Actually, Disney's bailing out of Haymarket is part of a general pattern of
Disney's recent forays into real estate development.  Over the past few years
they have proposed and abandoned several themed projects in Southern
California, Florida and now Virginia.  All of these projects had similar
trajectories: big announcements by Disney, big commitments by local
governments (infrastructure, tax abatements, etc.), some amount of local
opposition (often because of the commitment of local government resources,
but occasionally over land use and environmental issues), and Disney's
eventual abandonment of the project.  One can speculate about reasons for
this pattern, the economics are certainly a factor (especially after the
problems of Euro-Disney), but I think part of the problem is Disney's
desire to have absolute control over its developments.  Recall that the
DisneyWorld/EPCOT is part of the Reedy Creek Development District, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Walt Disney Enterprises.  Reedy Creek is the closest
thing to an independent nation within the United States.  The state of
Florida granted the Reedy Creek "government" (essentially Disney's board
of directors) unprecedented control over building codes, highway construction,
taxation, and power generation (if they wanted to Disney could construct a
nuclear reactor on their property).
 
My guess is that Disney abandoned its new parks because they realized that
getting government assistance eventually requires a measure of public
accountability --something Disney is reluctant to do.  If you owned your
own country would you submit to the demands of mere elected officials and
public bureaucrats?
 
Adam Bickford, Smithsonian Institution,
Institutional Studies Office:: [log in to unmask]
(202) 786-2289