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

61–70 of 220 posts

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

#61

Post by woah »

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.

Who cares? This is literally an instance of a sitting government official using the power of his office to punish a private enterprise for not donating to him. It's that simple. That's what Disney did to offend DeSantis (that, and excersizing their free speech). It's a straight up banana republic shakedown.

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

#62

Post by lisper »

kcplate wrote: post #50
lisper wrote: post #22

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 t…

> All of the liberals celebrating Disney's imminent "victory" are completely missing this bigger picture. The optics of this…and things like the Musk/Twitter hand wringing serves a single purpose: It’s forcing the Democratic Party to start making 180 degree public shifts of some of their classic positions on things like large corporate sweetheart deals and limits on free speech/censorship. Right now, the progressive…

I probably shouldn't be responding to this because it's skating dangerously close to the HN prohibition on political discussion (if we haven't already crossed that line) but I have to say that from where I sit most of the intolerance for dissent in the Democratic party seems to me to be coming from the left and not the center.

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

#63

Post by jrochkind1 »

ars wrote: post #46

It seems easy enough to make a new special purpose entity, not controlled by Disney. Set the millage rare very high, even higher than it is today, and tax Disney very much. Collect enough money, store it in a bank, and assign it to paying the bonds. Then dissolve the special purpose entity once you have collected enough money from Disney, and let the only thing remain be the bank account that will stay on until the b…

Usually special purpose districts with taxing authority have supervisors elected by the property owners or residents in that district. (As does this one, it's just the only property owner is Disney). But I don't know for sure if it would be possible/legal in FL to do differently; like a special district with taxing authority over property owners in the district, whose board is just appointed by the governor or something?

I mean I guess they could... it wouldn't surprise me if there are legal problems with effectively just deciding to tax all Disney property extra.

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

#64

Post by jlmorton »

zmgsabst wrote: post #55
InitialLastName wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Because a casual reading of the bill certainly appears to threaten the latter, where the "this is reasonable" proponents seem to be pushing for the former interpretation. Classic "disingenuous use of partisanship to talk past each other", but it's funny how the ostensibly "limited government" people a…

This rule is addressing other actions by government, such as the choice of government funded schools to adopt an ideology that a majority views as dangerous to their children — and represents a limit on government power. Why would this constitute overreach?

You're making a hypothetical argument that is only tangentially-related to the actual bill as-passed.

The bill that was passed is deliberately vague. Beyond that, it empowers private citizens to sue teachers in their personal capacities for any alleged transgression.

This is crazy. The status quo was that this question would be left up to school districts, with boards that are elected at the local level. If a teacher was not complying with school district policy, then the recourse was to fire the teacher.

The bill you're arguing in favor of hijacks control from local voters, overrides the expressed preferences of parents and local voters, and relies on civil lawsuits to enforce a state policy.

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

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

lisper wrote: post #58
LordDragonfang wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I've increasingly seen "pass legislation in bad faith that you know will be struck down" as a conservative legislative tactic (see recent abortion laws, bill curtailing voting rights) and I can't help but feel there should be some sort of consequence for consistently acting in bad faith.

The consequence is supposed to be that you get voted out of office. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite an audience for bad-faith politics nowadays. And I don't think this is unique to conservatives, and I also don't think that your examples are good ones. It seems increasingly clear that anti-abortion bills, for example, are not being passed in bad faith. The Republican Party really is intent on delivering on its…

> the HN prohibition on political discussions

While there was a brief experiment with such a prohibition, the planned end date was a long time ago (and the experiment was aborted early.)

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

#66

Post by thrashh »

bandyaboot wrote: post #23

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.

I suspect there's a way to eliminate Reedy Creek district.

I don't think it's the law stopping the dissolution of the district -- it's that no one important in the state seriously wants to do that. Who does it benefit?

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

#67

Post by JaimeThompson »

mbg721 wrote: post #56
InitialLastName wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Because a casual reading of the bill certainly appears to threaten the latter, where the "this is reasonable" proponents seem to be pushing for the former interpretation. Classic "disingenuous use of partisanship to talk past each other", but it's funny how the ostensibly "limited government" people a…

Why do children have to be taught about relationships in school? They have home and families, even extended ones, for that.

Teaching happens the entire time kids are at school even when just talking to their teachers so a teacher mentioning their family, their kids, their spouse, changing their last name because they got married, changing from Miss to Mrs, wearing a wedding ring are all expressions of human sexuality.

Sexuality \Sex`ual"ity\, n.

     The quality or state of being distinguished by sex.
     --Lindley.
     [1913 Webster]
They wrote the law so they could punish those they don't like and ignore violations by those they support.

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

#68

Post by zmgsabst »

jlmorton wrote: post #64
zmgsabst wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This rule is addressing other actions by government, such as the choice of government funded schools to adopt an ideology that a majority views as dangerous to their children — and represents a limit on government power. Why would this constitute overreach?

You're making a hypothetical argument that is only tangentially-related to the actual bill as-passed. The bill that was passed is deliberately vague. Beyond that, it empowers private citizens to sue teachers in their personal capacities for any alleged transgression. This is crazy. The status quo was that this question would be left up to school districts, with boards that are elected at the local level. If a teacher…

I believe that you’re ignoring the role of state and national educational agencies and groups in the dynamic.

It absolutely is not the case educational material decisions are a purely local choice as the “status quo”.

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

#69

Post by zackees »

bandyaboot wrote: post #23

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#70

Post by paxys »

bandyaboot wrote: post #23

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.

That's what people said about Brexit..but here we are
Post reply on HN