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

[GoofGoof]

Because people are being coached to believe in the end goal and care less about what it cost to get there. "Consequences" and the ideals of limited government are conveniently ignored as long as the 'cause' resonates with the audience. It's the exact same conditioning people used to buy support for many of Trump's crazed schemes that tried to just act above the law or that the law didn't apply to him. "You are getting what you want right? Don't sweat the details...". It's bad when people ignore 'how will you pay for it'.. but it's downright alarming when people turn a blind eye to our core architecture of separation of powers.

It's the same conditioning that gets people to focus on 'the good' of policies while completely dismissing the corruption, abuse of power, and other things that came along to get the results desired.

It's a really short-sighted mindset... one that preaches "like the results, ignore the methods" and really dangerously throws out so much of the principals that BY DESIGN made these kinds of things difficult and NOT within the power of a few to simply do as they please or deletes the checks and balances.

I keep giving society the benefit of the doubt and I keep ending up disappointed This being just plain wrong is so blatantly obvious to me.

 

[LAKid53]

Ask a CPA.. I bet they say 'yes'

Interest payments on munis are generally free from federal income tax. Many may include a premium if retired early.

But..... The investor looses a guaranteed income stream over a specific period of time. And that premium payment for early retirement could be considered a capital gain.

 

[LittleBuford]

This is attention due to Disney putting their foot in their mouth.

So you acknowledge that Disney specifically is being targeted?

 

[ryguy]

I find it interesting that Disney has been mum on the whole situation. The only thing we have seen or heard is them firing a dude. It will be fun to see how this all shakes out.

 

[LittleBuford]

Regardless of what happens, this could have all been prevented if Disney didn’t completely botch PR.

This is deflecting the blame. You may not like Disney’s stance (I personally do), but they have a legally protected right to hold it and shouldn’t face politically motivated retaliation for doing so.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Couldn't Disney just build corporate housing faster and move in loyalists to counter that?

I volunteer live in AKL as a DVC member. I work remotely now, so all I have to do is spend 183 days a year there to be a resident.

Disclaimer: My volunteering is conditional upon Disney not requiring me to purchase enough points to cover 183 days.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

The bond issue remains maybe.

This depends on what it means to "substantially" impair a contract. Ultimately, this will require a legal interpretation by sitting justices, if the bond issue makes it that far.

As a refresher, the bond issue originates from a statement released by RCID:

In light of the State of Florida’s pledge to the District’s bondholders, Reedy Creek expects to explore its options while continuing its present operations, including levying and collecting its ad valorem taxes and collecting its utility revenues, paying debt service on its ad valorem tax bonds and utility revenue bonds, complying with its bond covenants and operating and maintaining its properties.​

The relevant part of the Reedy Creek Act reads:

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.​

Let's consider what it means to impair a contract:

This term applies to any law that will lessen the value or decrease the enforceability of a contract or an agreement.​

Contract impairment is addressed by Art. I, § 10 of the U.S. Constitution:

no State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.​

Several have referenced a Bloomberg article written by Jacob Schumer. One of the cases referenced in his article is Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy. In brief, the City of Quincy passed a law in an attempt to avoid paying bonds it had issued. The Supreme Court ruled against the City of Quincy, finding this to be a violation of Art. I, § 10.

From RCID's perspective, this means the State of Florida cannot pass a law to avoid paying RCID's bonds.

However, this same ruling also includes the following statement:

It is competent for the States to change the form of the remedy, or to modify it otherwise, as they may see fit, provided no substantial right secured by the contract is thereby impaired.​

From a Constitutional perspective, the State of Florida has a right to alter bonds issued by RCID, as long as "no substantial right secured by the contract is thereby impaired."

I find it interesting that one of the cases cited by Mr. Schumer in defense of RCID explicitly states that Florida can alter bonds, as long as those alterations are not "substantial".

As has been noted, some of the bonds cannot be paid off early. However, as noted in a separate Bloomberg article:

There are several ways of defeasing outstanding bonds including a tender, make-whole or refunding, the strategists wrote.​

For example, if a bondholder is paid in full, including all due interest, does this result in a "substantial" impairment? What if the State of Florida simply assumes the bonds, using the exact same revenue source that RCID does to guarantee these bonds? Is this a "substantial" impairment?

The State of Florida has a Constitutional right to alter bonds in non-substantial ways. The Supreme Court says so. Also consider that a purpose of Art. I, § 10 is not to guarantee that RCID exists. It's to make sure that bondholders are paid in full.

Ultimately, this is a matter of legal interpretation. What does it take to "substantially" impair these bonds?

At least 1 of the bonds has a provision prohibiting early redemption. Anything other than keeping that bond as-is through its maturity date would be a substantial harm as it would deprive the bondholders of their interest earnings.

 

[LAKid53]

I volunteer live in AKL as a DVC member. I work remotely now, so all I have to do is spend 183 days a year there to be a resident.

Disclaimer: My volunteering is conditional upon Disney not requiring me to purchase enough points to cover 183 days.

Those 183 days don't have to be consecutive. BUT you need to provide proof. Residing in a DVC property for 183 days out of a year won't cut it.

 

[GoofGoof]

At least 1 of the bonds has a provision prohibiting early redemption. Anything other than keeping that bond as-is through its maturity date would be a substantial harm as it would deprive the bondholders of their interest earnings.

The only way out of that one is going to be to negotiate with the bondholders directly. It’s possible they agree to terms and agree to allow the bonds to be redeemed early. Money talks

 

[LAKid53]

The only way out of that one is going to be to negotiate with the bondholders directly. It’s possible they agree to terms and agree to allow the bonds to be redeemed early. Money talks

That's usually done in circumstances when the bond issue itself is at risk. And it's a big risk in this instance.

 

[ParentsOf4]

I find it interesting that Disney has been mum on the whole situation. The only thing we have seen or heard is them firing a dude. It will be fun to see how this all shakes out.

Disney remaining silent is a smart legal strategy.

First, spend more time researching options before proceeding.

Second, allow those many paid Florida lobbyists to work back channels.

Third, wait until DeSantis commits to a course of action before countering.

Fourth, position yourself for your ultimate play (if needed) - "DeSantis' illegal action violated our First Amendment rights by silencing us."

 

[lentesta]

Well, I'm just glad so many people here are so concerned about limited government and freedom of speech now. It's refreshing.

Lots of us have been vocally (and justifiably) critical of Disney for various things.

That said, I believe the words of American philosopher C. Edward Daniels are relevant for the FL Legislature:

And we may have done a little bit
Of fightin' amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us alone

 

[GoofGoof]

Attorney William Sanchez has refiled the lawsuit from 3 Orange County residents that was thrown out of court last week:

Florida Residents Refile Lawsuit Against Gov Ron DeSantis Over Disney’s Special Tax District​

Sanchez (or the lawsuit) states:

“The federal judge who ruled in the first case, strongly insinuated that the case should be filed in the State Court. We have done exactly that and included more relevant grounds”​

​

...​

​

“The case arises out of the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill and Gov. DeSantis attempts to punish Disney. In fact, Florida taxpayers will be punished. Thus, the reason for the lawsuit. We will continue to protect Florida taxpayers and not allow Gov. DeSantis to bully the people around.”​

​

...​

​

“Ron DeSantis has been clear on his intended punishment of Disney, although he claims the elimination of special districts will not affect central Florida taxpayers,” the slightly updated new suit reads. “Plaintiffs ask for the opportunity to be heard since their rights are clearly being violated.”​

This time, the lawsuit has 4 plaintiffs.

I still don’t think this one has a very good chance to succeed in court, but I suspect that’s not really the point.

 

[DisneyDebRob]

Those 183 days don't have to be consecutive. BUT you need to provide proof. Residing in a DVC property for 183 days out of a year won't cut it.

My home DVC resort is AKL. I was just reading his post and wondering if we could put our contract’s together and make it work. Your such a killjoy.

 

[mikejs78]

Attorney William Sanchez has refiled the lawsuit from 3 Orange County residents that was thrown out of court last week:

Florida Residents Refile Lawsuit Against Gov Ron DeSantis Over Disney’s Special Tax District​

Sanchez (or the lawsuit) states:

“The federal judge who ruled in the first case, strongly insinuated that the case should be filed in the State Court. We have done exactly that and included more relevant grounds”​

​

...​

​

“The case arises out of the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill and Gov. DeSantis attempts to punish Disney. In fact, Florida taxpayers will be punished. Thus, the reason for the lawsuit. We will continue to protect Florida taxpayers and not allow Gov. DeSantis to bully the people around.”​

​

...​

​

“Ron DeSantis has been clear on his intended punishment of Disney, although he claims the elimination of special districts will not affect central Florida taxpayers,” the slightly updated new suit reads. “Plaintiffs ask for the opportunity to be heard since their rights are clearly being violated.”​

This time, the lawsuit has 4 plaintiffs.

As much as I would like this to succeed, I don't think it will as standing will probably be an issue yet again.

I'm sure that won't stop certain people from coming in here and claiming that they told us so all along and if only we have listened to them we would have known the truth.

 

[LAKid53]

As much as I would like this to succeed, I don't think it will as standing will probably be an issue yet again.

I'm sure that won't stop certain people from coming in here and claiming that they told us so all along and if only we have listened to them we would have known the truth.

And it very likely may.

 

[Lilofan]

I still don’t think this one has a very good chance to succeed in court, but I suspect that’s not really the point.

I'm confused. If the lawyers can't win why do the residents hire them? The lawyers don't work for free.

 

[LAKid53]

I'm confused. If the lawyers can't win why do the residents hire them? The lawyers don't work for free.

Lawyers work for reasons other than payment.

 

[Lilofan]

Lawyers work for reasons other than payment.

If it was my hard earned money I would not be paying a lawyer to argue a case where I know he can't win on my behalf.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

My home DVC resort is AKL. I was just read his post and wondering if we could put our contract’s together and maje it work. Your such a killjoy.

I do require a 3-bedroom villa in case I have visitors.