Tracking the comments in articles about the revocation of privileged status for Disney in Florida revealed some shocking posts from enraged 'Crats. More than one lunatic even suggested that Disney, “raze the whole area to the ground to make it unusable,” (i.e., the way Vladimir Putin does with enemy cities his forces can’t hold).

So what those psychopaths are suggesting is that Disney dynamite the infrastructure of the theme park and surrounding facilities they built – the buildings, power lines, sewers, water distribution systems, landscaping, telecommunications, roads, rail lines, bridges, flood control, parking lots – just to deny use to their “enemies”.

This entire thing has crystalized one (maybe the most) important difference between normal people and radical revolutionary socialists (democrat party members); considering anyone who disagrees with or opposes the radical revolutionary socialist agenda as an enemy to be destroyed utterly, not just an adversary to be defeated in the arena of ideas and public affairs.

It takes a special type of ignorance to be oblivious of the fact that civilized places have LAWS which forbid exactly the sort of thing a significant percentage of ‘Crats want to do. It is illegal to deliberately damage/destroy property (civil, community, personal or real) in a wanton act. IOW, even if something belongs to you, it is illegal to destroy it without due process.

For example, if people in a domestic relationship have a fight and one tries to deliberately destroy the structure of or possessions within their own home (walls, doors, windows, T.V.s, computers, vehicles) they can be arrested, charged, convicted and punished legally for committing crimes. 

The presumption by courts is that it is not in the best interests of society to allow angry people the freedom to destroy useful, valuable things. So many ‘Crats are so utterly, abysmally ignorant of the laws of the world in which they live that it boggles the mind.

If Disney decided to relocate their theme park outside of Florida, the only thing they could do legally would be to remove their own company property and leave everything else behind intact. The things they could NOT legally remove (or damage intentionally) include permanent or provisional installations, improvements, buildings or anything else that is normally part of the existing basic civil habitat/infrastructure.

In addition to the cost of removal of all company property would be building a NEW theme park somewhere else (should the company invest in that again), litigation over the final cost to the company of existing debt payments, loss of revenue (likely in the many hundreds of millions over time). NOT included in that cost-projection would be negative impact on the company’s brand (loss of stock valuation, negative public perception) which could be (often are) permanent.

So bottom line is that Disney’s senior leadership would have a crisis of monolithic proportions to contemplate if they decided to close the park permanently. They would have to absorb the costs in lost revenue, public animosity to the brand, reduced stock valuation, construction of a new park, loss of to-date investment in Disneyworld, AND the X-factor of the possibility that a competing entity like Six Flags et al would establish their own theme park in the location with similar (identical) amenities i.e., capturing market-share in the region.

Suffice to say that the retarded judge in Texas who suggested Disney do all of the above is out of his depth.

If the current senior leadership of Disney DID try to make such a radical, insanely-risky/costly move, it is far more-likely that the executives would be forced out of their employment first.

I am no expert is such things by any means but I can’t see how closing Disney World could do anything but cost them a TON of money they can't really afford or need to lose, over what amounts to a dispute between an radical leftist ideologue CEO with a huge ego and Florida state government.