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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

Jeez…those bonds are guaranteed. You’re like dismissing US Treasury regulated stuff here…this isn’t up to a bunch of stiffs under a gold dome in the panhandle…

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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

That would mean some tense commissioner meetings in downtown Orlando and Kissimmee/st cloud

 

[peter11435]

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.

And what exactly does that language to assure bondholders say?

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

That guarantee is a contractual obligation. It is part of what was considered when the bonds were purchased.

Yes, the legislature could come up with a means of dissolving the District but they can’t just do it by dropping the issue to the counties as they currently intend or by the means which you suggest. This wouldn’t be the first time that the actions of a state have been limited by non obligations.

 

[mmascari]

Wait, so after 257 pages, we find out tax payers are already (and I presume all along) paying for these bonds and by that logic, there will be ZERO increase in taxes as a result of dissolving RCID??….

If that is true, there seems to me there could only be increased revenue to the state when RCID is dissolved.

WOW folks how come it took so long to know this???

Different tax payers.

Perhaps you missed that part.
"Every tax payer that is covered in the RCID boundary"

If the district is dissolved that would change to:
"Every tax payer that is covered by the new entity that's responsible for the debt"

There's some overlap. Every tax payer that's within the RCID would also be within the new entity. However, there's lots and lots and lots more tax payers in the new entity that are NOT in the RCID. So, it'll be new to all of them. Share they debt, help their neighbors and all.

It's kind of the neighborly thing to do.

 

[thomas998]

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.

Making the new tax area identical in form wouldn't make it irrelevant because it would still eliminate Reedy Creek's little government and force Disney to use the local government when they wanted a road fixed or anything else the businesses outside the area have to do when they want changes to the infrastructure.

And please stop calling the RCID a contract it is an act that was done by the government. You could view the bonds Reedy has issued as contracts. I haven't looked at the language of the bonds but any bond issued by a sophisticated entity would have provisions for an early payoff as protection against changes in interest rates and other factors.

 

[mmascari]

IF RCID is dissolved and there is NO replacement special district, will taxpayers see a tax increase related to the bonds?

Which ones?

I'm a taxpayer.

Of course, my taxes aren't going up or down or whatever no matter what happens with RCID.

If its dissolved, some taxpayers will pay less, some will pay more. Depending on which you are, you probably have feelings about this.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

The state of Florida doesn't need to change any municipal bond into a corporate bond, the state of Florida could simply create an area of special property taxation that happens to cover what was Reedy Creek and then allocate the Reedy Creek debt to that area's property holders, which in this case would be Disney. I've worked in cities where special areas within a city were created that hit every business within that area with special taxes to cover costs associated with that area. In some instances it was done in ways that hit business based on X dollars per square foot with an exemption for any business under 5000 square feet so that it only hit large multi-floor building... there are lots of ways the state could nail Disney for all the money the debt requires and then some. Disney is aware of this and its the reason they are so upset. Even if the State just passes some new law that only hits Disney for the 2 billion debt, Disney knows it would still be hit going forward for property taxes like every other business in the area and that those taxes would be used for things based on a governing body that they no longer control as they control Reedy Creeks government.

 

[lentesta]

But the RCID act can be changed by simply enacting a new law that dissolves it which is what has happened.

The Florida legislature has already said that the RCID act cannot be changed if that change affects outstanding contracts, such as bonds:

In addition, subsequent statutory amendments would not apply to RCID if the amendment’s affect (sic) were to impair existing contractual
agreements of the district, such as bond covenants.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Making the new tax area identical in form wouldn't make it irrelevant because it would still eliminate Reedy Creek's little government and force Disney to use the local government when they wanted a road fixed or anything else the businesses outside the area have to do when they want changes to the infrastructure.

And please stop calling the RCID a contract it is an act that was done by the government. You could view the bonds Reedy has issued as contracts. I haven't looked at the language of the bonds but any bond issued by a sophisticated entity would have provisions for an early payoff as protection against changes in interest rates and other factors.

How is what you propose not interfering with the District’s ability to own, maintain and improve its projects?

You are the only person calling the District a contract. And there are bonds that limit when repayment can occur.

 

[thomas998]

And what exactly does that language to assure bondholders say?

"Section 56. Pledge by the State of Florida to the Bond Holders of the District and to the Federal Government.-The State of Florida pledges to the holders of any bonds issued under this Act that it will not limit or alter 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 herein and to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the holders of such bonds or other obligations, that it will not in any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Act, until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with any action or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are fully met and discharged."

The part that will get Disney is in bold. It is the part that would simply force the State to enact some special tax on the businesses in the area (Disney) to cover the outstanding bonds to eliminate them. Disney's lawyers would be familiar with this language and know that if Florida decides to eliminate Reedy that it would end up costing Disney.

 

[peter11435]

Making the new tax area identical in form wouldn't make it irrelevant because it would still eliminate Reedy Creek's little government and force Disney to use the local government when they wanted a road fixed or anything else the businesses outside the area have to do when they want changes to the infrastructure.

And please stop calling the RCID a contract it is an act that was done by the government. You could view the bonds Reedy has issued as contracts. I haven't looked at the language of the bonds but any bond issued by a sophisticated entity would have provisions for an early payoff as protection against changes in interest rates and other factors.

Do businesses outside the district have to single handedly pay for road maintenance?

Define identical in form? If it’s identical then what changed? Why did we do this? If you alter their taxing authority then what?

Nobody but you has referenced the reedy creek act itself as being a contract

 

[lazyboy97o]

"Section 56. Pledge by the State of Florida to the Bond Holders of the District and to the Federal Government.-The State of Florida pledges to the holders of any bonds issued under this Act that it will not limit or alter 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 herein and to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the holders of such bonds or other obligations, that it will not in any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Act, until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with any action or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are fully met and discharged."

The part that will get Disney is in bold. It is the part that would simply force the State to enact some special tax on the businesses in the area (Disney) to cover the outstanding bonds to eliminate them. Disney's lawyers would be familiar with this language and know that if Florida decides to eliminate Reedy that it would end up costing Disney.

You are completely ignoring all of the stuff the state says it will not do until the bolded portion is done.

 

[peter11435]

"Section 56. Pledge by the State of Florida to the Bond Holders of the District and to the Federal Government.-The State of Florida pledges to the holders of any bonds issued under this Act that it will not limit or alter 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 herein and to fulfill the terms of any agreement made with the holders of such bonds or other obligations, that it will not in any way impair the rights or remedies of the holders, and that it will not modify in any way the exemption from taxation provided in the Act, until all such bonds together with interest thereon, and all costs and expenses in connection with any action or proceeding by or on behalf of such holders, are fully met and discharged."

The part that will get Disney is in bold. It is the part that would simply force the State to enact some special tax on the businesses in the area (Disney) to cover the outstanding bonds to eliminate them. Disney's lawyers would be familiar with this language and know that if Florida decides to eliminate Reedy that it would end up costing Disney.

So you’re just going to ignore the first three quarters of that you quoted?

Reminder…. It’s not Disney’s debt.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Which ones?

I'm a taxpayer.

Of course, my taxes aren't going up or down or whatever no matter what happens with RCID.

If its dissolved, some taxpayers will pay less, some will pay more. Depending on which you are, you probably have feelings about this.

Just a guess on my part but even though the STATE pledged to make sure the bonds are paid, I suspect the debt will be dumped on Orange and Osceola counties..

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Anyone remember the Niners v Broncs super bowl? When Denver scored the first 10 points and was feeling all good about itself?

That’s how this “battle” and subsequent discussion on this thread has gone…

 

[flynnibus]

That may be, but courts have also held that there is a distinction between a right and a privilege.

From a TownHall.com editorial:

Looking past the horrible source that is townhall.com - the author is wrong because it does not need to be a specific revocation of a right to be impairment of the protected speech. The rest of the debate over 'entitlement or right' is completely irrelevant.

But it's a very entertaining read...
"The state may decide that a quasi-government entity, like Disney under the RCID, may not create an environment that jeopardizes parental rights or the innocence of youth and still receive special district status"

Lol.. You gotta give the guy credit for his amount of effort to try to paint a picture that eliminating RCID is justifiable to save children... lol

The guy goes on and on to try to frame that quelling this kind of dissent is allowable - No it's not. The 1A is not about what speech the government thinks is the right culture or not - The topic of what kind of speech is not protected is well exercised and "disagreeing over parental rights" is not one of them.

This piece equates to a bunch of hand waving and trying to make itself look authoritative when it's fundamental just the same false pretenses with a lot of icing on top.

The guy's closing argument "In other words, the First Amendment stands as a barrier to government action that forbids speech; it does not create an affirmative right to a state sponsored platform for speech."

Is a byproduct of his attempt at citing a case that really doesn't have anything to do with the action here and does not address what the actual case is about - The chilling effect the targeting of RCID is specifically intended to have on TWDC. TWDC would never argue RCID is some right or entitlement - they'd simply argue the action was taken to influence and/or punish TWDC in an effort to change or stop their protected speech. That's all that matters.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I think if they transferred the debt…using “guesses” as to what to do as much as any pretense at legal standing…the most likely result of fault/liability in court would be:

1. The state of Florida
2. Orange and Osceola Counties
3. The Boogeyman
4. The Walt Disney Company

I vote the debt be transferred to the Boogeyman

 

[mikejs78]

Making the new tax area identical in form wouldn't make it irrelevant because it would still eliminate Reedy Creek's little government and force Disney to use the local government when they wanted a road fixed or anything else the businesses outside the area have to do when they want changes to the infrastructure.

And please stop calling the RCID a contract it is an act that was done by the government. You could view the bonds Reedy has issued as contracts. I haven't looked at the language of the bonds but any bond issued by a sophisticated entity would have provisions for an early payoff as protection against changes in interest rates and other factors.

You really don't know what you're talking about. The bond contracts (guaranteed by the state legislature) state that the state can't remove the powers that the district has. So they couldn't remove Reedy Creek's government because the guaruntee of that government is in the bond contracts.

The part that will get Disney is in bold. It is the part that would simply force the State to enact some special tax on the businesses in the area (Disney) to cover the outstanding bonds to eliminate them. Disney's lawyers would be familiar with this language and know that if Florida decides to eliminate Reedy that it would end up costing Disney.

Nope. The bold only says that Reedy Creek can't be abolished until the debts are paid in full. So, if the state of FL decided to pay the bonds off right now in a lump sum, they might be able to get out of this (although early repayment is forbidden in one of the bonds, so that may be an issue).

 

[mmascari]

Stop acting like you work for Disney's PR department. Everyone knows that RCID is for all intents and purposes Disney.

So YES, RCID IS DISNEY (I knew that forever)

That's not PR. It's understanding the government structures set up here. Disney and RCID are very clearly two distinct and separate things. Each exerts considerable pressure on the other in different ways through different mechanisms.

It's like saying your household is the same as your local government. Technically, you voted for them and created direct influence by that vote. On the other side, they get mad if you live in a cesspool and create a local health hazard.

I'm assuming neither of you really want to comment on how (or how not) dissolving RCID would work and it's impacts, but are just trying to drive page counts for laughs.

Part of me thinks Disney should just walk away from RCID. That's probably the short sighted and spiteful part of me though.