County Commissioner Carlos A. Gimenez to appear on HBO Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel Tonight!

Commissioner Carlos A. Gimenez will appear on HBO Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel on Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 10 p.m. to discuss about his stance against the Florida Marlins Stadium deal and the controversy about the Marlins’ finances in documents released by Deadspin.com this past August.

A clip of the show can be seen at this link and the show will rebroadcast throughout November.

Check with your cable service provider to find the appropriate channel broadcasting HBO. For more information, please contact Commissioner Gimenez’s office at 305-669-4003.

Miami Today: Michael Lewis Editorial on The Marlins

Lewis says: Don't blame rich Marlins because we gave them $3 billion:

If building a $3 billion stadium and handing it over for 50 years for pennies didn't faze Miami-Dade commissioners when they OK'd the deal with a wink, they're now horrified that their beneficiary was rich.

Shucks, they say, if they'd known the Florida Marlins had operating profit of $49 million over two years they'd have shaved several million off their $3 billion gift that raised the team's market value at least $250 million.

He says further:

The first rule in a deal is to know fully who's on the other side. That includes character and financial status.

The commission violated that rule by a mile. You have to reveal more to get a wireless phone than the Marlins told commissioners, who then gave away the store.

It wasn't just that most commissioners didn't read the contracts and voted, as they often do, to taxpayers' detriment. It's that they didn't really want to know. After all, if they didn't know they can't be blamed — unless you expect commissioners to open their eyes and ears.

As it was, nine of them — just the right number for baseball — played a game of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The only thing the Marlins' nine asked about the worst county contract in history was "What's in it for me?"

Lewis Concludes:

Commissioners, this disaster isn't the Marlins' fault. Divide the blame equally between the county manager you trusted and the Marlins' nine who didn't want to examine the giveaway they signed off on. The mayor and manager leave in two years. Voters get to decide how to deal with the nine of you. Don't blame the Marlins for your $3 billion gift. It's on your backs.
See the full Editorial.

Miami Today: Michael Lewis Editorial on Sport's Stadium Deals

As the Community knows, the UEL takes a dim view of public money and public land going to to private entities. We believe that tax dollars and public lands should be utilized to benefit the most people possible, and that public lands should not charge admission to the public for using their own land.

Publisher of "Miami Today" Michael Lewis complains about the bad deal the public got with handing over the naming rights to Marlin's Stadium to the Marlins. Here are some excerpts from his editorial, blasting the terms of the deal the County agreed to with the Marlins:

It took a great deal by the Miami Dolphins to spotlight a hidden side of a disastrous deal by Miami-Dade County.

While Dolphins owner Steve Ross was selling the name of the stadium he owns, the Florida Marlins stand to collect even more on naming rights for the stadium that Miami-Dade County will soon own.

It'll be big money, another taxpayer gift to the Marlins.

At $4 million to $7.5 million a year (the Dolphins won't specify) last week's title sale to Sun Life was the biggest sports naming deal since the recession petrified corporate activity.

It won't be the last.

The Marlins could collect an annual bonanza like the Carolina Panthers' $7 million at Bank of America Stadium, the Atlanta Hawks and Thrashers' $9.3 million at Phillips Arena, the Houston Texans' $10 million at Reliant Stadium and the Houston Astros' $6 million at Minute Maid Park.

All these windfalls far exceed the Marlins' sliver of spending on stadium construction.

And that cornucopia doesn't include the team's other goodies from a stadium that somebody else — the taxpayers — will own.

The team gets all ticket revenues, all advertising revenues, all media fees, all concession revenues, all luxury suite revenues.

The Marlins profit so much that when one commissioner on deal day focused on naming rights, others pooh-poohed the minor matter, though the team could reap $250 million or more on naming during its lease.

The team's total payout over 35 years for rent and construction combined totals far less, $154 million tops, depending on how cheaply the Marlins can build a county project. Finally Lewis says:

The Dolphins' good deal already highlights how badly the county got soaked in its Marlins stadium giveaway.

Super Bowl by the Numbers: Is the Economist right or Rodney Barreto?

The Miami Herald reported that economist, Victor Matheson, said that a Super Bowl brings in less than $100, million into the economy of the host city:

His research shows that the Super Bowl's economic punch likely tops out at around $90 million, though it can dip lower for large tourist destinations like Miami that already enjoy busy winters. His research found that in 1999, South Florida's economy gained $36 million from hosting the Super Bowl.

In today's Miami Herald Rodney Barreto's numbers are very different. He claims the economic impact to Miami Dade would be $219,622, 875. Mr. Barreto, as Chairman for the Super Bowl Host Committee, is advocating for public dollars to refurbish Dolphin Land Shark Stadium so Miami can attract future Super Bowls.

In a Miami Herald editorial Sunday, they balked at Barreto's appeal for money, they said the stadium is not a priority:

"Maybe if South Florida's economy weren't struggling there would be a way."

"Where would the money for stadium renovations come from? The public treasury is tapped out, and enhancing a privately-owned stadium would set a bad precedent."

The Miami Herald Asks: Will Super Bowl be economic windfall, or hot air?

In a story posted Sunday 1/17, The Miami Herald stated:

"...economists who study sports put the Super Bowl's net economic value at less than $100 million. And they accuse the NFL of dramatically inflating the Super Bowl's spending power for moments like this, when teams want governments to fund stadium expenses." The paper quotes Victor Matheson, a Holy Cross economics professor who co-authored a 2006 study titled Padding Required: Assessing the Economic Impact of the Super Bowl. The Herald said:

His research shows that the Super Bowl's economic punch likely tops out at around $90 million, though it can dip lower for large tourist destinations like Miami that already enjoy busy winters. His research found that in 1999, South Florida's economy gained $36 million from hosting the Super Bowl.

"Not that you'd turn down $30 or $40 or $50 million for one of these events,'' he added, "but don't tell me it's $400 million.''

Using a formula based on tax and income data, Craig Depken, an economist at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, estimated that the Super Bowl added about $58 million to Broward and Miami-Dade's economies in 2007.

"It's not nothing. It's not zero,'' he said. "But it's not nearly what the NFL says it is.''

Informal Herald Poll on Public Money to Renovate Dophin's Stadium.

94% said no to public dollars for renovation of the Marlin's stadium. This is why they won't let it go to a vote. The lobbyists and politicians know how the public feels about using their tax dollars for stadiums.

Mayor Carlos Alvarez talks to the Editorial Board about the Budget

Change of plans. We tried to post the video of the Editorial Board meeting but it crashed the blog. Now it is gone from the Herald site. Here is the Marlin's groundbreaking instead and much more embarrassing and should be seen by Miami Dade residents so they know who to thank when they go to vote:

What an interesting day in Miami for local news of Baseball, Budget and Parks . . . by Fran Bohnsack

Today's UEL blog features a Letter to the Editor (borrowed from the Miami Herald) that hails from a Chicago resident. Readers may recall that Chicago is often cited by the Mayor of Miami as the "world class city" that Miami wants to be. Yet somehow this writer's take on the Marlins' stadium calls Miami's "world class project" the "fleecing of taxpayers." Truer words were never spoken.

On the same day, Miami-Dade Commissioner Carlos Gimenez expresses outrage that the proposed Miami-Dade budget includes a millage increase "right off the bat." He objects. Wish we had a few more like him. And if any of you noticed, the budget also includes cutting the Parks department by 25%! Time to take some corrective action ... ideas anyone?

Posted on Thu, Jul. 16, 2009

Oversight warranted on stadium project Re the July 12 editorial Jaw-dropping Marlins stadium deal: Kudos to The Miami Herald for calling out the problems with the Marlins stadium deal -- even as the price tag climbs to $2.4 billion before ground has been struck. Such corporate welfare and outright fleecing of taxpayers for the sake of building an already-over-budget baseball stadium is especially dangerous during these foul economic times.

Increasing the tax burden on tourism, a key industry for the Miami area, absolutely will hurt the local economy. While local officials and taxpayers might believe that residents will not have to bear these tax burdens, they are sorely mistaken.

Increased hotel taxes result in reduced demand for hotel rooms, which means fewer jobs and a weakened overall business climate.

There is near-unanimous agreement among economists that subsidizing stadiums and convention centers is bad public policy. Yet governments continue to shovel tax dollars into these high-profile, low-return projects. As The Miami Herald suggests, proper oversight and transparency of the process is a must.

JOHN NOTHDURFT, legislative specialist, The Heartland Institute, Chicago

Marlins Stadium: Other Views in Miami Herald

Posted on Sunday, 07.12.09 - Stadium is a bad deal for taxpayers
BY NORMAN BRAMAN

I read with great disappointment, but not surprise, Wednesday's front-page article about the Florida Marlins' stadium's final costs being more than $2.4 billion.

This does not include the cost of the city-paid parking garage (about $100 million), the land, infrastructure costs, overruns or operating costs of about $1 million annually due from the public trough.

I engaged in expensive litigation with Miami-Dade County and the city of Miami not because I don't like baseball, but because I believe the people have a right to vote on this issue and because, especially in these difficult economic times, our governments must be fiscally responsible if they are going to meet fully the basic needs of our community.

Throughout the protracted litigation, I warned that stadium, parking and infrastructure costs would far exceed the flowery and unfounded ''projections'' bandied about by Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez and County Manager George Burgess, who seemed oblivious that he could be bamboozled in his secret negotiations with the Marlins.

If you don't believe this, check on the web the deal to be put to a public referendum (What a concept!) for the proposed San Francisco 49ers' stadium. (Remember, the Marlins also were given all stadium-generated revenue.) It is unbelievable how both local commissions abdicated their responsibilities by rushing to OK this mammoth giveaway of public funds to private millionaires before they truly understood the enormity of this folly.

What makes the stadium deal even more deplorable is that the sole rationale for approving this disaster in the making was the hope of ''making Miami a world-class city,'' as if Los Angeles is less of a world-class city because it doesn't sport a professional football team. Both commissions had no idea of the financial capability of its private-entity partner -- and still don't.

Neither commission performed or researched any studies, or had any facts, to support their blatant exaggerations that ''thousands'' of local jobs would be created. (See Ike Seamans' Feb. 26 Miami Herald article The myth of 'thousands of new jobs' and Burgess' testimony that the permanent jobs at the new stadium only will replace existing ones at Dolphins Stadium.)

Other exaggerations: that a stadium creates positive economic impact and increases tourism (independent studies clearly conclude to the contrary) and that Marlins' attendance will increase. Not even the Marlins did those studies.

Yes, locals may be given some temporary construction jobs, as they would have received had the commission voted to revitalize the Miami Beach Convention Center, a mecca for tourism, but unfortunately, most good stadium jobs will be awarded to skilled laborers brought in by the ''no-bid'' contractors.

Rather than a world-class city, Miami is now the laughingstock of the professional sports world for this piñata awarded to a private business.

It is important not to forget that Major League Baseball refused to be on the hook for anything, and the Marlins don't even have to put in one cent until the county has expended all of its construction funds. Can you imagine if the Marlins' limited-liability companies are unable to put in their $120 million -- the county loaned them $35 million more -- after partial completion of the stadium? Who do you think will be forced to pony up more funds to complete the stadium?

Both commissions have jeopardized our governments' financial foundation by approving this deal. Current and future generations will pay and suffer the consequences of reduced services because, in addition to much higher-than-projected interest rates on the bonds, our elected officials were forced to pledge non-advalorem general revenues in order to induce Wall Street to sell the bonds. (General revenue helps pay for necessary services like housing, healthcare, education, fire and police protection, etc.)

I suspect that when the day of financial reckoning arrives, Diaz, Alvarez and Burgess will be difficult to find -- and will be enjoying their pensions. (That's another ticking financial time bomb.)

We have appealed the trial court's ruling to, and hopefully will prevail at, the Third District Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Florida Supreme Court. But, regardless of the legal issues, this open-ended waste of public funds that can tap into the general revenues is irresponsible public policy in the extreme.

There has been a huge disconnect between what The Miami Herald's reporters have written about the stadium project and what the Editorial Board wrote, or, more inexcusably, failed to write. The board has abdicated its obligation as our community watchdog.

Marlin's Stadium: Miami Herald Poll on Community Pulse.

With 83% of those responding NO to the question: Will the new baseball stadium benefit Miami Dade County? -- you might think the elected officials would think twice about their decision or at least conduct their own scientific poll.

Can we get some good news?

News has been grim in the dog days of Summer: We have to fight with lawsuits to protect our quality of life in South Florida as our elected officials are not doing it for us. It was recently announced that Lowe's is going to appeal an Administrative Hearing decision, which would not allow them, through our County Commissioners, to move the Urban Development Boundary for a store. There is also the lawsuit that has been filed by Weston to challenge SB 360. 360 is now a law put in place by our State elected officials. We recently found out that County Manager George Burgess was not accurate in his assessment of the cost of the Marlin’s Stadium deal. Outside sources confirmed it would cost at least $2.4 Billion, at a time when our community is scrambling for funds. Governor Crist has given the power to control Florida’s greatest commodity “water” to 5 individuals, removing 5 water management District Boards and public comment from the process.

News for our pocketbook is also grim. The newly elected Miami Dade Property Appraiser has revealed that almost every city has seen more than a 5% property value decline which translates to less revenues. The County decline is at about -10%. The unemployment in Miami Dade is at about 9.6%. Citizen Insurance premiums are set to sky-rocket according to reports in today's Herald and FP&L is having hearings to increase rates. Mortgage's low introductory interest rates are resetting for thousands. The middle class is getting squeezed from every direction.

Citizens are feeling more and more powerless in South Florida. What are our next steps to turn things around? Any of you have any ideas?

Marlins Stadium: Price Tag for the County: $2.4 Billion. By Fran Bohnsack

As reported in the Miami Herald today:

As Miami-Dade County commissioners worked late into the night to finalize financing for the Florida Marlins stadium last week, Commissioner Katy Sorenson posed a simple question: What's the total cost of financing going to be?

Burgess fudged: "I don't know off the top of my head."

Commissioner Katy Sorenson asked the question because she wanted it on the record. The Commissioner had to wait until the following day to get the answer from Bond Counsel. Perhaps the vote would have been different if this was on the record earlier. As the Herald reported:

The total cost is finally in black and white: $2.4 billion, spread over 40 years, to repay $409 million in bonds that will primarily, though not exclusively, cover stadium construction.

Was George Burgess trying to hide this information or was it that he truly didn't know? Why would he promote this deal without all the information on the table, especially the bottom line!

Art Collector, Marty Margulies, on the Marlin's Ballpark

An Open Letter Sent June 11, 2009 to County Commissioners:

This is the ballpark deal that should have been. Finances for the San Francisco 49ers new stadium would go before the voters for final approval. The city will pay 8% of the $937 million development. The team owners pay 92% as well as any cost overruns. The city gets the revenue from naming rights and net revenue from concession sales and parking lots. The team pays roughly $1 million a year rent.

The Marlins situation is completely different. The owners of the Marlins and George Burgess are laughing at the stupidity of this huge giveaway to the detriment of the taxpayers. Forbes Magazine recently said Miami is in the top 10 of the country in corruption. You can also add stupidity to that. The commissioners that voted yes said they would not dip into the general fund. We now know that they will. We also know the county manager with his $180,000 a year lifetime pension plus hospitalization is the mastermind behind this, working in partnership with the Marlins attorneys.

We also know that the interest rate never mattered no matter how high it will be. They will get the bonds because of the general funds guarantee. The sad part is that the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce endorsed this taxpayer giveaway because they were not courageous enough to step forward and voice their objections to the one-sidedness of this deal. They sold out the community. The county would not even allow the residents they serve to vote and on top of it they voted for a no-bid contract which will approximate $500 million or better. No one even knows the financial status of the Marlins.

The public hearing was nothing but a charade with the two mayors, the Marlins owners and the county manager smirking because they knew the outcome “was in the bag” before the votes were cast. This is what happens when ignorant people get elected and have no concern for the residents. A community which ranks 49th in education despite a lottery, joblessness, homelessness, and huge healthcare deficits in favor of a privately owned baseball team shows where the priorities lie and the lack of leadership in this community.

(Hit above 49er document to enlarge it)

Marlins Stadium: Important Question

The Marlins estimate: $389.4 million for ballpark construction.

However it was reported yesterday, that Tampa is estimating the cost of building their new retractable stadium at $450 million.

How could there be such as gap?

Is this another case in the model of the Miami-Dade Performing Arts Center where they will plead poverty in the middle of the project? Will it be like the PAC, where their pleas down the road got them more tax money? No one will want to leave a half finished project with so much invested.

Something doesn’t smell right with the stark difference of these two estimates. Is the Marlin number just bait to reel us in?