DeSantis For President in 2024?

[Big Blitz]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

I keep hearing about this $1B in debt being shifted to the municipalities.  Is that just a(nother) talking point/lie?

 

 

Meanwhile, the very real 20% Fake Covid/Democrat Party Tax hike hardest hitting the poor that got bribed with stimulus checks in order to take out Trump, gets zero concern or, rather remarkably because they know their beta white guilt voters are morons, is blamed on Putin.  

[The Frankish Reich]

7 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

The world would instantly be a better place if Disney, Twitter, Netflix, Facebook, or Google didn't exist

Who needs Twitter, Facebook, etc. when we can just start "football" discussion boards to make the world a better place?

Big Blitz, you're letting me down here by not tying this into your John Legend Mind Manipulation Theory of Everything.

Edited April 25, 2022 by The Frankish Reich

[Doc]

9 hours ago, B-Man said:

Yes.

 

Figured.  

[B-Man]

 

 

Here Comes the ‘DeSantis is Worse Than Trump’ Narrative

 

 

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/04/here-comes-the-desantis-is-worse-than-trump-narrative/

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

Let's set aside the current so-called "Don't Say Gay" controversy and the Disney-DeSantis thing. Speaking as someone coming from a general libertarian perspective:

 

1. We should take a step back and consider whether the creation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District was a net benefit or loss for the people of Orange County and Florida. I think the answer is clearly yes. Would Disney have built WDW without it? Probably. But it was certainly an incentive to keep expanding and developing an incredibly successful engine of economic growth. (If you are an environmentalist, that's a bad thing. So I get that, but I don't get the Republican-based opposition.)

 

2. More control over the development of Disney's private property is in accord with limited government principles. And it provides proof of the economic value of limited government. The WDW "campus" is remarkably well maintained and organized. It's hard to imagine the State/County doing as good a job by imposing their various zoning/building code demands. It's not as if the roads are crumbling and the hotels are collapsing. It is it's own weird kind of model city.

 

3. The main economic benefit today (other than avoiding another couple layers of bureaucracy): Reedy Creek, as a municipal corporation/special municipal district, gets to issue bonds as if it were a real city. That lowers borrowing costs, since Reedy Creek bonds earn federal tax-free dividends. If Disney needs to go to the private bond market to finance more development, their bonds probably need to pay a higher rate. Many progressives hate these special municipal districts. Pro-development (read: "traditional Republicans") typically like them for the reasons I just described. I don't know why "make WDW pay more" is considered sound policy by so-called limited government conservatives, other than the desire to punish the Disney Corporation for its corporate political statements (statements it has a 1st Amendment right to make! Read that Republican Supreme Court favorite, Citizens United) that are contrary to Gov. Ron's agenda.

 

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Unfortunately, Florida is all too willing to sacrifice the type of thing that allowed it to make a straight-faced claim to being politically innovative (pro-business policy like Reedy Creek) for crass partisan gain.

[B-Man]

 

[Doc]

45 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Let's set aside the current so-called "Don't Say Gay" controversy and the Disney-DeSantis thing. Speaking as someone coming from a general libertarian perspective:

 

1. We should take a step back and consider whether the creation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District was a net benefit or loss for the people of Orange County and Florida. I think the answer is clearly yes. Would Disney have built WDW without it? Probably. But it was certainly an incentive to keep expanding and developing an incredibly successful engine of economic growth. (If you are an environmentalist, that's a bad thing. So I get that, but I don't get the Republican-based opposition.)

 

2. More control over the development of Disney's private property is in accord with limited government principles. And it provides proof of the economic value of limited government. The WDW "campus" is remarkably well maintained and organized. It's hard to imagine the State/County doing as good a job by imposing their various zoning/building code demands. It's not as if the roads are crumbling and the hotels are collapsing. It is it's own weird kind of model city.

 

3. The main economic benefit today (other than avoiding another couple layers of bureaucracy): Reedy Creek, as a municipal corporation/special municipal district, gets to issue bonds as if it were a real city. That lowers borrowing costs, since Reedy Creek bonds earn federal tax-free dividends. If Disney needs to go to the private bond market to finance more development, their bonds probably need to pay a higher rate. Many progressives hate these special municipal districts. Pro-development (read: "traditional Republicans") typically like them for the reasons I just described. I don't know why "make WDW pay more" is considered sound policy by so-called limited government conservatives, other than the desire to punish the Disney Corporation for its corporate political statements (statements it has a 1st Amendment right to make! Read that Republican Supreme Court favorite, Citizens United) that are contrary to Gov. Ron's agenda.

 

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Unfortunately, Florida is all too willing to sacrifice the type of thing that allowed it to make a straight-faced claim to being politically innovative (pro-business policy like Reedy Creek) for crass partisan gain.

 

Disney has every incentive to get back to the table with DeSantis.  It's not like they can pick up their ball and go home.  And if you think Disney was taking a loss with the RCID and still stuck with the all these decades...

[The Frankish Reich]

59 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Disney has every incentive to get back to the table with DeSantis.  It's not like they can pick up their ball and go home.  And if you think Disney was taking a loss with the RCID and still stuck with the all these decades...

Obviously I don't think Disney was taking a loss by continuing the RCID. I just pointed out that it not only gave them more control over their property; it also lowered their borrowing/bond interest costs.

I do think they'll cut a deal as soon as everyone moves on from Ronnie's little "I can run as the real owns-the-libs candidate in 2024" moment.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Let's set aside the current so-called "Don't Say Gay" controversy and the Disney-DeSantis thing. Speaking as someone coming from a general libertarian perspective:

 

1. We should take a step back and consider whether the creation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District was a net benefit or loss for the people of Orange County and Florida. I think the answer is clearly yes. Would Disney have built WDW without it? Probably. But it was certainly an incentive to keep expanding and developing an incredibly successful engine of economic growth. (If you are an environmentalist, that's a bad thing. So I get that, but I don't get the Republican-based opposition.)

 

2. More control over the development of Disney's private property is in accord with limited government principles. And it provides proof of the economic value of limited government. The WDW "campus" is remarkably well maintained and organized. It's hard to imagine the State/County doing as good a job by imposing their various zoning/building code demands. It's not as if the roads are crumbling and the hotels are collapsing. It is it's own weird kind of model city.

 

3. The main economic benefit today (other than avoiding another couple layers of bureaucracy): Reedy Creek, as a municipal corporation/special municipal district, gets to issue bonds as if it were a real city. That lowers borrowing costs, since Reedy Creek bonds earn federal tax-free dividends. If Disney needs to go to the private bond market to finance more development, their bonds probably need to pay a higher rate. Many progressives hate these special municipal districts. Pro-development (read: "traditional Republicans") typically like them for the reasons I just described. I don't know why "make WDW pay more" is considered sound policy by so-called limited government conservatives, other than the desire to punish the Disney Corporation for its corporate political statements (statements it has a 1st Amendment right to make! Read that Republican Supreme Court favorite, Citizens United) that are contrary to Gov. Ron's agenda.

 

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Unfortunately, Florida is all too willing to sacrifice the type of thing that allowed it to make a straight-faced claim to being politically innovative (pro-business policy like Reedy Creek) for crass partisan gain.

I absolutely agree that getting government out of the way of business can be a really good thing.  
 

Beyond that, it’s all political one way or the other.  Disney creates a stir for their original position and offends some employees. Disney changes their perspective and offends some other employees.  Disney gets the sweetheart deal and maximizes the opportunities in lady because it has a sweetheart deal.  Disney loses the sweetheart deal and has to do business with the rest of the shlubs.  
 

In the end, it’s  interesting theater, but beyond that who gives a $&@&? 
 

[Westside]

29 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I absolutely agree that getting government out of the way of business can be a really good thing.  
 

Beyond that, it’s all political one way or the other.  Disney creates a stir for their original position and offends some employees. Disney changes their perspective and offends some other employees.  Disney gets the sweetheart deal and maximizes the opportunities in lady because it has a sweetheart deal.  Disney loses the sweetheart deal and has to do business with the rest of the shlubs.  
 

In the end, it’s  interesting theater, but beyond that who gives a $&@&? 
 

The only reason it’s an issue is because it is DeSantis. If it was a liberal democrat, it would have been fine.

[Orlando Buffalo]

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Let's set aside the current so-called "Don't Say Gay" controversy and the Disney-DeSantis thing. Speaking as someone coming from a general libertarian perspective:

 

1. We should take a step back and consider whether the creation of the Reedy Creek Improvement District was a net benefit or loss for the people of Orange County and Florida. I think the answer is clearly yes. Would Disney have built WDW without it? Probably. But it was certainly an incentive to keep expanding and developing an incredibly successful engine of economic growth. (If you are an environmentalist, that's a bad thing. So I get that, but I don't get the Republican-based opposition.)

 

2. More control over the development of Disney's private property is in accord with limited government principles. And it provides proof of the economic value of limited government. The WDW "campus" is remarkably well maintained and organized. It's hard to imagine the State/County doing as good a job by imposing their various zoning/building code demands. It's not as if the roads are crumbling and the hotels are collapsing. It is it's own weird kind of model city.

 

3. The main economic benefit today (other than avoiding another couple layers of bureaucracy): Reedy Creek, as a municipal corporation/special municipal district, gets to issue bonds as if it were a real city. That lowers borrowing costs, since Reedy Creek bonds earn federal tax-free dividends. If Disney needs to go to the private bond market to finance more development, their bonds probably need to pay a higher rate. Many progressives hate these special municipal districts. Pro-development (read: "traditional Republicans") typically like them for the reasons I just described. I don't know why "make WDW pay more" is considered sound policy by so-called limited government conservatives, other than the desire to punish the Disney Corporation for its corporate political statements (statements it has a 1st Amendment right to make! Read that Republican Supreme Court favorite, Citizens United) that are contrary to Gov. Ron's agenda.

 

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Unfortunately, Florida is all too willing to sacrifice the type of thing that allowed it to make a straight-faced claim to being politically innovative (pro-business policy like Reedy Creek) for crass partisan gain.

You are not wrong but I want to add a few points: Disney is not  expanding further at this time  and the purpose of the special zone was primarily to allow them to grow quickly. Secondly Disney does not always benefit the county and state, often they use their clout to damage any competition. Third Disney is fighting against a train line unless they are only stop for tourists, which this makes them subject to more state oversight.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

46 minutes ago, Westside said:

The only reason it’s an issue is because it is DeSantis. If it was a liberal democrat, it would have been fine.

Probably true.  Lots of unusual chatter from the fair share crowd on behalf of an obscenely wealthy corporation.  

[Doc]

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Obviously I don't think Disney was taking a loss by continuing the RCID. I just pointed out that it not only gave them more control over their property; it also lowered their borrowing/bond interest costs.

I do think they'll cut a deal as soon as everyone moves on from Ronnie's little "I can run as the real owns-the-libs candidate in 2024" moment.

 

I wasn't necessarily saying you were.  Just saying that people who think DeSantis didn't think this through and the taxpayers are going to be on the short end is fanciful.   And Disney will likely hit that wall once their share price drops to a certain level and their shareholders start to revolt.

[Orlando Buffalo]

19 hours ago, Doc said:

I keep hearing about this $1B in debt being shifted to the municipalities.  Is that just a(nother) talking point/lie?

There is a bond, but Disney taxes would take care of it. Disney self taxes a huge number to pay for things. 

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

You are not wrong but I want to add a few points: Disney is not  expanding further at this time  and the purpose of the special zone was primarily to allow them to grow quickly. Secondly Disney does not always benefit the county and state, often they use their clout to damage any competition. Third Disney is fighting against a train line unless they are only stop for tourists, which this makes them subject to more state oversight.

I don't disagree that the original purpose of the special district was to foster rapid development/expansion.

But having just been there (and really, kids, don't make me go again - I've lost patience with the whole "Disney experience"* and I'd gladly have a few pints in Harry Potter Land up the road), it's wrong to say WDW is not expanding. It is always expanding. The whole new Star Wars area just opened. They're putting a hotel in there for the full Star Wars experience. They just connected up some other hotels by aerial gondola. There's new construction all over the place. It's like some kind of fungus that must continue to grow or it will die.

 

*Yes, it is kind of a "nobody goes there anymore, it's always too crowded" thing.

[Orlando Buffalo]

30 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I don't disagree that the original purpose of the special district was to foster rapid development/expansion.

But having just been there (and really, kids, don't make me go again - I've lost patience with the whole "Disney experience"* and I'd gladly have a few pints in Harry Potter Land up the road), it's wrong to say WDW is not expanding. It is always expanding. The whole new Star Wars area just opened. They're putting a hotel in there for the full Star Wars experience. They just connected up some other hotels by aerial gondola. There's new construction all over the place. It's like some kind of fungus that must continue to grow or it will die.

 

*Yes, it is kind of a "nobody goes there anymore, it's always too crowded" thing.

The new star wars hotel is the open and they currently have no hotels slated to be opened anytime soon. The skyliners and Batuu have been there for about 3 years and while I agree they do go through periods of rapid growth there will be no expansions beyond the current parks for at least a decade. Disney expansion is at the very least on hold for some time. As for your experience you sound like my kids when I get passes from cast members, they literally would rather not go.

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

What a mess

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

Good legal analysis of the many issues created by DeSantis's grandstanding:

 

https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/the-contractual-impossibility-of-unwinding-disneys-reedy-creek?context=search&index=1

 

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.

Stating that the county assumes the debt is simple enough—actually figuring out what that means is a different story. Reedy Creek spans both Orange and Osceola counties, so how will the debt be divided? Would it be by taxable value of property or by the properties themselves? And how would that apply to the utility revenue bonds when there is no easy way to divide which county the utilities rest in?

[SoCal Deek]

This issue is NOT complicated. The minute a corporation starts taking public positions on legislation that has NOTHING to do with their central business purpose, they lose their their tax carve outs. Getting involved in this issue was a really stupid move by Disney management. If their employees want to make statements…fine…but NOT under the company’s official banner and logo. 

[The Frankish Reich]

17 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

This issue is NOT complicated. The minute a corporation starts taking public positions on legislation that has NOTHING to do with their central business purpose, they lose their their tax carve outs.

Why?

1. Corporations have free speech rights, just like real persons. See U.S. Const., Amendment 1; Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

2. Conditioning state benefits on the content of political speech is per se unconstitutional.

3. [it gets worse] Part of Disney's exercise of its free speech rights was its statement that it would no longer provide political contributions to supporters of the so-called "Don't Say Gay" law. The Governor expressly stated that he was encouraging the legislature to repeal a benefit provided to WDW in response to the content of Disney's political speech, including political speech as it occurs through spending.

 

I get that people think it's fun to slap back at the libs. You think we'll just continue to take it? Hahah, just watch.

 

But what happens when the tables are turned? This is an awful precedent, whichever side of the political aisle you're on.

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by The Frankish Reich