Uh-oh, Reedy Creek will outlast DeSantis!

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-i...-3shj2FZdNHhM8mDQbNDC6Rfkr7QlbmmB_elt0Zivm2ng


If Reddy Creek is going to be dissolved it doesn’t look it could happen until 2029. The bond holders of the $2 billion in Reddy Creek bonds have rights and the Florida government can’t to do anything to add risk to those investments. (It is spelled out in the reddy creek creation docs)
A lot of lawyers seem to have become ignorant of / unable to read contracts/laws once they became politicians.
Disney has told shareholders they are proceeding with business as usual.
 
I am sure Deasantis knows he cannot do it. However he knows his lie is galvanizing the right into a paroxysm of Disney hate, and he thinks votes for him. I am sure the GOOFY governor knows better. he has some pros on staff. This is political red meat for the easily led.
 
I wonder if the FL state constitution contains any language prohibiting lawmakers from using the power of the state and of the law to get revenge against corporations and/or individuals?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I wonder if the FL state constitution contains any language prohibiting lawmakers from using the power of the state and of the law to get revenge against corporations and/or individuals?
Click to expand...

Nope, but I suspect there’s some racketeering laws against it
 
Nordberg said:
I am sure Deasantis knows he cannot do it. However he knows his lie is galvanizing the right into a paroxysm of Disney hate, and he thinks votes for him. I am sure the GOOFY governor knows better. he has some pros on staff. This is political red meat for the easily led.
Click to expand...

Exactly, 100% political move, and I’d also add that he did it to draw attention off of his gerrymandering, now giving Florida, which enrollment wise is pretty much an even State, a 20-8 district advantage to the GOP while also eliminating two predominantly Black districts
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I wonder if the FL state constitution contains any language prohibiting lawmakers from using the power of the state and of the law to get revenge against corporations and/or individuals?
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wonder if those cities that hated on Chick-Fil-A have any so that the municipalities that used permit codes and taxation codes to keep Chick-Fil-A out of their cities might have some comeuppance.
 
archives said:
Exactly, 100% political move, and I’d also add that he did it to draw attention off of his gerrymandering, now giving Florida, which enrollment wise is pretty much an even State, a 20-8 district advantage to the GOP while also eliminating two predominantly Black districts
Click to expand...

Could be


It seems to be having that effect



They just made it so the guy running can change the game to fix the election so he can win



Not very democratic
 
Damocles said:
Interesting. I wonder if those cities that hated on Chick-Fil-A have any so that the municipalities that used permit codes and taxation codes to keep Chick-Fil-A out of their cities might have some comeuppance.
Click to expand...

Good question. What cities did this? I know there was some screeching when the Chick-Fil-A ppl wanted to put one in the fairly liberal little enclave where we lived in STL, but the city itself did nothing to keep them out, nor did they keep out the nearby and almost-as-controversial Hobby Lobby. Most leaders put bucks and the good of the community overall, over political differences. Unless, of course, they're thinking of out-trumping Trump in the divisiveness category.

There is a difference, though, in preventing a business from coming in in the first place, and punishing a long-existing business because they spoke out against your discriminatory legislation.
 
Damocles said:
Interesting. I wonder if those cities that hated on Chick-Fil-A have any so that the municipalities that used permit codes and taxation codes to keep Chick-Fil-A out of their cities might have some comeuppance.
Click to expand...

Those are not using the power of the state huh
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Good question. What cities did this? I know there was some screeching when the Chick-Fil-A ppl wanted to put one in the fairly liberal little enclave where we lived in STL, but the city itself did nothing to keep them out, nor did they keep out the nearby and almost-as-controversial Hobby Lobby. Most leaders put bucks and the good of the community overall, over political differences. Unless, of course, they're thinking of out-trumping Trump in the divisiveness category.

There is a difference, though, in preventing a business from coming in in the first place, and punishing a long-existing business because they spoke out against your discriminatory legislation.
Click to expand...

Not in reality. In reality keeping a business from operating in your area because you don't like someone or something they donated to is punishing the company for saying something you simply didn't like. This is exactly the same thing, even if you are uncomfortable in the hypocrisy.

I am always interested in this kind of hypocrisy. If I were an advisor for DeSantis I would have advised against this action, because it isn't what we do. Folks vote for companies through dollars we shouldn't have our politicians deciding where you can spend your money at that level.
 
Damocles said:
Not in reality. In reality keeping a business from operating in your area because you don't like someone or something they donated to is punishing the company for saying something you simply didn't like. This is exactly the same thing, even if you are uncomfortable in the hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing it the way you do. Example: Long ago when my kids were young, there was a family-owned pet store that had set up in a former single-family home in an older part of the town bordering Hwy. 70. The area had been rezoned as mixed so there were several other businesses that occupied former residential buildings. The problem with the pet store was that they started keeping dangerous animals. Outside they had chain link pens with a baby black bear, a baby lion, and some hybrid wolf pups. Inside they had a variety of small and large snakes (non venomous that I was aware of), rats, mice, lizards, scorpions, spiders, and a four-foot caymen that walked around the store. Neighbors complained about the sad plight of the outside animals as well as the inside. The city could do nothing since they'd issued the license to begin with. So they changed pet store licenses and tacked on a hefty fee (I think it was $500 per year) for each animal on the premises deemed "dangerous." The store folded up and left town.

Fair use of the city's power, or persecution? The store owner called it persecution, went to the news stations, tried to get customers to sign a petition, etc.

FL revoking a special incentive granted to a corporation to entice them to settle there smacks more of persecution than a legitimate use of power.
 
Damocles said:
Not in reality. In reality keeping a business from operating in your area because you don't like someone or something they donated to is punishing the company for saying something you simply didn't like. This is exactly the same thing, even if you are uncomfortable in the hypocrisy.

I am always interested in this kind of hypocrisy. If I were an advisor for DeSantis I would have advised against this action, because it isn't what we do. Folks vote for companies through dollars we shouldn't have our politicians deciding where you can spend your money at that level.
Click to expand...

It’s a city not the state



It’s city planning



Do you want them a part of your community



NO


done
 
Damocles said:
Interesting. I wonder if those cities that hated on Chick-Fil-A have any so that the municipalities that used permit codes and taxation codes to keep Chick-Fil-A out of their cities might have some comeuppance.
Click to expand...

Why would they try to keep Chick-fil-a out? For political reasons?
 
Damocles said:
Interesting. I wonder if those cities that hated on Chick-Fil-A have any so that the municipalities that used permit codes and taxation codes to keep Chick-Fil-A out of their cities might have some comeuppance.
Click to expand...

Why would they try to keep Chick-fil-a out? For political reasons?
 
Earl said:
Deasantis will be the next vp or president.
Click to expand...

It is far from definite, like you claim, but DeSantis might be our next President. There is no way for him to get the nomination, much less elected, if trump is running, but trump might not run. If trump does not run, DeSantis has a good chance of getting the nomination, and some chance of winning. That is a lot of maybes, but it is a real chance.

DeSantis will not be the next VP. There is no one in the Republican Party that would want to have him the junior partner on the ticket, and no way he would agree to be the junior partner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top