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

UNCgolf

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell was decided in 1934. Very briefly, the State of Minnesota passed a law to extend the terms of mortgages to reduce the number of foreclosures. The Supreme Court ruled for Minnesota.

I dunno. Blaisdell seems to lean heavily on there being a national emergency. In this case, the Great Depression.

I struggle to see how this applies to RCID. Am I missing something?

I appreciate the response! Thanks!
Click to expand...

Yeah, Blaisdell laid out a five factor test but one of them revolved around the existence of an economic emergency and the court obviously moved beyond that in later jurisprudence, although I believe (I could be wrong) Blaisdell is still the original case allowing exceptions to the plain text reading of the Contracts Clause.

Maybe look at Sveen v. Melin, which is the case I referenced where Gorsuch penned a dissent. I don't have time to dig into it, but it will likely include citations to earlier cases that establish the precedent for substantial impairment.

Of course, the other issue is that it's potentially moot -- it should be a Florida state case, and it sounds like Florida judges have generally been stricter regarding the Florida constitution's Contracts Clause than federal judges have been regarding the one in the US Constitution.
 
Last edited:
mikejs78

mikejs78

Well-Known Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Right but ...

Someone owns a $5M house in Golden Oak.

Disney's WDW total holdings are assessed at a few billion?

The overwhelming lion's share of taxes are still paid by Disney.

In addition, couldn't residential property tax rates be different than commercial property tax rates?

Again, I know it wasn't a good example. I just was throwing something out there to move the discussion along.
Click to expand...
They'd still have to pay a tax to Reedy Creek v2 that they weren't paying before.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
ParentsOf4 said:
Right but ...

Someone owns a $5M house in Golden Oak.

Disney's WDW total holdings are assessed at a few billion?

The overwhelming lion's share of taxes are still paid by Disney.

In addition, couldn't residential property tax rates be different than commercial property tax rates?

Again, I know it wasn't a good example. I just was throwing something out there to move the discussion along.
Click to expand...
Here’s a pretty detailed analysis on the taxes paid on another board. Hope it’s ok to post here:
dvcinfo.com

More on the tax impact of RCID dissolution | DVCinfo Community

Wanted to try and explain the potential tax situation with RCID in greater detail. Let's start with some non-Disney entities in the county. Below is the 2021 tax summary for the original theme park at Universal Studios Orlando. This is just the one park, not islands of adventure, city walk or...
dvcinfo.com dvcinfo.com
Based on this it looks like in Orange County Disney, Universal and a common homeowner have the same millage rates for taxes. That’s not to say there cannot be a way to do it, but that’s not currently how it works.
 
T

thomas998

Well-Known Member
mikejs78 said:
Not really. For whatever leeway exists under federal law, it doesn't exist under FL law. There's also the matter of the bond ratings. Regardless of the outcome of a contracts case, if the bond market isn't satisfied with the outcome it will make municipal borrowing in FL extremely difficult.



How do you propose they create this new tax when it requires 2/3 of both houses and the Republicans don't have that number?



Yes they do. As a voting landowner they have standing in the form of government that exists around them. They can argue that the legislature removed it without due process.
Click to expand...
I don't think you any idea what "due process is"... it is funny when people with zero legal background start throwing around legal terms and think they understand what they mean.
 
C

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
thomas998 said:
I don't think you any idea what "due process is"... it is funny when people with zero legal background start throwing around legal terms and think they understand what they mean.
Click to expand...

Uhhh didn't you say earlier that you had never heard of a bond that wasn't callable? So, would that mean that you've been posting about municipal bonds with zero background in municipal finance while thinking you know what you're talking about? Something to keep in mind.
 
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Imhere said:
. I think the plan was to do all the announcements and kick off the process but not actually pass the law. Then, the legislature got ahead of itself and instead of just talking about it, they actually passed it. At that point, once it was sitting on the governors desk, he was backed into a corner.
Click to expand...

From reading just this thread, it didn't sound like he rushed to immediately sign it in a big media spectacle. I assumed he realized it got ahead of plan, realized there would be consequences to actually passing it instead of just talking about it, and then was determining the best path forward. Being backed into that corner, he went with signing it and figuring out the consequences later instead of trying to walk it back then. Presumably hoping for a much quieter walk it back later.

We'll see, until then they appear to be just doubling down again and again and again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
I've dealt with people with doctorates from very prestigious colleges that didn't have the common sense god gave a Gnat. There can be a huge difference between educated people and intelligent people. One has to have either intelligence or daddy's with deep pockets to get a top notch degree. There are literally millions of people with almost no formal education the are massively intelligent. It is impossible to get an educated person to understand that reality.

EDIT: That last sentence was a certain degree of exaggeration! Everyone is welcome to determine to what degree.
 
Last edited:
ImperfectPixie

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Goofyernmost said:
I've dealt with people with doctorates from very prestigious colleges that didn't have the common sense god gave a Gnat. There can be a huge difference between educated people and intelligent people. One has to have either intelligence or daddy's with deep pockets to get a top notch degree. There are literally millions of people with almost no formal education the are massively intelligent. It is impossible to get an educated person to understand that reality.
Click to expand...
I agree except for your last sentence.

(Says an educated person.)
 
JohnD

JohnD

Well-Known Member
mmascari said:
I don't think it was him, but the legislature. I think the plan was to do all the announcements and kick off the process but not actually pass the law. Then, the legislature got ahead of itself and instead of just talking about it, they actually passed it. At that point, once it was sitting on the governors desk, he was backed into a corner.

From reading just this thread, it didn't sound like he rushed to immediately sign it in a big media spectacle. I assumed he realized it got ahead of plan, realized there would be consequences to actually passing it instead of just talking about it, and then was determining the best path forward. Being backed into that corner, he went with signing it and figuring out the consequences later instead of trying to walk it back then. Presumably hoping for a much quieter walk it back later.

We'll see, until then they appear to be just doubling down again and again and again.
Click to expand...

On the day that the bill was brought to the floor, the House intended to debate it first (it had already passed the Senate). Make no mistake. It still would have passed. But the Congressional District vote was first (2C). Democrats decided to exercise a protest on the House floor as the House was voting on the Congressional District bill. After that vote, the Special District bill was next (4C). The Speaker tried to get everyone into debate posture but the Democrats were still protesting the Congressional District Bill. He warned that a motion would be made on no debate on the special district bill and a vote would immediately occur if the House didn't resume decorum. It didn't happen. The no debate motion passed by voice vote and the House immediately went to vote on the special district bill.
 
Last edited:
I

Imhere

Well-Known Member
JohnD said:
On the day that the bill was brought to the floor, the Legislature intended to debate it first. Make no mistake. It still would have passed. But the Congressional District vote was first (2C). Democrats decided to exercise a protest on the House floor as the House was voting on the Congressional District bill. After that vote, the Special District bill was next (4C). The Speaker tried to get everyone into debate posture but the Democrats were still protesting the Congressional District Bill. He warned that a motion would be made on no debate on the special district bill and a vote would immediately occur if the House didn't resume decorum. It didn't happen. The no debate motion passed by voice vote and the Legislature immediately went to vote on the special district bill.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I actually thought that at some point before final voting it would just disappear into thin air.

I assumed it was all for show. Everyone gets their PR talking points without action, but noooooooooo.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
JohnD said:
On the day that the bill was brought to the floor, the Legislature intended to debate it first. Make no mistake. It still would have passed. But the Congressional District vote was first (2C). Democrats decided to exercise a protest on the House floor as the House was voting on the Congressional District bill. After that vote, the Special District bill was next (4C). The Speaker tried to get everyone into debate posture but the Democrats were still protesting the Congressional District Bill. He warned that a motion would be made on no debate on the special district bill and a vote would immediately occur if the House didn't resume decorum. It didn't happen. The no debate motion passed by voice vote and the Legislature immediately went to vote on the special district bill.
Click to expand...
And before that a suggestion to actually research the issue was dismissed. The lack of a phony debate isn’t the problem.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom