Press release dated Feb. 22nd:Commissioner Carlos A. Gimenez stands by his “No” vote for the Baseball Stadium Agreement
Miami-Dade, FL - At the end of the Special Meeting of the Board of County Commissioners yesterday, February 21st, a motion to reconsider the Baseball Stadium Agreement (BSA) was passed as a prior vote to exempt the Stadium from the County’s Sustainable Building Program had failed. Amendments were debated, including an extension of time to discuss compromises regarding that exemption.
I want to make clear that my affirmative vote for the second vote was symbolic to express my strong support of Miami-Dade County’s Sustainable Building Program (SBP). (Hit read more...)
I believe that the stadium should be built to LEED standards for energy efficiency. As a County, we are incorporating the SBP to all new construction, and the Stadium should be no exception.
Regardless, I stand by my original “No” vote regarding the Baseball Stadium Agreement.
As I stated yesterday, I strongly disagree with the issue of equity and the amount of payment to the County in the event the team, or any share of the team, is sold. Additionally, I felt there were too many questions that could not be answered regarding the cost and funding source for the public infrastructure and the unknown effect of the current lawsuit regarding the Global Agreement.
19 comments:
Burgess was rude to Gimenez during questioning. It seemed disrespectful at the very least. If he can be polite to Natacha Seijas, he should make more of an effort to be forthcoming with Gimenez.
I didn't see the exchange, but if it was typical of Gimenez questioning, Gimenez was the one being rude. Gimenez and his cousin Natacha Seijas (yes) are the two rudest members of the commission. Natacha is actually better liked by fellow commissioners (although not by that much).
Sadly, even when Gimenez is correct on an issue, his attitude is such a turnoff that his peers don't want to support him.
I saw the Hearing. Carlos Gimenez was asking intelligent questions and George Burgess either had no answers or Burgess's answers proved he was very stupid. Recommending the Marlins deal? History will show it to be one of the worst deals in Miami-Dade County history. Ultimately Burgess realized Gimenez had done his homework and no amount of lies could make a four legged pig look like a Miss Universe winner.
The 9 commissioners who voted Yes were sheep being led to the slaughter.
Well, you have revealed your bias. Your opposition to the stadium has likely clouded any objective view you may have had on the exchange. As it has been documented on this blog on numerous occasions, Gimenez has a short temper and is frequently rude to colleagues and staff.
I agree with the previous comments it is well known the Gimenez has a short temper and is a rude individual.
As for his press release, if he voted yes he sold out..he should stop with the excuses.
I like Gimenez. I think he often has a beat on what is going on. I think some readers are off base on this one. He, Souto and Heyman voted no.
I think they wanted to have it both ways. They could say that they were against it or supported it in the future depending on the audience and outcome of the project. It was only when Alvarez reported that it was a unanimous vote did Gimenez speak out.
If there is a motion and you oppose it, you need to have the courage to stand up and be counted.
Kathy:
You obviously have an ax to grind versus Gimenez. For the record, I supported the Stadium, but, agreed with Gimenez that the County should have negotiated a much better deal, and he had every right to question the less than competent County Manager on it. In fact, if you watch the video, you will see that Gimenez was asking a critical question as to the current litigation concerning the Global CRA agreement. He asked if losing that case would effect the financing of the Marlins deal. Burgess couldn't answer that simple question directly. He said that it would "probably not affect the Marlins deal." That is not good enough when you are dealing with a 500 million dollar project.
Facts:
(1)Gimenez and Natasha are not cousins. Gimenez's wife is related to Natasha. They don't exactly get along either. Gimenez is well reasoned, and is no nonsense kind of guy.
(2) Burgess was extremely rude to Gimenez. If you didn't see the exchange, how can you sit there based on your perception on what Gimenez has or has not done in the past. Your bias against Gimenez is clear and obvious.
(3) I have found that those critical of Gimenez generally seem to be staff who don't like it when the Commission questions them. He is never rude. Does he expect a straight answer, yes, and we all should expect the same. My assumption is that you are probably one of those lazy inept County employees, who got called out by Gimenez's superior understanding on how to run a government.
(4) If you compare apples to apples, Burgess and Gimenez once occupied the similar positions. Gimenez, as City Manager, brought the City back from financial ruin. He did it without fanfare or scandal. He left the City in its best financial position ever. The same cannot be said for the scandal ridden tenure of the 500 thousand dollar man.
(5) The position of County Manager was elimiated with the vote for strong mayor. Why are we paying Burgess 500 K a year? I'll tell you why. That way Alvarez can continue doing nothing, and use Burgess as a buffer when things go wrong. It is sick to me.
(6) You mention that it has been documented on this blog, well, I have not seen one specific reference made. By the way, most reasoned individuals, familiar with the County and the going-ons at County Hall openly agree that Gimenez is the most knowledgeable and fair commissioner we have. I submit to you that those "documenting" issues with Gimenez are no more than the same inept people that Gimenez has to protect his constituents from.
Kathy, give me a specific situation, and give us the link to the video so we can make our own minds up. I doubt that you will, because you know you have no argument.
^Commissioner Gimenez is that you?
It definitely seems like it is either him or someone very close to him whose feathers got ruffled
If its not him or Carlton, its a big time Jimenez koolaid drinker. But it really sounds like Carlton cause he has an axe to grind against Burgess and Alvarez...
Gimenez has frequently been an advocate. He is a career public servant not a career politician. It is egregious to compare him to the Vile Seijas!
I think that Gimenez can be rude in his tone. He does make county employees look dumb sometimes. Maybe he does not realize it, but he does. Sometimes staff can't answer the question; generally I am referring to Directors or lower, but making them look stupid doesn't help the morale any more than the strong mayor's staff and their snotty treatment of other county staff.
GB has gotten a bit arrogant after Alvarez came into office. I don't know if it is because Alvarez really doesn't care what the commission or GB does as long as it doesn't interfere with his own agenda. Alvarez needs GB, more than GB needs Alvarez.
I think everyone of us deserves better answers without the BS and the right to vote on the deal.
Marc Sarnoff Lies About His Lineage
Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:32:16 PM
Miami New Times
— Francisco Alvarado
For quite some time, Miami city Commissioner Marc Sarnoff has represented himself as the grandson of the late commercial radio and television pioneer “General” David Sarnoff.
The Russian-American media executive rose through the ranks of the Radio Corporation of America, holding the title of chairman for more than two decades until his retirement in 1970. As RCA’s president in 1939, David Sarnoff launched NBC, the nation’s first TV network. That’s a grandpa any ambitious tyke would love to call his own, and Marc Sarnoff has.
The thing is, the Sarnoff clan has no idea who Marc Sarnoff is.
The commissioner’s online bio states, “the ‘General’ David Sarnoff is also the grandfather of Marc David Sarnoff.... As his grandfather, he believes in establishing solutions for information, networking, and multimedia communications....” (As of today, the bio has been removed.)
This past October 16, as the guest of honor at an Urban Environment League dinner forum, the commissioner discussed his grandfather, though he didn’t have much to share regarding his parents’ splitup when he was eight years old.
“You won’t hear me speak much about the Sarnoff side of the family,” Sarnoff explained. “My grandfather died right around the time my parents were getting divorced. I do remember he would love to watch me go to swim meets when I was a young boy.”
Could it be the commissioner doesn’t have many memories of David Sarnoff because they are not really blood relatives? That’s what the man charged with preserving the media tycoon’s legacy says. Alex Magoun, executive director of the David Sarnoff Library in Princeton, New Jersey, insists Marc Sarnoff, who was born on December 18, 1959, is not one of David Sarnoff’s nine grandchildren.
“It is quite a puzzle,” Magoun says. “David Sarnoff had three sons, each of whom had three children of their own. None of them were born in 1959 and none of them are named Marc.”
So Riptide checked New York newspapers, Internet resources, and author Eugene Lyons’s 1966 tome David Sarnoff: A Biography to trace the commissioner’s genealogy, all of which confirm Magoun’s assertion that the commish is not one of those Sarnoffs.
On Monday, Sarnoff attempted to correct the record. David is his great-uncle, not his granddaddy. “I know very little about my family,” he said. “My understanding is that he is my great-uncle or something like that.”
David’s connection with the Sarnoff clan ended in 1969, when his father Joel divorced his mother, the commissioner added. “I don’t know my grandfather’s name,” Sarnoff replied when asked the identity of his paternal granddad. “I just remember he had big hands.”
David had three brothers and one sister: Irving, Lou, Morris, and Edie. None them had a son named Joel or a grandson named Marc, according to Paula Sarnoff, Irving’s 81-year-old daughter.
“I haven’t a clue who this man is,” she says of the commissioner. “He is certainly not David’s grandson, nephew, or otherwise. He is not related to us.” — Francisco Alvarado
I am just a concerned observer.. By the way, I still haven't heard anything concrete... No specific instances of rudness... What gives... High on the hyperbolye, not on the facts... Typical.
There is rudeness. Watch the meeting next time. It is so obvious. The tone of the voice etc. If you want concrete examples...either order the tape or ask the Herald to report better.
I guess we need to determine if being rude, and being tough are the same thing, and whether there is a distinction. I guess it would also depend on one's frame of reference. Those that love the inept administration with rally to their cause, no matter what it is. Those that really dislike the administration love to see them squirm under the pressure of doing their job and telling the truth (problem is, they should be doing that already without tough questioning).
The tough questions do seem to rattle staff members. I think they have their pat answers, and they hope no one will probe further. When they start getting defensive and going in circles, you know they are out of their league.
Here is an article from the Sun Post which accurately describes the back and forth between Gimenez and Burgess:
Field of Denial
"There was plenty of opposition during public hearings on the Marlins stadium last Thursday, but the arguments against the half-billion-dollar-plus project fell on deaf ears as the Miami and Miami-Dade County Commissions approved the plan pitched by their mayors, Major League Baseball officials and Marlins team management.
Commissioners traded childhood recollections of attending their first professional baseball games, warm and fuzzy tales of family outings and male-bonding between fathers and sons, before approving the stadium deal in two special meetings Thursday.
Miami Mayor Manny Diaz said “this was probably the hardest deal I’ve ever worked on in my life,” then traveled down memory lane, describing the “joy” of taking his father and son to the 1997 World Series and watching the Marlins defeat the Cleveland Indians in Pro Player Stadium — the first of the Marlins’ two World Series triumphs.
“Miami is the Ellis Island of this [region]. Little Havana is the door that opens into America, into freedom,” the mayor said, pleading with commissioners to build both the stadium and the 6,000-car garage for a total $619 million, which doesn’t include millions of dollars in infrastructure costs at the Orange Bowl site in Little Havana.
Marlins CEO David Samson said approving the deal was urgent. “All we’re trying to do here is keep baseball in South Florida,” he said. “We are making memories. What we do is for the entire community.” The team’s contract with Pro Player Stadium ends in 2010, and the Marlins want to open the new stadium in time for the following season in April 2011.
Norman Braman’s lawyer Harley Tropin pleaded with commissioners to delay the vote until after a judge hears the auto dealer’s lawsuit against the stadium and the $3 billion mega-deal. “Why isn’t the public allowed to vote on this?” he asked.
“Before you put public money into a private enterprise, you should allow the people who put you in these chairs to vote on it,” Tropin said. He stated that Braman “would drop his lawsuit in a heartbeat” if the government would hold a referendum to allow voters to decide if they want to pay for a half-billion-dollar stadium.
“Defer your vote until after this lawsuit is resolved,” Tropin urged. “The case will be heard in the next 80 days,” he said, warning that the city could waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees for consultants, engineers and architects.
Neither the city nor the county gave appropriate notice for last week’s hearings, Tropin said, and both violated state Sunshine Laws when brokering the behind-the-scenes $3 billion global agreement in December to build the stadium, a Port of Miami tunnel and other downtown projects. Braman’s latest amended lawsuit, filed two weeks ago, says the complicated financing is an “illegal diversion” of tax funds, involving an “improper” swap between city and county tax money.
“The only way this money gets used [to finance the stadium] is from the back of the Omni district,” Tropin told commissioners, referring to the city’s community redevelopment funds, which, according to state law, are supposed to pay for affordable housing and small business incentives in poor neighborhoods.
Now, under the global agreement, which Tropin calls a “shell game,” the CRA funds would be used to pay off millions of dollars of the county’s construction debt for the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts. This city-county trade of tax dollars, with the city assuming the county’s debt for the Arsht Center, frees up the county’s tourism tax dollars — funds which can only be used for construction — to fund the stadium, port tunnel and other projects.
The Marlins promises of family baseball outings, jobs and neighborhood revitalization and threats of permanently ending professional baseball in South Florida prevailed as the Miami City Commission passed the stadium deal 4-1, with Tomas Regalado the lone dissenter.
An hour later, county commissioners heard the same nostalgic boyhood stories from Diaz, and from county Mayor Carlos Alvarez.
“We’re not building this stadium for the Marlins, but for the community of Miami,” Alvarez said, adding that the project would generate construction jobs.
But the deal is a financial boon for the Marlins. County and city taxpayers will pay for two-thirds of the stadium, while the Marlins pay only one-third.
Yet, the new contract allows the ball club to keep all the profits from games as well as a percentage of ticket fees and concessions.
County commissioners debated the deal for eight hours. District 7 Commissioner Carlos Gimenez repeatedly questioned County Manager George Burgess on the legality of the financing, and whether the stadium plan would fall apart if Braman wins his lawsuit.
“If the courts overturn the global agreement, does that affect our ability to finance the stadium?” the commissioner asked.
“I don’t believe so; no it doesn’t,” Burgess said.
“You don’t believe so or it doesn’t?” Gimenez asked. Then Burgess admitted, “We wouldn’t be recommending this to you if we didn’t have concessions from the city,” referring to the city’s Omni CRA funds.
Gimenez pursued it further. “If you didn’t have this global agreement would you be recommending this park?” Gimenez said.
Burgess paused, and then said hesitantly, “Yeeeessss. My recommendation would be …,” the county manager’s voice trailed off. “It’s a difficult question.”
“Let’s assume we lose,” Gimenez pushed. “Would you be recommending the deal at this time?” Burgess remained silent for several moments.
“I think your silence means a lot,” Gimenez said.
The commissioner also objected to the fact that the county and city would be paying most of the stadium costs and the Marlins would keep all the profits, even if the owners decide to sell the team down the road.
“I don’t think it’s appealing to pay $347 million for a baseball stadium and have the team walk away and make a couple of million dollars and the county not getting anything,” he said.
Before voting against the deal, Gimenez said, “I don’t know what the rush is. I can’t vote for it the way it is today.”
County Commissioner Javier Souto tore up his copy of the proposal in protest, then voted against it and the premise of “rich people coming to us for a business deal.”
“I was at the initial signing of the Marlins some 20 years ago in Tallahassee,” Souto said. “I support baseball and the construction of the stadium, but not in the form it is today — too much voodoo economics, fuzzy math; too many things stretched to the limit. This is déjà vu all over again; it’s the performing arts center all over again.”
Souto said the stadium should be up to voters. “There was an election Jan. 29. Why weren’t the people consulted? This is a disgrace to the democratic process.”
District 4 Commissioner Sally Heyman cast the third vote against it, saying there are too many unanswered questions, and she’s concerned about the financing and lack of a written statement “that you won’t touch general revenue funds,” to complete the stadium.
District 8 Commissioner Katy Sorenson also opposes the stadium, but she was absent from the hearing due to illness.
Finally, as day turned into night, Major League Baseball President Bob DuPuy said, “The failure to move forward is the death knell for baseball. It is already very, very late.”
The argument convinced commissioners, who voted 9-3 to approve the deal.
Yet, another dispute could derail the stadium pact: County and city police have 30 days to work out an agreement about which department’s officers get to work off-duty at the stadium. City officers patrol the American Airlines Arena and the Arsht Center for the Performing Arts. County police don’t want to be left out of the agreement.
Meanwhile, Judge Pedro Echarte is scheduled to hear Braman’s lawsuit May 28 and 29. “I am grateful to the public officials who voted against this massive giveaway of public tax dollars,” Braman said. “What occurred yesterday was not unexpected. I fully intend to continue my efforts to prevent this unprecedented breach of responsibility to the citizens of our community. Today will mark the beginning of our legal challenge, which I am convinced will be successful.”
Post a Comment