4 ms·

>that it will not in any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Re

by mzs 5y ago

>that it will not in any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Reedy Creek Act, until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with any act or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are fully met and discharged. https://emma.msrb.org/P21566885-P21210477-.pdf https://emma.msrb.org/P21566885-P21210477-.pdf

Terretta 5y ago
For clarity, "exemption from taxation" can be better thought of as "exemption from double taxation" or "exemption from external government taxation" since the special district is currently allowing Reedy Creek to tax itself for its own self-provided services. Disney is not exempt from paying taxes for services in the way people think it's exempt. It's not paying zero. On the contrary, it's reportedly currently taxing itself 3x the maximum tax rate the city or county is allowed to tax.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
cryptonector 5y ago
> In the Reedy Creek Act the State of Florida has pledged to the holders of any bonds issued by the District: So it's in the statute, not any contract? State statutes are not contracts. Nor can one legislature session bind a future one through statute.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  From what I see, the state statute grants the ability for RCID to issue bond contracts. I don't believe the statute grants the state any ability to interfere with those contracts. ref: https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/the-contractual-impossibility-of-unwinding-disneys-reedy-creek https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/th...
  - cryptonector 5y ago
    That article doesn't add anything new. Again, a statutory promise is not a contractual clause and cannot bind a future legislature. I'm sure there will be interesting court cases out of this. That is, whether cancelling the special district interferes with the extant bonds will be an interesting question for the courts, but if Disney can pay... And anyways, the legislature could always make it so the counties inherit the bonds (and the 3x tax power until they're paid off, maybe), so it seems unlikely that the legislature can do nothing here.

by mzs 5y ago

Terretta 5y ago

For clarity, "exemption from taxation" can be better thought of as "exemption from double taxation" or "exemption from external government taxation" since the special district is currently allowing Reedy Creek to tax itself for its own self-provided services. Disney is not exempt from paying taxes for services in the way people think it's exempt. It's not paying zero. On the contrary, it's reportedly currently taxing itself 3x the maximum tax rate the city or county is allowed to tax.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cryptonector 5y ago

> In the Reedy Creek Act the State of Florida has pledged to the holders of any bonds issued by the District: So it's in the statute, not any contract? State statutes are not contracts. Nor can one legislature session bind a future one through statute.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
From what I see, the state statute grants the ability for RCID to issue bond contracts. I don't believe the statute grants the state any ability to interfere with those contracts. ref: https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/the-contractual-impossibility-of-unwinding-disneys-reedy-creek https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/th...
- cryptonector 5y ago
  That article doesn't add anything new. Again, a statutory promise is not a contractual clause and cannot bind a future legislature. I'm sure there will be interesting court cases out of this. That is, whether cancelling the special district interferes with the extant bonds will be an interesting question for the courts, but if Disney can pay... And anyways, the legislature could always make it so the counties inherit the bonds (and the 3x tax power until they're paid off, maybe), so it seems unlikely that the legislature can do nothing here.