I'm not seeing it the way you do. Example: Long ago when my kids were young, there was a family-owned pet store that had set up in a former single-family home in an older part of the town bordering Hwy. 70. The area had been rezoned as mixed so there were several other businesses that occupied former residential buildings. The problem with the pet store was that they started keeping dangerous animals. Outside they had chain link pens with a baby black bear, a baby lion, and some hybrid wolf pups. Inside they had a variety of small and large snakes (non venomous that I was aware of), rats, mice, lizards, scorpions, spiders, and a four-foot caymen that walked around the store. Neighbors complained about the sad plight of the outside animals as well as the inside. The city could do nothing since they'd issued the license to begin with. So they changed pet store licenses and tacked on a hefty fee (I think it was $500 per year) for each animal on the premises deemed "dangerous." The store folded up and left town.
Fair use of the city's power, or persecution? The store owner called it persecution, went to the news stations, tried to get customers to sign a petition, etc.
FL revoking a special incentive granted to a corporation to entice them to settle there smacks more of persecution than a legitimate use of power.
