67
Maybe there's something I missed in the article, but it sounds like DeSantis won.
I read that from the article also, but it wasn't really heavy on actual detail.
The settlement also includes Disney’s agreement to seek permission from a federal appeals court to pause its effort to revive a dismissed retaliation lawsuit against DeSantis in Florida federal court in light of expected negotiations of a “new development deal” between the company and the district.
The only thing I can imagine is that Disney negotiated something that was more worth their while than the oversight board behind closed doors in exchange for dropping the lawsuits.
I guess? That's the only part that stood out to me, as well, though it was vague.
Was really hoping Disney's legal machine might do some good for once.
I always saw the lawsuits as a means to combat DeSantis' grandstanding to get the party bid with negative PR. This still reads as a Disney win to me and everyone is simply tying up loose ends. I guess we won't know for sure though.
Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I was just hoping Disney would use their legal might to go full scorched earth (as implausible as that would actually be).
Oh me too 100%. I think they both have enough resources for this to end up as a protracted pissing match where they both lose(as long as he's still governor at least) so it's a fine line to walk. DeSantis is a huge piece of shit and did a lot of irreparable harm to the state while chasing headlines and I hope he gets what's coming to him, but I know it won't happen.
My interpretation is that both sides got tired of bickering and just gave up on the fight in general.
The Mouse doesn't give up.
Yeah, someone isn't familiar with Disney's litigious history
Leaving the changes in place, which is the weird part.
Where did you get that? There’s no detail on what things will look like moving forward
The article was pretty vague. From what I read, it sounded like Disney was basically dropping everything without really getting anything in return other than a mention of "expected negotiations of a 'new development deal' between the company and the district."
Sounds more like DeSantis negotiated for them to stay, with better conditions, as a way to save face.
If Disney stays and it's discovered that DeSantis gave them better conditions, it's DeSantis that caved and negotiated a deal behind closed doors.
This sounds right. Disney never really cared about "winning" anything. Disney is likely getting the money, concessions, and control it wanted, maybe more, still has the street cred from fighting back when people were still looking, and doesn't care if DeSantis acts like he won.
Disney should get the hell out of Florida.
That park was the last one Walt Disney had a direct hand in. It's got quite a history. It's where Uncle Walt tried and failed to start his little libertarian Utopia project.
And good luck finding anywhere else on the East Coast to move Disney World that will meet the same needs in both logistics and climate as Orlando (that isn't also in Florida).
They can certainly find places to move some of it, but not all of it.
Disney would effectively have to cut off a leg to get out of Florida.
That's the thing why does it have to be on the coast? Disney absolutely has fuck-you money, they could literally build their own small city with a big ass airport in bumfuck nowhere along an interstate. Florida is incapable of managing the amount of traffic that goes through Disney World as is!!
In what way is the climate of Florida desirable? A hot and humid nightmare with insects and sunburns is the exact opposite of desirable for a theme park.
Funny thing: they went to Florida because they originally wanted to do Louisiana but legislators and other officials demanded so much in the way of bribes that Disney simply walked away from the state.
I think Puerto Rico would be a good fit.
Agreed.
I'm fine with someone answering the question on whether there needs to be a Disney World if they already have a Disney Land.
That would be so cost prohibitive
I don’t know what the author(s) thought they were communicating but I got only this from the article:
“Disney agrees to lay down and die; possible federal case may someday happen for something, they guess.”
Wtf.
Not just me, then. My only takeaway seemed to be that Disney for some reason agrees that the things the previous board did are null AND will stop another lawsuit...for some reason? I can't figure out why or what they get out of it, the article is stupid.
!<
Smug prick.
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
67 points (92.4% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4332 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS