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

[lazyboy97o]

It almost certainly would be a tax break for Disney, but I don't think it would actually be a win. The control they have with RCID is worth the extra taxes, or else they'd have attempted to eliminate the district themselves.

I said it before, but I think people have a hard time relating to the benefits. They are things we generally ignore so the idea of paying more to control those things is just odd.

 

[GoofGoof]

I'm not sure I follow. Why would the state need to pass "a new taxation" if the contract doesn't change?

Write out for me the steps you'd think would need to happen for this, please.

1. The king Governor decrees it and it is made so
2. There is no need for step 2

 

[lazyboy97o]

Stop acting like you work for Disney's PR department. Everyone knows that RCID is for all intents and purposes Disney. If you go back to the original intent of the development it was also going to result in a actual city which is what EPCOT was supposed to be where actual families would live and work and that was in part a reason RCID made sense... but then Disney ignored the original intention and remade EPCOT into a theme park.

This has all been addressed. Why don’t you quote for us the parts of the Charter and Supreme Court ruling that focus on EPCOT?

 

[GoofGoof]

I hope you’re right, though I’m less optimistic that DeSantis and his cronies will be content to let Disney “win” this battle.

The beauty of politics today is they don’t have to. Even if RCID doesn’t change they can just claim that they won and taught Disney a lesson and the checks will keep pouring in

 

[lazyboy97o]

From the start, I have wondered if these very public statements have been made purposefully since they strongly support Disney if Disney decides to pursue a 1st Amendment case.

The idea being, the goal of the political party in charge is not to actually shut down RCID but, to use a baseball term, to throw a brushback pitch.

Once the dust settles, RCID is not going anywhere.

Still an incredibly horrific scenario. Such actions should be political suicide, not a way to supercharge donations and support.

 

[thomas998]

It would, because the contract specifies that The state of Florida guarantees that Reedy Creek will have the power to continue to invest in infrastructure, raise taxes, etc, to guarantee the debt.

The RCID isn't a contract. Simply saying it is a contract doesn't make it one. An action to create a development district by a state government isn't a contract.

 

[peter11435]

The RCID isn't a contract. Simply saying it is a contract doesn't make it one. An action to create a development district by a state government isn't a contract.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

From the start, I have wondered if these very public statements have been made purposefully since they strongly support Disney if Disney decides to pursue a 1st Amendment case.

The idea being, the goal of the political party in charge is not to actually shut down RCID but, to use a baseball term, to throw a brushback pitch.

Once the dust settles, RCID is not going anywhere.

I’d give them credit if it was a brushback…

This isn’t that. They aren’t “putting them on notice” and they know it because they have no viable plan to enforce it without it blowing up front page and hurting everyone…especially their political standing. You want to lose elections?? Turn the 60% blue orange and Osceola counties into 90% blue. State elections hinge on less. The state (commonwealth) of Pennsylvania is decided specifically on how many people in Philly show up. That’s it. Ballgame.

So this isn’t a part of tactical or strategic “plan” at all…it’s just for a flash and then the hope they fire goes out quietly

 

[flynnibus]

The RCID isn't a contract. Simply saying it is a contract doesn't make it one. An action to create a development district by a state government isn't a contract.

it's the bonds dude... not RCID's creation.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The RCID isn't a contract. Simply saying it is a contract doesn't make it one. An action to create a development district by a state government isn't a contract.

Semantics wise, no…

But they would argue in court that the act creates a “contract” in terms and conditions…and each time it was tweaked/adjusted it would solidify the nature of the agreement.

And they’d win. It’s not really a hard case to make.

 

[mikejs78]

The RCID isn't a contract. Simply saying it is a contract doesn't make it one. An action to create a development district by a state government isn't a contract.

The bonds are a contract with the bondholders, and they include a guarantee by the state of FL to not undo Reedy Creek.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The bonds are a contract with the bondholders, and they include a guarantee by the state of FL to not undo Reedy Creek.

I don’t know why what you’re saying isn’t pretty simple??

Has anyone checked the methane/swamp
Gas levels in Florida of late? You have to have a minimum level of o2 for a brain to function

 

[thomas998]

I'm not sure I follow. Why would the state need to pass "a new taxation" if the contract doesn't change?

Write out for me the steps you'd think would need to happen for this, please.

To begin with the act creating RD isn't a contract. They would create a new tax area because the state of Florida is obligated to the bond holder under the act to insure the bondholder are made whole as they would be required to do under Section 56 of the RCID act.

 

[UNCgolf]

To begin with the act creating RD isn't a contract. They would create a new tax area because the state of Florida is obligated to the bond holder under the act to insure the bondholder are made whole as they would be required to do under Section 56 of the RCID act.

That wouldn't work unless the new tax area was exactly the same as the old tax area, which would make the dissolution irrelevant. Otherwise you're changing the terms of the bond.

And even then it probably wouldn't work. There's a reason most contracts have assignment provisions etc. to clarify what happens in the event that one party attempts to transfer their obligations to another party. Often one party can refuse the transfer and/or terminate the contract in that event.

 

[mikejs78]

To begin with the act creating RD isn't a contract.

No one says it is. But the bonds are a contract, and they include a guarantee that RCID will not have any powers altered. This has been said repeatedly, but you still ignore it.

They would create a new tax area because the state of Florida is obligated to the bond holder under the act to insure the bondholder are made whole as they would be required to do under Section 56 of the RCID act.

They would ahve to create a special district with essentially the same powers. And, since incorporated cities are involved, it would require approval of the voters of those cities. So basically, they would have to reconstitute RCID with basically the same structure.

 

[peter11435]

To begin with the act creating RD isn't a contract. They would create a new tax area because the state of Florida is obligated to the bond holder under the act to insure the bondholder are made whole as they would be required to do under Section 56 of the RCID act.

Simply creating a new tax district wouldn’t satisfy the the pledge the state has made to bondholders. The state also does not have unilateral authority to do what you are suggesting as easily as you seem to think.

 

[mikejs78]

Often one party can refuse the transfer and/or terminate the contract in that event.

And what happens if bondholders terminate the contract, one might ask?

 

[thomas998]

The bonds are a contract with the bondholders, and they include a guarantee by the state of FL to not undo Reedy Creek.

The bonds are not issued by the State they are being issued by Reedy Creek. The closest you get to a guarantee is not in the bonds it is in the RCID act that contains language to insure the bondholder is kept whole, it doesn't say Reedy Creek can't be undone. There is no way any state could ever create an act or law that could not be undone by a future government. The closest you can ever get to that is a Constitutional Amendment that requires more hoops for a change. But the RCID act can be changed by simply enacting a new law that dissolves it which is what has happened.

 

[lentesta]

To begin with the act creating RD isn't a contract. They would create a new tax area because the state of Florida is obligated to the bond holder under the act to insure the bondholder are made whole as they would be required to do under Section 56 of the RCID act.

I never said the RCID act was a contract.

Again, can you write out the steps by which you think Florida would need to additionally tax Disney to pay for the bonds that RCID is already paying on?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

To begin with the act creating RD isn't a contract. They would create a new tax area because the state of Florida is obligated to the bond holder under the act to insure the bondholder are made whole as they would be required to do under Section 56 of the RCID act.

Do you think a new district - not under direct control of Disney for property they own - is the answer?

Might as well sit on a hornets nest and fart.

This is their biggest generator of the best kind of tax revenue there is: sales tax. It requires nothing of the state. They don’t have to audit it or chase it. There’s nothing required in return for it. It just rolls in. Hundreds of millions of dollars annually.