fanfish

That Pedro rumor didn't last long.

When we are talking about the Marlins we need to remember that the issue is not if we need Pedro, the issue should be: With the limited resources, do we need Pedro more than a free agent catcher, left fielder or bullpen help?

Good news that we will finally get this resolved. Does anyone know how we look with the commissioner votes? Do we have enough votes to pass this? From what I've heard, yes. We will have the exact amount of votes needed. where did you hear this? I have been following this topic very closely for many years. We need 9 of the 13 commissioners ( a super majority) to vote for the stadium for it to pass. Five agreements need to be approved. As it stands now: 8 commissioners are definitely for the stadium: Barbara Jordan (District 1), Dorrin Rolle (District 2), Audrey Edmonson (District 3), Bruno Bareiro (District 5), Rebeca Sosa (District 6), Dennis Moss (District 9), Jose "Pepe" Diaz (District 12), Natacha Seijas (District 13) 1 is probably for the stadium : Joe Martinez (District 11) 1 is probably against the stadium: Sally Heyman (District 4) 3 commissioners are definitely against the stadium:Carlos Gimenez (District 7), Katy Sorenson (District 8), Javier Souto (District 10) So if Joe Martinez votes in favor we will have a stadium. Residents of District 11 should call his office and express how you think he should vote. Downtown Office Phone 305-375-5511 District Office Phone 305-552-1155 The commissioners have expressed their views about the stadium deal in the past. However, now that the tunnel deal has collapsed and the stadium deal is more or less standing on its own, it all may change. The good news is that we have heard no bad news. Everything I have read is positive and everyone believes that we will finally get this done on Jan 22. I work for Joe and he will vote for the stadium The fact that Joe Martinez is voting in favor of the stadium is the best news I've heard in months!

January 7, 2009 Marlins Stadium Update No. 100,709 > Posted by Sarah Talalay at 10:17 PM Near the end of a road in far western Hialeah with a lake as a backdrop, politicians, Major League Baseball and Marlins officials, and youth baseball players gathered Wednesday to celebrate the announcement of a new MLB-backed youth baseball academy. Proclaiming it to be a ?great day? for his city and Miami-Dade County, Hialeah Mayor Julio Robaina and others gushed about the importance of the baseball academy that will be open to young men and women throughout South Florida to play baseball and softball. Construction of the academy, which is being modeled after MLB?s first academy in the country in Compton, Calif., is expected to begin in 2010 and take about two years to complete. Hialeah is providing the land and MLB is contributing about $3.2 million to the project. The fact that the group, which included five county commissioners and a representative of Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Alvarez, gathered at all is supposed to show how close officials believe they are to finalizing the long-awaited $515 million Marlins ballpark. The academy won?t happen, officials say, unless the ballpark is built on the site of the former Orange Bowl. The Hialeah academy was the result of the city's offer to provide the land for a ballpark during negotiations in 2006. ?Major League Baseball is committed to South Florida. This is an affirmation of our commitment to South Florida,? MLB President Bob DuPuy said. But amid the glowing talk of giving youths an opportunity to play baseball and boost their self-esteem, there was clearly some concern that getting the final ballpark documents approved might not be as simple and rosy as Wednesday?s gathering. ?Commissioner Seijas, very good to see you,? Marlins President David Samson said addressing County Commissioner Natacha Seijas before the rest of the crowd. Seijas, after all, was the only one of the five commissioners present who, despite her profound love of baseball, hasn?t always supported the Marlins ballpark project. Samson, however, remains as optimistic ? publicly ? as ever. The five ballpark agreements are nearing completion and although it hasn?t been officially scheduled, officials are hoping for a vote of the Miami city and county commissions on Jan. 22. ?We all came together now, because we feel as though we?re in a position very, very shortly, to deliver to 13 county commissioners and five city of Miami commissioners completed documents for their approval. There is no deal without their approval,? Samson said. ?They?re the only votes that matter. This is the vote to end all votes, this is it.? Commission Chairman Dennis Moss said Jan. 22 is the target date, but he?s not sure that?s possible. He, Commissioners Pepe Diaz, Rebeca Sosa, and Bruno Barreiro, who were also in attendance, have routinely supported the project. ?I?m personally supportive of the stadium. Again, the devil is in the details,? Moss said. ?I?m supportive of it, I?m hoping we can work through with whatever issues we have, and get an agreement signed off on and move forward on keeping the Miami Marlins in South Florida.? The stadium project will need approval of nine of the county?s 13 commissioners. And some members of the public have grown increasingly concerned about the large public investment in a stadium when the economy is struggling. Commissioners reminded that the public investment comes from tourist tax dollars that can only be used for projects such as sports venues and convention centers, rather than roads or schools or public safety. They also said the stadium will create jobs. Seijas said she would reserve comment until she?s seen the final stadium documents. Samson thanked everyone for the hard work on the Hialeah academy, but reminded the crowd where things stand. ?There?s a little work left to be done, but I?ve never felt more confident than I do today, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to seeing everyone soon," Samson said. As always, stay tuned?

Good news that we will finally get this resolved. Does anyone know how we look with the commissioner votes? Do we have enough votes to pass this? From what I've heard, yes. We will have the exact amount of votes needed. where did you hear this? I have been following this topic very closely for many years. We need 9 of the 13 commissioners ( a super majority) to vote for the stadium for it to pass. Five agreements need to be approved. As it stands now: 8 commissioners are definitely for the stadium: Barbara Jordan (District 1), Dorrin Rolle (District 2), Audrey Edmonson (District 3), Bruno Bareiro (District 5), Rebeca Sosa (District 6), Dennis Moss (District 9), Jose "Pepe" Diaz (District 12), Natacha Seijas (District 13) 1 is probably for the stadium : Joe Martinez (District 11) 1 is probably against the stadium: Sally Heyman (District 4) 3 commissioners are definitely against the stadium:Carlos Gimenez (District 7), Katy Sorenson (District 8), Javier Souto (District 10) So if Joe Martinez votes in favor we will have a stadium. Residents of District 11 should call his office and express how you think he should vote. Downtown Office Phone 305-375-5511 District Office Phone 305-552-1155 The commissioners have expressed their views about the stadium deal in the past. However, now that the tunnel deal has collapsed and the stadium deal is more or less standing on its own, it all may change. The good news is that we have heard no bad news. Everything I have read is positive and everyone believes that we will finally get this done on Jan 22.

Any talk of the new stadium at the party?

Playing the entire 2011 season in PR would be the end of the world!

She should rule on that issue soon. That will make Braman go 0-7. But hold on.... remember they are now bitching about the increased estimated cost of the parking garages. There is no telling how long Cohen will take in deciding about this latest issue.

From Miamitodaynews.com Miami argues Braman's motion essentially requests a new trial, that estimates on parking facility costs would not change ruling By Risa Polansky Civic leader Norman Braman's motion to seek new evidence from the City of Miami in his fight against a publicly funded Marlins ballpark essentially requests a new trial and should be denied, says a response city attorneys sent to the Braman team Tuesday. Mr. Braman's court motion this month asked permission to question the city for financial details on garage parking proposed for the stadium site. The city had estimates that a garage could cost tens of millions more than officials said in court but never made it known, the Braman motion says. The city in response acknowledges Mr. Braman has not asked for a new trial but says "the only relief the discovery would be relevant to is to try and obtain a new trial." It argues that Mr. Braman's motion does not meet state requirements to re-open the case. Examining parking cost estimates would not change the original ruling against Mr. Braman, the response says. In deciding that the stadium serves a paramount public purpose, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen acknowledged that the stadium agreement between the city, team and Miami-Dade County says Marlins parking payments are to generate $200 million for the city over the life of the lease. The city's response says the judge's order "is clear that the general benefits apart from the cost of the parking garage were substantial. The only reference by the court to this issue correctly states the fact that the revenues generated by this parking facility would be massive over the course of the [stadium] agreement." In October 2007 the Miami Parking Authority projected a garage could cost $150 million ? the city continues to use $94 million ? and lose $8 million a year on operations for the agreement's 35 years. The Braman motion said that was not made known in trial. But those numbers were projected before the governments and team made an official agreement, which contains different figures than the parking authority used, the city's response says. "If these numbers were included, the projections would be dramatically altered." A report by consultant Jones Lang LaSalle that estimated 6,000 garage spots could cost $135 million was submitted to the city after discovery was completed and four days before the trial was to begin. It was never referenced during trial, but Florida law doesn't require a party to "supplement" information provided prior, the city says. The response adds that while Mr. Braman's attorneys "challenged every aspect of the costs of the stadium itself for the purpose of establishing that the stadium did not qualify as a paramount public purpose to Miami-Dade County, when they deposed the city representative (CFO Admin Spring) with the most knowledge of the parking costs and revenues they asked essentially no questions of the witness regarding the parking garage revenues or cost estimates." Also, an exhibit the city provided shows a garage could cost up to $104 million, but the Braman team never took issue with that higher estimate during the trial, the city says. The response asserts that the Braman team is trying "to elevate parking garage estimates to a level of importance that they never did up through trial." PARKING PRICE PROGRESS: Jones Lang LaSalle, consultant to the City of Miami in developing the former Orange Bowl site for a Marlins stadium, is making progress in designing parking structures in line with city cost projections, says John Paccione, managing director. City officials have said providing 6,000 garage spots should cost about $94 million. But consultants — including Jones Lang LaSalle — have projected costs upward of $135 million as recently as June. Now, "we're starting to see the numbers get very close to the city's budget," Mr. Paccione said. He declined to share specifics but attributed projected cost drops to design efforts and the construction market. "We've been very efficient with the design, layout and plans for the parking structures. We've simplified the facades of the parking structures… and the market is getting very competitive." Specifics should appear in a filing for a major use special permit expected next month. BONDS ROADBLOCK?: The higher garage cost estimates revealed by Miami Today prompted stadium opponent Norman Braman to file a new motion in his legal battle against the ballpark. He's lost thus far in court but vows to appeal. Ongoing litigation could affect a bond sale, says South Carolina lawyer Margaret Pope, president of the American College of Bond Counsel. Miami-Dade does not plan to seek financing until spring, but if the suit is ongoing, the county's bond counsel would have to disclose it. "They would talk about whether it was material in their opinion or not, in their opinion what their chances of success are, and it would be up to the purchasers to weigh that as a factor in buying the bond," she said. If the legal issue could affect whether the project rises and the bonds get paid, it could deter buyers, she said. But "I have certainly closed bond issues when there has been outstanding litigation on it because the purchasers deemed it to have little probability of success, or it had little to do with the project itself."

Pinch me, I'm dreaming! I've read some articles in the Herald that are so anti-stadium it frustrates me. They've made Braman into a hero so to see articles like this...it's uplifting! By the way, tell me where to send them, and I'll start writing the letters now. I want this stadium!!!! :thumbup How to send letters, columns to the Herald LETTERS TO THE EDITOR The Herald values its readers' letters. We receive far more than we can print, so we try to publish the most representative, interesting, and provocative. To give more readers a say, we condense letters. And we do not publish letter writers more often than once per 60 days. Letters must bear the writer's name, full address, and daytime phone number. Fax: (305) 376-8950 Mail: The Readers' Forum The Miami Herald One Herald Plaza Miami, Florida 33132-1693 E-mail: HeraldEd@MiamiHerald.com

This was in the editorial page of the Herald on 11/15/2008 Benefits of a new ballpark Re Fred Grimm's Nov. 13 column, Stadium plan won't rev up economy: I have been involved with numerous ballpark projects across the country as a consultant to Major League Baseball and several of its clubs. Repeatedly I have heard these arguments that claim no economic benefits can result from sports teams and their new facilities. I can agree with one statement, however, that Grimm includes from an economist: ``Our argument just doesn't win.'' Many public-sector supporters of new facilities are thoughtful and deliberative in evaluating the tangible and intangible benefits. They perform due diligence, compare projects with their peers and negotiate hard. They visit other major-league cities to understand firsthand what impacts the facilities have had on other communities, states and regions. They base decisions on facts as opposed to relying on economic theories. The new ballpark in Miami will be a first-class facility that is fully climatized with a retractable roof, air conditioning, grass playing field, 37,000 seats and amenities similar to the MLB ballparks in San Diego, St. Louis, Houston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee. The new ballpark will improve attendance by providing certainty that games will start on time, without rain-outs or rain delays. The other four clubs with retractable roofs (Phoenix, Houston, Seattle and Milwaukee) have clearly enjoyed the benefits of providing weather protection for their fans. The new ballpark offers ample opportunities for other developments on the site. It will use about 17 acres of the 42-acre site. The balance will be used by local government for a multi-use parking facility of at least 6,000 spaces for retail and for other uses to be determined, possibly including a hotel. Then there is the potential for development on surrounding parcels, similar to Denver, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. The new ballpark will generate 1,500 construction jobs over three years, and hundreds of permanent jobs will come thereafter. Major League Baseball will bring the Baseball Academy to Hialeah in conjunction with the new ballpark, and the future All-Star Games and World Baseball Classic that will be played in Miami will generate millions of dollars in economic impact. These are facts that Miami Herald readers should know about the new Miami ballpark -- not just losing arguments. ROBERT STARKEY, president, Starkey Sports Consulting, Minneapolis

Olsen ( expendable, not very effective and a nut case)and Willingham ( serious doubts about his back problems, slow runner and below average fielder) were moved because they did not fit the future of the team and the Marlins didn't want to pay their growing salary. Period. The Marlins were shopping these guys around for a while. Bonifacio was probably the best the team could get. I don't think they necessarily have been targeting him. Lets see what Beinfest can get for Gregg. He blew 9 saves last year and had recent knee surgery so we probably won't get much in return, unless we can blame the bad knee for his problems. After that, it is all a guessing game. Will Hermida or Treanor be traded and what kind of return could we expect for these guys? Should Hermida get another year to finally break though? How about Uggla? Is his power worth putting up with the strikeouts and lack of timely hitting and significantly rising salary?Would a power starved team give us a significant defensive player whose salary is more acceptable to the Marlins' pocketbook? The spring training performance by our many rookies will no doubt determine some of the future moves as well. So lets sit tight and let Beinfest try to work his magic again.

This Braman "a hole" has enough money to go on, and on, and on....... This is the latest on Miamitodaynews.com a newspaper that has been against the stadium from the begining. Judge to determine whether Braman's legal team will get information about parking garage financials By Risa Polansky Financial projections for parking at a planned new Marlins ballpark should have come into play when a judge ruled this summer that stadium plans serve a public purpose, says auto dealer Norman Braman, who vows to continue his ongoing legal battle against local governments' plans for a stadium and other large-scale public works projects. The parking numbers themselves are secondary, argues Miami City Manager Pete Hernandez, maintaining that it's the concept that the garage would be self-sustaining that really matters. The decision lies now in Circuit Judge Jeri Beth Cohen's hands as she considers a motion filed by the Braman team asking permission to seek evidence from the city and question Mr. Hernandez about parking garage financial projections they say were not revealed during this summer's legal battle. "We feel it's important information," Mr. Braman said. "We want the right to go in discovery and ask why they did it." The motion applies only to one count of the multi-pronged lawsuit: whether the stadium serves a "paramount public purpose." The judge ruled that it does. She has ruled against Mr. Braman on all but one outstanding count in the suit. The city was not a party to the "public purpose" count, but an assistant city attorney made closing arguments at the trial. Mr. Hernandez, who maintains that a garage should cost no more than 10% above his original $94 million estimate, said the city provided all information available when Mr. Braman's lawyers requested it, including, "in my understanding," October 2007 Miami Parking Authority estimates that show building a garage could cost $150 million and operating it could lose the city more than $8 million a year. According to the motion, that document was never considered by the court. "If they're asking for additional information, it may be they're fishing ? I don't know what," Mr. Hernandez said. Bob Martinez, Mr. Braman's attorney, said it could be that the city's attorney did not have the information the city manager had, rather than an omission. "Sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in government," he said. Assistant City Attorney Henry Hunnefeld, who represented the city in court, declined to comment on the record. City Attorney Julie Bru did not respond to calls and e-mails. It's important that the judge see the parking authority document now, along with June 2008 numbers ? also tens of millions of dollars higher ? prepared by consultant Jones Lang LaSalle, "because the court's order on that issue relied upon in some part benefits from parking garage" revenues, Mr. Martinez said. In her court order, Judge Cohen wrote that "the court does credit evidence that the Marlins are required to pay $10 per space for all parking spaces for all stadium events, even if the spaces are not actually used. This is estimated to produce $200 million in revenues to the city over the term of the lease." But the Miami Parking Authority estimates drawn up for the city a year ago project a nearly $8.3 million annual net loss. Those numbers were run before the Marlins and local governments agreed to their space-payment arrangement, Mr. Hernandez noted, which, as the judge wrote, says the team is to pay for each home game $10 a space, a number set to rise gradually to $12.50 per space by the stadium's 31st year. Mr. Hernandez added that the Jones Lang LaSalle report "was done in June or end of June '08. So when they did discovery, obviously that was not available. That didn't exist" But Mr. Martinez points out in the motion that the information was in the city's hands "in the month preceding the trial." The motion says the information should have been brought to light during the trial itself, not specifically during the discovery period. But it "doesn't make any sense" that parking cost estimates would matter in determining whether the stadium serves a paramount public purpose, Mr. Hernandez said, especially when the garage price depends heavily on timing and could change due to outside factors such as materials costs. All of that will be considered when the time comes, he said. John Paccione of Jones Lang LaSalle said in an interview last week that the consultant is taking another look at garage costs. "There's a lot of fluctuation in the marketplace right now, and that's an advantage to the city," he said. No matter what, Mr. Hernandez insisted any garage built would pay for itself, as the city cannot afford a project that would require a subsidy. "What's of most importance is that whatever we end up building? it will be done in such a way that's self-sustaining," he said. He maintained that the judge was not addressing the issue of cost ? "the court was dealing with an issue of paramount public purpose." Still, Mr. Braman's motion emphasizes that the city used its lower numbers in making its case in court, and the judge referred to them in making her ruling. "Having argued that the parking garage would provide an economic benefit to the city and the community, the city should have also informed the court that its own hired consultant and the MPA (the public expert on the construction and operation of parking garages) had disagreed with its conclusion on these key issues, and that they had, in fact, told the city that it would suffer a substantial operating loss and that the cost of construction would be at least 50% greater than the amount represented to the court," the ruling says. "Instead, the court only received an incomplete, one-sided, favorable presentation that appears not to have been accurate." It's now up to the judge what to make of the motion, attorney Mr. Martinez said. The judge could grant it and allow the city to be questioned. Or, she could declare it irrelevant and dismiss it altogether. "A variety of different things could come out of it," he said. Regardless, Mr. Braman vows to appeal his earlier losses once the judge issues her final written order on the last count in the suit, which deals with the financing plan for the stadium and other projects. Judge Cohen has said she may rule against Mr. Braman but is waiting to formally issue her opinion until the state Supreme Court finalizes a related case.

Can anyone help me out? I dont know whats going on, and its almost november. Any New updates? I have been searching every Marlins news and I haven't run in to any new article about the stadium. This has been the last words of Samson: "There is going to be an evaluation of construction by the construction manager and the architect on the timing of construction and design, and the impact of opening," Samson said. "That evaluation is ongoing, but we would hope and expect that evaluation will be completed sometime in November so we will better be able to have an announcement regarding groundbreaking and opening." http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/news/articl...sp&c_id=fla I've also been searching everywhere for info on the new stadium and I've turned up empty handed. I've been dying to figure out whats going on with the court case hearing and when/if they are going to be starting constructions anytime soon... etc. The team, city, and county are still talking and negotiating. The city and county managers will then present the commissioners with the final documents for their vote, which should be done by the end of November or early December. If they all approve it, construction would then start. The City of Miami will approve the deal. The County may be a harder sell. To be up on the latest news: blogs.trb.com/sports/custom/business/blog/

Nice to see all you Fredi batches eat your words or try to BS your way through a totally absurd explanation of your opinions. Fredi deserved to be recognized and now that he has, maybe all you self proclaimed experts may finally accept the opinion of the real experts....the managers.

October 15, 2008 Marlins Stadium v. the economy > Posted by Sarah Talalay at 11:52 PM A considerable amount of concern from pro-Marlins ballpark ranks has arisen over a story in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal that looked at how sports franchises are faring in this tumultuous economy. It's a wide-ranging story explaining how sports are not immune from the economic downturn: stadiums await naming rights deals, teams worry about selling tickets and are taking steps to offer discounts or payment plans. The story even quotes New Jersey Nets CEO Brett Yormark (twin brother of Panthers President Michael Yormark), saying sports are no longer competing just against other entertainment options: "We're going up against milk and orange juice," Yormark told the paper. But the section that has some concerned about the prospects for a new Marlins ballpark at the site of the former Orange Bowl quoted veteran stadium opponent Miami-Dade County Commissioner Katy Sorensen saying support for the project is likely to wane: "Everybody is a little skittish right now," added Ms. Sorensen, who has always opposed the project. "It's going to be a tough sell to the public to approve something like this." The Marlins declined to comment. Bruno Barreiro, the county commission's chairman and a supporter of the project, said he hopes to submit a final deal for a vote in coming months, but he acknowledged that securing financing for the project might take a while. "We have to wait until the market stabilizes," he said. Sure the economic crisis will affect the price of the proposed $515 million stadium, but it wasn't unexpected the cost would go up, given the ongoing delays. (Some have always believed the price was much higher anyway). Sorenson expressed concern about there being enough hotel bed taxes to cover the construction debt, but county officials have repeatedly said those dollars have already been identified and accounted for. And in fact, history shows governments sometimes like to embark on large public projects in difficult economic times because they stimulate the economy and create jobs. (Think the New Deal). I'm told county, city of Miami and Marlins officials continue to negotiate definitive documents spelling out the details of construction management, non-relocation and other agreements. It's always been known receiving the nine county commission votes needed for each of those agreements will be an uphill battle, regardless of the economy. Additionally, it's possible the Marlins are waiting until after Miami Circuit Court Judge Jeri Beth Cohen rules on the final count in auto dealer Norman Braman's case before unveiling renderings of the ballpark. But it's also possible the renderings just aren't ready yet. As always, stay tuned... --------------------------------------------------------- The Braman lawsuit delay and the financial crisis will probably delay the construction of the stadium at least a year. That is the message I get when reading between the lines. Things are not moving fast enough for construction to start next month. I fear the price of building the stadium will continue to rise as the delays continue.

This is the article in question. Commissioner: Financial situation will delay, perhaps kill new Marlins ballpark Posted Oct. 14, 2008 We may have our first high-profile casualty in the sports-facilities world directly linked to unrest in the world's financial markets: Miami-Dade County Commissioner Katy Sorensen says decreased tax revenues and issues with raising money may delay or even kill a proposed new Florida Marlins ballpark on the site of the former Orange Bowl. The issue: much of the financing for the new ballpark comes from hotel and tourism taxes, which have declined markedly over the year. Decreased tax revenue decreases the amount of money that can be borrowed toward the $515-million project. And if bonds cannot be issued against the taxes, then the ballpark cannot be built. In addition, there's no final approval yet regarding the project, and commissioners will need to approve on at some point. With everyone nervous about the state of the economy, you can expect many citizens -- and some former supporters -- to stand up and demand the ballpark project be scrapped until the economy improves. Not necessarily good public policy, but a political reality. Bruno Barreiro says he expects to present a final budget plan and lease for the new ballpark, but even he admits it may be delayed because of the current financial atmosphere. -------------------------------------------------- The last sentence is the one that worries me the most.

I like Craig

When will those guys vote yes or no? The recent Braman trial put everything on hold. The Marlins and the county manager have been working on the agreements since the trial ended as it appears that the final judgment may also be in their favor, but the judge is still waiting to see what finally happens in Tallahassee. I would hope that they're taking into account the concerns of commissioners Martinez and Heyman. Reportedly, the team will present the agreements to the commission for a vote in late October or early November. If there is a lot of back and forth the stadium construction will be delayed and the target completion date of April 2011 will not be met. That may set off another new set of problems such as extending the lease at Dolphin stadium beyond 2010, higher construction costs, etc...

IRRELEVANT!! IRRELEVANT!! IRRELEVANT!! :banghead :banghead :banghead Why do these continue. The deal is done. Let's focus on getting the thing built now in the limited time we have. Don't bang your head so much....your brain damage may worsen. 1. The financial crisis will affect the loans banks are willing to make. If there is a chance that the Supreme Court re-hears the case, the banks may balk at lending the kind of mega bucks needed to build the stadium. 2. The Miami-Dade County commissioners still need to vote in favor of several agreements for the project to move forward. We need 9 of the 13 members to vote in favor. Right now we only have 8 sure votes. Sorenson, Gimenez and Souto are definitely voting NO. Martinez and Heyman are threatening to vote NO. If we don't get either Martinez or Heyman to vote for the stadium, the deal WON'T be done. The only deal that is done is the fact that the Baseball Stadium Agreement passed. That's it. The rest remains to be seen. I hope you're right. I hope it is true that it is all in the bag, that I'm worrying needlessly. Once it is really done, we'll celebrate together.

How much longer will we have to wait for the Supreme Court to decide not to rehear the case? Since there is no time limit, technically we can be waiting long enough for the make-up of the actual Supreme Court to change. If this happens, the favorable 4-3 vote may be in jeopardy. The more important question is: Once the Supreme Court decides not to rehear the case, will that decision be final?

October 3, 2008 Marlins Stadium Update No. 100,308 > Posted by Sarah Talalay at 9:23 PM Another deadline, another delay. Rather than issue her ruling on the final count in auto dealer Norman Braman?s case challenging the financing for a Marlins ballpark, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jeri Beth Cohen said Friday she would wait - once again - until the Florida Supreme Court?s ruling in a similar case is final. Since attorneys for Gregory Strand filed a motion Monday with the Florida Supreme Court to re-hear Strand v. Escambia County, which challenges the use of property tax dollars to repay a $135 million bond issue without first asking taxpayers, the high court?s ruling is not considered final. After re-hearing the case last year, the court overturned an earlier 7-0 ruling and decided on Sept. 18 in a 4-2 ruling that referendums are not needed to use property taxes to pay back bonds on large public projects. The court isn?t likely to re-hear the case a second time, but it also has no deadline by which it must decide whether to re-hear the case. ?Although I anticipate that the Court will deny the rehearing, it is incumbent on me to wait until the decision becomes final before issuing a definitive ruling. Thank you for your patience,? Cohen wrote Friday in a note to the attorneys in the Braman case. Cohen has said she plans to follow the Supreme Court and rule a public vote is not needed for a portion of the financing for $3 billion in Miami projects. Braman has said he plans to appeal. The Marlins, Miami-Dade County and the city of Miami do not believe a referendum would apply to the ballpark financing and are likely to continue with their plans to finalize definitive agreements spelling out the financing, construction management and other details of the ballpark.

So whats up? lol. Sorry but i dont understand this stadium business at all, so if any one can help me out please In a nut shell: Judge Cohen is delaying her final ruling on the stadium and Mega Plan issue until Oct. 2nd because that was the deadline to file a motion to re-hear the Supreme Court decision. The Court recently reversed itself on the ruling in question. They now say that communities can use CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) money to fund projects without a public referendum. This change helps the Marlins stadium since now the City and County can use CRA money for the PAC (Performing Arts Center) loan payments and free tourist tax revenue to help fund the stadium. Braman will undoubtedly now point to the motion filed by the attorneys in the case in Tampa as a reason for further delaying Judge Cohen ruling since technically the case is not completely settled. However, as Ms. Talalay states on her blog, it is unlikely that Judge Cohen will delay the ruling further since it is also unlikely that the Supreme Court will re-hear the case again, specially after just doing it a few weeks ago. I hope this helps you understand this mess a little better.

September 29, 2008 Marlins Stadium Update No. 54,929 > Posted by Sarah Talalay at 11:54 PM Attorneys for the plaintiff, Dr. Gregory Strand, in the Florida Supreme Court case that has been holding up a decision in auto dealer Norman Braman?s suit targeting the financing for a Marlins ballpark filed a motion today to request yet another re-hearing of the case. The court has already re-heard the case once - a year ago. On Sept. 18, the state's high court overturned its earlier 7-0 decision, deciding instead in a 4-2 ruling that a public vote isn't necessary when using property taxes to pay off bonds issued for large public projects. The case, Strand v. Escambia County, deals with using property tax dollars to repay a $135 million bond issue without first asking taxpayers. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jeri Beth Cohen has said she plans to follow the court?s newest ruling that referendums aren?t needed to use property taxes to pay back bonds on large public projects. But at the request of Braman?s attorneys, she agreed to wait until Oct. 2, when the period to request a re-hearing expires. It?s unclear whether the motion to re-hear the case will alter Cohen?s decision to release her ruling on Thursday, but it?s unlikely. It also seems unlikely the court would decide to re-hear the case a second time. The court is not required to re-hear the case, but it also has no timetable for making its decision.

Lou Pinellas' lineup and pitchers for last night's game against the Mets was ridiculous! If I were the Brewers I would officially protest. One thing is resting a few regulars after you have won your division, but resting the entire team and bullpen in a game with playoff implications for the opponent hurts the integrity of the game.