In a controversial move, the board appointed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to oversee Disney World’s tax district has greenlit a $4.5 million budget allocation for the upcoming year to fund DeSantis’s ongoing legal dispute with the entertainment giant. The board, responsible for managing a total budget of $194.5 million, has set aside this substantial sum to finance the governor’s legal battle against Disney. Taxpayers have already covered the $1.9 million spent on legal fees for the case this year.
Critics have voiced concerns about the board’s financial management, with attorney and business expert Chad Emerson describing them as “novices trying to run a really complex operation.” Emerson pointed out that Disney had decades of experience in effectively managing its operations and ensuring a great guest experience, implying that the current board may not prioritize the same level of commitment to guest satisfaction.
This budget allocation, initially proposed in August, was deemed “regrettable” by district administrator Glen Gilzean, attributing it to “Disney-induced expenses.” The legal battle centers around Disney’s lawsuit against Governor DeSantis and his board, claiming “government retaliation” due to Disney’s criticism of the controversial “Don’t Say Gay” law. In response, the board has counter-sued Disney, leading to a significant increase in annual legal fees from the district’s usual $1.25 million to the current $4.5 million.
The conflict escalated further when Governor DeSantis revoked Disney’s special zoning agreement and control over the Reedy Creek Improvement District in response to their opposition to the “Don’t Say Gay” law. DeSantis’s legal challenges have incurred substantial costs for the state’s taxpayers, with hourly legal fees reaching $1,300. Amidst these ongoing legal battles, DeSantis’s presidential campaign has faced challenges, with poor polling in key primary states and declining support even in his home state of Florida.
As the dispute between DeSantis and Disney continues, concerns grow about the escalating costs and the impact on the governor’s political prospects.