re: FL taxpayers to absorb over 1 billion in bond obligations due to Disney exemption repeal

quote:

---

There is a lot more to infrastructure than roads. Water lines, sewer, electricity, drainage, etc.

---

And? Are you implying government pays for all that?

quote:

---

And what? Why don’t you follow the conversation stream to gain an understanding of my point.

---

How about you just say your point?

Lots of nonsense in this thread. A special tax district acts like a govt entity just as a city or municipality would but typically with a more limited scope.

3 towns could band together and create a water district or fire protection district and have a tax district to pay for the infrastructure. Disney was given this power on a broader scale in their district making it more similar to a city like entity.

The counties are capable of creating a tax district and setting their own rates specifically for Disney to pay their new costs.

The primary goal behind this move was to strip Disney of autonomy/power, cause them headaches having to now deal with local govt on multiple issues and embarrass the company.

If your company is publicly defending pedofiles right to talk to kindergartners about sex you probably shouldn't have autonomy to run your own fire, EMS, police etc without outside oversight.

They picked a fight with the govt. and they lost, and will continue to lose. It’s a terrible deal for them and the govt makes the rules so anyone claiming it’s a loss for the govt is a fool.

Municipal governments tend to be run by a small group of very self interested if not downright corrupt individuals. Besides that they are very susceptible to becoming more aligned with personalities than true needs especially when they have a cash cow like Disney to fund pet projects. Disney had control of their own infrastructure and services so they could grow them in alignment with business needs not the personality of an elected official. Example they control the police so they didn’t have to worry about the local police chief pushing up their tax rates and then buying a tank and 3 helicopters to patrol a couple square miles.

Don’t think for one second those two local governments aren’t full of people salivating at the idea of getting more Disney cash.

quote:

---

ell_13

---

Are you implying Disney does not pay property tax to the counties, as of now?

quote:

---

But the county would actually be getting tax revenue from Disney, whereas they didn't before.

---

Uhh... Disney pays a lot of taxes to the county, currently.

quote:

---

That's not bragging, you're that dumb.

---

Maybe I am that dumb too. How does corporate debt fall on tax payors?

quote:

---

They picked a fight with the govt. and they lost, and will continue to lose. It’s a terrible deal for them and the govt makes the rules so anyone claiming it’s a loss for the govt is a fool.

---

I don’t disagree with your post. I just find the support for the state in this thread to be hypocritical. Everyone on here wants less government control…but applauds this move with the government taking more control over a business. If this is good for Florida with Disney, why wouldn’t it be good for Louisiana to take tax breaks from Exxon?

If your only answer is you don’t like Disney’s politics, you are supporting the government exercising its muscle against a private entity because they don’t like their opinion. That’s fascism. If someone is committing a crime, prosecute them. If not, let the market correct itself.

I’m not debating the underlying rift between the company and the government. Im just surprised (I guess I shouldn’t be) that the so called small government republicans on this board are applauding more government control.

quote:

---

The counties are capable of creating a tax district and setting their own rates specifically for Disney to pay their new costs.

---

This is ultimately the question.

From what I understand, the counties don’t automatically gain additional revenue to cover the added expenses (whether those expenses are bond payments, additional services, or upkeep/maintenance) because Disney is already paying property taxes in both counties.

So the question is whether the counties have the ability to increase Disney’s taxes to cover the $105 million lost when Reedy Creek dissolves, without raising taxes for everyone else.

The easiest way to do this, as you said, would be to create new special tax districts that are controlled by the counties (instead of being controlled by Disney, as Reedy Creek is currently). But doesn’t creation of a special tax district typically require a vote from the people who live in that proposed district?

It seems like this would be the equivalent of the entire city of Baton Rouge voting to add a special millage to Bocage. Or EBR Parish deciding to absorb the Central school district but then hitting the people who live there with a special millage (above what everyone else pays) to cover added costs - without a vote in that district.

I realize it’s a little different because Disney is a corporation but there are apparently “residents” of Reedy Creek - they are all Disney execs. If that special millage requires a vote from those residents, it seems like they would just negotiate to get their autonomy back as a condition of the special district and we would be right back to where we started.

But maybe they don’t have to vote on it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

this move with the government taking more control over a business.

---

Are they though?

---

Umm, yeah. It’s pretty obvious.


1) Govt gives district to business so they can control their infrastructure.
2) Govt passes a law.
3) Business says they don’t like law.
4) Govt revokes district and gives control to local government.

Now take that example and imagine that the business was Exxon in Louisiana and the law was that you have to get vaccinated. What would the opinion on here be?