I don’t doubt the legislation had his approval, but I also don’t think it being framed as caving was expected. The veto would be to try again to get something that plays more as him owning Disney. Don’t think it’s likely, but given that it’s such a factor in this whole thing I would not be surprised.
This may actually be what’s happening. The Governor falsely claimed that RCID was a huge tax break for Disney and he was going to take it away. We all know it’s not a tax break (actually the opposite) but now that the district remains the perception from anyone who believed it was a tax break is that he failed to take it away which is a big loss when you want to present the image of fighting work corporations. The political PR has been largely negative saying he didn’t go far enough. May be looking for an alternative plan.
I would agree in normal times but this ain’t normal times
Actually there were plenty of people who said it wouldn’t. Maybe not you, but that was a common theme.
. I think he should sing the song while signing the bill.
Please let him sign it in the Contemporary Ballroom of the Americas......
I wonder if he was counting on them calling his bluff and challenging in court. He'll have to own this if it's implemented
I haven't read anything regarding bondholders, covenants or rights. It would be costly if bondholders could force redemption. New bonds would be issued at current rates.
Great point. Probably why Disney didn't rush to court. Emperor DeSantis doesn’t seem to be getting credit for sticking to Disney.
There is a pledge to bond holders in the original enabling legislation. Each bond issuance would also have its own terms, and we know at least one cannot be redeemed early.
As of right now, no legal action can be taken regarding the plan to maintain the district.
Legally, not much else he can do…..but since this has been a political stunt from day 1 I would not be shocked if there is an additional bill passed at some point going back to dissolving the district. Remember last year it was done with a date of June 2024 to get long past the re-election campaign. I called it a stunt back then and sure enough it was, the bill was reversed. So if the goal is to raise funds and campaign on this issue again it’s conceivable they go back and pass a new bill “dissolving the district” to save political face and the gov just sets a date of say end of 2024 or June of 2025 when a certain other election is over. Why not go back to the play book that worked once?
The bonds were issued with a guarantee from the State that the state government would not impede the district from collecting taxes since that is the primary source of revenue for the district. Dissolving the district clearly prevents it from collecting taxes and opens the state up to Federal securities fraud charges for violating the pledge in the initial bond offerings. Some of the bonds also have clauses that prevent early retirement as well which creates a further complexity.
What laws or “proper practices” limit the ability of the board to control its administration as they see fit? What stops them from not approving projects and work? What stops them from creating more burdensome processes?
There are hundreds of special districts with Governor appointed boards that act appropriately. The board still has to have a reason to not approve a project or create a burdensome process. If they do take that action the constituents of the district (Disney) can then sue in court and have a judge decide whether the district board is acting in good faith. Again, just because the governor appointed the board does not mean they have absolute power to act as they like. Remember too that there are many judges (especially conservative ones) who would be very reluctant to side with big government, especially if they don’t have a sound and logical reason for their actions.
None of those other districts were created for the purpose of causing harm.
I guess we will see how it plays out. The Walmart situation is very different. That’s a local government determining that adding a Walmart to a neighborhood is not in the best interest of the constituents that they represent. There‘s no way to argue that with RCID projects.
The easy argument will be that something should be a Disney project not an RCID one.
I know rates have gone up more recently but TWDC corporate debt is under 4% on average which is in the ballpark of the RCID debt. It may also cost more for RCID to issue debt after this goat rodeo. Risk = higher interest rate paid. Disney also has over 50X the debt as RCID so borrowing at the corporate level for projects may not really matter too much anyway.
I lost track…are we still attempting to play this as not being a stunt?
I tell you what: I’m hard on Bob…but there is little political pop for the Tick Coming out of this…the package never exploded
Is xena: warrior Princess back in charge?
Are you suggesting that RCID was created to cause harm? Or are you saying that the proposed replacement district is being created to cause harm? In either case, I don't think that's true.
