Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

news.bloombergtax.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 220 posts

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#21

Post by michaelt »

tablespoon wrote: post #6
hermannj314 wrote: post #4

It would be a shame if current legislators could restrict future legislators by adding infinite year bonds to all new laws with promises the law will never change as long as that bond exists. If this principal of preserving bond contracts prohibits legistivative action or could even have a chilling effect on it, perhaps the real issue is that government debt generally is a risk to our democracy. Perhaps congresses sh…

> It would be a shame if current legislators could restrict future legislators by adding infinite year bonds to all new laws with promises the law will never change as long as that bond exists. Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? This article feels like it's built on a priority inversion, like debt terms are really the supreme law of the land,…

> Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself?

The problem with having supreme power to break any contract without consequences is that nobody will make contracts with you any more. For this reason, many states have (e.g.) clauses in their constitutions saying they won't.

Of course, the legislature usually has the power to amend the constitution.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#22

Post by lisper »

I think everyone is getting this wrong. This is all posturing. The Florida legislature knows perfectly well that it can never unwind Reedy Creek. But if they can make a good show of trying, then that will earn points with their base, and when the courts shut them down they can blame "activist liberal judges" for their failure, despite the fact that it was a foregone conclusion. But the perception will be that they tried to fight the good fight against an evil overreaching corporation which was trying to corrupt Florida's innocent youth.

All of the liberals celebrating Disney's imminent "victory" are completely missing this bigger picture.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#23

Post by bandyaboot »

I don’t think the elimination of the Reedy Creek district is meant to ever actually occur. The point is twofold. To send a message that dissent from the business community will not be tolerated. And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. When they get their people denouncing the opposition as “groomers”, they are achieving their objective.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#24

Post by imperio59 »

mikeryan wrote: post #16
vmception wrote: post #5

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…

That’s not exactly it. Disney publicly criticized the new Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. And then said they’d no longer donate to FL legislature. They’d made a 50k donation to governor DeSantis in the past so it’s more about them NOT making donations. This act by Disney had to be public or it wouldn’t have had any weight. Making those donations privately probably would defeat the purpose of showing support to the legi…

Willing to bet you didn't read what the actual bill says or does. It does not say "don't say gay", it says sexual education to kids should not happen before a certain grade (3rd grade IIRC) and be age appropriate, which should be non controversial unless you have some weird notion that a 7 year old needs to be taught about sex.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#25

Post by BryantD »

mikeryan wrote: post #16
vmception wrote: post #5

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…

That’s not exactly it. Disney publicly criticized the new Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. And then said they’d no longer donate to FL legislature. They’d made a 50k donation to governor DeSantis in the past so it’s more about them NOT making donations. This act by Disney had to be public or it wouldn’t have had any weight. Making those donations privately probably would defeat the purpose of showing support to the legi…

And just to make sure this is clear: they aren't making donations to anyone in Florida, Republicans or Democrats alike. The Republican response to this was to punish Disney. We can't know what the Democratic response would have been since Democrats aren't in charge of anything in Florida.

"Keep donating or we'll punish you" is an interesting stance.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#26

Post by maxerickson »

hermannj314 wrote: post #4

It would be a shame if current legislators could restrict future legislators by adding infinite year bonds to all new laws with promises the law will never change as long as that bond exists. If this principal of preserving bond contracts prohibits legistivative action or could even have a chilling effect on it, perhaps the real issue is that government debt generally is a risk to our democracy. Perhaps congresses sh…

Why not impose a sensible limit?

Financing infrastructure that lasts decades over decades isn't pernicious.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#27

Post by bdonlan »

edmundsauto wrote: post #3
chrisco255 wrote: post #2

Any new or existing municipality can take over those bonds. They do it all the time. And as a fallback the state could take those on and refinance them and pay then off. It's really not difficult, but the author makes it seem to be. As for the millage rate, if Reedy Creek is higher than the state maximum, I'm curious for what valuation Disney appraises its own property, since the millage rate is only part of the stor…

Except one of the bonds cannot be redeemed early, and based on the taxation rate authorized to Reedy Creek means the underlying terms of the bonds have been changed. The Florida state constitution apparently has strict limits on the state governments ability to interfere with contracts, and according to the article, that is also strongly held in previous Supreme Court cases. This article is written by an attorney bas…

The state _could_ attempt to negotiate with bondholders to repurchase the bonds - probably at a significant premium, however. Of course, if one of the bondholders refuses to sell, there wouldn't be much they can do... (I wonder if Disney holds any of those bonds for this very reason?)

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#28

Post by KarlKemp »

ethbr0 wrote: post #17
tablespoon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. > and this is why you donate anonymously. If Disney had to donate anonymously, I bet it wouldn't donate at all. It's a corporation, and whatever donations it makes are most likely PR expenditures (either internally or externally directed).

The point is: it wouldn't be anonymous to the politicians it's supporting, however it's on the books. Most corporations don't actually care about politics, beyond (1) What's good for my business? & (2) What's good PR? The interesting thing about Disney is that in this case they were caught between a contradictory (1) & (2). Which, to the parent's point, a more adept PR department / anonymous donations wouldn't have a…

Disney's public statement is worth far more than any donation. It's an American icon, a local behemoth, and a cultural institution.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#29

Post by mikestew »

imperio59 wrote: post #24
mikeryan wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not exactly it. Disney publicly criticized the new Florida “Don’t say gay” bill. And then said they’d no longer donate to FL legislature. They’d made a 50k donation to governor DeSantis in the past so it’s more about them NOT making donations. This act by Disney had to be public or it wouldn’t have had any weight. Making those donations privately probably would defeat the purpose of showing support to the legi…

Willing to bet you didn't read what the actual bill says or does. It does not say "don't say gay", it says sexual education to kids should not happen before a certain grade (3rd grade IIRC) and be age appropriate, which should be non controversial unless you have some weird notion that a 7 year old needs to be taught about sex.

Willing to bet you didn't read what the actual bill says or does.

Ah, yes, the new talking point that I’ve seen a lot of lately: “I’ll bet you haven’t even read it. Here, let me…” Yeah, save your patronizing, I read it just fine. And my take-away was, “don’t say gay” is about as accurate a summary as one is likely to get. Sure, those are exact words aren’t in there, but man, is that ever a weak rebuttal.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#30

Post by vmception »

danaris wrote: post #15
vmception wrote: post #5

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC i…

Translation: "Disney, after massive protests from their own employees due to donating significantly to support the "Don't Say Gay" bill in Florida, donated some to the other side, and because of this, Florida's governor decided to pull out the nuclear option by committing to something he didn't even understand in hopes of hurting Disney." And you think this is...what, normal? The way things should be? That by daring…

> seems to be...the world's most supine moral position

well yeah thats because its an amoral position. was that not clear? is that clear now?

I do this in a variety of countries, towards people of multiple parties in those countries sometimes, I was born in the US and subject to its indoctrination but its not possible for me personally to subscribe to an idea of treating the US differently: do the thing that gets influence without consequence. figure out what that thing is. some countries enshrine their corruption in the rule of law. cool.

Post reply on HN