Was OCTOD a party to the agreement signed in February? If not, it has no standing.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
Was OCTOD a party to the agreement signed in February? If not, it has no standing.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Both. In 1965 they could have said "the mill rate for themed entertainment enterprises is $X. Every themed entertainment enterprise will pay the same mill rate."
They're not charging Disney anything extra. They're charging "everyone" equally. it just so happens that Disney is the only "everyone" around.
And that's all I implied.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
“Breaking news. We have just learned that the local professional sports teams was bribed by local officials to build a new stadium. In exchange for owning and operating the stadium the team agreed to pay for all land acquisition, infrastructure and construction costs.”
Disone
Well-Known Member
And 6th, and 7th and 8th and ( this is going to take awhile)
Chi84
Premium Member
So you don't believe the Florida government should have entered into this particular business deal with Disney even though it foresaw major benefits to the state and its citizens? I mean, it's a major tourist destination that contributes to the economy. If you believe that states are wrong in offering any enticements to businesses to operate there, that's your right, but it's just not how things are done and it certainly doesn't justify you labeling it bribery, which has a specific legal definition.
I think the issue is that I'm not seeing any unlawful or unprincipled means, nor do I understand what you're calling corporate welfare. I don't think the ends or means were wrong.
How did Florida benefit from the change in the board?
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Oops. But it also protects freedom of speech and we see how that wentIt looks like Article 1 of Florida's Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws around contracts:
It looks like Article 1 of Florida's Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws around contracts:
Yes, it also does.
In Fletcher v Peck, SCOTUS ruled that the contract was bringing between the two parties, even if it was illegally secured.
The Development Agreement at face is a contract.
Except the county cannot tax one commercial, agriculture, residential, etc., property owner at a different rate than the same type of property owner within the county...without a special district.
Mr. Stay Puft
Well-Known Member
The state constitution says a lot of things that the Governor and the state legislature cannot do, but the state courts typically let them do it anyway. See our Governor drafted gerrymandered Congressional maps that were blatantly illegal but allowed anyway.It looks like Article 1 of Florida's Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws around contracts:
I'm worried, on the state level at least, DeSantis has his handpicked judges interpreting our laws and state constitution for however he says they need to. We're waiting to see if the state Supreme Court reinterprets our state constitution's "right to privacy" provision covers reproductive rights for women, after the state passed two consecutive abortion bans.
Personal feelings about that issue aside, that will be the litmus test to see if DeSantis really does have the state Supreme Court in his pocket, because the authors who got that provision written into the state constitution in the 1970s said explicitly that's what it was for, and the state courts have upheld that precedent ever since. DeSantis wants them to reinterpret that right to privacy does not include reproductive rights. So we'll see.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
I sure wouldn’t want some one to bribe me by making me pay higher taxes and make me financially responsible for utilities and municipal infrastructure.
Stripes
Premium Member
True, but Disney can sue the state and the court would most likely issue an injunction until the matter was decided.
Same boat.
That said, I don’t necessary agree that the legislative push means that the district has no argument.
flynnibus
Premium Member
AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTY....
Instead... Disney paid for it.
Quite the advantage!
Yes, they do. You don't think Amazon doesn't get incentives to build distribution centers? Leon County - where the state capital resides - gave Amazon lots of "incentives" to build a huge center next to I-10.
JohnD
Well-Known Member
They're in regular session now through May 5. So it seems they're going to come up with something before sine die.
flynnibus
Premium Member
uhh... no. The county was not the moon.
Nor does it make sense to change the law of the entire taxing authority of the state and constitution... instead of using the EXISTING construct of special districts.
I feel like you need to go back to the start of the thread. You're showing your ignorance of the whole thing while dropping in at the 11th hour and throwing out all these ill informed views.
Wait, the owners of professional sports teams "bribe" local governments to build new stadiums? Go figure.....
And we still don't have a budget....
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
THERE WAS (practically) NOBODY ELSE IN THE COUNTY.
And those that were there would have participated in the huge boon that Disney brought to the region, so of course they should have participated in the infrastructure investment costs.