This isn’t just a state issue. The US Constitution prohibits changing the terms of contracts.Exactly.
The issue is that the State of Florida promised RCID bond holders that it would not mess with these bonds.
My post was more about the cases referenced in the Bloomberg article, whose applicability can be debated.
This gets us back to my bigger point, which is understanding the political makeup of the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida legislature has the right to shut down RCID. At least so far, RCID is not disputing this.
Instead, RCID is saying, "You are breaking your promise to bond holders." It's a reasonable argument.
So which takes precedent? The Florida statute allowing the legislature to shut down RCID or the State of Florida's promise to bond holders in 1967?
In my mind, it's a little fuzzy. Once RCID is shut down, it is effectively part of Orange County. The responsibilities of the government of RCID continue to exist, but under the guise of Orange County. With this in mind, has the State of Florida really broken its promise to RCID bond holders?
You and I might have one interpretation of this. Someone else might have another.
I've seen justices contort themselves into pretzels to reach conclusions they want to reach. Ultimately, will the Florida Supreme Court be sympathetic to Disney or to the governor?
What’s the argument that the state is not “limit[ing] or alter[ing] the rights of the District to own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, maintain, operate or furnish the projects or to levy and collect the taxes, assessments, rentals, rates, fees, tolls, fares and other charges provided for”?
You also keep only focusing on Orange County but it is not the only county involved. There are District assets and responsibilities in Osceola County. Assets would not longer have common ownership. How would you break up the bonds for a project that crossed county lines? That means ownership of a financed asset is no longer with the entity servicing the bond. If some bonds go to Osceola County you’re now further muddying repayment.