July 15, 200818 yr Started at 9 am. The updates link from yesterday is the same one for today! From the live blog: 9:40 AM: We are up and running in the second inning of Braman vs. Miami-Dade County. Just to recap where we are, both sides classified Monday?s proceedings as very effective, even though the County/City/Marlins seemed to gain the upper-hand, thanks to most of Norman Braman?s witness testimony tossed out by Judge Cohen. Going forward, the plantiff?s side will need to prove that the 3-billion megaplan was consummated with an illegal switching of funds, and they need to do that without even touching on the Marlins fragile economic situation, since none of that will be admissible. I?ve been told that Braman?s team will focus on trying to prove that a new stadium doesn?t necessarily mean a better economic situation for the community. Can someone with a legal background please explain to me why they are even hearing this case if this is what the Braman team is focusing on? That isn't a legal arguement.
July 15, 200818 yr everyone with half a brain knows it isnt a legal arguement, but the braman team is going to try their hardest to argue that it is. the reason why they are taking that approach is that it is the only one left for them. this trial has become a complete joke and a total waste of money.
July 15, 200818 yr Can someone with a legal background please explain to me why they are even hearing this case if this is what the Braman team is focusing on? That isn't a legal arguement. I don't believe that's the issue and I believe the "bloggers" quote is basically a non-lawyer (or non-legally trained writer) using a non-lawyer (or non-legally trained person) as an unnamed source. The only "legal" argument to be made that a stadium doesn't equal economic improvement is to state that the use of public dollars for a stadium will not alleviate or reduce blight, which is the basis for CRA dollars. Therefore, if you're using money for something that has no economic impact you're either (a) reallocating blight dollars to non-blight uses and (b) your misappropriating CRA funds. Remember, the basic crux of Braman's argument is that the funding is basically just a "shell game" and that in effect CRA funds are being used for inapprorpriate purposes (i.e. monies that were to be allocated for certain uses are being diverted to the OB site, and then CRA dollars are coming in to take their place, but in actuality those CRA dollars are in essence funding a non-economic stimulus which will not alleviate blight). Confusing enough? By the way, yes, I am a lawyer.
July 15, 200818 yr source miamherald The county said it acted properly. County Finance Director Rachel Baum testified how the county's complex financial structure came together. Yet the presiding judge, Jeri Beth Cohen, asked: ``If I follow your logic, you would never have to have a referendum.'' Braman is suing Miami-Dade, Miami and the Florida Marlins for what he contends is the misuse of public funds. This concerns me
July 15, 200818 yr source miamherald The county said it acted properly. County Finance Director Rachel Baum testified how the county's complex financial structure came together. Yet the presiding judge, Jeri Beth Cohen, asked: ``If I follow your logic, you would never have to have a referendum.'' Braman is suing Miami-Dade, Miami and the Florida Marlins for what he contends is the misuse of public funds. This concerns me So what? Using Braman's logic everything would have to have a referendum. Anyway, I wouldn't get too overly concerned from one quote from the judge taken out of context and put in an article. They don't even tell you how Baum responded to that assertion.
July 15, 200818 yr source miamherald The county said it acted properly. County Finance Director Rachel Baum testified how the county's complex financial structure came together. Yet the presiding judge, Jeri Beth Cohen, asked: ``If I follow your logic, you would never have to have a referendum.'' Braman is suing Miami-Dade, Miami and the Florida Marlins for what he contends is the misuse of public funds. This concerns me It shouldn't. It's the way it is pretty much everywhere else in Florida. The actual construction of the stadium does not require a referendum. Only raising new kinds of taxes does. The only reason it was required for Rays Ballpark is because the City of St. Petersburg actually has a law requiring any new bayshore development to be approved by referendum. Not that other people haven't tried to make general stadia require a referendum. Orlando hotelier Harris Rosen tried to do that with the Orlando Events Center. The only reason he did it was because they weren't building it in I-Drive. He dropped it when he realized that any referendum wouldn't affect the Events Center, as they couldn't make a referendum requirement retroactive. This would be an interesting possibility, since Braman does appear to be taking this to a court resolution: The judge could decide that future projects have to be approved by referendum, but the Big Plan, or at least Marlins Stadium, cannot be put to referendum because it has already been previously approved.
July 15, 200818 yr source miamherald The county said it acted properly. County Finance Director Rachel Baum testified how the county's complex financial structure came together. Yet the presiding judge, Jeri Beth Cohen, asked: ``If I follow your logic, you would never have to have a referendum.'' Braman is suing Miami-Dade, Miami and the Florida Marlins for what he contends is the misuse of public funds. This concerns me A good judge will always make points, and it does not indicate how she is leaning. You see this at higher levels all the time-challenging statements made by witnesses. It is thought provoking but not a cause for concern.
July 15, 200818 yr Update from the live blog: 3:10 PM: Coming up after the break, a sports economist that someone close to the Braman team told me could be their key witness during the trial. And Tom Scott, City attorney is making a proposal now....prob trying to get out. A sports economist is their key witness??? Why are they wasting time and money on this case? For every sports economist that says stadiums aren't economic stimulants you can find 2 that say that they are. All you have to do is look at how stadiums have impacted downtown Baltimore and Denver. You cannot tell me that those places have not benefitted greatly from new ballparks.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.