In the Miami Herald Letters to the Editor on September 16, 2008, Mayor Alvarez wrote he is going to work hard to turn county government around. The letter, focusing on the stadium, states that “…History haunts us. As a 48-year county resident, a longtime county employee and police director who founded the public corruption unit, I have seen tax dollars squandered, good projects that have gone awry and people who put themselves before the public good…” Excuse me?
Mr. Mayor, building public confidence in government’s ability to manage the stadium, the port, the airport, the museums or whatever is on this month’s wish list starts with transparency. Transparency requires disclosure and an inclusive process. Nothing about the mega-project has been inclusive except for desultory staged public meetings where what people want goes in one ear and out the other of elected officials.
It is very clear: our economy is suffering. Help out taxpayers now, repair infrastructure deficits on all existing projects, not pie-in-the-sky investments to give the wealthy another chance to have their photos taken and put on the pages of the society section.
Everything we know about the stadium financials tells us that the ownership of the Marlins is the only party that wins from the application of public funding. We can't afford another disposable stadium whose benefits accrue to insiders, lobbyists, and contractors. Look at the Marlins attendance right now (as Miami Today has noted): it is truly pitiful. Look at the demographics of the communities around the stadium: who can afford the cost of taking a family to a ballgame? And I'm not just talking about Little Havana: all those people whose phantom net worth is disintegrating in the markets-- that is who you think will fill the seats in a new baseball stadium?
Why haven't detailed drawings, itemized estimates, and contracts with the Marlins' owner been available for public review: the money to be used comes from the public! Let us see!
The Mayor closes with, ”Our biggest challenge -- my biggest challenge -- is not building a ballpark, two museums and an underwater tunnel. It is winning back the public's trust and restoring county residents' confidence. That will take time. Change doesn't happen overnight. It is made one decision at a time." Well OK: but in this case, what have you done to earn our confidence?
Mr. Mayor, if you want change, if you want accountability, then let the citizens of Miami-Dade County vote on the stadium. If you are so sure that the stadium is for the public good, let the public tell you they agree after all the information is put on the table and we are given a fair choice. Does that sound reasonable? It should.
6 comments:
Voting. Nothing like offering your thoughts in a big way.
The judge's decision empowered the commissioners, mayor and the city, too, have their way with us, the voters. Don't expect a kiss.
Maybe the public should define what “public use” means. A mall has a public use, office buildings have a public use, libraries have a public use… Heck, I suppose the lawyers offices that determine the meaning of the phrase “public use” have a public use.
Give us a break here. The museums, arenas, and stadiums are not free venues. It would cost BIG dollars for a family to participate in events in any of the places. How many of us really get to enjoy the benefits of public use. (At least, MAM used to have a free family day, now and then; if that justifies their move and a zillion dollar bayside view.)
.
Enough of this garbage!!!
Read below.
BY MICHAEL VASQUEZ
mrvasquez@MiamiHerald.com
Although not used to directly fund the Marlins stadium, CRA money would flow to other pieces of the megaplan -- freeing up separate dollars to pay for the stadium.
Potential bumps lie ahead for Florida Marlins stadium deal
Judge: Florida Marlins stadium serves public good
In a ruling carrying implications for Miami's megaplan -- a public-works package that includes a new Florida Marlins stadium and other projects -- the Florida Supreme Court Thursday ruled that voter referendums are not required when spending large chunks of community-redevelopment money.
The ruling had been holding up the final court decision in auto dealer Norman Braman's lawsuit attempting to derail the stadium. But the Supreme Court's ruling could well pave the way for the end of Braman's case.
The development money, usually administered by community redevelopment agencies, or CRAs, is the glue that holds Miami's megaplan together. Although not used to directly fund the Marlins stadium, CRA money would flow to other pieces of the megaplan -- freeing up separate dollars to pay for the stadium.
The voter-referendum issue has been one of the biggest headaches for megaplan backers, though they have done their best to work around it.
The issue was raised by megaplan opponent Braman in court, and despite Braman's string of recent court defeats, it still had the potential to complicate the issue of stadium funding going foward.
No longer.
Thursday's ruling is a 180-degree about-face from a 2007 decision by the same court. Last year, Florida Supreme Court justices found that in order to bond out CRA money -- the typical method of funding big-ticket projects -- voter approval had to be obtained.
That decision sent shock waves to local governments throughout the state. With CRA coffers swelled by the recent real estate boom, local governments had been assembling a virtual laundry list of construction projects to use the money on.
For decades, taking that spending to voters was never a requirement. In its new ruling, the court acknowledged that its decision last year held the potential to upend the state's financial structure, which had come to depend on spending CRA money under a certain set of rules.
Adding the voter requirement, the court found, ``would cause serious disruption to the governmental authorities that have relied upon that precedent for planning public works that are in various stages of development and approval.''
Why is there no commentary on this site regarding the County's proposed budget, shifting Countywide costs on the municipalities? That is just as bad as the Marlin's Stadium issue. Remember, if you want to push for the death of the Stadium, you still can. The BCC has to approve several sub-agreements by super-majority (9 if 13 commissioners are present).
Actually I like the idea of shifting the countwide costs to municipalities...until everyone is mad as hell...it will be business as usual. We need cities to be as mad as we citizens because they can get the people within their borders mobilized. Something has got to give. Maybe this budget move will be the tipping point. You would think we would have reached the tipping point already but alas, it goes on and on and on.
It was warm and lovely tonight tonight. Kissy, Kissy
They spent more time discussing about Team Metros new name than they did about the millage rate. Sad, isn't it?
At least Gimenez did some numbers, not that it mattered. I guess the mayor could not coax him into line.
It's too bad.. Gimenez was 100% right... I feel like filing a law suit against the County, on behalf of every municipal resident. The county system of taxation is not fair. I live in a City with a great fire department, and better services, I rarely ever use the County services, and yet, I am paying more than a similar home in the UMSA!! Who is with me???
Post a Comment