15 ms·

The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

79 points by Isamu 4y ago

chrisco255 4y ago
Any new or existing municipality can take over those bonds. They do it all the time. And as a fallback the state could take those on and refinance them and pay then off. It's really not difficult, but the author makes it seem to be. As for the millage rate, if Reedy Creek is higher than the state maximum, I'm curious for what valuation Disney appraises its own property, since the millage rate is only part of the story.
- mikeryan 4y ago
  Sure another municipality “could” take over the bonds. They just can’t afford them.
- edmundsauto 4y ago
  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 based in Florida. I think it’s probably reasonable to defer to their expertise, in this case. after all, they are an attorney with experience in the state - are you?
  - bdonlan 4y ago
    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?)
    - tantalor 4y ago
      > if one of the bondholders refuses to sell eminent domain has entered the chat
- cldellow 4y ago
  > I'm curious for what valuation Disney appraises its own property It doesn't seem that Disney is responsible for property appraisals. See, for example, this news story [1] about them suing Orange County to get their assessments lowered. [1]: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/440815-what-is-disney-world-actually-worth-tax-assessment-battle-heads-to-court/ https://floridapolitics.com/archives/440815-what-is-disney-w...
- ryaniscool 4y ago
  I saw a better article in my local newspaper[0]. According to that article, Disney already pays property taxes to both Orange and Osceola county for their properties inside the respective counties. Essentially, they are double taxed. This is not unusual because this is how it works if you live in an incorporated city in Florida. You pay taxes to both the city and the county. Disney just runs their own little city. The problem is that the legislator is basically unincorporating the city that Disney runs. This is a huge problem for the counties' taxpayers. They will have to absorb the budget of this now unincorporated city as well as the $1 billion debt. [0] https://www.floridatoday.com/story/money/business/2022/04/23/disney-desantis-florida-dissolves-reedy-creek-impact/7408784001/ https://www.floridatoday.com/story/money/business/2022/04/23...
- toast0 4y ago
  From what I read, if the district is dissolved, the counties would need to assume the bonds. But, currently, the district is taxing the property to pay for the bonds at a rate that's much higher than is allowed for the counties to levy. If the counties assume the bonds, they'd need to increase taxes across the board to pay for them. If it's really the policy of the Florida government to retaliate against Disney by relieving them of their debt service; how does that dissuade Disney? How do the citizens of the two counties feel? Is it appropriate for governments to retaliate against companies for opposition or support of a law?
hermannj314 4y ago
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 should not be allowed to engage in debt terms that exceed the term limit of that congress. (2 years or so). (I don't want to make any claim with regard to Florida law, nor the politics behind what's happening in Florida.)
- pram 4y ago
  I mean they could just keep it in existence forever by issuing new debt, apparently. Everyone is excited about Disney 'beating' the Florida government but: is having some weird corporate carve-out of US territory that essentially must legally exist forever really something good?
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > 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. Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? This article feels like it's built on a priority inversion, like debt terms are really the supreme law of the land, which wouldn't surprise me from something deeply embedded in financial market thinking as "Bloomberg Tax" probably is.
  - hermannj314 4y ago
    I may have missed the nuance in the article, but in Florida it seems they found a way to do that.
  - michaelt 4y ago
    > Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? The problem with having supreme power to break any contract without consequences is that nobody will make contracts with you any more. For this reason, many states have (e.g.) clauses in their constitutions saying they won't. Of course, the legislature usually has the power to amend the constitution.
vmception 4y ago
All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC instance rendered JIT
- Hamuko 4y ago
  >Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. Is that legal?
  - vmception 4y ago
    It is legal. or the consequences are non-existent. Read the desired state's LLC statutes. Pick a state with the desired LLC statutes.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. > and this is why you donate anonymously. If Disney had to donate anonymously, I bet it wouldn't donate at all. It's a corporation, and whatever donations it makes are most likely PR expenditures (either internally or externally directed).
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    The point is: it wouldn't be anonymous to the politicians it's supporting, however it's on the books. Most corporations don't actually care about politics, beyond (1) What's good for my business? & (2) What's good PR? The interesting thing about Disney is that in this case they were caught between a contradictory (1) & (2). Which, to the parent's point, a more adept PR department / anonymous donations wouldn't have allowed to happen in the first place. DeSantis' realpolitik is pretty skillful. In this case: if Disney was quiet, he avoided the headache of fighting them; if Disney loudly opposed, he got news and political base support out of fighting them. Win/win.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lisper 4y ago
I think everyone is getting this wrong. This is all posturing. The Florida legislature knows perfectly well that it can never unwind Reedy Creek. But if they can make a good show of trying, then that will earn points with their base, and when the courts shut them down they can blame "activist liberal judges" for their failure, despite the fact that it was a foregone conclusion. But the perception will be that they tried to fight the good fight against an evil overreaching corporation which was trying to corrupt Florida's innocent youth. All of the liberals celebrating Disney's imminent "victory" are completely missing this bigger picture.
- splitstud 4y ago
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  I feel like I've increasingly seen "pass legislation in bad faith that you know will be struck down" as a conservative legislative tactic (see recent abortion laws, bill curtailing voting rights) and I can't help but feel there should be some sort of consequence for consistently acting in bad faith.
  - lisper 4y ago
    The consequence is supposed to be that you get voted out of office. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite an audience for bad-faith politics nowadays. And I don't think this is unique to conservatives, and I also don't think that your examples are good ones. It seems increasingly clear that anti-abortion bills, for example, are not being passed in bad faith. The Republican Party really is intent on delivering on its promise to overturn Roe, and it looks like they are going to succeed. On the other side, I'm pretty disappointed in how Merrick Garland is handling the events of Jan 6, 20201. But we should probably shut this conversation down because we are getting very close to violating the HN prohibition on political discussions (if we have not already crossed that line).
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
bandyaboot 4y ago
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.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    I think it’s interesting that you took my comment, rewrote it in your head, and responded to your made up version of what I said.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      I paraphrased your comment, but I think I captured the essence of what you said accurately: > to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. When they get their people denouncing the opposition as “groomers”, they are achieving their objective.
      - bandyaboot 4y ago
        You think wrong.
        zmgsabst 4y ago
        I think it’s telling you didn’t offer an alternative interpretation either time you told me I was “wrong”.
  - vmh1928 4y ago
    Thanks for citing a Washington Examiner opinion piece as evidence of your assertion. Sometimes teaching kids about sexuality is meant to educate them so they don't grow up ignorant an can make informed decisions. Some people are against that.
protomyth 4y ago
Another point of view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVbq4gp260 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVbq4gp260 Stupid thumbnail, but this lawyer has a different take on the bonds.
ars 4y ago
It seems easy enough to make a new special purpose entity, not controlled by Disney. Set the millage rare very high, even higher than it is today, and tax Disney very much. Collect enough money, store it in a bank, and assign it to paying the bonds. Then dissolve the special purpose entity once you have collected enough money from Disney, and let the only thing remain be the bank account that will stay on until the bond is over.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  Usually special purpose districts with taxing authority have supervisors elected by the property owners or residents in that district. (As does this one, it's just the only property owner is Disney). But I don't know for sure if it would be possible/legal in FL to do differently; like a special district with taxing authority over property owners in the district, whose board is just appointed by the governor or something? I mean I guess they could... it wouldn't surprise me if there are legal problems with effectively just deciding to tax all Disney property extra.
mark-r 4y ago
Of all the creatures on this earth to be feared, I'd put Disney lawyers at the top of the list. There's no way this will end well for Florida.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
sytelus 4y ago
They can unwind it regardless of any contractual obligations. State can simply pass a law and dissolve any contract with stroke of a pen.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Why even bother with that? Wouldn't a better method just to ignore that the bond exists, go about their business, and if they get sued, put their hands over their ears and say "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
- paxys 4y ago
  A government body can't just legislate away its debts. Courts exist for a reason.
- hash872 4y ago
  I don't mean to be curt, but that's absurd. The whole purpose of having 3 separate branches of government is that they're not above the law. The legislature (or Congress, or the President) is constrained by the judiciary
- jdlshore 4y ago
  If you had read the article, you would have learned that the state can't do that, and why they can't. That's what the entire article is about.
  - sytelus 4y ago
    The article says "Under the U.S. Constitution, a state can only impair an existing contract if the impairment is reasonable and necessary to serve an important government purpose.". I hope you can see how broad and left to interpretation this is. In the worst case, state can modify its constitution and compell to disolve this specific contract. Courts only exist to protect the constitution and they need to follow the law created by legislature. Courts are not there to create new laws.
kolanos 4y ago
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 was to be a futuristic planned city (and which was also known as Progress City). He envisioned a real working city with both commercial and residential areas, but one that also continued to showcase and test new ideas and concepts for urban living. Therefore, the Disney company petitioned the Florida State Legislature for the creation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which would have almost total autonomy within its borders. Residents of Orange and Osceola counties did not need to pay any taxes unless they were residents of the district. Services like land use regulation and planning, building codes, surface water control, drainage, waste treatment, utilities, roads, bridges, fire protection, emergency medical services, and environmental services were overseen by the district. The only areas where the district had to submit to the county and state would be property taxes and elevator inspections. I am hard pressed to think of anything more anti-competitive and anti-trust than Reedy Creek. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_Distri...
- caddemon 4y ago
  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 than the government would. Revoking Reedy Creek will put a greater tax burden on the relevant counties. It seems like a lose/lose to me, and also an example of stupid "culture wars" taking precedence over the politics of the real issue at hand.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    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?
GCA10 4y ago
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 make his assessment even more valuable. But I do wish BloombergTax had offered a more informative ID.
- educaysean 4y ago
  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?
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
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.
- educaysean 4y ago
  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.
- mbostleman 4y ago
  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.
  - digsy 4y ago
    >I think that there is a feeling that the other side is attempting to move policy forward Which policy?
- clooless 4y ago
  "Support me on this I'll support you on that" is typical and routine in the halls of legislators, although much quieter. If we look at this as DeSantis telling Disney "support me on this legislation and I'll support more of your self-governing district" it doesn't sound nearly as bad. It kinda happens all the time, everywhere laws and sausages are made.

79 points by Isamu 4y ago

Any new or existing municipality can take over those bonds. They do it all the time. And as a fallback the state could take those on and refinance them and pay then off. It's really not difficult, but the author makes it seem to be. As for the millage rate, if Reedy Creek is higher than the state maximum, I'm curious for what valuation Disney appraises its own property, since the millage rate is only part of the story.

mikeryan 4y ago
Sure another municipality “could” take over the bonds. They just can’t afford them.
edmundsauto 4y ago
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 based in Florida. I think it’s probably reasonable to defer to their expertise, in this case. after all, they are an attorney with experience in the state - are you?
- bdonlan 4y ago
  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?)
  - tantalor 4y ago
    > if one of the bondholders refuses to sell eminent domain has entered the chat
cldellow 4y ago
> I'm curious for what valuation Disney appraises its own property It doesn't seem that Disney is responsible for property appraisals. See, for example, this news story [1] about them suing Orange County to get their assessments lowered. [1]: https://floridapolitics.com/archives/440815-what-is-disney-world-actually-worth-tax-assessment-battle-heads-to-court/ https://floridapolitics.com/archives/440815-what-is-disney-w...
ryaniscool 4y ago
I saw a better article in my local newspaper[0]. According to that article, Disney already pays property taxes to both Orange and Osceola county for their properties inside the respective counties. Essentially, they are double taxed. This is not unusual because this is how it works if you live in an incorporated city in Florida. You pay taxes to both the city and the county. Disney just runs their own little city. The problem is that the legislator is basically unincorporating the city that Disney runs. This is a huge problem for the counties' taxpayers. They will have to absorb the budget of this now unincorporated city as well as the $1 billion debt. [0] https://www.floridatoday.com/story/money/business/2022/04/23/disney-desantis-florida-dissolves-reedy-creek-impact/7408784001/ https://www.floridatoday.com/story/money/business/2022/04/23...
toast0 4y ago
From what I read, if the district is dissolved, the counties would need to assume the bonds. But, currently, the district is taxing the property to pay for the bonds at a rate that's much higher than is allowed for the counties to levy. If the counties assume the bonds, they'd need to increase taxes across the board to pay for them. If it's really the policy of the Florida government to retaliate against Disney by relieving them of their debt service; how does that dissuade Disney? How do the citizens of the two counties feel? Is it appropriate for governments to retaliate against companies for opposition or support of a law?

hermannj314 4y ago

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 should not be allowed to engage in debt terms that exceed the term limit of that congress. (2 years or so). (I don't want to make any claim with regard to Florida law, nor the politics behind what's happening in Florida.)

pram 4y ago
I mean they could just keep it in existence forever by issuing new debt, apparently. Everyone is excited about Disney 'beating' the Florida government but: is having some weird corporate carve-out of US territory that essentially must legally exist forever really something good?
tablespoon 4y ago
> 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. Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? This article feels like it's built on a priority inversion, like debt terms are really the supreme law of the land, which wouldn't surprise me from something deeply embedded in financial market thinking as "Bloomberg Tax" probably is.
- hermannj314 4y ago
  I may have missed the nuance in the article, but in Florida it seems they found a way to do that.
- michaelt 4y ago
  > Isn't it some core legal principle that legislature can't do that, and always has the power to reverse itself? The problem with having supreme power to break any contract without consequences is that nobody will make contracts with you any more. For this reason, many states have (e.g.) clauses in their constitutions saying they won't. Of course, the legislature usually has the power to amend the constitution.

vmception 4y ago

All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. and this is why you donate anonymously. everyone likes to imagine Russians and Saudi's swaying US politics - the boogeyman du jour - but this is the more realistic outcome: retaliation by the incumbent party. Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. for coders: an LLC instance rendered JIT

Hamuko 4y ago
>Just form the LLC, donate, shut it down before that state's reporting requirements come into effect. Is that legal?
- vmception 4y ago
  It is legal. or the consequences are non-existent. Read the desired state's LLC statutes. Pick a state with the desired LLC statutes.
tablespoon 4y ago
> All of Disney's troubles are coming from retaliation to their direct political donations. > and this is why you donate anonymously. If Disney had to donate anonymously, I bet it wouldn't donate at all. It's a corporation, and whatever donations it makes are most likely PR expenditures (either internally or externally directed).
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The point is: it wouldn't be anonymous to the politicians it's supporting, however it's on the books. Most corporations don't actually care about politics, beyond (1) What's good for my business? & (2) What's good PR? The interesting thing about Disney is that in this case they were caught between a contradictory (1) & (2). Which, to the parent's point, a more adept PR department / anonymous donations wouldn't have allowed to happen in the first place. DeSantis' realpolitik is pretty skillful. In this case: if Disney was quiet, he avoided the headache of fighting them; if Disney loudly opposed, he got news and political base support out of fighting them. Win/win.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lisper 4y ago

I think everyone is getting this wrong. This is all posturing. The Florida legislature knows perfectly well that it can never unwind Reedy Creek. But if they can make a good show of trying, then that will earn points with their base, and when the courts shut them down they can blame "activist liberal judges" for their failure, despite the fact that it was a foregone conclusion. But the perception will be that they tried to fight the good fight against an evil overreaching corporation which was trying to corrupt Florida's innocent youth. All of the liberals celebrating Disney's imminent "victory" are completely missing this bigger picture.

splitstud 4y ago
LordDragonfang 4y ago
I feel like I've increasingly seen "pass legislation in bad faith that you know will be struck down" as a conservative legislative tactic (see recent abortion laws, bill curtailing voting rights) and I can't help but feel there should be some sort of consequence for consistently acting in bad faith.
- lisper 4y ago
  The consequence is supposed to be that you get voted out of office. Unfortunately, there seems to be quite an audience for bad-faith politics nowadays. And I don't think this is unique to conservatives, and I also don't think that your examples are good ones. It seems increasingly clear that anti-abortion bills, for example, are not being passed in bad faith. The Republican Party really is intent on delivering on its promise to overturn Roe, and it looks like they are going to succeed. On the other side, I'm pretty disappointed in how Merrick Garland is handling the events of Jan 6, 20201. But we should probably shut this conversation down because we are getting very close to violating the HN prohibition on political discussions (if we have not already crossed that line).
  - dragonwriter 4y ago

bandyaboot 4y ago

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.

zmgsabst 4y ago
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  I think it’s interesting that you took my comment, rewrote it in your head, and responded to your made up version of what I said.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    I paraphrased your comment, but I think I captured the essence of what you said accurately: > to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. When they get their people denouncing the opposition as “groomers”, they are achieving their objective.
    - bandyaboot 4y ago
      You think wrong.
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        I think it’s telling you didn’t offer an alternative interpretation either time you told me I was “wrong”.
- vmh1928 4y ago
  Thanks for citing a Washington Examiner opinion piece as evidence of your assertion. Sometimes teaching kids about sexuality is meant to educate them so they don't grow up ignorant an can make informed decisions. Some people are against that.

protomyth 4y ago

Another point of view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVbq4gp260 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylVbq4gp260 Stupid thumbnail, but this lawyer has a different take on the bonds.

ars 4y ago

It seems easy enough to make a new special purpose entity, not controlled by Disney. Set the millage rare very high, even higher than it is today, and tax Disney very much. Collect enough money, store it in a bank, and assign it to paying the bonds. Then dissolve the special purpose entity once you have collected enough money from Disney, and let the only thing remain be the bank account that will stay on until the bond is over.

jrochkind1 4y ago
Usually special purpose districts with taxing authority have supervisors elected by the property owners or residents in that district. (As does this one, it's just the only property owner is Disney). But I don't know for sure if it would be possible/legal in FL to do differently; like a special district with taxing authority over property owners in the district, whose board is just appointed by the governor or something? I mean I guess they could... it wouldn't surprise me if there are legal problems with effectively just deciding to tax all Disney property extra.

mark-r 4y ago

Of all the creatures on this earth to be feared, I'd put Disney lawyers at the top of the list. There's no way this will end well for Florida.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

sytelus 4y ago

They can unwind it regardless of any contractual obligations. State can simply pass a law and dissolve any contract with stroke of a pen.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
oh_sigh 4y ago
Why even bother with that? Wouldn't a better method just to ignore that the bond exists, go about their business, and if they get sued, put their hands over their ears and say "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
paxys 4y ago
A government body can't just legislate away its debts. Courts exist for a reason.
hash872 4y ago
I don't mean to be curt, but that's absurd. The whole purpose of having 3 separate branches of government is that they're not above the law. The legislature (or Congress, or the President) is constrained by the judiciary
jdlshore 4y ago
If you had read the article, you would have learned that the state can't do that, and why they can't. That's what the entire article is about.
- sytelus 4y ago
  The article says "Under the U.S. Constitution, a state can only impair an existing contract if the impairment is reasonable and necessary to serve an important government purpose.". I hope you can see how broad and left to interpretation this is. In the worst case, state can modify its constitution and compell to disolve this specific contract. Courts only exist to protect the constitution and they need to follow the law created by legislature. Courts are not there to create new laws.

kolanos 4y ago

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 was to be a futuristic planned city (and which was also known as Progress City). He envisioned a real working city with both commercial and residential areas, but one that also continued to showcase and test new ideas and concepts for urban living. Therefore, the Disney company petitioned the Florida State Legislature for the creation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which would have almost total autonomy within its borders. Residents of Orange and Osceola counties did not need to pay any taxes unless they were residents of the district. Services like land use regulation and planning, building codes, surface water control, drainage, waste treatment, utilities, roads, bridges, fire protection, emergency medical services, and environmental services were overseen by the district. The only areas where the district had to submit to the county and state would be property taxes and elevator inspections. I am hard pressed to think of anything more anti-competitive and anti-trust than Reedy Creek. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_Distri...

caddemon 4y ago
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 than the government would. Revoking Reedy Creek will put a greater tax burden on the relevant counties. It seems like a lose/lose to me, and also an example of stupid "culture wars" taking precedence over the politics of the real issue at hand.
- kolanos 4y ago
  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?

GCA10 4y ago

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 make his assessment even more valuable. But I do wish BloombergTax had offered a more informative ID.

educaysean 4y ago
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?

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

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.

educaysean 4y ago
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.
mbostleman 4y ago
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.
- digsy 4y ago
  >I think that there is a feeling that the other side is attempting to move policy forward Which policy?
clooless 4y ago
"Support me on this I'll support you on that" is typical and routine in the halls of legislators, although much quieter. If we look at this as DeSantis telling Disney "support me on this legislation and I'll support more of your self-governing district" it doesn't sound nearly as bad. It kinda happens all the time, everywhere laws and sausages are made.