• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Senate passes bill to strip Disney's special self-governing status

Lursa said:
Why did you make your posts about me? Let's see you discuss the topic. Address my posts, like post 2, content directly.

Or cant you? Ball's in your court...since you've offered nothing of substance but personal attacks so far.
Click to expand...

You have my sympathies for your stutter.
 
Ouroboros said:
Haven’t read the whole thread yet but there was nothing worth refuting in the post to which I responded. You offered no compelling reason as to why citizens of Florida ought to bow to Disney’s financial might. Possibly you have total agreement with the cause championed by the Mouse, but you haven’t specified what positive qualities of said cause prove deSantis is “stupid” in opposing. Ball’s in your court.
Click to expand...
Here is a compelling reason ….the US Constitution.

From the following article:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...g-district-says-reedy-creek-in-new-statement/

Further adding to the stability of RCID’s bonds is a pledge the state of Florida made within the 1967 statute that created the district and granted RCID its powers, including issuing bonds. As Schumer wrote:

In authorizing Reedy Creek to issue bonds, the Florida legislature included a remarkable statement—included in Reedy Creek’s bond offerings—regarding its own promise to bondholders: “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 … 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.”
…In case it was not obvious, dissolving Reedy Creek “limited” and “altered” its ability to improve and maintain its project and collect its various charges and taxes, and thus Florida would be violating its pledge to bondholders by dissolving Reedy Creek. However, even without that explicit language, the bill dissolving Reedy Creek would have problems under contracts clauses of the Florida and U.S. constitutions.
Click to expand...
Schumer highlights the well-established case law on this issue. , going as far back as a 1866 U.S. Supreme Court case, Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, which “held that once a local government issues a bond based on an authorized taxing power, the state is contract-bound and cannot eliminate the taxing power supporting the bond.” There is “even greater protection” within the Florida Constitution blocking the state from breaching its contractual obligations to maintain the authorization for RCID’s existence.
 
Ouroboros said:
Wow, even less substance than I expected. I attacked your weak argument, not you. Your confused post #2 elaborates no reasons as to why DeSantis is petty for not subordinating parental rights to the Mad Lib status quo for the sake of money. That’s my response; let’s see you come up with even one compelling reason.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is nothing more than 'na huh,' a baseless complaint. As usual. So...
​
Why did you make your posts about me? Let's see you discuss the topic. Address my post's content directly, esp post 2.​
​
Or cant you? Ball's in your court...since you've offered nothing of substance but personal attacks so far.​
 
Ouroboros said:
You have my sympathies for your stutter.
Click to expand...

More about me...and zero debate. You prove me right with every post 😆
​
Why did you make your posts about me? Let's see you discuss the topic. Address my post's content directly, esp post 2.​
​
Or cant you? Ball's in your court...since you've offered nothing of substance but personal attacks so far.​
 
Lursa said:
Your opinion is nothing more than 'na huh,' a baseless complaint. As usual. So...
​
Why did you make your posts about me? Let's see you discuss the topic. Address my post's content directly, esp post 2.​
​
Or cant you? Ball's in your court...since you've offered nothing of substance but personal attacks so far.​
Click to expand...

When will you get around to articulating your own position so that we can debate it? I realize you’ve probably never done it, but there’s a first time for everything.🤩
 
Ouroboros said:
When will you get around to articulating your own position so that we can debate it? I realize you’ve probably never done it, but there’s a first time for everything.🤩
Click to expand...
Post 2. Directly address it.

or

Your opinion is nothing more than 'na huh,' a baseless complaint. As usual. So...
Why did you make your posts about me? Let's see you discuss the topic. Address my post's content directly, esp post 2.
Or cant you? Ball's in your court...since you've offered nothing of substance but personal attacks so far.
 
Lursa said:
More about me...and zero debate. You prove me right with every post 😆
​
Why did you make your posts about me? Let's see you discuss the topic. Address my post's content directly, esp post 2.​
​
Or cant you? Ball's in your court...since you've offered nothing of substance but personal attacks so far.​
Click to expand...

See post 156, which will continue to be my answer to your self congratulatory droning.
 
Lursa said:
Post 2. Directly address it.

or

Your opinion is nothing more than 'na huh,' a baseless complaint. As usual. So...
Why did you make your posts about me? Let's see you discuss the topic. Address my post's content directly, esp post 2.
Or cant you? Ball's in your court...since you've offered nothing of substance but personal attacks so far.
Click to expand...

See post 156.
 
minnie616 said:
Here is a compelling reason ….the US Constitution.

From the following article:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...g-district-says-reedy-creek-in-new-statement/

Further adding to the stability of RCID’s bonds is a pledge the state of Florida made within the 1967 statute that created the district and granted RCID its powers, including issuing bonds. As Schumer wrote:


Schumer highlights the well-established case law on this issue. , going as far back as a 1866 U.S. Supreme Court case, Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, which “held that once a local government issues a bond based on an authorized taxing power, the state is contract-bound and cannot eliminate the taxing power supporting the bond.” There is “even greater protection” within the Florida Constitution blocking the state from breaching its contractual obligations to maintain the authorization for RCID’s existence.
Click to expand...

And if the case goes to court, the lawyers for DeSantis will probably argue that Disney breached their contract through their endorsement of specific political actions. Disney was given its bond deal in its original status as an entertainment corporation, not as a political action organization. Will he win or lose? Will Disney take the chance? I’m sure you’re convinced your side will win. Time will tell.
 
Ouroboros said:
And if the case goes to court, the lawyers for DeSantis will probably argue that Disney breached their contract through their endorsement of specific political actions. Disney was given its bond deal in its original status as an entertainment corporation, not as a political action organization. Will he win or lose? Will Disney take the chance? I’m sure you’re convinced your side will win. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
DeSantis likely forgot that Disney is known for its excellent team of attorneys.

Florida not so much.
 
minnie616 said:
DeSantis likely forgot that Disney is known for its excellent team of attorneys.

Florida not so much.
Click to expand...

Perhaps holding the moral high ground will motivate the state’s representatives to kick the briefcases of the Disney Drones.😊
 
Lursa said:
see post 157 😆
Click to expand...
See post 156-- as well as seeing an analyst who might help you figure out what Covid restrictions have to do with restrictions on parents' ability to raise their kids without the state's misguided attempts at indoctrination.

Not that this will draw a real response from you, but maybe it will grab someone else who actually has an argument.
 
minnie616 said:
False.

From the Daily Mail :

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-DeSantis-stripped-Disney-special-status.html



DeSantis's bid to strip Disney World of its self-governing status could fail because of the tax burden it'll impose on locals, lawyers believe.

The Sunshine State's laws stipulate that all residents must be taxed equally.

But winding down Reedy Creek Improvement District - the name of the private body that oversees Disney's Orlando resort - would leave the state liable for $2 billion in bond debts currently held by the entertainment giant.

Disney issued those bonds - seen as an extremely safe financial investment - to fund the expansion of Walt Disney World Resort.

But unwinding Reedy Creek means families from Orange and Osceola Counties would be on the hook for between $2,200 and $2,800 each, because the district would be absorbed into both areas.

On Wednesday, the Reedy Creek board of supervisors carried on with business as usual on Wednesday, barely mentioning the decision to dissolve the district.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to see how this plays out, I can foresee a court injunction in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom