Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Disney Bonds
Violated Law
To the Editor:
Comments by Ms. Gail Starling Marshall, former Virginia Deputy Attorney General, in a memorandum lo the PEC regarding the General Assembly’s conduct in floating the Disney Bond Issue raise some interesting questions. There may or may not be legal issues, but. at the veryleast the Commonwealth's behavior represents a disquieting departure from our traditional approach to pubic finance. This conservative ipproach has served to establish Virginia’s reputation as a place of fis:al stability, and to depart from con;titutionally regulated practices of public finance, without a public refer;ndum, is not likely to sit well with many voters.
It would appear that the General Assembly and the Governor, in formulating the Disney bond legislation, ook leave of the structures and safeguards embodied in Article X of the :onstitution. Taxation and Finance, .vhich, in Section 9, describes limitaions on the Assembly’s ability to ncur debt, and in Section 8 requires hat public money be spent only for public purposes, and in Section 10 •equires that the credit of the Commonwealth shall not be used to iirectlv or indirectly aid any corporaion. These sections, added by the •evision of the Virginia Constitution }f 1971, intend, among other things, 0 affirm a “special fund" doctrine illowing the issuance of bonds, not nacked by the Commonwealth's full faith and credit, to finance projects :apable of generating sufficient revenue to pay the debt service fees on the bonds. Although the Disney bonds were called “revenue” bonds, they were for road projects which would generate no revenue.
Furthermore, the Disney bond legislation contained guarantees by
’1
83.1%