Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state’s GOP legislative majority are continuing to make progress against ‘woke’ Disney.
After the governor signed a law late last month revoking Disney’s special tax and governance status first established in 1967 when the entertainment giant agreed to build Walt Disney World in Orlando, the entertainment behemoth sued to block enforcement of the law, which is set to begin in July.
But that lawsuit isn’t going anywhere, at least for the time being.
The Daily Wire reports that SB 4-C targets the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which provides utilities and other services to Walt Disney World; Reedy Creek, Lake Buena Vista, and Bay Lake all were founded on May 12, 1967.
“Reedy Creek, which has a permanent population of about 50, as well as its own board of supervisors and fire department, allows Disney to construct new buildings and expand its parks without having to adhere to state or county regulations related to construction, wastewater management and drainage,” The Wall Street Journal noted. “It encompasses four theme parks, two water parks, a sports complex and hotels, stores and restaurants.”
“You’ll notice you never see potholes when you drive up to Walt Disney World. That’s because Disney doesn’t have to wait for the county to come to fix them,” David Ramba, executive director of the Florida Association of Special Districts, told the Journal. “Reedy Creek is probably the most efficient local government in Florida because it’s not a typical bureaucracy. It’s run like a business.”
However, the lawsuit has been dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga, a George W. Bush appointee, after it was filed by three residents of Orange and Osceola counties who claimed S.B. 4-C unconstitutionally threatened residents with higher taxes and abridged free speech rights, Fox Business reported.
The plaintiffs “do not plausibly allege they have suffered any concrete injury as a result of the alleged violation of Disney’s First Amendment rights, and nothing in the Complaint shows Plaintiffs have a close relationship with Disney,” Altonaga wrote, as reported by the .
SB 4-C “does not apply to them, they do not allege direct harm as a result of the challenged law, and they do not plausibly allege any credible threat of direct harm in the future,” Altonaga added.