This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
March 19, 2009
Miami city commission debates approves Marlins stadium (again)
And with a "Good morning heavenly father, good morning lord Jesus," the Miami city commission hearing on the Florida Marlins stadium deal is underway. You can follow the webcast here — I'll be posting in the Comments field as we go, with major updates noted here.
UPDATE: Marc Sarnoff just joined three other commissioners in voting to approve the waiver of competitive bidding, which required a four-fifths majority: "I just don't want to be a cause of a potential cost overrun because I didn't believe in something but three of my commissioners did believe in something." That seals it for the city approvals; it's now on to the county commission, Monday at 1 pm.
Public comment time! "AIG! Those are babies compared to these!"
Great fun for fans of spectacle, but there's zero chance that any of this influences the actual vote.
Posted by Neil on March 19, 2009 10:14 AM
Rough summary so far: People in suits: in favor. People in casual clothes: opposed.
Posted by Neil on March 19, 2009 10:30 AM
Did they really start with the words, "Good morning heavenly father, good morning lord Jesus"?
Wow.
Posted by MikeM on March 19, 2009 11:56 AM
They did indeed. It was part of an invocation, I guess, but still.
Posted by Neil on March 19, 2009 12:38 PM
SPENCE-JONES time... My guess is she's going to softball some questions to Burgess, get trite answers, and then vote yes.
Posted by Thomas on March 19, 2009 01:29 PM
Looks like she wants to get her licks in before her vote, anyway. Hard to say if she's genuinely that pissed off or just doing it for the cameras.
Posted by Neil on March 19, 2009 01:38 PM
Did you find Burgess' points trite? He has been by far the best advocate for the project.
Posted by Jorge Costales on March 19, 2009 01:44 PM
Did you find Burgess' points trite? He has been by far the best advocate for the project.
Posted by Jorge Costales on March 19, 2009 01:44 PM
To be honest, I missed big chunks of Burgess' testimony while on a phone call. I'll rewind and check it again after Samson is done.
Posted by Neil on March 19, 2009 01:51 PM
I find the entire process of Spence-Jones asking Burgess if he believes the financing plan he created is sound to be trite.
I'd say this is an easy 3-2 for the Marlins. Off to the County on Monday...
This certainly all sounds like "I'm going to get the best deal for my constituents that I can, then vote yes."
Posted by Neil on March 19, 2009 02:10 PM
Agreed that it's a 3-2, but let's give her some credit. She was smart and confident enough to share the platform with advocates who can better make the case. Something 3 other Commissioners did not do.
Posted by Jorge Costales on March 19, 2009 02:17 PM
Right now she's making the argument that stadium construction jobs are good economic stimulus. I'm not sure she deserves credit for "smart" for that.
I really need to get a job with the Paying People To Bury Bottles Of Money Then Dig Them Up Again lobby...
Posted by Neil on March 19, 2009 02:23 PM
Maybe not for 'that,' but for allowing others to make the more technical arguments about the financing
Neil - have you ever put out a 'minimum standards' for the next city to be able to utilize. For example, having the team put in 25% of the upfront money, penalty for team being moved etc
Here's why - you have the numbers to show why you don't think it's a good investment for local governments, yet city after city opts to go this route. Why not shift the focus to develop minimum standards? This site could end up doing a lot of the leg work which the opposition to these type of projects will struggle to develop on their own.
Posted by Jorge Costales on March 19, 2009 02:35 PM
I actually worked with an old college classmate of mine and a friend of his who was running for city council here in NYC on brainstorming a list of criteria. There were about 20 items, but mostly it came down to this: The city needs to show that the benefits it's getting from the project are more than it would get from not doing the project, or from using the money some other way; and that taxpayers and residents are benefitting as much from the deal as the private entity is.
There are a million ways to define "benefit" - I suppose the joy of not having games rained out anymore can be quantified somehow - but it's still a really tough bar to clear.
I'll see if I can get permission to post the criteria that we came up with - it was a good list.
Posted by Neil on March 19, 2009 02:45 PM
Sarnoff is voting for the bid waiver:
"Once they make those decisions, I guess you get behind the project."
And that's the ballgame.
Posted by Neil on March 19, 2009 03:10 PM