governor of the state?” Foglesong said. “Will they have the expertise to be able to make the new district work as efficiently as the old district works?”

The bill prohibits anybody who has worked or had a contract with a theme park or entertainment complex in the past three years, or their relatives, from serving on the revamped district’s board of supervisors, a prohibition that some experts say eliminates people with expertise in the field.

The bill’s sponsor, Florida Rep. Fred Hawkins, a Republican from St. Cloud, defended the exclusion Tuesday.

“This was a provision I requested,” Hawkins said. “We want to try to avoid any conflicts of interest of the new board members.”

Under the bill’s proposals, Florida’s governor appoints the five-member board of supervisors to the renamed Central Florida Tourism Oversight District instead of Disney. Limits would be placed on the district’s autonomy by making it subject to oversight and regulation by state agencies, and it would be unable to adopt any codes that conflict with state regulations. The district also would no longer have the ability, if it wanted, to own and operate an airport, stadium, convention center or nuclear power plant.

DeSantis started gunning for Disney’s private government last year when the entertainment giant publicly opposed what critics call the “Don’t Say Gay” law, which bars instruction on sexual orientation, gender identity and other lessons deemed not age-appropriate in kindergarten through third grade. Republican critics of the Disney district also argued it has given the company an unfair advantage over rivals in issuing bonds and financing expansion.

The Legislature passed a bill last year to dissolve the Disney government by June 2023.

Lawmakers are meeting this week for a special session to complete the state takeover of the district and approve other key conservative priorities of the governor on immigration and voter fraud. A Senate committee approved separate bills Tuesday to expand the governor’s migrant relocation program and allow the statewide prosecutor to bring election crime charges.

Florida Rep. Anna Eskamani, a Democrat from Orlando, calledthe Disney bill on Monday a “power grab” by DeSantis, a potential 2024 presidential candidate who has emerged as a fierce opponent of what he describes as “woke” policies on race, gender and public health. Such positions endear him to the GOP’s conservative base but threaten to alienate independents and moderate voters in both parties who are influential in presidential politics.

The changes proposed in the legislation were welcomed by at least one group of Reedy Creek employees — firefighters who have clashed in the past with district leaders. Tim Stromsnes, a spokesperson for Reedy Creek Professional Firefighters Local 2117, said all the current board cares about is “bonds and low-interest loans for building Disney infrastructure, and zero about treating its employees fairly.”

“We think they are going to be more receptive to first responders,” Stomsnes said Tuesday of the proposed new board. “They’re calling the governor a fascist for doing this … but he is actually fixing a fascist, Disney-owned government.”

To the relief of taxpayers in neighboring Orange and Osceola counties, the district won’t be dissolved, a prospect that had raised fears that the counties would have to absorb the district’s responsibilities and raise property taxes significantly. The Reedy Creek Improvement District has more than $1 billion in bond debt.

In a statement, Orange County said officials were monitoring the bill.

The new bill appears to address some key questions raised by last year’s legislation, primarily preserving the district’s ability to raise revenue and service outstanding debt, said Michael Rinaldi, head of local government ratings for Fitch Ratings.

Foglesong expects a legal challenge should the bill pass. Disney didn’t respond to an inquiry asking about any potential lawsuits.

“Disney works under a number of different models and jurisdictions around the world, and regardless of the outcome, we remain committed to providing the highest quality experience for the millions of guests who visit each year,” Jeff Vahle, president of Walt Disney World Resort, said in a statement.

Disney could make an argument that their rights as a private business are being undermined, Foglesong said.

“It will have political appeal, the arguments they make, in a Republican state for a potential presidential candidate,” Foglesong said. “It will be like, legally, ‘How can you do this to us?’ and politically, ‘How can you do this to a corporation that has done so much for the state of Florida?'”

___

Associated Press writer Anthony Izaguirre in Tallahassee, Florida contributed to this report.

___

Follow Mike Schneider on Twitter at @MikeSchneiderAP

The Canadian Press

syndication.thecanadianpress.com/rss/69467d8c-ad4b-48a4-895e-9e19d79c6c8e

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Peckford: Hallelujah! Supreme Court of Canada to hear Newfoundland and Labrador charter case

COVID-19 / 1 year ago

Supreme Court will not hear case about government’s violation of rights and freedoms

Alberta / 1 year ago

Alberta looking to ban electronic vote tabulators ahead of next provincial election

2025 Federal Election

ASK YOURSELF! – Can Canada Endure, or Afford the Economic Stagnation of Carney’s Costly Climate Vision?

Published on April 14, 2025

Todayville

From Energy Now

By Tammy Nemeth and Ron Wallace

Carney’s Costly Climate Vision Risks Another “Lost Liberal Decade”

A carbon border tax isn’t the simple offset it’s made out to be—it’s a complex regulatory quagmire poised to reshape Canada’s economy and trade. In its final days, the Trudeau government made commitments to mandate climate disclosures, preserve carbon taxes (both consumer and industrial) and advance a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Newly minted Prime Minister Mark Carney, the godfather of climate finance, has embraced and pledged to accelerate these commitments, particularly the CBAM. Marketed as a strategic shift to bolster trade with the European Union (EU) and reduce reliance on the U.S., a CBAM appears straightforward: pay a domestic carbon price, or face an EU import fee. But the reality is far more extensive and invasive. Beyond the carbon tariffs, it demands rigorous emissions accounting, third-party verification and a crushing compliance burden.

Although it has been little debated, Carney’s proposed climate plan would transform and further undermine Canadian businesses and the economy. Contrary to Carney’s remarks in mid-March, the only jurisdiction that has implemented a CBAM is the EU, with implementation not set until 2026. Meanwhile, the UK plans to implement a CBAM for 1 January 2027. In spite of Carney’s assertion that such a mechanism will be needed for trade with emerging Asian markets, the only Asian country that has released a possible plan for a CBAM is Taiwan. Thus, a Canadian CBAM would only align Canada with the EU and possibly the UK – assuming that those policies are implemented in face of the Trump Administrations’ turbulent tariff policies.

With the first phase of the EU’s CBAM, exporters of cement, iron and steel, aluminum, fertiliser, electricity and hydrogen must have paid a domestic carbon tax or the EU will charge more for those imports. But it’s much more than that. Even if exporting companies have a domestic carbon tax, they will still have to monitor, account for, and verify their CO2 emissions to certify the price they have paid domestically in order to trade with the EU. The purported goal is to reduce so-called “carbon leakage” which makes imports from emission-intensive sectors more costly in favour of products with fewer emissions. Hence, the EU’s CBAM is effectively a CO2 emissions importation tariff equivalent to what would be paid by companies if the products were produced under the EU’s carbon pricing rules under their Emissions Trading System (ETS).

While that may sound simple enough, in practice the EU’s CBAM represents a significant expansion of government involvement with a new layer of bureaucracy. The EU system will require corporate emissions accounting of the direct and indirect emissions of production processes to calculate the embedded emissions. This type of emissions accounting is a central component of climate disclosures like those released by the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board.

Hence, the CBAM isn’t just a tariff: It’s a system for continuous emissions monitoring and verification. Unlike traditional tariffs tied to product value, the CBAM requires companies exporting to the EU to track embedded emissions and submit verified data to secure an EU-accredited verification. Piling complexity atop cost, importers must then file a CBAM declaration, reviewed and certified by an EU regulatory body, before obtaining an import certificate.

This system offers little discernible benefit for the environment. The CBAM ignores broader environmental regulatory efforts, fixating solely on taxation of embedded emissions. For Canadian exporters, Carney’s plan would impose an expensive, intricate web of compliance monitoring, verification and fees accompanied by uncertain administrative penalties.

Hence, any serious pivot to the EU to offset trade restrictions in the U.S. will require a transformation of Canada’s economy, one with a questionable return on investment. Carney’s plan to diversify and accelerate trade with the EU, whose economies are increasingly shackled with burdensome climate-related policies, ignores the potential of successful trade negotiations with the U.S., India or emerging Asian countries. The U.S., our largest and most significant trading partner, has abandoned the Paris Climate Agreement, ceased defence of its climate-disclosure rule and will undoubtedly be seeking fewer, not more, climate-related tariffs. Meanwhile, despite rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada, Carney has doubled down on his support for the Trudeau governments’ Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) and confirmed intentions to proceed with an emissions cap on oil and gas production. Carney’s continuance of the Trudeau governments’ regulatory agenda combined with new, proposed trade policies will take Canada in directions not conducive to future economic growth or to furthering trade agreements with the U.S.

Canadians need to carefully consider whether or not Canada can endure, or afford, Carney’s costly climate vision that risks another “lost Liberal decade” of economic stagnation?

Tammy Nemeth is a U.K.-based strategic energy analyst.

Ron Wallace is an executive fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and the Canada West Foundation.

2025 Federal Election

Trudeau and Carney Have Blown $43B on EVs

Published on April 13, 2025

Todayville

David Krayden

General Motors laid off 500 workers at his Electric Vehicle (EV) plant in Ingersoll, ON.

It had nothing to do with the tariffs.

It had everything to do with the plummeting fascination that Canadians have for EVs. They are selling like used Edsels in the late 1950s. In a useless attempt to create a demand for these “green” vehicles (which aren’t actually green at all because the production of electricity does not result from magic) the governments of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario Premier Doug Ford wasted $42 billions of your tax money. And it was all to bolster an ideology not a demand for cars. There is no demand for these vehicles.

“You just lost 500 jobs. They’ve nuked those jobs. They’re not there anymore.”

-Dan McTeague

Ford, who saw this coming when he called an early provincial election that he knew he probably was going to lose if he waited for the anticipated vote, was actually honest to reporters when he admitted the layoffs had nothing to do with the dreaded Trump tariff but everything to do with public taste.

“What I understand from the president of General Motors that I spoke to, it’s going to be about 500 employees. Has nothing to do with the tariffs. He said, the volume is not there. People are not purchasing like they thought they would. So, they have thousands of vehicles sitting there. We make sure we support the workers and make sure that we get the government, especially Canada Post, to pick up some of these vehicles, because that’s what it’s geared for you.”

So, Ford expects Canada Post, another government agency on its last legs, to come to the rescue and pick up all these excess EVs? Sounds like it. The irony is that Ford came into office largely because the previous Liberal government had gone hog wild with its green energy program and hydro rates were among the highest in North America. Ford used to say that a industrialized province like Ontario can’t possibly prosper or even subsist on the energy provided by windmills and solar panels. He was right then but over the years he became firmly ensconced in the pocket of Trudeau and the Liberals, just as he is today with Mark Carney.

I spoke to my old friend Dan McTeague on Saturday about this mess. McTeague is a former Liberal MP from the GTA who is the president of Canadians for Affordable Energy today and well known for predicting gas prices across Canada as the @ gaspricewizard on X. As an MP, he always put principal above expediency, and he is no different today. McTeague is anxious for a Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) victory in this federal election and he is actively campaigning for a CPC nominee.

McTeague was not surprised over the dismal outlook for EVs.

“This is about Pierre Poilievre saying your policies are garbage. They’ve hurt Canadians. They’ve undermined the financial feasibility and sustainability of the federal government and the provincial government, and we’re going to get rid of them, just like we’re going to get rid of the CBC.”

-Dan McTeague

“Well, on the 22nd of March after having gone to the Ingersoll plant. I just tweeted a little while ago. I actually went there, filmed what was there in inventory. There were thousands of these vehicles just sitting there doing nothing. Obviously, Doug Ford didn’t get it on the 22nd of March. I said it says a lot about why the Ford nation is giddy about supporting Carney, he’s committed billions in world EV and battery manufacturing like this one in Ingersoll, where the provincial Feds kicked in over half a billion for bright drops. Was supposed to sell 100,000 units. Only sold 2100 actually, it got wrong. It was 2500 they might have probably given that a few away there. But look, this is anticipating what was there. It’s pretty obvious. I mean, I don’t just predict gas prices. Pretty good idea policies, EV mandates, the entire nets,” McTeague said.

McTeague explained that the “EV mandates are toast,” not just because President Donald Trump eliminated them but because they simply never had traction with consumers. He noted that Carney is playing games with the consumer carbon tax – because he hasn’t eliminated it but merely reduced it temporarily to zero – and has continued to keep emissions caps in place.

“Why are they doubling down on forcing us to have California-style appliances, which are extraordinarily costly to consumers. There are thousands of these things that are coming up. GFANZ, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero that Mark Carney put forward, is now subject to antitrust review in the United States. This guy could be charged and billions of dollars taken away from the GFANZ organization,” McTeague said, adding that “anybody who hopped on the bandwagon a few years ago on net zero is now looking pretty damn foolish, and it’s amazing to see so many stunned Canadians falling in for this.”

“You just lost 500 jobs. They’ve nuked those jobs. They’re not there anymore.”

The former Liberal MP said the EV program is just one example of a failed economic record from the Trudeau-Carney regime. “However you slice it, the Liberals have had 10 years of failed policies. Net Zero has laid an egg. It’s not doing anything. And what they’re going to try to do is use a lot more public money and hopefully put enough wool over everyone’s eyes, so that we continue to go down this road of more recklessness as a result of what we’ve seen on EVs.

“Anybody who hopped on the bandwagon a few years ago on net zero is now looking pretty damn foolish, and it’s amazing to see so many stunned Canadians falling in for this.”

McTeague also wondered how the Ontario premier has moved from a commonsense politician on green energy to a cheerleader for Trudeau’s environmental authoritarianism. “For Doug Ford to have signed onto this. I mean, Shame on him, but it probably explains why he doesn’t want to support Pierre Poilievre.”

Said McTeague: “This is about Pierre Poilievre saying your policies are garbage. They’ve hurt Canadians. They’ve undermined the financial feasibility and sustainability of the federal government and the provincial government, and we’re going to get rid of them, just like we’re going to get rid of the CBC.”

“And so, for those reasons, you’re going to see why people are not supporting Pierre Poilievre, because they know, you know, they know which side of the bread is going to get buttered and for guys like Doug Ford, Bad mistake, back the wrong horse, and now we’re holding the bag. That’s why he called the election early.”

McTeague said the federal election is a watershed moment for people to decide what kind of future they want: prosperity or poverty. “If Canadians can’t get their head out of the sand and realize that they’re being duped that they can’t afford, you know, the saddling of the debts that these things are incurring for generations to come, and they think that somehow crapping on pipelines or putting emission caps that won’t allow us to make any more oil or gas to send these pipelines that they now suddenly have discovered are important … If we don’t wake up real soon, next two weeks, I can say confidently the next four years is basically cutting people.”

The energy expert predicted that the worst if yet to come if Carney wins a mandate to govern from the voters. “Nothing has changed, if anything, Mr. Carney and his company, as we well know, has lied on so many fronts. And here’s the big one that I’m going to say it here now, because I’ve said it many places before, but to be absolutely clear, you’re going to get a carbon tax, and that 20 cents you think you’re getting off. It’s going to be 40 cents by 2030, likely by the end of another government, “should they form a majority government.”

McTeague cautioned against Canadians becoming deluded and declaring, “Oh, we’re not worried about the future; we just don’t like Donald Trump, and we think Pierre Poilievre is like him.” Give your head a shake — because you know what, I’m going to spend a lot of time over the next few years, pointing back to the stupidity and frivolity of people. And make no mistake, David, these people know what they’re doing. They’re just trying to be cool and friendly because they made mistakes in 2015, 2019 and again in 2021 and they want to somehow think that they can justify bad decisions. What’s coming at the expense of the country? Coming at the expense of our economic sustainability? It’s likely coming at the expense of what concerns me even more so: the future of the federation of this country.”

“I’ve said it many places before, but to be absolutely clear, you’re going to get a carbon tax, and that 20 cents you think you’re getting off. It’s going to be 40 cents by 2030.”

Dan and I also discussed how he has discovered that much of the polling being conducted during this campaign is over-sampling people over 60, which comprise at least 50 percent of the respondents included in the surveys. This bodes well for Poilievre and the Conservatives.

Tomorrow I will be examining how the Consevatives are appealing to working class Canadians, labor union leaders and blue collar workers. Seeking and winning the “hard hat vote” worked for President Richard Nixon in 1972 and President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It can work for Poilevre too in 2025 — and somehow I think he realizes that.