The 2006 Florida Marlins' revenue stream took in $122 million. Where is that money going and why is Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria forcing the state to subsidize the Marlin's new stadium?? I'm shocked that the citizens of Florida are not more outraged that the city is funding approximately 75% of the $645 million new stadium in Miami. If the team wants to cut costs and increase profits by moving the team to a better location, they should do it on their own dime; it's called a business investment.
The New York Times article (the last link above) frames the issue particularly well:
The economic benefits could also prove illusory, analysts say, because spending at new stadiums often replaces money spent at old ones or comes at the expense of spending at theaters, restaurants and other entertainment sites.And yet, the Democrats of this country want more government. Go figure.
Eager to get the project rolling, Miami-Dade issued its bonds over the summer, when the municipal bond market was in flux. The county paid nearly a full percentage point more in interest to issue its bonds than if it had waited a few months. The Marlins agreed to buy the last $7 million of bonds that the county was unable to sell to the market.
As the recession has revealed, some conservative forecasts elsewhere proved too optimistic. In 1996, officials in Hamilton County, Ohio, expected their local sales tax revenue to grow 3 percent a year when they agreed to add a half-penny to pay for stadiums for the Cincinnati Reds and the Bengals. Instead, it has since grown 1.6 percent per year on average and fallen nearly 10 percent this year, forcing lawmakers to consider cutting the schools budget.
“Cincinnati is a smaller market, but it underscores that all these projects have risks, and Miami has to understand in the depths of this recession it may take longer to recover than people think,” said Mark Rosentraub, the author of “Major League Losers,” which examined stadium deals nationwide. Rosentraub called Miami’s agreement “reckless.”
This gallimaufry isn't just happening on the Eastern Seaboard. The Mariners pigeon-holed Seattle into building them a new stadium a decade ago and are now forcing the taxpayers to pay for essential repairs to the stadium. I guess the city is going to get the last laugh, however, as they recently approved building a strip club next door. Maybe they'll call it The Foul Pole (or Randy's Johnson).
(Check here to read the details of the Mariners contract with the city as cited in an except from King County v. Taxpayers of King County)
From King County v. Taxpayers of King County, 133 Wn.2d 584
ReplyDeleteThe Taxpayers now argue the lease agreement between the District and the Mariners for the use of the [***19] new stadium provides for only nominal rent and grossly inadequate consideration, thus implicating the constitutional concern about gifts of state money we mentioned in CLEAN. The Taxpayers argue both donative intent and grossly inadequate return are present here.
The Stadium Act required (1) a commitment from the Mariners to play at least 90 percent of its games at the new stadium for the length of the term of the bonds; (2) a contribution of $ 45 million towards either preconstruction or construction costs of the stadium or associated facilities; and (3) profit-sharing with the District for the term of the bonds of profit earned after accounting for team losses after the effective date of the Act.
RCW 82.14.360(4). These provisions all appeared in the lease.
The lease between the Mariners and the District contains the following additional obligations of the Mariners:
. payment of $ 700,000 in rent per annum
. payment of any construction cost overruns
. payment of any deficiencies on bonds for the parking facility
. maintenance and operation of the ballpark as a "first-class [***20] facility" in accordance with a management plan, and with oversight by the District, with enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance
. making major repairs and capital improvements to the ballpark
. provision of insurance
The taxpayers sued saying the M's commitment of money towards construction was illusory and would not come out of the Mariners' own pockets. The court rejected this argument as invalid. And yet, as it seems, the taxpayers were 100% correct.
ReplyDelete