This is a new article from the Miami Herald.

 

http://m.miamiherald.com/mh/db_42928/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=eDzC48sd

 

Seems to me like someone dropped the ball. I can't wai till the haters pick this up and twist it so we are at fault.

Im sure they will find a loophole, remember its Florida.....

lrn2loophole

lolz @ the accountants/lawyers for the city on this deal.

Sounds like it was an intentional drop that was to be announced now that its too late to do anything about it. Typical Miami politics. Its been this way for decades.

This is a new article from the Miami Herald.

 

http://m.miamiherald...ntguid=eDzC48sd

 

Seems to me like someone dropped the ball. I can't wai till the haters pick this up and twist it so we are at fault.

 

You post at the end "We are at fault" are you part of ownership? or you get your tickets free.

This is a new article from the Miami Herald.

 

http://m.miamiherald...ntguid=eDzC48sd

 

Seems to me like someone dropped the ball. I can't wai till the haters pick this up and twist it so we are at fault.

 

You post at the end "We are at fault" are you part of ownership? or you get your tickets free.

 

Of course, don't you.

 

I can't tell if your trying to be funny.

Marlinburger????

Marlinburger????

 

25% of people are in the dumbest quarter of the population.

This is a new article from the Miami Herald.

 

http://m.miamiherald...ntguid=eDzC48sd

 

Seems to me like someone dropped the ball. I can't wai till the haters pick this up and twist it so we are at fault.

 

You post at the end "We are at fault" are you part of ownership? or you get your tickets free.

You might be the least fun person on the planet.

This is a new article from the Miami Herald.

 

http://m.miamiherald...ntguid=eDzC48sd

 

Seems to me like someone dropped the ball. I can't wai till the haters pick this up and twist it so we are at fault.

 

You post at the end "We are at fault" are you part of ownership? or you get your tickets free.

You might be the least fun person on the planet.

THANK YOU!

Hiassen outdoes himself.

 

http://www.miamihera...rylink=misearch

 

He's all upset that this possibility that the City of Miami could wind up paying property taxes to the county on the garages.

 

Poor Carl. He thinks the stadium is a "boondoggle," the arrangement was "outlandish," mistrust was "well-placed" and "numbers" are looking "even more dismal" and the garages are "purely for profit" and thus taxable to the City.

 

There's an exemption from county property taxes for property used for "public purposes." He has assumed that M-D county will in the final analysis want to (or be allowed to, after possible litigation) charge property taxes to the City of Miami, to wit:

 

There’s nothing public about those garages.

 

:lol

 

Far from being "purely for profit," EVERYTHING about the garages is public, they're used ONLY for public events and all 5,700 parking spaces are leased by the Marlins from the City at $10 each, and leasing ALL of them is mandatory whether the Marlins resell any of them or not. For once, the risk of failure falls on a private-sector firm, not on the public.

 

81 home baseball games, some exhibition baseball games, some college baseball games, some international baseball games, some football games, maybe some rodeos, maybe some monster-truck events, maybe some moto-cross events, certainly many concerts. The Marlins are obligated to lease a lot of parking spots over the course of every year.

 

There was a clear "public purpose" behind building this stadium and the garages and that was to keep the Marlins in town permanently, while at the same time creating a public venue that could attract many other events. All in the interest of attracting people and business to Miami. Whether that was an effective use of taxpayer resources is another question.

 

The county says that no final decision has been made about taxing the stadium garages

 

Really? What a surprise. This will all be subject to negotiation, if not litigation. So, of course, Hiassen hedges with words like "might not" and "could be" when it comes to the possible taxation, but blusters:

 

One way or another, the public will get harpooned.

 

Well, no. The assumption (probably on the part of all parties) was that no property tax would be due. No property tax may in fact be due, we don't know yet, M-D hasn't made any decision, they merely told the City they were looking at it. No court that may look at it, should it be litigated has made any decision.

 

In any case, if Miami-Dade County actually charges the City of Miami any property tax, it's not a matter of being "harpooned," all that happens is that some dollars move from the City tax pocket to the County tax pocket. Property in the City of Miami is a huge majority of the property tax rolls of M-D County. They'll work it out, over time.

 

Then, it seems that either someone failed basic math or is reticent to point out obvious facts:

 

Just to keep up with the bond payments on the new garages, Miami needs to bring in about $7 million (...)

 

About $3 million of that $7 million would come from county tourist taxes. The additional $4 million-plus is supposed to be covered by income from the $10-a-space lease agreement with the Marlins.

 

"Supposed to be covered?" Could that have been worded "will be covered?" Yes, I think it could have been, assuming that you weren't out to trash the Marlins.

 

Here's reality: 81 homes games alone generate a guaranteed revenue stream to the City of Miami of 810 per spot. 810 * 5700 = 4.62 million. More than a little over "4 million-plus."

 

Throw in an average of 5 exhibition-type pre-season baseball games per year (MLB/college/WBC,) the odd football game, rodeo, monster-truck, moto-cross and concerts (or whatever,) collectively at 3 per month in the 5-month baseball off-season, and that's another 20 events generating 1.14 million of revenue, total 5.76 million to the City. Whether or not the Marlins make money on parking for those events we don't know or care, we're talking about guaranteed revenue to the City of Miami.

 

What's the problem? The garages probably throw off enough revenue to retire debt and pay property taxes at full rates, if M-D goes that rather unlikely route.

 

If the city and the county work it out, the city comes out smelling like a rose. And local blowhard "reporters" continue to look like the jerks that they are.

 

Now, I agree that cities and counties have no business contributing a dime to building sports stadiums. But, we have to deal with what they actually did. Not my idea of how things should be, nor the ridiculous, fear-mongering speculation of any innumerate jerk who hates the Marlins. Who will seize on something the Marlins had absolutely nothing to do with (the failure of City attorneys to consider all of the possible ramifications of the parking garage agreement on the City before signing the agreement) to trash the Marlins.

 

But, what else is new? It's what hacks do. As in anything other than write an article that reflects some semblance of reality. The rule is always to take advantage of any situation to paint the Marlins in the worst possible light.

Yeah, presumably a "public purpose" in this tax context has been the subject of a good bit of case law, or at least opinions from the M-D Tax Court and will be decided based on those parameters. I highly doubt it means that the parking garage cannot provide any indirect or direct benefits to non-charities, for example. That would be pretty absurd. It's all a matter of how it's been defined in the past and how that fits the facts of these garages.

 

1 thing: to the extent that the City of Miami is financing the stadium, rather than M-D county (I don't know the distribution off-hand, but I'm sure some of y'all do), then they might still be upset that they're losing the money from their own (City of Miami) budget. But the County shouldn't net out any less $$$, with the exception of transaction/litigation costs.

I don't know the distribution off-hand

 

The City of Miami isn't financing the stadium at all, only the parking garages. The rough breakdown:

 

City of Miami: about 104 million for 4 parking garages

M-D County: about 355 million for the stadium itself (net of the Marlins' contribution, total 510-515 million)

Marlins: about 155 million for the stadium (in the form of rent to M-D over 30 years,) plus about 4.6 million (or more likely more) per year for the 5,700 garage parking spaces to the City of Miami.

hoe do 4 parking garages cost 104 million. i know cement is expensive but crazy.

Isnt there store fronts in them too?

My favorite part of the parking garage fiasco ...

 

“We don’t own the garages,� Samson said. “We bought spots. It’s the same thing as you buying a parking spot in the building where you live and being asked to pay a percentage of property tax. Not that anyone has asked us because it wouldn’t make sense to have a private company pay property taxes of a publicly-owned building.

 

 

For a midget he's got ginormous brass balls.

Samson is exactly right, and it didn't take any type of balls to tick off a few facts.

 

The City owns the garages. The Marlins obligated themselves to buy spots. The City didn't get a triple-net lease, they agreed to a fixed price per spot.

Samson is exactly right, and it didn't take any type of balls to tick off a few facts.

 

The City owns the garages. The Marlins obligated themselves to buy spots. The City didn't get a triple-net lease, they agreed to a fixed price per spot.

 

The public just built them their brand new stadium.

Samson is exactly right, and it didn't take any type of balls to tick off a few facts.

 

The City owns the garages. The Marlins obligated themselves to buy spots. The City didn't get a triple-net lease, they agreed to a fixed price per spot.

 

The public just built them their brand new stadium.

And therefore? At most he could've been more tactful, but I really don't care about that.

Samson is exactly right, and it didn't take any type of balls to tick off a few facts.

 

The City owns the garages. The Marlins obligated themselves to buy spots. The City didn't get a triple-net lease, they agreed to a fixed price per spot.

 

The public just built them their brand new stadium.

 

So, what? Facts are facts. Samson, of diminutive size and supposedly proportionally-sized balls, was entirely accurate.

 

Further, with regard to the "public" building anything, 355 million of the cost of the stadium (which the Marlins don't own) is being paid for by a "public" comprised of (about 99%) tourists.

 

1/6th (1%) of the 6% hotel "bed tax" is dedicated to the stadium/garages. As a local, the only way you contribute to that is to spend money in a local hotel.

 

The Marlins pay the other 155 million. 120 million in cash when it's completed and 2 million/year in "rent" which is structured as repayment of the 35 million loan from M-D.

 

The garages (which the Marlins also don't own) are paid for by 1) the City's part of the 1% portion of the bed tax and 2) revenue from the garages. See post 12 for the revenue details. Close to half of the garage cost is being paid by tourists, the rest (and probably more than needed) by actual users of the garages.

 

To say the "public," meaning or implying local M-D or City taxpayers, built the Marlins anything is absolutely false. Virtually ZERO local taxpayer money is involved. It's the beauty of the entire deal. It's the reason a deal actually got done, after all these years and failed attempts.

 

The only possible detriment to local taxpayers would perhaps be if the stadium wasn't built, in which case some bed tax money would be unused and the bed tax rate could be reduced, making M-D more competitive as a tourist destination.

 

However, when was the last time a bunch of Miami politicians had a revenue stream they wanted to reduce? In this case, from 6% to 5%.

 

Never that I can recall. If the stadium wasn't built they would have found something else to spend it on rather than reducing the bed tax. Result? No net benefit to local taxpayers. Unless you assume that whatever else they might have financed and built would have provided more value than the stadium, which is the rankest sort of speculation.

To say the "public," meaning or implying local M-D or City taxpayers, built the Marlins anything is absolutely false.

It's absolutely accurate. Last time I checked, the public had no need for a baseball stadium, but the Marlins did. It was a public expenditure to cover the expense of private enterprise ... and it was designed to make sure that private enterprise reaped all the profits from the "public facility".

To say the "public," meaning or implying local M-D or City taxpayers, built the Marlins anything is absolutely false.

 

Last time I checked, the public had no need for a baseball stadium, but the Marlins did.

Obviously not. The "public," in the form of the elected governments of the City of Miami and M-D county decided that they did have a need for a baseball stadium to keep the Marlins in town.

 

The constant kerfuffle in the local papers is always about "taxpayers" without ever pointing out that LOCAL taxpayers will pay virtually nothing for the stadium or the garages.

 

As regards the wider public-versus-private argument, I completely agree. Stadiums should be built and paid for by owners and nobody else. But, that ain't the real world. Politicians offer incentives in the form of public money (whether gotten locally or from tourists) to remain in town. Not a good idea, but that's reality.

 

This deal got done because virtually the entire cost was fobbed off on tourists. Not optimal, but it beats reading about a team that moved to San Antonio or Nevada or wherever.

To say the "public," meaning or implying local M-D or City taxpayers, built the Marlins anything is absolutely false.

 

Last time I checked, the public had no need for a baseball stadium, but the Marlins did.

Obviously not. The "public," in the form of the elected governments of the City of Miami and M-D county decided that they did have a need for a baseball stadium to keep the Marlins in town.

 

The constant kerfuffle in the local papers is always about "taxpayers" without ever pointing out that LOCAL taxpayers will pay virtually nothing for the stadium or the garages.

 

As regards the wider public-versus-private argument, I completely agree. Stadiums should be built and paid for by owners and nobody else. But, that ain't the real world. Politicians offer incentives in the form of public money (whether gotten locally or from tourists) to remain in town. Not a good idea, but that's reality.

 

This deal got done because virtually the entire cost was fobbed off on tourists. Not optimal, but it beats reading about a team that moved to San Antonio or Nevada or wherever.

 

When I visit next year, I will gladly be giving my whatever tax percent to the ballpark while staying at a hotel.

When I visit next year, I will gladly be giving my whatever tax percent to the ballpark while staying at a hotel.

 

Well, there ya go.

 

On a hundred dollar hotel room, the total "bed tax" will be 6 bucks. $1 of that $6 will go to city/county debt service on the stadium/garages.

 

Clearly, you need to start staying in $1,000 per night hotel rooms.

 

:lol