http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/sports_...ns_sta.php#more

 

Sports and the Law: Marlins Stadium Subsidy Might Violate State Constitution

 

The thirteen commissioners of Miami-Dade County are expected on Thursday to approve a proposal to spend $347 million in taxpayer money to build a new 37,000-seat, retractable roof stadium for the Florida Marlins. This proposal would not only provide a huge subsidy to the team’s much maligned owner, Jeffrey Loria, but it also might violate the Florida Constitution.

 

According to published reports, the Marlins stadium proposal would require Miami-Dade County to contribute roughly two-thirds of the cost for the new stadium, with the city of Miami contributing roughly 3% ($10 million), and Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria contributing 30% ($155 million). According to Miami Today, Mr. Loria would then be allowed to sell the stadium’s naming rights to a third party, expected to fetch him more than $155 million.

 

A number of Miami-Dade County residents are unhappy about the idea of publicly funding a new stadium for Mr. Loria, who has never invested much of his own money in the Marlins ball club. Recently, on December 5, 2007, Mr. Loria traded away the Marlins’ two most productive players, Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis — a move that reduced team payroll to less than $25 million, the lowest in Major League Baseball. For purposes of comparison, the New York Yankees projected 2008 payroll is $213 million. The Yankees, incidentally, are privately financing their new stadium.

 

Many economists believe the only reason that counties including Miami-Dade publicly finance sports stadiums is fear of losing their team to another city. Historically, absent threats of forming a rival league, Major League Baseball (“MLB�) has maintained fewer teams than there are municipalities that can economically sustain them. As a result, owners such as Jeffrey Loria are able to credibly threaten to relocate their team if host cities do not submit to their funding demands. As explained by former Washington D.C. mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly, “[t]he mayors of American cities are confronted with a prisoner’s dilemma of sorts. If no mayor succumbs to the demands of a franchise shopping for a new home then the team will stay where they are. This, however, is unlikely to happen because if Mayor A is not willing to pay the price, Mayor B may think it is advantageous to open up the city’s wallet. Then to protect his or her interest, Mayor A often ends up paying the demand price.�

 

In the case of the Marlins, the officious “Mayor B� is Las Vegas’s flamboyant Oscar Goodman, who has been courting an MLB team for years.

 

With this type of situation in mind, scholars as well as both federal and state legislators have long debated how to prevent sports clubs from demanding subsidies from American cities (PDF). Congress, for instance, has considered many bills to prevent team owners from relocating if denied pubic financing. Most notably, in 1999, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) proposed the Stadium Financing and Franchise Relocation Act (S.952), which, if passed, would have required MLB and National Football League owners to fund at least 75% of their stadium costs with private money. S.952, however, was never passed.

 

The Florida Constitution, meanwhile, includes its own language that may prevent Florida’s municipalities from subsidizing stadiums. Article VII, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution states that “[n]either the state nor any county … shall become a joint owner with, or stockholder of, or give, lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person.� In addition, Article VII, Section 9 prevents Florida’s counties from levying taxes for anything other than “municipal purposes.� The Supreme Court of Florida, in Brandes v. City of Deerfield Beach (1966), held that building a professional baseball stadium is not a municipal purpose.

 

Nevertheless, Florida’s municipalities continue to regularly subsidize sports facilities without much of a legal challenge. Perhaps because enforcing Brandes’s narrow interpretation of “municipal purposes� would lead to Florida losing most, if not all, of its professional sports teams, no current court would likely adopt this interpretation.

 

With that said, however, Florida residents are generally more hostile toward Jeffrey Loria than they are toward most of their state’s other sports owners. Consequently, both Thursday’s vote in Miami-Dade County and the public reaction to the vote’s results are worthy of close attention.

 

Presuming that the Miami-Dade County commissioners approve the proposed $347 million in public financing for a Marlins new stadium, it will be interesting to see if any anti-stadium litigation follows.

Breaking ground seems further and further away the more articles I read about the Legality of the deal. This sucks.

Breaking ground seems further and further away the more articles I read about the Legality of the deal. This sucks.

 

It's why I have not let myself get excited yet. Won't celebrate until a shovel hits dirt.

Breaking ground seems further and further away the more articles I read about the Legality of the deal. This sucks.

 

This is more anti-sports stadium propaganda. Just get used to it. When it comes to publically financing of anything, there is always a ton of negative articles(the city of Boca just built a new library. It cost $12 million in tax payer money and drew a public outcry...for a PUBLIC LIBRARY!). That doesn't mean that the people writing these are correct or know what they are talking about. The Marlins, City of Miami, and Miami-Dade county all have plenty of high-priced lawyers working on this deal. I find it hard to believe that they would allow this deal to get this far if there was anything in it that violated the state constitution.

Oh, while also making the blanket statement that the yankees are privately financing the stadium, it would be nice to be a bit more honest such as:Cost: Approximately $1.3 billion

Public financing: $220 million from New York City for parking facilities ($75 million), parkland along the waterfront ($135 million) and other work related to the stadium.

 

Yes, the yankees are financing most of it, but it would be a bit more factual to also represent that public financing for the poor downtrodden Yankees is $430 million, plus 165 mill to the mets. That is a minimum of almost $600 million in public financing-that's right, $600 Million. Puts a different perspective if that was fairly included in the article.

I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but I'm sure a number of them will opine as the day goes on.

 

Here's my read. This is only a "subsidy" if the Marlins owned the stadium which they do not. The county has decided in its infinite wisdom with excellent legal advice before moving forward, to construct a building in which baseball may be played. They have been lucky enough to find a tenant for said building before even beginning construction and further that tenant has agreed to "give" the county $150+ million towards their project.

 

The county is not subsidizing the Marlins, the Marlins are in fact subsidizing a municipally owned building to the tune of $150,000,000+. Every time the county commits $500 million to a project they should be so lucky as to find someone in the private sector who is willing to give them a third of the construction costs before they start building.

 

Am I being disingenuous? Just a bit. The point is the flaw in the argument above is that it isn't the Marlins' stadium, it's Miami-Dade's stadium built on Miami-Dade county land and which will be theirs forever. Nowhere in the deal does it anticipate turning over ownership of the building to the Marlins or any other privately-held company. Were the county to use it's taxing powers to create a revenue stream they would turn over to the Marlins to build their own stadium, THAT would illegal. It isn't by accident this deal has been structured the way it has.

 

Don't lose a minute of sleep over this, it was a waste of your time and mine just reading it.

Yeah, they are wrong, 2003 is right. The Marlins actually own 0% of the stadium, which is why they will be paying rent as part of that $155 million.

 

This is just another case of haphazard "journalism" that couldn't even bother to read the summery of the agreement.

 

Remember, the County and the City are not financing a Marlins stadium, the Marlins and the City are financing a County stadium.

I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but I'm sure a number of them will opine as the day goes on.

 

Here's my read. This is only a "subsidy" if the Marlins owned the stadium which they do not. The county has decided in its infinite wisdom with excellent legal advice before moving forward, to construct a building in which baseball may be played. They have been lucky enough to find a tenant for said building before even beginning construction and further that tenant has agreed to "give" the county $150+ million towards their project.

 

The county is not subsidizing the Marlins, the Marlins are in fact subsidizing a municipally owned building to the tune of $150,000,000+. Every time the county commits $500 million to a project they should be so lucky as to find someone in the private sector who is willing to give them a third of the construction costs before they start building.

 

Am I being disingenuous? Just a bit. The point is the flaw in the argument above is that it isn't the Marlins' stadium, it's Miami-Dade's stadium built on Miami-Dade county land and which will be theirs forever. Nowhere in the deal does it anticipate turning over ownership of the building to the Marlins or any other privately-held company. Were the county to use it's taxing powers to create a revenue stream they would turn over to the Marlins to build their own stadium, THAT would illegal. It isn't by accident this deal has been structured the way it has.

 

Don't lose a minute of sleep over this, it was a waste of your time and mine just reading it.

 

 

I actually am a lawyer...and I disagree with your reading.

 

The language of the statute says: "neither the state nor any county shall....give, lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person."

 

While you're correct to say that the issue of Marlins ownership or some city-team partnership would come in conflict with this statute, by the letter of the statute so would any "aid" whatsoever to a particular corporation, association, partnership, or person. Can anyone argue that by building a baseball-only stadium using public funds the county is not giving "aid" to the Marlins?

 

Now, what the author of the original post said is correct - if this statute is enforced here, it could be enforced against ANY of Florida's teams, which is a compelling reason to disregard it. But the "you didn't enforce it before, so you can't enforce it now!" defense doesn't really hold much water in court, and assuming their lawyers are any good, I suspect you're gonna hear this argument if these lawsuits get before a judge.

I've always found it expensive to argue with lawyers, my own or otherwise so I'll defer to you.

I've always found it expensive to argue with lawyers, my own or otherwise so I'll defer to you.

 

 

 

Haha...hey, believe me, nobody hopes I'm wrong on this more than me!

 

In fact, if the Marlins legal team was looking for help to defend against this Braman case, I'd consider working pro bono.....

I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but I'm sure a number of them will opine as the day goes on.

 

Here's my read. This is only a "subsidy" if the Marlins owned the stadium which they do not. The county has decided in its infinite wisdom with excellent legal advice before moving forward, to construct a building in which baseball may be played. They have been lucky enough to find a tenant for said building before even beginning construction and further that tenant has agreed to "give" the county $150+ million towards their project.

 

The county is not subsidizing the Marlins, the Marlins are in fact subsidizing a municipally owned building to the tune of $150,000,000+. Every time the county commits $500 million to a project they should be so lucky as to find someone in the private sector who is willing to give them a third of the construction costs before they start building.

 

 

 

You may not be an attorney. But you're right on the money!!! :thumbup

Am I being disingenuous? Just a bit. The point is the flaw in the argument above is that it isn't the Marlins' stadium, it's Miami-Dade's stadium built on Miami-Dade county land and which will be theirs forever. Nowhere in the deal does it anticipate turning over ownership of the building to the Marlins or any other privately-held company. Were the county to use it's taxing powers to create a revenue stream they would turn over to the Marlins to build their own stadium, THAT would illegal. It isn't by accident this deal has been structured the way it has.

 

Don't lose a minute of sleep over this, it was a waste of your time and mine just reading it.

I've always found it expensive to argue with lawyers, my own or otherwise so I'll defer to you.

 

 

 

Haha...hey, believe me, nobody hopes I'm wrong on this more than me!

 

In fact, if the Marlins legal team was looking for help to defend against this Braman case, I'd consider working pro bono.....

I am not a lawyer, but as a CPA have read many contracts, but it does not seem to deal with sports specifically but any "corporation". Now would that not open a big door regarding tax exemptions to lure businesses to the state and cities, as is often done. "...lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person.?

I've always found it expensive to argue with lawyers, my own or otherwise so I'll defer to you.

 

 

 

Haha...hey, believe me, nobody hopes I'm wrong on this more than me!

 

In fact, if the Marlins legal team was looking for help to defend against this Braman case, I'd consider working pro bono.....

I am not a lawyer, but as a CPA have read many contracts, but it does not seem to deal with sports specifically but any "corporation". Now would that not open a big door regarding tax exemptions to lure businesses to the state and cities, as is often done. "...lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person.?

Yes. That's true. And it's routine for municipalities to use tax incentives to lure businesses of all sorts to their area. I can't see the Florida courst upending this deal over this if someone(Braman) challenges the legalities. To do so would open up a giant can of worms that are spread across the entire state. I am not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

other issue we need watch is what going happen with lawsuit that going court

Well, there are about 10 months between the vote (assuming that's going to happen) and when they want to start the groundbreaking. So it would mean that we have about six or seven months of legal challenges to "entertain" us, even more.

 

This might get even more interesting as I learn new information.

I believe that all the minor league baseball stadiums in the state have been financed by the municipalities. All the other sports stadiums (except Dolphin Stadium) have been built with public support. Even Dolphins stadium has been help by public funds when the state gave money to help them convert to allow baseball to be played there. I don't think any judge will single out the Marlins Stadium and ignore what has been routinely done in the state.

I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but I'm sure a number of them will opine as the day goes on.

 

Here's my read. This is only a "subsidy" if the Marlins owned the stadium which they do not. The county has decided in its infinite wisdom with excellent legal advice before moving forward, to construct a building in which baseball may be played. They have been lucky enough to find a tenant for said building before even beginning construction and further that tenant has agreed to "give" the county $150+ million towards their project.

 

The county is not subsidizing the Marlins, the Marlins are in fact subsidizing a municipally owned building to the tune of $150,000,000+. Every time the county commits $500 million to a project they should be so lucky as to find someone in the private sector who is willing to give them a third of the construction costs before they start building.

 

Am I being disingenuous? Just a bit. The point is the flaw in the argument above is that it isn't the Marlins' stadium, it's Miami-Dade's stadium built on Miami-Dade county land and which will be theirs forever. Nowhere in the deal does it anticipate turning over ownership of the building to the Marlins or any other privately-held company. Were the county to use it's taxing powers to create a revenue stream they would turn over to the Marlins to build their own stadium, THAT would illegal. It isn't by accident this deal has been structured the way it has.

 

Don't lose a minute of sleep over this, it was a waste of your time and mine just reading it.

 

 

I actually am a lawyer...and I disagree with your reading.

 

The language of the statute says: "neither the state nor any county shall....give, lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person."

 

While you're correct to say that the issue of Marlins ownership or some city-team partnership would come in conflict with this statute, by the letter of the statute so would any "aid" whatsoever to a particular corporation, association, partnership, or person. Can anyone argue that by building a baseball-only stadium using public funds the county is not giving "aid" to the Marlins?

 

Now, what the author of the original post said is correct - if this statute is enforced here, it could be enforced against ANY of Florida's teams, which is a compelling reason to disregard it. But the "you didn't enforce it before, so you can't enforce it now!" defense doesn't really hold much water in court, and assuming their lawyers are any good, I suspect you're gonna hear this argument if these lawsuits get before a judge.

 

So how do they ever get that tax rebate thing passed? Especially Joe Robbie since it is privately owned.

Okay, so now I've read this guy's "blog" and had a chance to analyze it (Yes, I am a lawyer and I play one on TV).

 

For starters, I must fault him for some shoddy legal writing, especially for not providing a correct citation for Brandes v. City of Deerfield Beach. He tries to give the Brandes case a much wider holding than it actually possessed. In Brandes, the City of Deerfield Beach was going to provide 100% funding for the construction of a Spring Training facility for the Pittsburgh Pirates. The facility was going to be leased to a private corporation, who in turn would lease it to the Pirates and to a future Florida State League club. In Brandes, the facility was only going to have one private user and with that narrow scope, the Court determined that the baseball facility would not be a "municipal purpose."

 

What the writer did not reference was the stern dissent in Brandes, whereby the dissenting opinion read,

 

In State v. City of Miami, Fla., 41 So.2d 545, we approved Miami's issuance of revenue certificates to finance additional seats for the Orange Bowl Stadium, which is now recognized as one of the major sports facilities of the country. In State v. Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities District, Fla., 89 So.2d 34, we authorized a public district to issue securities to construct a speedway, which would be leased to a private enterprise for a period of months each year for 40 years. In Sunny Isles Fishing Pier v. Dade County, Fla., 79 So.2d 667, we permitted the leasing of a publicly-owned fishing pier to a private enterprise for development by private capital. In related activities we have repeatedly recognized the issuance of public securities to construct publicly-owned facilities which were needed to accommodate private enterprises engaged in serving a public function. In Seaboard Airline R. Co. v. Peters, 43 So.2d 448, this Court actually approved the issuance of so-called revenue certificates which pledged a 2 mill ad valorem tax to expand the Miami International Airport for the accommodation of privately-owned airlines. This was done without benefit of freeholder approval. Again in State v. Dade County, 62 So.2d 404, the Court approved the issuance of public securities to construct a large warehouse and overhaul shop on public land for immediate rental to a privately-owned airline. These decisions are merely illustrative of many others which could be cited.

 

If Brandes were to be given the wide interpretation the writer suggests, then the State or local governments would be prohibited from funding airports (because they aid private corporations - airlines), seaports (aiding cruise lines/shipping lines), railroads (aiding freight lines/passenger lines), performing arts centers, etc. What allows cities to fund these projects is the provision of "public purposes" within the funding mechanism. That opens the door to the public facility being used for public purposes, with incidental expenses or uses to a private entity. Therefore, the use of a Spring Training facility for public purposes would be within the funding mechanism, and thus be consistent with the Florida Constitution, even with incidental private functions within the public facility. In this case, the facility is public, but leased for some time for a private use - instead of having the State/City act as a "bank" or "lender" to a private corporation. Also, in the case of the Marlins, there is the creation of a public-private partnership, which would lie outside the Constitutional provisions - such as when the local government is the land owner and a ground lease with a private entity is undertaken. I've worked on partnerships between SFRTA and developers to create "transportation hub-villages."

 

The writer, while a New York lawyer, should really do a better job of grasping Florida law and not write an article (even though it is WELL BELOW law review standards) on Florida law without doing more exhaustive research on the current state of Florida law on this matter.

I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but I'm sure a number of them will opine as the day goes on.

 

Here's my read. This is only a "subsidy" if the Marlins owned the stadium which they do not. The county has decided in its infinite wisdom with excellent legal advice before moving forward, to construct a building in which baseball may be played. They have been lucky enough to find a tenant for said building before even beginning construction and further that tenant has agreed to "give" the county $150+ million towards their project.

 

The county is not subsidizing the Marlins, the Marlins are in fact subsidizing a municipally owned building to the tune of $150,000,000+. Every time the county commits $500 million to a project they should be so lucky as to find someone in the private sector who is willing to give them a third of the construction costs before they start building.

 

Am I being disingenuous? Just a bit. The point is the flaw in the argument above is that it isn't the Marlins' stadium, it's Miami-Dade's stadium built on Miami-Dade county land and which will be theirs forever. Nowhere in the deal does it anticipate turning over ownership of the building to the Marlins or any other privately-held company. Were the county to use it's taxing powers to create a revenue stream they would turn over to the Marlins to build their own stadium, THAT would illegal. It isn't by accident this deal has been structured the way it has.

 

Don't lose a minute of sleep over this, it was a waste of your time and mine just reading it.

 

 

I actually am a lawyer...and I disagree with your reading.

 

The language of the statute says: "neither the state nor any county shall....give, lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person."

 

While you're correct to say that the issue of Marlins ownership or some city-team partnership would come in conflict with this statute, by the letter of the statute so would any "aid" whatsoever to a particular corporation, association, partnership, or person. Can anyone argue that by building a baseball-only stadium using public funds the county is not giving "aid" to the Marlins?

 

Now, what the author of the original post said is correct - if this statute is enforced here, it could be enforced against ANY of Florida's teams, which is a compelling reason to disregard it. But the "you didn't enforce it before, so you can't enforce it now!" defense doesn't really hold much water in court, and assuming their lawyers are any good, I suspect you're gonna hear this argument if these lawsuits get before a judge.

 

I am also a lawyer, in fact a local government lawyer in part, and I disgaree with your analysis. The County is not giving, lending or using its taxing power or credit to any corporation, association, partnership or person. In fact, it is using its taxing power to build a stadium which it will own, and then leasing that stadium to the Marlins. Thus, it is using its taxing power for its own purposes. How is it "aiding" the Marlins if it will own the stadium, lease it to the Marlins, and, in fact, collect a contribution from the Marlins. The Marlins will have no ownership over this facility. Any fair reading of this consitutional provision would conclude that it does not prohibit this deal whatsoever.

Okay, so now I've read this guy's "blog" and had a chance to analyze it (Yes, I am a lawyer and I play one on TV).

 

For starters, I must fault him for some shoddy legal writing, especially for not providing a correct citation for Brandes v. City of Deerfield Beach. He tries to give the Brandes case a much wider holding than it actually possessed. In Brandes, the City of Deerfield Beach was going to provide 100% funding for the construction of a Spring Training facility for the Pittsburgh Pirates. The facility was going to be leased to a private corporation, who in turn would lease it to the Pirates and to a future Florida State League club. In Brandes, the facility was only going to have one private user and with that narrow scope, the Court determined that the baseball facility would not be a "municipal purpose."

 

What the writer did not reference was the stern dissent in Brandes, whereby the dissenting opinion read,

 

In State v. City of Miami, Fla., 41 So.2d 545, we approved Miami's issuance of revenue certificates to finance additional seats for the Orange Bowl Stadium, which is now recognized as one of the major sports facilities of the country. In State v. Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities District, Fla., 89 So.2d 34, we authorized a public district to issue securities to construct a speedway, which would be leased to a private enterprise for a period of months each year for 40 years. In Sunny Isles Fishing Pier v. Dade County, Fla., 79 So.2d 667, we permitted the leasing of a publicly-owned fishing pier to a private enterprise for development by private capital. In related activities we have repeatedly recognized the issuance of public securities to construct publicly-owned facilities which were needed to accommodate private enterprises engaged in serving a public function. In Seaboard Airline R. Co. v. Peters, 43 So.2d 448, this Court actually approved the issuance of so-called revenue certificates which pledged a 2 mill ad valorem tax to expand the Miami International Airport for the accommodation of privately-owned airlines. This was done without benefit of freeholder approval. Again in State v. Dade County, 62 So.2d 404, the Court approved the issuance of public securities to construct a large warehouse and overhaul shop on public land for immediate rental to a privately-owned airline. These decisions are merely illustrative of many others which could be cited.

 

If Brandes were to be given the wide interpretation the writer suggests, then the State or local governments would be prohibited from funding airports (because they aid private corporations - airlines), seaports (aiding cruise lines/shipping lines), railroads (aiding freight lines/passenger lines), performing arts centers, etc. What allows cities to fund these projects is the provision of "public purposes" within the funding mechanism. That opens the door to the public facility being used for public purposes, with incidental expenses or uses to a private entity. Therefore, the use of a Spring Training facility for public purposes would be within the funding mechanism, and thus be consistent with the Florida Constitution, even with incidental private functions within the public facility. In this case, the facility is public, but leased for some time for a private use - instead of having the State/City act as a "bank" or "lender" to a private corporation. Also, in the case of the Marlins, there is the creation of a public-private partnership, which would lie outside the Constitutional provisions - such as when the local government is the land owner and a ground lease with a private entity is undertaken. I've worked on partnerships between SFRTA and developers to create "transportation hub-villages."

 

The writer, while a New York lawyer, should really do a better job of grasping Florida law and not write an article (even though it is WELL BELOW law review standards) on Florida law without doing more exhaustive research on the current state of Florida law on this matter.

Awesome. BTW, that was pro bono, right? Or do I owe you like $350 for just reading it?

If Brandes were to be given the wide interpretation the writer suggests, then the State or local governments would be prohibited from funding airports (because they aid private corporations - airlines), seaports (aiding cruise lines/shipping lines), railroads (aiding freight lines/passenger lines), performing arts centers, etc. What allows cities to fund these projects is the provision of "public purposes" within the funding mechanism. That opens the door to the public facility being used for public purposes, with incidental expenses or uses to a private entity. Therefore, the use of a Spring Training facility for public purposes would be within the funding mechanism, and thus be consistent with the Florida Constitution, even with incidental private functions within the public facility. In this case, the facility is public, but leased for some time for a private use - instead of having the State/City act as a "bank" or "lender" to a private corporation. Also, in the case of the Marlins, there is the creation of a public-private partnership, which would lie outside the Constitutional provisions - such as when the local government is the land owner and a ground lease with a private entity is undertaken. I've worked on partnerships between SFRTA and developers to create "transportation hub-villages."

 

If so, then it would explain the transfer of the land under the OB from the city to the county. A "public facility" might not be given legal status without the proper authority under Florida state law having the title to the land in question, i.e. the County, since the County is seeking to be the legal owners of the facility. At least that's what I think the County would argue in court if this case ever gets that far. It's all complex stuff, I know. That's why I never went to law school.

 

Also, wouldn't the law require the proper said authorities to allow activities other than baseball, say, a CONCACAF tournament in the new facility to qualify for "public purpose" status?

I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but I'm sure a number of them will opine as the day goes on.

 

Here's my read. This is only a "subsidy" if the Marlins owned the stadium which they do not. The county has decided in its infinite wisdom with excellent legal advice before moving forward, to construct a building in which baseball may be played. They have been lucky enough to find a tenant for said building before even beginning construction and further that tenant has agreed to "give" the county $150+ million towards their project.

 

The county is not subsidizing the Marlins, the Marlins are in fact subsidizing a municipally owned building to the tune of $150,000,000+. Every time the county commits $500 million to a project they should be so lucky as to find someone in the private sector who is willing to give them a third of the construction costs before they start building.

 

Am I being disingenuous? Just a bit. The point is the flaw in the argument above is that it isn't the Marlins' stadium, it's Miami-Dade's stadium built on Miami-Dade county land and which will be theirs forever. Nowhere in the deal does it anticipate turning over ownership of the building to the Marlins or any other privately-held company. Were the county to use it's taxing powers to create a revenue stream they would turn over to the Marlins to build their own stadium, THAT would illegal. It isn't by accident this deal has been structured the way it has.

 

Don't lose a minute of sleep over this, it was a waste of your time and mine just reading it.

 

 

I actually am a lawyer...and I disagree with your reading.

 

The language of the statute says: "neither the state nor any county shall....give, lend or use its taxing power or credit to aid any corporation, association, partnership or person."

 

While you're correct to say that the issue of Marlins ownership or some city-team partnership would come in conflict with this statute, by the letter of the statute so would any "aid" whatsoever to a particular corporation, association, partnership, or person. Can anyone argue that by building a baseball-only stadium using public funds the county is not giving "aid" to the Marlins?

 

Now, what the author of the original post said is correct - if this statute is enforced here, it could be enforced against ANY of Florida's teams, which is a compelling reason to disregard it. But the "you didn't enforce it before, so you can't enforce it now!" defense doesn't really hold much water in court, and assuming their lawyers are any good, I suspect you're gonna hear this argument if these lawsuits get before a judge.

 

I am also a lawyer, in fact a local government lawyer in part, and I disgaree with your analysis. The County is not giving, lending or using its taxing power or credit to any corporation, association, partnership or person. In fact, it is using its taxing power to build a stadium which it will own, and then leasing that stadium to the Marlins. Thus, it is using its taxing power for its own purposes. How is it "aiding" the Marlins if it will own the stadium, lease it to the Marlins, and, in fact, collect a contribution from the Marlins. The Marlins will have no ownership over this facility. Any fair reading of this consitutional provision would conclude that it does not prohibit this deal whatsoever.

 

Another attorney here, and I agree with prinmemito. Such a broad reading of "aid" would preclude a government entity from constructing a municipal building, say a city hall, that would have a privately run cafeteria. I think the substance of the law is that you can't subsidize anything that would be privately owned. Otherwise no stadium would ever be built, including the new Magic Arena.

I actually find it interesting that the statute names the state or a county but does not say city, town, township, municiplaity etc.

Would not the funding sources satisfy the public trust and federally-insured bond clauses?

rferry, huh? Federally insured bonds?