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

141–150 of 220 posts

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

#141

Post by loki49152 »

vannevar wrote: post #98
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.

>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. I think the purpose was a lot more narrow: to position Ron DeSantis for the 2024 Republican Presidential primaries. Relatively small numbers of Republicans vote in the primaries, and they tend to be the angrier, more extreme wing. Donald Trump was nominated in 20…

Few people remember that Trump likely won the nomination due to "cross-over" voters in states with open primaries. There was an organized effort by Democrats to cross-vote for him as the Republican candidate under the belief that he couldn't possibly defeat Hillary Clinton in the actual election.

I don't know if there is a way to determine whether or not that effort actually succeeded, but it did exist and was spoken about with great pride until Trump became the President.

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

#142

Post by kolanos »

caddemon wrote: post #120
kolanos wrote: post #100

I can't help but see the irony that DeSantis is being described as an autocrat for trying to break up what is effectively a autonomous state that Walt Disney created to bypass most laws and oversight. > Walt Disney knew that his plans for the land would be easier to carry out with more independence. Among his ideas for his Florida project was his proposed EPCOT, the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow, which…

How is it anticompetitive? None of those public services have real competition to begin with. Whether you agree with Disney being allowed to run their own utilities, roads, EMS, etc. there would not be any competition with or without Reedy Creek. I actually find it ironic that Republicans are supporting this. It is an example where by and large a private company has done a better job providing various public services…

To start Florida has a corporate income tax (~5.5%) and a sales tax (~6%), neither of which Disney has to pay in their autonomous zone. They only have to pay property tax. They also don't have to adhere to any developmental regulations (other than ones they impose on themselves, as they are the governing body) or related expenses.

Think Six Flags gets such perks?

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

#143

Post by pandemicsoul »

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.

The Netherlands begins education about sex and sexuality in primary school and it's not only been shown to lower the incidence of sexual abuse – as children can identify it when it happens to them and are more able to communicate with others to get help – but it also lowers the rate of teen pregnancy and STI infection. The idea that anyone would be against age-appropriate education of children about body autonomy, their anatomy, and their sexuality is mystifying to me.

1. Source 1: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/spring-fever 2. Source 2: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/sex-ed-barriers-and...

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

#144

Post by BryantD »

pandemicsoul wrote: post #136
BryantD wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are a myriad of news sources stating that Disney did, in fact, donate to multiple legislators who voted in favor of the "Don't Say Gay" bill – that was how all this started: They refused to speak out against the bill at first, but had donated to these legislators, and workers were calling it hypocritical for Disney to pretend to support LGBTQ workers while donating to Republicans and refusing to speak out again…

Precisely accurate, yep. After the worker complaints, Disney responded by turning off donations to both parties rather than turning off donations to only Republicans.

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

#145

Post by InitialLastName »

rayiner wrote: post #132
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…

> Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Show me where the Florida law says anything about "families and relationships?" Young kids don't view parental relationships as inherently sexual, and therefore talking about different kinds of families doesn't require talking about sexuality. That is, in fact, pretty much the point of the law--to p…

> An act relating to parental rights in education; amending s. 1001.42, F.S. ... prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner [0]

This is the sort of deliberate, disingenuous misapprehension that I'm talking about. You understand that the phrase "sexual orientation" is widely interpreted as "what gender of person a person has relationships with", right? As in, it's not just about "sex" in the prurient, not-safe-for-children sense.

[0] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... (warning, PDF)

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

#146

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

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.

The issue is not whether Republicans are the only ones fighting a culture war.

It's about whether the Republicans are only fighting a culture war.

What are their policies on healthcare? Infrastructure investment and repair? Climate change? Transportation policy? Childhood poverty? Topsoil depletion in the midwest? Extreme severe drought in the southwest? etc. etc.

Why do they appear to spend so much time talking about things in the "culture war" realm and so little time advancing policy agendas about things that really matter (not that are no "culture war" issues that matter).

Progressives are quite clear about the metrics by which they consider one state of a society to be better than another. More equality of opportunity. Less income/wealth inequality. A more even distribution of GDP between labor and capital. Reduced discrimination against protected classes. Improved health outcomes. Equal treatment under the law. Above all, the type of society you would choose to live in if you could not control who your parents were or where you would be born.

It is far from clear what the conservative/Republican equivalent of this is.

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

#147

Post by caddemon »

kolanos wrote: post #142
caddemon wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it anticompetitive? None of those public services have real competition to begin with. Whether you agree with Disney being allowed to run their own utilities, roads, EMS, etc. there would not be any competition with or without Reedy Creek. I actually find it ironic that Republicans are supporting this. It is an example where by and large a private company has done a better job providing various public services…

To start Florida has a corporate income tax (~5.5%) and a sales tax (~6%), neither of which Disney has to pay in their autonomous zone. They only have to pay property tax. They also don't have to adhere to any developmental regulations (other than ones they impose on themselves, as they are the governing body) or related expenses. Think Six Flags gets such perks?

Yes, Florida's corporate income tax is basically fake: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-florida-corporate...

And I can't find any evidence that Disney doesn't need to charge Florida sales tax within the parks. They definitely charge the state sales tax on ticket sales as I just checked the email receipt from my most recent trip.

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

#148

Post by bandyaboot »

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.

It’s an entirely appropriate framing.

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

#149

Post by [deleted] »

loki49152 wrote: post #141
vannevar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I think the purpose was a lot more narrow: to position Ron DeSantis for the 2024 Republican Presidential primaries. Relatively small numbers of Republicans vote in the primaries, and they tend to be the angrier, more extreme wing. Donald Trump was nominated in 20…

Few people remember that Trump likely won the nomination due to "cross-over" voters in states with open primaries. There was an organized effort by Democrats to cross-vote for him as the Republican candidate under the belief that he couldn't possibly defeat Hillary Clinton in the actual election. I don't know if there is a way to determine whether or not that effort actually succeeded, but it did exist and was spoken…

[deleted]

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

#150

Post by pandemicsoul »

BryantD wrote: post #144
pandemicsoul wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a myriad of news sources stating that Disney did, in fact, donate to multiple legislators who voted in favor of the "Don't Say Gay" bill – that was how all this started: They refused to speak out against the bill at first, but had donated to these legislators, and workers were calling it hypocritical for Disney to pretend to support LGBTQ workers while donating to Republicans and refusing to speak out again…

Precisely accurate, yep. After the worker complaints, Disney responded by turning off donations to both parties rather than turning off donations to only Republicans.

Oh I see what you were saying – they're not donating anymore. Got it!
Post reply on HN