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

151–160 of 220 posts

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

#151

Post by innocentoldguy »

Tossrock wrote: post #108
innocentoldguy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read the bill as well and I think the clear take-away is Florida doesn't want teachers talking to five-year-olds about sex, period. No sexual preferences are specified in the bill, whatsoever.

As ammending 1001.42 §8, Paragragh (c)3: "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." This seems to pretty straightforwardly say that schools can't talk about the existence of gay or transgender…

Heterosexuality and traditional male/female rolls are also sexual orientations and gender identities, are they not?

You can’t logically ignore half the reality of a statement to claim victimhood.

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

#152

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

rayiner wrote: post #129
mrzimmerman wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

That's a very particular reading of a very particular poll. Contrast with a Gallup poll from more or less the same time frame:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

"Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?"

No: 58% Yes: 32% No opinion: 10%

You can slice and dice the court of public opinion many different ways to demonstrate support for your preferred position on abortion (as with many other things). That doesn't mean that "conservatives are trying to roll back the law to reflect the culture" (emphasis mine). It means that they have an idea of what the culture should be, and are trying to make it so (like everyone else who is trying to accomplish anything politically).

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

#153

Post by educaysean »

GCA10 wrote: post #106

We're told at the end of the piece that the author "is an attorney based out of Maitland, Fla., with a practice concentrating on local government-related matters." It would be nice to know if he's represented either Disney, the state of Florida or a relevant Florida county at any particular time. (Or all the time!) Being a paid advocate for one of the players doesn't disqualify him from talking. In fact, it might mak…

The article doesn't seem heavy on opinion. It's just reiterating and summarizing facts that are available for us to review if we wanted. Did you notice any implicit biases or agendas within the article?

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

#154

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

While I appreciate a clear explanation of the legal situation surrounding the Reedy Creek bonds, I am still pretty amazed that the fact of a Governor of a state saying explicitly "we are going to punish a corporation for speaking out about our legislation" has not generated more pushback.

I don't think that corporations are people, nor do they deserve the full protection of the first amendment (particularly those incorporated as for-profit). Nevertheless, in the current legal climate, this just seems blatantly, clearly, obviously unconstitutional and yet there's been nary a peep about that aspect of it.

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

#155

Post by bandyaboot »

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.

It’s slimy and dishonest to pretend that I said something that I did not say.

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

#156

Post by educaysean »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #154

While I appreciate a clear explanation of the legal situation surrounding the Reedy Creek bonds, I am still pretty amazed that the fact of a Governor of a state saying explicitly "we are going to punish a corporation for speaking out about our legislation" has not generated more pushback. I don't think that corporations are people, nor do they deserve the full protection of the first amendment (particularly those inc…

Even here on hackernews you can see people fiercely defending DeSantis' action as "not retribution", claiming that it's somehow beneficial for Florida to dissolve the district.

We're living in strange times. Ideas like like civility and good faith debates have all but disappeared and each side is blaming the other for the state of politics today and continue to use that as an excuse for their own toxic behavior. It's a straight race to the bottom.

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

#157

Post by [deleted] »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #122
mbg721 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#158

Post by mbostleman »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #154

While I appreciate a clear explanation of the legal situation surrounding the Reedy Creek bonds, I am still pretty amazed that the fact of a Governor of a state saying explicitly "we are going to punish a corporation for speaking out about our legislation" has not generated more pushback. I don't think that corporations are people, nor do they deserve the full protection of the first amendment (particularly those inc…

I think that there is a feeling that the other side is attempting to move policy forward that is not supported by a majority of constituents but is rather leveraging an artificial amplification on media (social and otherwise) to make it appear otherwise and, as such, is a blatant, clear, and obvious subversion of process. I think that that feeling, whether right or wrong, is used to justify taking the gloves off.

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

#159

Post by bandyaboot »

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.

Disney’s political actions were entirely within their rights. The state taking adverse action against them for exercising those rights should not be tolerated in a liberal society.

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

#160

Post by fnordpiglet »

gamblor956 wrote: post #127
thrashh wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.).

The local community can’t afford to assume the districts responsibility even if the bond debt is assumed by the state.
Post reply on HN