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

121–130 of 220 posts

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

#121

Post by mrzimmerman »

twofornone wrote: post #115
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.

>And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. It's slimy and dishonest to pretend that only republicans are fighting a culture war when the bulk of the progressive platform is explicitly about changing US culture. It's like calling Ukraine the aggressor for defending against the Russian invasion.

Cultures change constantly. They’re never in a sort of stasis. Culture is just the expressions of a group of humans, how they think, and how they interact.

One could argue that rolling back abortion access (which has existed for decades and is part of US culture) is conservatives in America explicitly changing US culture. Same with bills like the one in Florida that disallow teachers from discussing human gender or human romantic relationships.

Everyone is generally trying to affect the direction of the culture of the US at the political level at all times. It’s not a right va left thing it’s a humans exist thing.

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

#122

Post by JaimeThompson »

mbg721 wrote: post #117
JaimeThompson wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Teaching happens in every interaction a child has in life. Which means that having a law that says teaching human sexuality can't happen is impossible to do without turning the teachers into uncaring robot like beings. They could have banned the teaching of sexually explicate material but they chose not to.

What conservatives want (and can't say) is to prevent schools from telling young children that families without two opposite-sex parents are normal, when their parents disagree with that. That's fundamentally a value-judgment that doesn't have a black-and-white answer, but if it's interfering with math class, they have a point.

A same sex teacher having a wedding ring on or mentioning their spouse during math class would be teaching the kids about same sex relationships. It it was interfering with classes they would be showing examples of it but, to my knowledge and research, they haven't shown this.

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

#123

Post by rayiner »

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.

Your use of “dissent” is an interesting way to frame a major corporation trying to exert pressure to oppose a Florida bill the majority of people in Florida support.

Is this a change from Republican orthodoxy, where big corporations get whatever they ask for regardless of public opinion. Yes.

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

#124

Post by srmarm »

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…

They can back out, just at a high financial cost. This is no different to any other contractual obligation that lasts longer than the term limit.

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

#125

Post by mbostleman »

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.

Everything you say is likely correct, but for full context, these actions are a response to an initial political action that most likely can also be described in identical terms. From a less polarized position, this is fire fighting fire.

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

#126

Post by roseway4 »

rayiner wrote: post #123
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.

Your use of “dissent” is an interesting way to frame a major corporation trying to exert pressure to oppose a Florida bill the majority of people in Florida support. Is this a change from Republican orthodoxy, where big corporations get whatever they ask for regardless of public opinion. Yes.

> to oppose a Florida bill the majority of people in Florida support.

Please provide a source for this claim.

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

#127

Post by gamblor956 »

thrashh wrote: post #66
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?

There is: the state of Florida can pay off the debt. All at once. That is the only legal way to do it without endangering all of Florida's other debt (bonds, etc.).

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

#128

Post by caddemon »

mbostleman wrote: post #125
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.

Everything you say is likely correct, but for full context, these actions are a response to an initial political action that most likely can also be described in identical terms. From a less polarized position, this is fire fighting fire.

This is a pretty big escalation. There are definitely examples of both sides being the aggressor in the broader "culture wars", but IMO the absurdity of this particular issue is pretty much entirely on the right.

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

#129

Post by rayiner »

mrzimmerman wrote: post #121
twofornone wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. It's slimy and dishonest to pretend that only republicans are fighting a culture war when the bulk of the progressive platform is explicitly about changing US culture. It's like calling Ukraine the aggressor for defending against the Russian invasion.

Cultures change constantly. They’re never in a sort of stasis. Culture is just the expressions of a group of humans, how they think, and how they interact. One could argue that rolling back abortion access (which has existed for decades and is part of US culture) is conservatives in America explicitly changing US culture. Same with bills like the one in Florida that disallow teachers from discussing human gender or h…

[flagged]

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

#130

Post by rayiner »

roseway4 wrote: post #126
rayiner wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your use of “dissent” is an interesting way to frame a major corporation trying to exert pressure to oppose a Florida bill the majority of people in Florida support. Is this a change from Republican orthodoxy, where big corporations get whatever they ask for regardless of public opinion. Yes.

> to oppose a Florida bill the majority of people in Florida support. Please provide a source for this claim.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FN_ArK9VEAEnDva?format=jpg&name=...

The question is: "To what extent do you support or oppose the following items in the bill? Banning the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten through third grade?" Respondents supported it 50-34.

Post reply on HN