News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[GimpYancIent]

I thought everyone would be most interested in the economic impact of this legislation (as in money / taxes) but I see the threads discussion has meandered off into the swamps.
" According to Orange County Tax Collector Scott Randolph. He added that there would be zero fiscal gain for the county. “If that district goes away, it is zero revenue, but they take on all the debt and all the obligation,” Randolph said that financial obligation is about $105 million a year to operate services in Reedy Creek. For example, the district runs its own fire department, sewer services and handles all the road maintenance. Additionally, Randolph said the county would also be taking on, potentially, $1 billion to $2 billion in bond debt. If the county is absorbing additional costs from Reedy Creek, Randolph said the money is going to have to come from somewhere. “If Reedy Creek is dissolved, my guess would be Orange County would have to raise property taxes 15 to 20%; now that’s not your whole tax bill, right, because your tax bill involves school and other things, but your Orange County government portion of your tax bill will probably have to go up 15 to 20% to take on that cost,” he said."

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Here it is below. Hmm as someone who supports banning classroom instruction on it I would say your last comment makes zero sense at all. I think the people doing drag queen story hour with kids and changing "gay" through the halls of schools are probably the ones who are a little obsessed with it.

You mean the drag queen story hours that were held at public libraries that weren't in public schools? Or that were on television? The ones people could choose not to attend or watch?

 

[SpectroMagician]

Sorry, what the what now. Go to bed. Your curfew was an hour ago.

I would prefer if the people who support talking about sex with 5-9 year olds went away and left our country.

There is a reason the vast majority of people, even the majority of democrats support the Florida law.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Again, it's pointless hand waving though. $2,200 to $2,800 IN DEBT doesn't mean $2,200 to $2,800 in annual COST to each family.

RCID's debt serving in FY21 was 58M... that's the order of magnitude debt cost diffused over the entirety of the counties. Orange County alone has a $147M debt service number for FY22. So the new debt costs are not insignificant - but it's not $2k-$3k per family.

They can create districts for reasons beyond that debt (which wouldn't require the approval of Disney).

What you have here is the local guy saying "please don't do this... bad things happen" because it's literally dumping the problem on his doorstep. He's hyping the dramatics to woo the crowd.

An impact I haven't seen addressed yet (still catching up) is that the $1B in inherited debt would impact the County's ability to borrow for other essential projects. Each state sets a debt limit for local governments (typically, if not always, based on the equalized valuation of real property within that government's borders). Even if this newly-acquired debt doesn't push them too close to that limit, the added debt will certainly impact what types of interest rates they're offered by banks and may even deter some banks from bidding on their debt at all. So in addition to adding the burden of that debt to the taxpayers, it could also create an additional burden by saddling taxpayers with higher interest rates on other debt issued in the future. Will it be thousands of dollars per year per household? Probably not. Will it impact some property owners even at an added annual burden less than $2k? Yes. Nobody wants their taxes going up and every community has property owners who are struggling to pay their bills. For some, a few hundred dollars added to their tax bill will mean tough choices being made.

 

[the_rich]

I thought everyone would be most interested in the economic impact of this legislation (as in money / taxes) but I see the threads discussion has meandered off into the swamps.
" According to Orange County Tax Collector Scott Randolph. He added that there would be zero fiscal gain for the county. “If that district goes away, it is zero revenue, but they take on all the debt and all the obligation,” Randolph said that financial obligation is about $105 million a year to operate services in Reedy Creek. For example, the district runs its own fire department, sewer services and handles all the road maintenance. Additionally, Randolph said the county would also be taking on, potentially, $1 billion to $2 billion in bond debt. If the county is absorbing additional costs from Reedy Creek, Randolph said the money is going to have to come from somewhere. “If Reedy Creek is dissolved, my guess would be Orange County would have to raise property taxes 15 to 20%; now that’s not your whole tax bill, right, because your tax bill involves school and other things, but your Orange County government portion of your tax bill will probably have to go up 15 to 20% to take on that cost,” he said."

Bingo. The residents are the ones who'll get hurt.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Can you give a link to a source on this? This is the first I have ever heard about this.

Look up the Brandes Amendment. It was proposed in both the House and Senate (by Brandes, a Republican, in the Senate) and was voted down both times. Champions of the bill claimed it would “gut” the legislation to make it explicit that you couldn’t discuss any kind of “human sexuality” in K-3. Now, why do you think they didn’t want that? I’ve asked that dozens of times on these boards and only gotten one evasive response.

Why do you think the people telling you to be outraged about the bill have neglected to mention this? Doesn’t it bring their motives and honesty into question?

 

[Midwest Elitist]

Sometimes I wonder if people are baiting to get banned...

 

[UNCgolf]

Also, we shouldn't even be discussing this -- we've been asked not to repeatedly and yet certain people just can't stop themselves from bringing it up.

 

[mkt]

I am an attorney, by the way.

How many hours did you bill for the reply?

 

[Figgy1]

How many hours did you bill for the reply?

Minimum of 3. One for self, one for PL and one for clerk would be my guess

 

[UNCgolf]

How many hours did you bill for the reply?

Well, typing the reply was only 0.1, but since I had to read the earlier parts of the thread, and now continue to read follow-ups...

 

[Figgy1]

Well, typing the reply was only 0.1, but since I had to read the earlier parts of the thread, and now continue to read follow-ups...

Isn't that what the PL and clerk is for

 

[lazyboy97o]

It has nothing to do with gay

It’s so weird that the author was under this impression.

 

[UNCgolf]

Isn't that what the PL and clerk is for

Lower billing rates.

 

[Midwest Elitist]

It’s so weird that the author was under this impression.

This was said literally a page ago.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Isn't that what the PL and clerk is for

It always comes down to $$$$$$$ and $$$$$$ and did I say $$$$$$$. Somebody is going to pay.

 

[Brian]

I am an attorney, by the way.

Can you shed any light* on why the counties would be forced to assume the RCID's debts and functions in the event of it being dissolved, yet not be entitled to the future/additional tax revenue which had been paid to RCID in the past for those same functions? If I'm not mistaken, that is the position that the OC Tax Collector has taken, but that strikes me as odd.

*Any answer is pro-bono.

 

[Heath]

Mainly because most of them either haven't read the law or don't understand it. People support what they think the bill does instead of what it actually does.

It doesn't do what they think it does, and it does other, bad (and/or poorly thought out) things. If the law actually banned discussing sex with young kids in school and nothing else, it wouldn't be so controversial.

I am an attorney, by the way.

Also, we shouldn't even be discussing this -- we've been asked not to repeatedly and yet certain people just can't stop themselves from bringing it up.

yeah no making political comments in the comments section under the political subject post.

 

[mkt]

Watch out for groomers!

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I would think that a good rule of thumb in determining whether a law is just or not is if you can replace the target of the law with a specific group of people (we'll use "straight, white, Christian men" for the sake of argument), that it is an unjust law.

Would anyone here support a law that banned discussion of straight, white, Christian men?