The Miami city and county commissions both had hearings scheduled today to vote on approving the Florida Marlins stadium deal, but that’s now in doubt after the city hearing erupted in chaos after two of its four members balked at approving the deal.
The resistance was led by commissioner Marc Sarnoff, who said he would only vote for the deal if the Marlins: 1) agreed to pay cost overruns on stadium parking garages, 2) gave the city a cut of naming-rights revenue, which is currently slated to go only to the Marlins, and 3) promised to use any proceeds from the sale of the team to pay back the public’s costs before pocketing any profits. After a nearly one-hour recess, Marlins president David Samson said he’d work on capping garage costs, but wouldn’t budge on naming rights or sale proceeds. Sarnoff and commissioner Tomas Regalado said they’d only approve the deal with Sarnoff’s amendments, at which point meeting chair Joe Sanchez - a backer of the Marlins proposal - declared, “This deal is dead.”
You can read the play-by-play of the mayhem here, or follow along yourself via webcast here. The city commission is currently in recess, in hopes that Samson and the two dissident commissioners can somehow work out a deal in the hallway, but it seems likely that the Marlins mess is going back to the drawing board, at least for the time being.
Good. I'd love to see this deal die. Publicly-financed stadia are giant monetary sinkholes for communities and windfalls for the owners.
If the Marlins want to build a stadium, invest in the team (for once), build a loyal fanbase through success and honesty, and pay for the stadium themselves.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
I'm a little confused here -- people are concerned about tens of millions of dollars going to the Marlins but aren't particularly concerned about the few trillions that the government is about to spend? Strange.
actually so are the Marlins. The stadium was privately financed by then owner Joe Robbie, thus it was initially named after him. Not sure if any government monies have been used on the stadium since.
Schlom, I think there is fed-up-ness factor at play here.
Maybe the stimulus and bailout are necessary to keep the economy from collapsing (or maybe not), but for crying out loud, rich idiots like Jeffrey Loria can take his stupid ball club that nobody ever bothers to leave South Beach to watch anyway and hold some other city hostage.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
My point was that why does it really matter? Is not spending $500m on a new stadium stimulus? It's going to create jobs and cause an increase in spending. Sure, maybe the taxpayers of the city of Miami don't want to pay for it but why can't they get the federal money to chip in for it? It's peanuts compared to the rest of the money they are spending.
The economic impact to a community is drastically overstated by teams looking to make a deal with a municipality.
Consumers' budget for entertainment tends to be fairly static and all a ballclub does is pull a large percentage of monies that will be spent to the team and its neighbors (And away from other restaurants, music venues, movie theatres, etc).
It's probably about important to the infrastructure of Miami as the high speed rail line between Vegas and Disneyland will be.
The best bet for Loria and company to do now would be to find some Florida legislator without a hint of scruples and lobby him about how many jobs building a new stadium and parking garages will create. Plus there are all of those concession workers and garage attendants who will be hired. This stadium will be short term stimulus as well as long term employment.
Heck, they could probably argue that it is a "shovel ready" project and get it started quickly.
Or Jersey City, for that matter. That has the added twin benefits of: (a) giving the Mets what would essentially be an intra-city rival, just as the Dodgers had the Giants as rivals within NYC and (b) diminishing the ridiculously unfair advantage that the Yankees enjoy with respect to local media revenue.
Yes, you get it. The stadium doesnt just help the owners, it helps the city too. Like you said much better than I, tourists, jobs, and growth are good for tax payers.
Because this is a socialization of risk and a privatization of reward. That is, it takes valuable capital out of the hands of an economically struggling state and community for comparatively very little public return (tourism will only pick up well after the national economy picks up, plus don't think too many folks are going to South Florida to see the new Marlins stadium; most of the jobs it would create, besides construction jobs, would be low or no skill jobs).
Its not just about tourism, its also about the locals putting money back into the economy. No one is going to the games, local or tourists. How does Miami plan on getting people to put money back into the economy? Just wait for the rest of the world to rebound? They havent been going to games for years, even when the economy was good. Ball parks also lead to resteraunts, hotels, shopping centers, etc. In can invigorate a city.
Not saying you're wrong, but if the public doenst want to fund part of the stadium, then they need to move to an area that will.
I can appreciate your frustration with the particulars of the Florida situation (politicians grandstanding instead of debating the merits of policy in good faith? inconceivable?!)
However, your arguments for revitalization of the area are misguided. Nearly every economist not retained by MLB has repeated ad nauseam for 15 years that building a new stadium does not result in significant economic growth or job creation around the stadium. I can't recall the name of the economist, but one said if your goal was to increase growth in an area, you'd be better off tossing $400 million out of a helicopter than building a stadium there.
Loria can't build a new stadium purely from his own money. I get that; I'll ignore for the moment that he wouldn't build the stadium himself even if he could afford it. But, MLB generates nearly $1B per year out of their national television contracts. If they set aside only 10 PERCENT of this money, MLB could build a new stadium every 5 years without any public funding. Loria should be leaning on Bud Selig for funding, not the taxpayers of the state of Florida.
I spent a lot of my childhood in Little Havana, and I don't see how a stadium wouldn't help the area. At this point, any jobs will do for many people. Heck, UM games (mostly the vs. FSU ones Go Noles!) were the only reason I had gone into that area. So that is why I feel a new stadium would help. I don't disagree, however, that there are better sources to get the money from.
And as much as I think the orgianization is well run with the likes of David Sampson, Michael Hill, and Larry Beinfest, Jeffrey Loria has got to be the poorest owner ever. The guy needs to let go of some pride and either spend more of his own money or sell the team to someone richer.
Going to Selig for money is the right answer, but Selig is the worst commissioner EVER!!!
Allen Sanderson of the University of Chicago gets credit for the helicopter line. Though he first said it way back in '90s, so was probably only $200 million he suggested tossing out the window.
None of the demands of the city were contrary to building the stadium, and all the alleged benefits (which some have corrected pointed out are often merely alleged) will accrue if the owners concede the profits from naming rights and agree to return profits form the sale of the team to pay stadium costs.
No one is opposing a stadium for the Marlins. But the fact is that tax payers are getting ripped off. And the situation is getting worse. The Seattle Super Sonics were taken from Seattle at least in part because the city refused to build a new stadium--the city hadn't even finished paying for the 10 year old stadium that the Sonics were in. Making demands of owners that protect the city's investment is fine. What people oppose is ripping off the tax payers (especially to line the pockets of already wealthy men).
Evan, you can keep dogmatically telling yourself that if you want (and you're probably convinced) but there's two pretty strong (and pretty opposed) schools of thought on that; not surprising, since they just happen to represent the economic positions of the two major political parties.
Just like to give props to a team owner that built his venue entirely with private funds. Larry Miller, Utah Jazz, built the Energy Solutions Arena(formerly the Delta Center)without a penny of public money. He's wealthy but not filthy rich; however, he's a great guy and a really astute businessman. In addition, Salt Lake City is obviously not a major market. If it can be done there-it can be done anywhere.
Actually, according to Harvard researcher Judith Grant Long's data, the Jazz got $24.6 million in free city land, plus an exemption from property taxes worth more than $20 million. Plus the city built them a $20 million parking garage, while getting none of the $25 million in naming-rights money from Delta.
Since the arena only cost $94 million, you could make a strong case that Salt Lake put up more to build the place than Miller did.
These are good points. However, I would be perfectly happy to see cities turning over $100 million to have their sports arenas. That's really not much money for a stadium. The typical bill is more usually a few times that much. Plus, parking garages are city infrastructure, so measuring their bottom line cost is hard to do. And it's a little weird to claim that $25 million rights cost the city something; it's not like that' $25M the city would have had if the stadium hadn't been built. So really, the city's investment is at most $50M.
I may be one of the only really big Marlin's fans here (since the beginning.) and I am pleased to see this. Losing the franchise isn't worth the taxpayer's money if it comes to that.
Maybe it's just me, but when I first saw the post on the side of the main page I only saw the first line as it was out of the corner of my eye. "Marlins Stadium Deal Blows". I suppose that works too.
About time a city stands up to one of the owners, especially when said owner runs a team that can't even seem to find enough interest to draw in the 5 digits every game. But I'm sure all the fans will come back every year with a new stadium, and Loria would NEVER just pocket all the extra money and continue to put a bargain-basement product on the field, right?
The deal/contract in place, as far as I know, contains a clause whereby a good portion of profits will go back to the city and county.
They have also repeatedly stated that with a new stadium that payroll would go to about mid-size level, closer to the Braves or Giants payroll rather than say, the Rays.
As a Marlins fan, I was kind of mad when I saw this. But now, after reading the comments, I am outright enraged.
For one, why does everyone here feel the need to relish in other team's fan's suffering? If you think the Marlins are so badly run, buy them. Can't cost too much.
Also, and I'm not going to go into this, whoever made the point that a stadium IS stimulus is absolutely right. People speak of infrastructure spending as if it simply disappears. That's nonsense. That's how people get jobs!!
So now, those Miami blocks must probably wait another few years until they see redevelopment. Sweet. How cool. Way to go guys.
One thing you need to keep in mind is the opportunity cost: If the city and county spend $400 million on a Marlins stadium, that's $400 million they don't have to spend on other projects. It actually looks like if the Marlins didn't get their stadium, a good chunk of the cash would instead go to expanding Miami's convention center - also not a great use of public dollars according to most economists, but it would still create construction jobs.
Also, philosofool is absolutely correct that any benefits to Miami would still accrue if the Marlins agreed to cut in the city on a larger share of the proceeds. As Commissioner Regalado said in offering to go back and renegotiate everything: "This deal is not dead. The Marlins need the stadium."
do you really think that a new stadium will revitalize or regentrify Little Havana? The Canes and Dolphins played in the Orange Bowl for years and the area never improved.
I'm not picking on Little Havana, I like the area and I don't want anyone to get the impression that it's a ghetto, because it's not. but it'll never be the business and retail hub that some are "wishcasting" when this deal gets done.
No jobs are being created in the long term, they're just moving from Miami Gardens to Little Havana. And if the new stadium can't sustain the marlins it's an historic waste of money
Actually I just skimmed some more of the comments and I will never, ever read another Marlins-related article on here again. Total bullshit, like this:
"About time a city stands up to one of the owners, especially when said owner runs a team that can't even seem to find enough interest to draw in the 5 digits every game."
I'm pretty sure that's EXACTLY Miami's number one concern.
gaborde, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The Marlins need a new stadium to get to be a sustainable franchise. Something I would love to see. I have been there since the beginning. I love the Marlins, I watch (almost) every game they play. However the city doesn't need to fund this.
Entertainment budgets are static for the most part, and any jobs and revenue that the stadium made would most likely pull economy from another nearby area. The city needs to get more than this back if the local taxpayers ware going to front the bill.
The thing is, the Marlins have been one of the worst run franchises in baseball for quite some time now. Their unwillingness to spend money while receiving money from revenue-sharing rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Furthermore, it suggests that they either
a) ran in such a way as to make them unable to generate any revenue, or
b) ran by people unwilling to invest any of their own money in the continued health of the company.
Either way, if I'm a city with 400 million dollars to spare, I'm trying to find somewhere else to spend it where the money would go more directly to job creation, because I don't have any reason to believe the Marlins' ownership has anything other than their own profits in mind. I'm certainly not going to make any moves without making sure I've got some contingency plans in place.
Marlins... worst run franchises?
I agree Loria is a terrible owner (he really needs to see reality and realize he can't afford a major-league baseball team and sell the Marlins), but the guys running the show have been great. To be consistently competitive with baseball's lowest payroll is pretty darn good.
The only thing worse than government financed stadiums (stadia?... probably but sounds effete) is local politicians who can't stay bought.
What is the country coming to when whatever payoffs the Marlins had in place suddenly don't count for anything with the board? Same thing happened in DC. The council met several times with a deal done only to unravel it. Instead of a free agent Loria should buy another moving van. Miami would be a great place for a AA team.
54 comments have been left for this post.
The only way I want taxpayer money used to buy concrete for the Marlins involves a bucket, Jeffrey Loria's feet and the Gulf of Mexico
Excellent idea...that piece of crap needs to get out of baseball.
Pretty much. Art dealers and baseball owners are some of the biggest scum on the planet, and this guy just so happens to be both.