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

161–170 of 220 posts

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

#161

Post by leereeves »

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.).

Each time I learn more about it, this arrangement seems crazier. It was strange enough that private companies are allowed to run their own local governments in Florida. Now it turns out they're also allowed to issue tax advantaged municipal debt, and transfer that debt to taxpayers if this sweet deal ever ends.

It's true that Reedy Creek is being singled out because Disney has fallen out of favor, but I'm still hoping there is some flaw in this arrangement that leads to the end of all special districts now that people are paying attention.

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

#162

Post by ladyattis »

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.

>To send a message that dissent from the business community will not be tolerated.

And as a consequence it means less business will ever come to Florida which is a disaster for them. It also means any existing businesses in Florida are likely to move more of their new work outside of the state. It's really a bad decision on DeSantis' part and I don't think he cares obviously but his party does.

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

#163

Post by leereeves »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #160
gamblor956 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wouldn't the local community collect a lot more taxes if the district didn't exist? As I understand it (admittedly not very well), right now Disney is effectively "paying taxes" to itself.

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

#164

Post by kcplate »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #87
kcplate wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>It’s forcing the Democratic Party to start making 180 degree public shifts of some of their classic positions on things like [...] limits on free speech/censorship. [...] Its driving liberals out of the Democratic Party I'm unclear on what you're trying to express here. "Free speech" is a liberal value, and the topic at hand is an anti-free-speech, pro-censorship bill by the opposing party. It seems one of these two…

I was referring to the numerous stories I have seen in the media by left leaning pundits since Musk’s offer arguing censorship as a “good thing”.

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

#165

Post by kcplate »

lisper wrote: post #62
kcplate wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If I wasn’t clear…that was my point as well.

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

#166

Post by hunterb123 »

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

#167

Post by johnnyo »

rayiner wrote: post #130
roseway4 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Don’t confuse support for one provision to mean support for the entire bill.

If you scroll down in the same poll a few questions you will see:

“To what extent do you support or oppose the following items in the bill? Allowing parents to sue school districts over alleged violations of sexual orientation and gender identity discussions in schools”

Support 41% Oppose 43%

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-9034-d137-abff-f0f41...

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

#168

Post by JaimeThompson »

rayiner wrote: post #139
JaimeThompson wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should read the actual text of the law. It's directed to "instruction" on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity." It's meant to prevent an off-hand mention of someone's same-sex spouse from turning into a discussion of sexual attraction and sexual orientation.

All activities in the classroom typically fall under the category of instruction not just the formal segments. This law is one of those laws meant to be used against the wrong people while ignoring when the correct people do the same sort of things.

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

#169

Post by JaimeThompson »

rayiner wrote: post #138
JaimeThompson wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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`u al"i ty\, n. The quality or state of being distinguished by sex. --Lindley. [1913 Webster] They wrote the…

> 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. But that's exactly the problem. Parents want to insulate their young children from discussions of "human sexuality." We…

>We have strong social conventions

That isn't how the law is written. They could have, perhaps, actually written it that way but they didn't. I will leave it to the reader to infer their true intentions.

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

#170

Post by tantalor »

bdonlan wrote: post #27
edmundsauto wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

> if one of the bondholders refuses to sell

eminent domain has entered the chat

Post reply on HN