Photos From MegaPlan/Global Agreement Protest & Press Conference held at Watson Island today. Read the Miami Herald article which said:"Braman sued to stop the progress of a $3 billion so-called ''megaplan,'' which city and county commissioners approved last year to build a new Marlins stadium in Little Havana, a port tunnel, and a slew of other projects. The case is scheduled to go to trial Monday, after a Miami-Dade circuit court judge last week ordered attorneys to mediate the case outside court."
Hit read more for additional photos by Harry Emilio Gottlieb.
9 comments:
I'm sorry but I just don't see this Braman lawsuit as serving any public good. A Marlin's stadium in residential Little Havana (thereby offering huge redevelopment opportunities) paid for by tourist tax dollars, and owned by the public seems like quite a good deal to me. Go away Braman
I'm sorry but I just don't see this Braman lawsuit as serving any public good. A Marlin's stadium in residential Little Havana (thereby offering huge redevelopment opportunities) paid for by tourist tax dollars, and owned by the public seems like quite a good deal to me. Go away Braman
Its called "self interest". This plan comes along with a transit system. This plan promotes people moving to the city core and relying more on mass transit. This guy coincidentally is in the auto industry. I think any intelligent person can successfully connect the dots to why he is doing this.
disagree...Braman is not that shallow. He has given to the community, MOCA Art Museum, Jewish charities...he is a caring individual.
We are entitled to a vote, this will just be another county led economic catastrophe. Let us vote, let us vote, let us vote. Denying a vote guarantees public apathy or haven't you seen the Charter Review hearings?
Interesting view point from Commissioner Martinez the other night.
By expanding the CRA to take in the projects, it also provides the money to reduce the debt for Gimmeys favorite (or Genius'?) favorite music center. And it also takes away money from the county general fund, since property taxes would stay in the CRA boundaries and improve ...errrrrr....I can't remember... but I am sure it doesn't help east kendall.
A little birdie told me that during last week's mediation, Norman Braman asked the County if they would pick up his legal bills if he dropped the suit.
He knows he's got nothing and whatever he's spent on legal bills so far is worth it for all the free advertising and name recognition he has garnered for his business.
400K
It was Gimleteye...when there is blame to post remember that.
You may find the columns below from AP and NY Times regarding stadiums to be most enlightening and will hopefully share them.
Harry Emilio Gottlieb
The Associated Press
Should taxpayers subsidize ballparks, arenas and stadiums?
John Cunniff
NEW YORK -- Since 1989, taxpayers have poured $5.2 billion into subsidies for major league ballparks, stadiums and arenas, and if planned projects pan out they'll add $9 billion to the total.
It is among the more amazing, contrary and even contradictory traits of the times, when taxpayers otherwise are dutifully paring the welfare rolls and rebelling against new taxes of any sort.
For some reason, they make an exception to corporate welfare, as in building stadiums for well-to-do team owners who provide huge incomes to employees and regularly raise ticket prices. That's a way of looking at the situation, which is what Raymond Keating does in his just published report, Sports Pork: The Costly Relationship between Major League Sports and Government. While taxpayers are paying two-thirds of the expenses, says Keating, "the lone beneficiaries of sports subsidies are team owners and players." Community benefits, he says, are nil. Keating, a fan, is also a professional economist -- he is chief economist of the Small Business Survival Committee, a small-business advocacy group -- and a fellow disconcerted by team subsidies. He observes that while owners and players benefit, the latter often by eight-digit annual incomes, taxpayers often receive little but increases in the price of tickets, food and drink. "Nothing is actually added to the area's economy," he says in his report, published by the free-market Cato Institute. Instead, he says, "leisure spending is merely shifted around." This view, as you might understand, is vigorously countered by stadium advocates, who present analyses showing significant gains for the local economy. Experience, he says, shows differently. Instead, he says, what quite likely can occur is higher taxes and government making decisions without marketplace restraints. And, perhaps, even higher ticket prices to pay higher salaries. Elected officials and taxpayers contend that a major league team in any sport shines up the image of a city. Only big-time cities have big league teams. Big things happen in big league cities. A big league team, it is argued, brings attention and publicity to a municipality that no amount of paid advertising could buy. And in various other ways it pays off in a stronger economy. Keating not only disagrees but suggests it's the other way round. The municipality, he argues, provides the high-paying TV infrastructure and audience, among other things. Why then are subsidized stadiums regularly provided? Rabid fans and politicians fascinated by the glitz, he says. Neither, he says, wants to look at the economic facts. He maintains that when the public is allowed full voice on subsidies the feedback is mixed. He says that while proponents are often better organized than opponents, votes are generally close. His conclusion: "A step in the right direction would be a measure requiring voters to approve any government subsidy for professional sports."
John Cunniff comments on economic trends for The Associated Press.
NY TIMES
April 15, 1998
The House That Taxpayers Built
By RAYMOND J. KEATING
On Monday, less than a week before the 75th anniversary celebration for Yankee Stadium, a 500-pound support beam fell from the ball park's upper deck, crashing onto seats below.
Luckily, no game was being played, so no one was hurt.
But the damage could prove lasting. This crack in the House That Ruth Built might well spur the Yankees' owner, George Steinbrenner, to conclude his long-running portrayal of Hamlet on the Harlem River as he wrestles with the question that preoccupies so many owners of professional sports teams: to get what I want, which taxpayers shall I put the squeeze on, and for how much?
Mr. Steinbrenner can point to this latest incident as one more sign that the Yankees need a new ball park. After all, he has been complaining for years about Yankee Stadium's shortcomings: traffic tangles, inadequate parking, the less-than-ideal location and the shortage of luxury suites for high-spending corporate fans.
With the team's lease on the stadium expiring in 2002, Mr. Steinbrenner will be calling the shots. Will he demand more than half a billion dollars from the taxpayers for a full renovation of the existing stadium in the Bronx? More than $1 billion for a new ball park on the West Side of Manhattan? Or just a few hundred million dollars for a new site in New Jersey?
He is not alone in expecting a handout. Stadium socialism has been running amok in professional sports. In a 20-year period dating back to the late 1980's and continuing through the early 2000's, as much as $15 billion could be spent on new stadiums and arenas, with taxpayers picking up almost two-thirds of the tab.
This season the Arizona Diamondbacks' Bank One Ballpark, with its retractable roof, was completed at a cost of $354 million, $253 million of which was paid for by an increase in sales taxes. A stranger case by far was the domed stadium completed in St. Petersburg, Fla., in 1990. It cost more than $100 million, and the city didn't even have a team. The hope was that the stadium might attract one. Eventually it did: the Tampa Bay Devil Rays moved into Tropicana Field this year, after the stadium received an additional face lift, for $70 million, paid for by taxpayers.
Mr. Steinbrenner thinks it is well past his turn to cash in. He has long expressed his envy of the lavish new stadiums springing up around the country. New York City's response to his demands, whatever they happen to be, not only will play a part in determining the future of New York baseball, but also will tell us a good deal about where the city and the Yankees are headed.
In the 1920's, the Yankees' owners paid for the stadium themselves, reportedly spending $600,000 for the land and $2.5 million for the ball park they built on it. When it opened, on April 18, 1923, Babe Ruth hit a home run. At that moment, New York City was a beacon of great baseball and of entrepreneurial capitalism.
Later, things changed as free markets gave way to the welfare state. Even the venerable Yankees went on the dole in 1971 when the city took ownership of Yankee Stadium and began a huge renovation. The initial estimate was $24 million, but in the end costs reached almost $150 million -- an overrun of about 500 percent, paid for by the taxpayers.
It would be a mistake if New York let this happen again. Yankee Stadium should be privately owned, and Mr. Steinbrenner should be told to pay for his own ball park.
Raymond J. Keating is the author of ''New York by the Numbers: State and City in Perpetual Crisis.''
Post a Comment