Disney Glimpses
Well-Known Member
Fitch is saying they expect the bonds to be transferred to OC/OC or BL/LBV - so perhaps this wouldn't call into question the State's credit rating?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Ex post facto laws are an explicit violation of the US Constitution. They're probably not allowed in the Florida constitution either, but it wouldn't matter because the US Constitution specifically doesn't allow states to pass them either.
They're generally related to criminal conduct, though.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That’s the big question. The legislature can change the law, but it gets complicated when you make a commitment and then take it away.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I still don’t understand how Anaheim was able to retroactively change their luxury hotel tax incentive.
In the next special session, reverse what was passed in the last special session so it's back to the prior condition.
Then go out an publicly claim a victory and say whatever they want. Just call it a "win" again and again and again and that they showed Disney.
It doesn't matter if those two things agree or not.
Disney Glimpses
Well-Known Member
I think they need to establish a new District with even the smallest changes to call it a win. If they revert, Disney will clearly have won.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Establish a new district without the ability to run a nuclear power plant. Call it a victory.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I still think a new District could violate the state’s pledge since it is for the specific district. It doesn’t say the District and it’s successors.
While the rhetoric is largely detached from actuality, there was the small bit of awareness that pretense was necessary. Other districts were effected to give cover for the open retaliation. Any fix related to Reedy Creek is now a special deal for Disney. It’s the exact opposite of the claims.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
Well, some comforting information is that since the bonds are Ad Valorem tax bonds rather than Revenue bonds, they can't change the source of repayment to parking revenues. It doesn't mean they can't charge a parking fee (or won't in the future), just that the bonds won't be the reason.
Brian
Well-Known Member
Thats where I see this going, more or less.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Bah… they’ll just start a campaign against credit agencies with agendas xm…. Maybe even start their own instead. That’s the model right?
Willmark
Well-Known Member
Generally speaking, politicians don’t like to actually do something, far better to promise something or “fight” something (whatever something is) and claim the following:
1. “I tried, but the other side stopped me!”
2. “We came to a mutually beneficial solution.”
3. Insert reason here.
Lastly (as I think it’s been mentioned a random thought): Disney just can’t up and move to Georgia for instance. I wonder how much that factors that Disney just can’t relocate into this spectacle.
1. “I tried, but the other side stopped me!”
2. “We came to a mutually beneficial solution.”
3. Insert reason here.
Lastly (as I think it’s been mentioned a random thought): Disney just can’t up and move to Georgia for instance. I wonder how much that factors that Disney just can’t relocate into this spectacle.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
It just keeps getting better. This article outlines the potential paths to a resolution, and also the pitfalls associated with each one of them. The way this was rush may really put Disney in the driver's seat to lower their tax bill.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I don’t believe that Disney will settle for anything but calling it “reedy creek”…even if it’s technically a new district. It’s part of their corporate history that they so love to bring up everyday
And they didn’t start any of this.
And they didn’t start any of this.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Summary for the cheapskates?
flynnibus
Premium Member
My guess is their simple strategy is to define a new district, in the same spot, make the law say it rolls all obligations, but has new scope and somehow redefine the admin so disney doesn’t get to own all the admin positions.
How you get there is kinda messy… there are a lot of requirements and ifs and buts in the law and state constitution now around how these get created. But I’d bet money that’s their plan. RCID II - under new management
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
But I was looking forward to a nuclear plant with mouse ears!
They could undo the currently passed that dissolves. Introduce new legislation that modifies all special districts that were previously granted rights to nuclear power plants with some new constraint. Existing district still exists, solves the bond problem and all the collateral damage. How many could there be? Plus, it's not like any were probably using that right.
Publicly decree from on high at every media outlet possible that they "put Disney in it's place" by modifying the district's rights.
Just gloss over what those modifications are, it's all go forward and eliminates all the bond issues. It's not like the media is big on nuance reporting.
The point being, the best case scenario for FL is to just undo what was passed. The best case political scenario is to keep saying whatever they want and not care about any reality.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Not entirely when you are government yourself. Which is why 1a cases for government employees was such a special case to interpret… and they have constraints.
Nevermind the usual standards of decorum… but thag seems to be fading fast
flynnibus
Premium Member
You don’t understand what bond ratings mean do you?
They are talking about hurting the bond ratings of all municipal bonds in fl because of the prescient it sets about the future stability of something in fl.
It would hurt the borrowing ability of everyone… and that hinders things getting done