MLB Luxury Tax

The New York Yankees own the luxury tax – they have paid:

  • 2008 – $26.9 million
  • 2007 – $23.9 million
  • 2005 – $34.0 million
  • $148.5 million in the six seasons since it began – 90% of the total
  • Luxury taxes are paid on Jan 31st of the following year.
  • Luxury tax = 40% rate for the amount over $155 million, the Tigers paid at a 22.5% rate [their tax was $1.3 million] because they exceeded the specified threshold for the first time.

————————————————————————
Yanks have $26.9 million luxury tax

APNewsBreak: By RONALD BLUM

The New York Yankees not only failed to make the playoffs, they were hit with their highest luxury tax in three years.

The Yankees were assessed a $26.9 million tax by the commissioner’s office on Monday, up from $23.9 million last year and their biggest bill since paying nearly $34 million for 2005.

The Detroit Tigers, who also failed to qualify for the postseason, are the only other team that must pay tax and owe $1.3 million to the commissioner’s office.

Checks are due by Jan. 31.

Both teams got little for what they spent. The Yankees’ streak of 13 consecutive playoff appearances ended, and they finished third in the AL East at 89-73, prompting them to spend nearly a quarter-billion dollars to sign pitchers CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett.

Detroit entered the year with lofty expectations after acquiring Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis but went 74-88 and finished last in the AL Central.

While the Yankees pay at a 40 percent rate for the amount over $155 million, the Tigers pay at a 22.5 percent rate because they exceeded the specified threshold for the first time.

This year’s figure brings the Yankees’ total tax to $148.5 million in the six seasons since it began – 90 percent of the total.

Before this year, the only other teams to pay were the Boston Red Sox, who owed $13.9 million for exceeding the threshold in four seasons, and the Los Angeles Angels, who paid $927,000 in 2004.

New York’s payroll was $222.2 million and Detroit was second at $160.8 million for the purpose of the luxury tax. To computer it, Major League Baseball uses the average annual values of contracts for players on 40-man rosters and adds benefits.

The threshold rose from $148 million last year to $155 million this season. It goes up to $162 million next year and rises by $8 million in each of the following two seasons.
—————————————————————————–

Advertisements

Order is restored to the Force

Fairness dictates that I acknowledge that the Miami Herald ran an editorial today endorsing the stadium plan. Ya gotta love that paper! The Herald’s editorial in full:

Now is a good time to build a stadium: City, county commissions should approve new home for Marlins

The conventional wisdom in our community is that it’s a bad idea for the city of Miami and Miami-Dade County to help build a new baseball stadium for the Florida Marlins. It’s a poor use of public funds. The timing is wrong. The financing doesn’t work. The fan base is too small. There are better uses for the money. You get the picture.

Air all concerns

There are many good reasons behind each one of these objections — but we believe that none of them, whether considered alone or collectively, should scuttle the deal. All these concerns and more should be thoroughly vetted at the city and county commission meetings on Friday. When the dust settles, we hope that both commissions say Yes to the project, not because we have drunk the stadium-or-bust Kool-Aid but because a viable baseball team in an environment that can draw fans and produce revenue for the team would be an asset that produces tangible and intangible benefits throughout South Florida.

Sports enliven and bring excitement to a community, as do museums, concerts, theaters and performance centers. Sports help to build and unify communities by bringing diverse groups, cultures and people together for a common goal, instilling pride when the team wins and stronger purpose when they don’t.

The Marlins deal requires a huge outlay of public funds, mostly from bed taxes generated by visitors, at a time when the economy is suffering the worst contraction since the Great Depression. Picking the right moment for an investment is always a gamble. But the investment should be considered over the full 35-year term of the loan, not the cyclical up-and-down swings of the economy. Long-term return on Convention Development Tax dollars has averaged 5 ½ percent, enough to cover the estimated 4 percent average annual cost of money borrowed for the project, says County Manager George Burgess.

Fans want comfort

Building a retractable-roof stadium will help eliminate the biggest factor contributing to poor attendance. More than any other team in the League, fans don’t go to Marlins’ games when there is even a chance of rain. A modern, comfortable stadium would generate revenue streams (something the Marlins currently don’t have much of), which, in turn, would be used to invest in quality players, said Marlins President David Samson.

A baseball team committed to staying in the city would complement South Florida’s many attractions. It would be a positive step in our community’s quest to better itself. The Marlins should win a green light on Friday. After all, the deal has been in the works for nearly a decade. Conventional wisdom has its place, but it shouldn’t stop a dream whose time has come.

The Empire keeps striking back

Please forgive all the grammatical and sloppy errors you might have seen in the Miami Herald over these past few weeks. There is a reason they ran a picture of UNC coach Roy Williams when they were in fact referring to the NFL receiver. [In a stroke of politically correct luck, the coach is old and white, whereas the player is young and black, so no one had to be suspended for a lack sensitivity in confusing the two].

The reason for the recent upheaval is that the Herald has been pulling an all hands on deck assault on local government’s plans to partner with the Marlins and build a new facility for the MLB team. The weeks long attacks continued today with an article which compares the stadium deal in Miami with stadium deals in other cities.

A little experiment. I’d like to illustrate how bias against the stadium deal would have affected the presentation of the article. By merely ‘re-editing’ the actual article, I can create a positive story about the stadium deal without changing any of the facts. I’ll note any ‘additions’, things I’ve added, in bold. The actual Herald article is copied at the end of the post.

————————————————————————————

Florida Marlins stadium deal better than most for county, among smaller market MLB teams

The Florida Marlins stadium deal coming up for final showdown votes Friday — would have the public responsible for a lower percentage of the planned construction costs than stadiums built this decade in Cincinnati, Houston, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Washington, a Miami Herald analysis found. Important to note that the public’s percentage could possibly drop even further, given that the Marlins are responsible for any construction cost overruns as per the agreement.

Bob Starky, who consults for Major League Baseball on stadium deals, reviewed the newspaper’s findings. ”The most difficult thing to do with these deals is compare them,” he said.

For example, fourteen Major League stadiums have been built, or begun, since 2000. The average public contribution for construction of those stadiums has been 44 percent, the newspaper found. Under the proposed Miami deal, the Marlins would rank ninth of the 14 in the percentage of construction costs borne by the team, the newspaper found.

However, those figures include the New York stadiums, worth nearly $2 billion, include no upfront public payments — but the city is investing nearly $400 million in infrastructure surrounding the ballparks.

Further, in some cases teams were willing to put up more of their own money because they own the property adjacent to their new stadiums and would profit from the development of restaurants and shopping. San Diego, Detroit and St. Louis fall into that category, Starky said.

Stadium deals are complex financial transactions that can be difficult to compare. Some involve outright gifts of public land, which can be hard to value, some involve taxpayer-funded infrastructure that benefits the team and the public, and almost all involve varying degrees of low-interest financing subsidized by government agencies.

Those factors make it impossible to draw an across the board, apples to apples, comparison of every financial variable.

However, it did make sense to compare the initial stadium construction agreements to the other smaller market teams, rather than have our analysis skewed by including large market teams like the Yankees and the Giants, or even smaller market teams with historically high revenues, like the Cardinals.

The Herald analysis of those deals shows cities that drove the hardest bargains often did so after putting stadium deals to a public vote, or after politicians dismissed threats from team owners to move.

Voters in St. Louis refused to finance a stadium for the venerable Cardinals, so team owners raised 88 percent of the construction money themselves, relying on a county loan for the rest. Such are the perks of having a team owner which is a major American corporation–Anheuser-Busch–and whom has been St Louis’ largest employer for more than century.

In San Francisco, where voters rejected four ballot measures that would have committed public funds to a new Giants stadium, a local grocery magnate built a spectacular waterfront park with money from Silicon Valley investors and deep-pocketed fans. Obviously, no such legendary industries are available to tap into in the South Florida market.

“We really would have preferred if the public had taken the risk instead of us,” said Peter Magowan, who bought the Giants after the failed ballot measures. “But voters had spoken in unmistakable terms to us a number of times.”

The San Diego Padres opened their new stadium in 2005, built with 67 percent public funds, slightly less than in Miami. But the team promptly collected $60 million in naming rights, which significantly reduced the team’s net contribution percentage.

As part of the San Diego deal, the team owner invested $300 million to help develop the neighborhood surrounding the stadium. There is no such requirement for the Marlins to invest in Little Havana. However, Little Havana today is a far cry from the real estate market surrounding Petco Stadium 10 years ago. Condo construction was booming in the area, which is why the city had to resort to eminent domain to clear out homeowners who were in the way of the planned redevelopment. No such upheaval efforts are necessary in the Little Havana neighborhood, which has long been accustomed to having a towering neighbor. From Little Havana’s perspective, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar just sub-leased to Yao Ming.

After noting how local taxpayers concerns had derailed stadium efforts in St Louis, San Francisco and Minnesota, the Marlins and local leaders carefully avoided a public referendum by structuring the deal so most of the public money comes from hotel bed taxes paid primarily by tourists.

Under the proposed Marlins deal, outright public gifts would cover $361 million of the $515 million stadium construction. The Marlins would pay $119 million and get another $35 million loan from the county, to be repaid in escalating annual installments.

The Marlins will not have to buy land: The county will host them rent free for 35 years on the site in Little Havana, which is assessed at $16 million by the county appraiser. The county will own the stadium, so the Marlins won’t pay property tax.

So-called bed taxes will cover $311 million of the total $515 million cost.

But revenue from the bed tax has been severely compromised by the global recession, raising questions about whether the county would have to dip into the general fund, which pays for a wide range of services, including police and garbage collection.

Public money also paid the estimated $10 million cost of demolishing the Orange Bowl, which had occupied the site, and will cover an estimated $24 million in infrastructure work.

Other cities have constructed finances differently. In 2004, the Washington, D.C., council voted to cover all $600 million of construction costs for the Nationals. But, Washington also shares significantly in the team’s proceeds.

To help cover the city’s roughly $35 million annual construction loan payments, the Nationals pay an average rent of $5.5 million a year. The city also collects tax on tickets and merchandise at the stadium; their share came to $12.5 million in 2008. Taxes on businesses and utilities cover the rest of D.C.’s annual loan payment.

Marlins President David Samson said up until six months ago, he offered the county the exact same deal that D.C. received.

But county officials say they’re better off with Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria spending $154 million toward construction costs than creating dedicated revenue sources for the stadium.

“Washington, D.C., is all public money, it’s taxes imposed on users of the stadium,” County Manager George Burgess said. “We have not created any new tax or fee, or raised any, for the financing.”

Robert A. DuPuy, president of Major League Baseball, said of Loria: “This is an owner who is reaching in his own pocket in a market that, frankly, is unproven.”

Other variables to consider. The city of San Diego is able to pay off its debt with proceeds from other events at the stadium, including concerts, soccer matches and motocross races. The city makes more than $1 million per year through such events, said Tim Moore, the city’s ballpark administrator.

Under the Marlins’ pending deal, all revenue from the first 10 non-baseball events at the stadium each year would go to the team. After that, the county would get half the profits, but the money must be spent on capital improvements at the park — another benefit to the Marlins.

“Wow, the Marlins negotiated a good deal,” Moore said. Actually, the residents of San Diego don’t think Mr Moore negotiated much of a deal either. There is much anger over the fact that the Padres are being sold and the city will not realize any of those revenues, even though the team’s value has been significantly boosted by the stadium. Something which Miami’s local governments have addressed in their agreements.

In Milwaukee, emotions are still raw even though the stadium opened eight years ago and the Brewers made the playoffs in 2008.

“You’re gonna get ripped off, lookout,” Wisconsin state Sen. Michael G. Ellis said last week. “Bud Selig is on the way; hold on to your wallet.”

Selig, now the commissioner of Major League Baseball, owned the Brewers when stadium negotiations began in Milwaukee in the early 1990s.

The initial conversations involved Selig paying for his own stadium, said Ellis, who was majority leader of the state Senate during key votes. Through relentless lobbying, “the worm turned,” Ellis said, and the public wound up footing 78 percent of the bill.

Selig got the site he wanted, in a remote location where the team wouldn’t have to compete with other restaurants and businesses.

The Miami deal sounds familiar, Ellis said. “So it’s a self-contained unit? They get the revenue and they don’t pay property taxes? It’s the same modus operandi as they used up here.”

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, who went on to serve in President George W. Bush’s Cabinet, was originally a strong supporter of the Brewers’ deal. ”It couldn’t have happened without me,” Thompson said in an interview last week.

But as the deal progressed, Thompson soured. The Seligs, he said, “were going to contribute a lot more money and a lot more support, and they just kept pulling back, all during construction.”

Thompson said if he were a Miami politician, he would not vote until he saw signed, enforceable contracts for every aspect of the deal. He would insist the Marlins prove they have the financial wherewithal to live up to their end of the deal.

Contracts for stadium construction and operation are written, but not signed. The Marlins have fought for years to keep their finances private, and so far have not offered public proof they can cover their share of the construction costs.

Marlins President Samson said he expects to approach lenders in the next 18 months, and that “the banks are comfortable today” with lending money to Major League baseball teams. “People want to own that paper because they know there are revenue streams that never go away,” he said.

Selig could not be reached for comment.

City and county commissioners will cast votes on five separate stadium contracts on Friday, the final votes in the franchise’s decade-long quest for a permanent home.

Passage could come down to a one-vote swing, as the County Commission must approve two contracts — for construction and management — by a 2-1 majority because the Marlins hired contractors without formal bid, requiring a bid waiver.

MLB’s DuPuy added that the Marlins might be better off somewhere else if a stadium deal can’t be hammered out. “Anyplace is better than Miami without a ballpark,” DuPuy said.

In an unguarded–but not inaccurate assessment based on the Miami Herald’s findings–Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez commented after his State of the County speech on Tuesday. “It’s probably not the best deal that has ever been worked out between a community and a team.” But he insisted it’s better than most and comes at a time the region is thirsting for a public works jolt.

—————————————————————————-
Actual Miami Herald article – Florida Marlins stadium deal better than most for team

Posted on Wed, Feb. 11, 2009

BY JACK DOLAN AND CHARLES RABIN

The Florida Marlins stadium deal coming up for final showdown votes Friday — where the public would foot 70 percent of the construction bill and share none of the revenue — would be among the more generous to a team owner this decade, a Miami Herald analysis found.

Fourteen Major League stadiums have been built, or begun, since 2000. The average public contribution for construction of those stadiums has been 44 percent, the newspaper found.

Under the proposed Miami deal, the Marlins would rank ninth of the 14 in the percentage of construction costs borne by the team, the newspaper found.

”It’s probably not the best deal that has ever been worked out between a community and a team,” Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said after his State of the County speech on Tuesday.

But he insisted it’s better than most and comes at a time the region is thirsting for a public works jolt, adding: “At some point, negotiations have to stop.”

The Herald examined public records, reviewed media reports and spoke with city and county officials across the country to create its list, showing:

• The public paid a higher percentage for construction costs for stadiums in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee. Taxpayers in Washington and Houston also paid more initially, but will recoup much of their investment through generous revenue sharing with the teams.

• Team owners are on the hook for a greater share of construction costs in Minneapolis, San Diego, Philadelphia, Detroit, St. Louis, New York — with stadiums for both the Mets and Yankees — and San Francisco. The New York stadiums, worth nearly $2 billion, include no upfront public payments — but the city is investing nearly $400 million in infrastructure surrounding the ballparks.

Stadium deals are complex financial transactions that can be difficult to compare. Some involve outright gifts of public land, which can be hard to value, some involve taxpayer-funded infrastructure that benefits the team and the public, and almost all involve varying degrees of low-interest financing subsidized by government agencies.

Those factors make it impossible to draw an across the board, apples to apples, comparison of every financial variable.

However, the initial stadium construction agreements are generally comparable, typically setting the tone for how generous local governments are going to be to the team over the multidecade life of the deal.

The Herald analysis of those deals shows cities that drove the hardest bargains often did so after putting stadium deals to a public vote, or after politicians dismissed threats from team owners to move.

Voters in St. Louis refused to finance a stadium for the venerable Cardinals, so team owners raised 88 percent of the construction money themselves, relying on a county loan for the rest.

In San Francisco, where voters rejected four ballot measures that would have committed public funds to a new Giants stadium, a local grocery magnate built a spectacular waterfront park with money from Silicon Valley investors and deep-pocketed fans.

”We really would have preferred if the public had taken the risk instead of us,” said Peter Magowan, who bought the Giants after the failed ballot measures. “But voters had spoken in unmistakable terms to us a number of times.”

In Miami, the Marlins and local leaders carefully avoided a public referendum by structuring the deal so most of the public money comes from hotel bed taxes paid primarily by tourists.

Bob Starky, who consults for Major League Baseball on stadium deals, reviewed the newspaper’s findings.

”The most difficult thing to do with these deals is compare them,” he said.

Starky questioned how fair it is to compare the Marlins to large market teams like the Yankees and the Giants, or even smaller market teams with historically high revenues, like the Cardinals.

”They can put more toward the ballpark than Miami, or Minnesota or Pittsburgh,” Starky said, “just like some people can afford to buy a bigger house.”

In some cases, teams were willing to put up more of their own money because they own the property adjacent to their new stadiums and would profit from the development of restaurants and shopping. San Diego, Detroit and St. Louis fall into that category, Starky said.

Under the proposed Marlins deal, outright public gifts would cover $361 million of the $515 million stadium construction. The Marlins would pay $119 million and get another $35 million loan from the county, to be repaid in escalating annual installments.

The Marlins will not have to buy land: The county will host them rent free for 35 years on the site in Little Havana, which is assessed at $16 million by the county appraiser. The county will own the stadium, so the Marlins won’t pay property tax.

So-called bed taxes will cover $311 million of the total $515 million cost.

But revenue from the bed tax has been severely compromised by the global recession, raising questions about whether the county would have to dip into the general fund, which pays for a wide range of services, including police and garbage collection.

Public money also paid the estimated $10 million cost of demolishing the Orange Bowl, which had occupied the site, and will cover an estimated $24 million in infrastructure work.

Other cities have constructed finances differently. In 2004, the Washington, D.C., council voted to cover all $600 million of construction costs for the Nationals. But, Washington also shares significantly in the team’s proceeds.

To help cover the city’s roughly $35 million annual construction loan payments, the Nationals pay an average rent of $5.5 million a year. The city also collects tax on tickets and merchandise at the stadium; their share came to $12.5 million in 2008. Taxes on businesses and utilities cover the rest of D.C.’s annual loan payment.

Marlins President David Samson said up until six months ago, he offered the county the exact same deal that D.C. received.

But county officials say they’re better off with Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria spending $154 million toward construction costs than creating dedicated revenue sources for the stadium.

”Washington, D.C., is all public money, it’s taxes imposed on users of the stadium,” County Manager George Burgess said. “We have not created any new tax or fee, or raised any, for the financing.”

Robert A. DuPuy, president of Major League Baseball, said of Loria: “This is an owner who is reaching in his own pocket in a market that, frankly, is unproven.”

The San Diego Padres opened their new stadium in 2005, built with 67 percent public funds, slightly less than in Miami.

As part of the deal, the team owner invested $300 million to help develop the neighborhood surrounding the stadium. There is no such requirement for the Marlins to invest in Little Havana.

The city of San Diego is able to pay off its debt with proceeds from other events at the stadium, including concerts, soccer matches and motocross races. The city makes more than $1 million per year through such events, said Tim Moore, the city’s ballpark administrator.

Under the Marlins’ pending deal, all revenue from the first 10 non-baseball events at the stadium each year would go to the team. After that, the county would get half the profits, but the money must be spent on capital improvements at the park — another benefit to the Marlins.

”Wow, the Marlins negotiated a good deal,” Moore said.

In Milwaukee, emotions are still raw even though the stadium opened eight years ago and the Brewers made the playoffs in 2008.

”You’re gonna get ripped off, lookout,” Wisconsin state Sen. Michael G. Ellis said last week. “Bud Selig is on the way; hold on to your wallet.”

Selig, now the commissioner of Major League Baseball, owned the Brewers when stadium negotiations began in Milwaukee in the early 1990s.

The initial conversations involved Selig paying for his own stadium, said Ellis, who was majority leader of the state Senate during key votes. Through relentless lobbying, ”the worm turned,” Ellis said, and the public wound up footing 78 percent of the bill.

Selig got the site he wanted, in a remote location where the team wouldn’t have to compete with other restaurants and businesses.

The Miami deal sounds familiar, Ellis said. “So it’s a self-contained unit? They get the revenue and they don’t pay property taxes? It’s the same modus operandi as they used up here.”

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, who went on to serve in President George W. Bush’s Cabinet, was originally a strong supporter of the Brewers’ deal. ”It couldn’t have happened without me,” Thompson said in an interview last week.

But as the deal progressed, Thompson soured. The Seligs, he said, “were going to contribute a lot more money and a lot more support, and they just kept pulling back, all during construction.”

Thompson said if he were a Miami politician, he would not vote until he saw signed, enforceable contracts for every aspect of the deal. He would insist the Marlins prove they have the financial wherewithal to live up to their end of the deal.

Contracts for stadium construction and operation are written, but not signed. The Marlins have fought for years to keep their finances private, and so far have not offered public proof they can cover their share of the construction costs.

Marlins President Samson said he expects to approach lenders in the next 18 months, and that ”the banks are comfortable today” with lending money to Major League baseball teams. ”People want to own that paper because they know there are revenue streams that never go away,” he said.

Selig could not be reached for comment.

City and county commissioners will cast votes on five separate stadium contracts on Friday, the final votes in the franchise’s decade-long quest for a permanent home.

Passage could come down to a one-vote swing, as the County Commission must approve two contracts — for construction and management — by a 2-1 majority because the Marlins hired contractors without formal bid, requiring a bid waiver.

MLB’s DuPuy added that the Marlins might be better off somewhere else if a stadium deal can’t be hammered out. ”Anyplace is better than Miami without a ballpark,” DuPuy said.
———————————————————————

Classic baseball upset ?

The Netherlands win over the Dominican Republic on Tuesday in the World Baseball Classic was the biggest upset since …. the Netherlands beat the Dominicans last Saturday. The latest win was obviously more dramatic since it was an elimination game, but still, it made me think about what we consider upsets, especially in baseball.

Expectations obviously have a lot to do with it. The Dominican team could be confused for a MLB all-star lineup, whereas the Netherlands only active MLB player was the Marlins own, Henricus [Rick] VandenHurk. I would think baseball would be more susceptible to upsets, given that great pitching can dominate a game. See that’s my prejudice going into the topic and it was reinforced in the case of the Netherlands against the Dominicans.

They ended up playing 20 innings in two games. The Netherlands only scored in 2 of them, the first inning of the first game [3 runs] and the last inning of the last game [2 runs]. So their hitting, while timely, was not the difference. Their pitching was. They allowed only 3 earned runs in those 20 innings, despite 15 base on balls–VandenHurk did not pitch against the Dominicans, but had 3 shutout innings against Puerto Rico. Based on that, could we make the case that pitching is the key to teams which are considered upset winners?

Let’s see if even a superficial review of recent World Series winners yields any evidence about the effect of pitching in upset scenarios. We’ll define upsets as those cases which the winning team had 10 [or less] wins than the team they beat during the regular season–I include the team pitching ERA for the season and keep in mind that American League ERA’s are probably about half-a-run higher due to the DH:

  • St Louis in 2006 [4.54 – 9th of NL 16 teams] beat Detroit [3.84 – 1st of 14 AL teams]
  • Florida in 2003 [4.04 – 7th in NL] beat New York [4.02 – 3rd in AL]
  • Atlanta in 1995 [3.44 – 1st in NL] beat Cleveland [3.83 – 1st in AL]
  • Cincinnati in 1990 [3.39 – 2nd in NL] beat Oakland [3.18 – 1st in AL]

Well, other than establishing that NL teams are more likely to pull the upset, it’s back to the drawing board in terms of understanding why upsets occur. Pitching is the easy and intuitive answer, but I need to find another way to look at the numbers. In three out of the four cases above, the team with the best pitching during the season [DH adjusted] was the victim of the upset.

—————————————————————————-
The Dutch Are Stunning the World at the Classic

March 12, 2009 – By JACK CURRY

SAN JUAN, P.R. — The surprising baseball heroes from the Netherlands trickled out of the third-base dugout on Wednesday, more successful than ever and as unidentifiable as ever. They have no names on their jerseys, which only partly explains why just one player was initially asked for an autograph.

When pitcher Leon Boyd signed his name, some of his teammates watched, happily and hopefully. Maybe a fan would ask them to sign, too. It was a cool scene surrounding a cool team, a team that has already overachieved by shocking the Dominicans twice in the World Baseball Classic.

The Dutch team’s second victory over the Dominican Republic, in 11 innings on Tuesday, enabled it to scoot into the second round of the W.B.C. Alexander Smit, another pitcher for the Netherlands, was acting relaxed about the stunning results while lounging at the hotel with some teammates. Eventually, he stopped being calm and acted as giddy as a Little Leaguer eating ice cream.

“Imagine when I’m 60, I’ll still be talking about this,” Smit said. “If I ever have kids, I’ll be telling them what we did.”

What the Netherlands did was press the fast-forward button on its humble status in international baseball. The Dutch pitched smartly and aggressively, made play after snazzy play, and generated just enough offense to stay alive. “For us, we shocked the world,” outfielder Gene Kingsale said.

Since the Netherlands and Puerto Rico had already qualified for the next round, Wednesday’s game mattered only for seeding. It also mattered to 19,501 Puerto Rican fans who watched the home team win, 5-0. That result, and Venezuela’s 5-3 win over the United States, set up these second-round matchups Saturday in Miami Gardens, Fla.: the Dutch play Venezuela, and Puerto Rico plays the United States.

The progress of the honkballers, which is the Dutch word for baseball players, is the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament’s equivalent of a 16th-seeded team beating a No. 1. Twice. Half of the players on the Netherlands’s 28-man roster were born there, 11 are from Curaçao and 2 are from Aruba. Boyd, who had a win and a save against the Dominicans, is from Canada.

Knowing that Boyd’s mother was from the Netherlands, Robert Eenhoorn, the team’s general manager, journeyed to Belgium to scout him. After watching Boyd, Eenhoorn asked him how soon he could apply for a Dutch passport. Boyd said that he already owned one.

“Then you just made the Dutch team,” Eenhoorn said.

Even Eenhoorn admitted that he thought his team was at least four years away from something this special. Rick VandenHurk has pitched in 22 games for the Florida Marlins, while 10 other players on the Dutch team are minor leaguers. If those players blossomed, Eenhoorn believed that 2013 could be memorable.

But the Netherlands succeeded in making 2009 memorable. The team with players from Corendon Kinheim, DOOR Neptunus and Veracruz Red Eagles, clubs in the Dutch Major Leagues, outlasted a Dominican team with David Ortiz, Hanley Ramírez and José Reyes. Only five Dutch players have major league experience.

The Netherlands used five pitchers in the first win over the Dominicans, and six in the second matchup. Manager Rod Delmonico tried to never let the Dominican hitters face the same reliever in two straight at-bats. That strategy confused some strong hitters, who were already flustered against pitchers they had never seen.

Bert Blyleven, who was born in the Netherlands and won 287 games in the majors, is the team’s pitching coach. He has implored his pitchers to be aggressive, to pitch to their strengths and to not worry about which All-Star was batting. Before Wednesday’s game with Puerto Rico, the Dutch had held opponents scoreless in 26 of 29 innings.

“I think sometimes when you’re David Ortiz or you put that Dominican club together or Puerto Rico, they think that maybe these guys over here are in awe,” Blyleven said. “Like I told them, David Ortiz puts his pants on the same as you do.”

In the tensest situations, the Dominicans, not the Dutch, were the players who seemed anxious. That was an interesting contrast, especially since Delmonico compared the talent in the Dutch league with that of Class A rookie ball. But, he proudly added that the Netherlands had proved it could compete at the major league level for the last few days, too.

As Eenhoorn watched batting practice on Wednesday, he was a satisfied architect. Eenhoorn, who played briefly with the Yankees in the mid-1990s, retired from the majors before the 1998 season. He could have stayed in the States, but he returned home to build the sport he loved. Construction is ahead of schedule.

“I’m a little in awe, too,” he said. “This is unbelievable what we’re doing.”
—————————————————————————–

How the power that be in Miami operates

The Miami Herald seems to oppose the building of a stadium which would ensure MLB remains in Miami. I write that because of the one-sidedness of their reporting. Here is how I see the Herald wielding its influence:

Wednesday, Feb 11– Michael Putney Op-ed piece – A stadium we can’t afford

  • Putney argues that the real cost of the stadium should include the compounded interest on the initial debt incurred. Which is fine, if you make that point consistently. For example, on the front page, the Herald reported on the $838 Billion stimulus plan which it then endorsed on its Op-Ed page, with no mention of ‘real’ costs. Would anyone argue that the ‘real costs’ will exceed $2 Trillion? Will the Herald be revising all stated government costs to approximate real costs?
  • I wish I remembered Mr Putney’s positions on the Carnival/Arsht Center, but accountability and sunshine laws do not extend to the powers that be. They are nowhere to be found on the web.
  • Putney notes the excellent analysis–against the stadium plan, naturally–done by Miami Today’s Michael Lewis. The one time I took a close look at Mr Lewis’ figures, I discovered sloppy if not intentionally misleading financial reporting. You be the judge, click here.
  • A major portion of the stimulus plan involves transferring monies back to the states for their spending on, among many other things, infrastructure projects. If you are a stadium opponent–which is encompassed by the Megaplan–and stimulus plan supporter, intellectual honesty would force you to acknowledge the contradiction.

Wednesday, Feb 11Article Headline – Mayor Carlos Alvarez’s State of Dade speech hypes stadium

  • Note the use of the word ‘hype’ in the headline. Subtlety can not be risked in the final week.

Wednesday, Feb 11– Total Florida Marlins stadium debt is unclear

  • Here’s what Neil deMause, a critic of publicly funded stadiums, says about the Hearld’s reporting

    “It’s not quite a fair assessment – the Herald counts money deferred for 20 years the same as money due tomorrow, for starters, which skews its figures.”

  • This is the article which Putney based his Op-Ed piece on. Again re consistency, Treasury Secretary Geithner excluded many details from TARP II, which many have criticized, but not the Miami Herald.

Tuesday, Feb 10– Marlins stadium, symphony hall vie for Dade bed-tax dollars

  • A little divisiveness can’t hurt. Clarion call to the Arts crowd to protect their turf.

Sunday, Feb 8– Ballpark design a hit; shops, garages less so

  • The most egregious slam job. The Herald even provides links to bloggers critical of the stadium, in case they weren’t negative enough in their full page spread. [Full disclosure, that’s not something I normally criticize.]
  • In an article ostensibly about the design of the new stadium, the Herald takes the space to note that the cities of San Diego and St Louis had ‘extracted far more extensive redevelopment commitments’ than Miami had for the Marlins. The conditions between the 3 cities could not be more different.
  • The St Louis team is owned by a company [Anheuser-Busch] with roots in the community dating back to the 19th century as a corporate headquarters and the city’s largest employer. In what possible manner is St Louis a reasonable comparison to Miami?
  • The San Diego stadium [Petco] was built in the most appealing piece of real estate in the city during a condo boom. The comparison would have been less egregious if the Marlins had been submitting a design for a stadium in the former Bicentennial Park location. By the way, one of the bloggers promoted in the article–Field of Schemes–notes that the San Diego team ownership’s contribution of $173 million should be considered net of a $60 million naming rights deal. For those keeping score, that means the Marlins are contributing more than the San Diego ownership did to the construction of a stadium.
  • All this while ignoring a key fact during all of their recent reporting; The Marlins are responsible for any cost overruns. If that were not the case, that would be argument #1 for not entering into this agreement for local governments.
  • Where was the comparison to Pittsburgh? A city which recently built a stadium and has similar demographics to Miami. Was the comparison too favorable to risk disclosing?

Sunday, Feb 1– Tax revenue for Florida Marlins stadium falling short?

  • Tax revenues will decrease during a recession. Video at 11.

No word yet on the exact number of widows and orphans to be interviewed–scheduled to run on Thursday–about something positive in their lives the stadium will prevent.

All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post. This way there is a record of what appears in the Herald, given that no one, and I mean no one, pays for their archive services. But I don’t need to remind McClatchy stockholders of that.

———————————————————————————————-
Total Florida Marlins stadium debt is unclear

Posted on Wed, Feb. 11, 2009

BY DOUGLAS HANKS

Days before the final votes on a $515 million ballpark, Miami-Dade’s top stadium expense remains a mystery: how much it will cost to pay back the construction debt.

County Manager George Burgess said Tuesday his staff may not release a repayment plan on $347 million in ballpark bonds until Miami-Dade commissioners meet Friday.

Without those details, it’s almost impossible to estimate the strain a new Florida Marlins stadium might place on Miami-Dade’s budget or how much the ballpark ultimately would cost the county.

Miami-Dade would borrow $50 million for the stadium from a previous bond referendum and pledge $297 million in debt to future hotel taxes. The rest would come from the Marlins, with $13 million from Miami.

Using past Miami-Dade bond sales as a guide, the pace of paying back hotel bonds for the stadium could swing borrowing costs from as low as $528 million to more than $1.1 billion, according to Miami Herald calculations.

Top county administrators have already said hotel taxes do not generate enough revenue to fund the bulk of the stadium debt. They plan to delay paying down the $297 million in hotel-tax bonds until later years, when history suggests tourism will emerge from its current decline and generate record revenue.

”We’re looking at making long-term investments with long-term financing and long-term revenue streams,” Burgess said this week.

The county’s annual report to bond holders offers a lesson in how repayment schedules can have more impact on borrowing costs than the original debt itself:

• In 1998, Miami-Dade pledged future hotel taxes to $95 million worth of bonds for athletic facilities across the county, including the Key Biscayne tennis complex.

The county set up a steady payment plan, reducing the principal each year and keeping annual interest expenses below $6 million. The total cost of the debt is listed at $169 million. That 178 percent increase would translate into a $528 million tab for the stadium’s hotel bonds.

• A year earlier, Miami-Dade borrowed $170 million for Miami’s new performing arts center and two suburban theaters by selling bonds pegged to hotel taxes.

The bonds only cost Miami-Dade $5.8 million a year in interest payments through 2028. After that, the annual interest expense spikes to as high as $55 million. Unless it’s repaid early, the total cost on the $170 million debt will be $651 million.

Should the borrowing costs of the stadium debt follow a similar arc — increasing 383 percent from the original amount — the hotel-tax bonds on the ballpark would cost $1.1 billion to pay back.

”It’s not like a regular mortgage where you have principal and interest,” said Commissioner Carlos Gimenez, a stadium critic. “I don’t think it’s responsible.”

The Burgess plan relies on hotel taxes growing enough in later years to compensate for a sharp decline now.

This decade saw hotel taxes grow an average of 6 percent, despite steep declines after the 2001 attacks and double-digit improvement during the recovery. They’re now falling by the same amount.

The stakes are high, since a shortfall would cause havoc with the $94 million in county expenses funded by hotel taxes this year. Museums receive about $4 million, roughly $10 million goes to the Greater Miami tourism bureau and downtown Miami’s Adrienne Arsht Performing Arts Center gets almost $8 million a year.

Bond holders have first claim on those dollars should hotel taxes fall drastically short. If hotel taxes cannot cover debt payments, bond holders also can dip into the county’s sales-tax revenue — money that goes into the county’s general budget.

County officials said stadium bond holders will also have a claim to dollars from the county general budget.

That’s a worst-case scenario Miami-Dade has never faced — despite past pressure on hotel taxes caused by foreign tourist murders, Hurricane Andrew and 9/11.

Stadium backers see past recoveries as a reason not to let the current economic crisis derail the plan. ”We know from our history that we are resilient,” Mayor Carlos Alvarez said during his State of the County speech Tuesday. “We have faced worse and have rebounded.”
———————————————————————————-
Mayor Carlos Alvarez’s State of Dade speech hypes stadium

Posted on Wed, Feb. 11, 2009

BY CHARLES RABIN

A battered economy and a historic upcoming baseball stadium vote dominated Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez’s annual State of the County address Tuesday.

Alvarez described ”the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression” and said the bleak economy is a key reason the public, and the County Commission, should back a deal to spend hundreds of millions of public dollars to build a new stadium for the Florida Marlins.

The mayor’s 37-minute speech, at the Fillmore Miami Beach at the Jackie Gleason Theater, touched upon other issues as well: closing a large gap in the county’s budget, the revival of a plan to build a $1 billion tunnel to the Port of Miami and the importance of the world’s largest ongoing airport construction job.

But Alvarez spoke most assertively of keeping the Marlins in South Florida, a promise that has been a cornerstone of his administration since he took office in 2004.

”Commissioners, I humbly ask for your vote,” Alvarez said during his speech.

JOBS ENGINE

He said the public works project will become an economic engine at a time the region needs it most.

”Now is the time people need jobs. It’s so frustrating to hear people say this is not the time to do it,” the mayor said at a press conference immediately following his speech.

Critics, including a group calling itself the Coalition Against the Marlins Bailout Deal, argue that the county is getting a raw deal by putting in so much money.

”This is the worst deal I’ve seen in 35 years,” said vocal opponent Frank Del Vecchio, whose group held a brief rally outside the Miami Beach auditorium. “This project will have cost overruns. The only way to complete construction and operate it will be for public funds to be continually put into it.”

Friday, Miami and Miami-Dade commissioners will vote on five contracts that — if approved — would cement a deal in which the county would come up with about $350 million of the $515 million ballpark eyed for Little Havana.

The Marlins would spend $120 million on construction and repay the county a $35 million loan through yearly rent payments.

The city of Miami would pay for and build the parking structures.

The primary public contribution would come from a tax charged to hotel patrons that, as it now stands, would not provide enough money to cover all debt costs on a standard loan.

DEAL BETS ON TOURISM

Instead, government leaders and the team are banking on record tourism returning to South Florida after the economy rebounds.

A new stadium for the Marlins, to be built where the Orange Bowl once stood and open in 2012, is as close to being a done deal as it ever has been.

Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria, like the owner before him, says he’s hamstrung by the lack of concession, parking and advertising money he receives from his Dolphin Stadium lease agreement.

The mayor addressed another public works project that has also faced hurdles: the massive port tunnel project needing resuscitation after the state backed out late last year. Alvarez and others have pressed Gov. Charlie Crist to re-fund the project.

”Governor, if you are listening, this is the right project, right now, and we are depending on you,” said Alvarez, adding that Crist “assured me that it’s not dead.”

The mayor said the county has cut 1,300 jobs in the past year through retirement or attrition, helping cover a $400 million shortfall.

On the flip side, he cited Miami International Airport’s $5 billion renovation and announced a new initiative stressing volunteerism in public works.

Miami Herald staff writer Jack Dolan contributed to this report.
———————————————————————————–
Marlins stadium, symphony hall vie for Dade bed-tax dollars

Posted on Tue, Feb. 10, 2009

BY DOUGLAS HANKS

In calculating how to finance half of a $609 million baseball stadium with hotel taxes, Miami-Dade County is not reserving money for the New World Symphony’s expanded home in Miami Beach, county officials said.

Although only a planning decision, the omission calls into question a $27 million infusion of hotel taxes the symphony is counting on to pay for the $140 million high-tech concert hall under construction off Lincoln Road.

”The money is needed to complete this project and do it properly,” said Neisen Kasdin, a former Miami Beach mayor and chairman of the symphony’s board.

County Manager George Burgess said the budget forecasts involved in the stadium plan are unrelated to the symphony’s funding request. He said it would be a mistake to connect the two.

”You’re pitting projects against each other that shouldn’t be pitted against each other,” he said. “Nobody’s made a decision not to do New World.”

With a final commission vote on the stadium plan set for Friday, Burgess’ staff faces pressure to show hotels will produce enough taxes to fund current expenses as well as $297 million in new debt for the ballpark.

Last week, Miami Beach’s mayor urged Miami-Dade to pledge hotel taxes to the city’s convention center before funding the new home for the Florida Marlins. Miami-Dade’s tourism bureau recently cut salaries to absorb an 8 percent decline in the hotel taxes that fund a large chunk of its budget.

As construction workers secure the steel girders that make up the skeleton for the complex designed by famed architect Frank Gehry, the New World Symphony is awaiting county dollars tentatively pledged to the project last spring.

In May, commissioners unanimously approved a motion instructing Burgess to negotiate a deal that would hand the symphony $27 million from a countywide hotel tax. The agreement requires a second commission vote, but Burgess has not presented a final deal with the symphony.

Michael Spring, director of the county’s Cultural Affairs office, said his department was assigned the task of working out the details with the symphony. He said an agreement was reached and he is waiting for Burgess to bring the matter back to the commission.

The economic crisis and declining tourism are combining to make the $609 million stadium financing plan even more complicated than it would be otherwise.

Miami-Dade would borrow $297 million against future hotel taxes, debt that would average out to at least $20 million in annual payments over 35 years.

Using last year’s $74 million revenue figure, stadium debt would take up about one of every four tax dollars hotels generate.

But hotel taxes are dropping, down 6 percent since September. The sharp decline — the first since the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — has organizations that depend on hotel taxes worried about their budgets.

”We, like everyone else, are not sure what the future is going to hold,” said Aaron Podhurst, board chairman of the Miami Art Museum, which will receive $1.7 million in hotel taxes this year. “If we have to raise more [from donors] for operating expenses, we will.”

Jennifer Glazer-Moon, head of Miami-Dade’s Strategic Business Management office, said she included current hotel-tax spending — including museum subsidies — as she mapped out the county’s ability to take on stadium debt.

The forecast does not contemplate new dollars for the symphony hall, she said.

Burgess said Miami-Dade might fund New World with other revenues besides hotel taxes.

Or the county could rely on hotel taxes growing to pay for the building.

”While we don’t have New World listed as an obligation [in the ballpark plan], that doesn’t mean it’s not on our radar screen in terms of possible future use for excess hotel taxes,” he said.
—————————————————————————-
Ballpark design a hit; shops, garages less so

Posted on Sat, Feb. 07, 2009

BY ANDRES VIGLUCCI

Florida Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria, a modern-art dealer, wanted a sculpture for his team’s proposed new stadium, and he got one. Instead of the retro ballparks built recently across the country, his architects delivered an avant-bowl of concrete, glass and metal topped off with a sliding roof — a structure perhaps as dashing and au courant as Miami itself.

That, or a flying saucer crash-landed in Little Havana. ”A futuristic bidet?” one New York journalist cracked on his blog.

Love it or hate it, Loria and his architects at HOK, the firm that has virtually monopolized major-league stadium design, delivered a distinct vision for the Marlins’ ballpark in the city.

The same can’t be said when it comes to everything else around the stadium — the critical city blueprint that will determine how well the new ballpark does by the long-suffering neighborhood around it.

DEVELOPMENT

Central to the Marlins’ and public officials’ pitch to taxpayers was a promise that, in exchange for $450 million in public subsidies, the $609 million stadium project would propel redevelopment in the surrounding area, luring commerce, jobs, amenities and foot traffic to an area that sorely lacks them.

But the stadium site plan released this month suggests that the city of Miami’s approach might best be summed up as “build it and hope.”

The main feature of the plan, aside from the stadium itself, comprises four massive parking garages flanking the ballpark — the sum total of the city’s economic development scheme to date.

The garages would contain ground-floor space for unspecified shops and restaurants that city officials hope will attract crowds to the neighborhood on a daily basis, and not just at game time. The plans also include up to 96 row-house-style apartments attached to the two southernmost garages.

The five-level garages are also designed in part to buffer the surrounding neighborhood of modest three- and four-story apartment buildings from the colossal stadium, whose height will soar to the equivalent of a 20-story building, or about 10 stories taller than the Orange Bowl it would replace.

The city doesn’t yet know who will build the garages or the housing, however. Nor does it know exactly how much they will cost. But officials say they are committed to the plan, which they characterize as a start to drawing in the kind of economic activity that would benefit Little Havana residents.

DEADLINES BLAMED

City officials say they were constrained from developing a wider-ranging plan by deadlines imposed by the Marlins’ need to leave Dolphin Stadium, where their lease expires in 2010. Under a 300-page contract with the team and Miami-Dade County, the city controls redevelopment on the stadium site, the former home of the demolished Orange Bowl.

Some other U.S. cities with new major-league stadiums, including San Diego and St. Louis, extracted far more extensive redevelopment commitments — including substantial investment and plans for new urban districts — from team owners in return for public subsidies.

”Our design steps away from that old paradigm of the old Joe Robbie Stadium in the middle of nowhere, with 20,000 flat parking spaces around it,” said Miami’s chief financial officer, Larry Spring. “That generates no economic development.

“What we have is a baby version of the other end of the spectrum. We were mindful enough to know we need businesses there 365 days. But there is no fully vetted-out development plan. Time was not on our side.”

The city hopes the stadium will eventually attract further commercial development, perhaps including a hotel, to several city-owned parcels on the site’s eastern and western flanks that will be left undeveloped for now. Those lots will be occupied temporarily by surface parking and an existing recreational ball field.

But critics of the plan see myriad missed opportunities. Many fear that the stadium will become another sports venue that fans largely evacuate after a game, like the old Miami Arena or the current AmericanAirlines Arena, both of which failed to spur promised redevelopment.

By giving over most of the 42-acre Orange Bowl site to the Marlins stadium and multistory garages, some say, the city has sharply reduced the options for a broader mix of development — such as retail, offices and housing — with sufficient economic oomph to revitalize the larger neighborhood around it.

WHEN BALLPARK IS IDLE

The commercial space available under the city’s plan is unlikely to draw enough customers on nongame days to make a significant impact, said Tony Garcia, an architect and urban designer who criticized the scheme on the Transit Miami urban policy blog (wwwtransitmiami.com).

”Why are people going to come to this area? What’s going to make it a destination, and not just for baseball games?” Garcia said. “You need a better mix of uses here, not just parking garages.”

By contrast, St. Louis taxpayers who provided no more than a $45 million loan for the Cardinals’ new baseball stadium got far more for their pains: a $600 million plan from the team, in partnership with a large private developer, to transform an adjacent rundown area into an urban district of stores, apartments and offices called Ballpark Village.

In San Diego, the city required the Padres to do $300 million worth of private redevelopment in the East Village neighborhood next to their taxpayer-funded stadium, completed in 2004. That amount has been far exceeded, reaching $1.5 billion in new hotels, offices, condos and apartments around the stadium by 2007, and utterly transforming what had been a derelict zone.

Even in Washington, D.C., where taxpayers covered almost the entire cost of a home for the Nationals, the stadium fits into a larger city plan to revitalize the surrounding Anacostia area.

As a result, plans for those stadiums included far more elaborate schemes than Miami’s for the sites and adjacent urban districts, blending the ballparks more seamlessly with surrounding blocks of hotels, office towers, homes, shops and restaurants.

Parking in those plans is mostly integrated into the commercial structures instead of standing alone.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Academics and activists have long contended that baseball stadiums, absent a larger redevelopment strategy as in San Diego, do little for their surroundings. One longtime critic of public subsidies to ballparks who has analyzed the Marlins stadium plan says it’s unlikely to prove much different in Little Havana.

”I certainly don’t think the city or the county have learned anything. The question is, what do the residents need? If they need supermarkets, that’s hard for a stadium to accomplish,” said Neil deMause, a journalist who mocked the Marlins stadium design on his blog site, fieldofschemes.com, named after a book he co-authored that is critical of such public subsidies.

”Stadiums in particular are lousy anchors. They’re dark much of the year, and no one is going to open a restaurant for customers who are only there 81 days a year,” he said, referring to the number of home games in a baseball season. “And then if you are not catering to the fans, you have to deal with traffic jams on game days, so it’s really hard to capture customers.”

POSITIVE BLEND

Given the constraints the city faced on the Marlins stadium site, however, urban designers and architects at the University of Miami say the team’s and the city’s architects and planners have done a creditable job in physically blending ballpark and neighborhood — although there is room for improvement.

”It’s so similar to the Orange Bowl organization — a stadium surrounded by parking, only it’s in garages instead of surface lots,” said UM architecture professor Jean-Francois Lejeune, who analyzed the renderings with colleague Allan Shulman at The Miami Herald’s request.

One potential jewel they identified: a broad public plaza at the western end of the proposed stadium that would be shaded by the massive roof when the ballpark is open.

With some tweaking — adding a multistory cafe and residences on its edge, for instance — the plaza could become a signature gathering space, Lejeune said. That could be done by shrinking the footprint of one of the parking garages to make room for more commercial and residential space.

”It would be a space unlike any other in Miami, and much better than anything Little Havana has ever seen,” Lejeune said.

But the garages, in spite of efforts to add architectural pop with exposed staircases jutting from the corners, may be too monotonous, Lejeune said.

”They are four stories everywhere, and flat,” he said. “There is nothing interesting. Why not make a tower or something?”

City planners say the size and shape of the garages were dictated largely by the Marlins’ need for 6,000 spaces and quick exit times.

The planners and their consultant, Rolando Llanes of Civitas, say the garages, which are more traditional in style than the stadium, will serve as a buffer or ”transition” between the stadium and the modest dwellings around it.

City planners asked Civitas to dress up the garages, breaking up their mass with relief patterns while ensuring that cars, lighting and other unattractive building fixtures are not glaringly visible to pedestrians, planning records show.

The garage fronts that face Northwest Seventh Street, a major corridor, will be lined with retail spaces to serve the neighborhood. Where they face the stadium, the garages will have space for shops and restaurants.

Because the initial stadium designs had blank walls rising starkly from the ground, planners also had HOK add glass and openings, as well as a granite base and better architectural detailing at the pedestrian level, said Dakota Hendon, who coordinates the city’s design reviews of major projects. Colored glass along the stadium’s exterior at ground level will be designed by local artists.

The goal is an attractive and pedestrian-friendly architecture that would fill spaces around the garages and the stadium with people and activity, he said.

”We didn’t want the stadium rising out of the ground like a saucer,” Hendon said. “We wanted to minimize blank walls and open up vistas, so that as you walk around the stadium, you will find interesting things to look at.”

APPROVALS PENDING

The stadium design and site plan, which were endorsed this month by the city’s Urban Design Review Board, will ultimately go to the city’s Planning Advisory Board and the City Commission for approval and public hearings.

Loria declined to be interviewed, but in a brief written statement said he had been thinking about the stadium ”for years,” and he called the results “glorious, magical and unique.”

”It will be Miami’s coolest place in town,” he said.
—————————————————————————-
Tax revenue for Florida Marlins stadium falling short?

Posted on Sun, Feb. 01, 2009

BY DOUGLAS HANKS, JACK DOLAN AND CHARLES RABIN

Tourists would need to spend record amounts of money at Miami-Dade County hotels to pay the debt on a proposed baseball stadium in Little Havana, according to a Miami Herald analysis.

Even before the autumn economic tailspin, the analysis found, hotels were not generating enough revenue to cover payments on $297 million in stadium debt that Miami-Dade wants pegged to hotel taxes.

That leaves Miami-Dade administrators counting on continued growth in the hotel industry even as South Florida suffers its worst tourism decline since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Hotel taxes — also known as ”bed taxes” — would fund nearly half of the construction tab for the new $609 million home for the Florida Marlins. As administrators finish their financing plan for the stadium, they are grappling with a complicated question made more complex by the current tourism slide: How much more debt can hotel taxes sustain?

To answer that question, The Miami Herald mapped future debt payment scenarios on the proposed stadium and parking garage.

The analysis combined county budget figures and annual borrowing costs of about $20 million for a generic $297 million bond. It found that without a quick turnaround in tourism, it would be 2017 before Miami-Dade’s hotel taxes could sustain the stadium’s debt.

Jennifer Glazer-Moon, director of the county’s Strategic Business Management office, confirmed that initially, there probably would not be enough bed taxes to cover debt on the 37,000-seat stadium.

As in the past, Miami-Dade would structure the bonds to allow smaller payments upfront and then larger payouts in future years when hotel taxes are likely to be higher.

”Our economy is a resilient economy,” said County Commission Chairman Dennis Moss, a stadium supporter. “You’ll see the bed tax start to grow.”

Should hotel taxes stay flat through 2010, Miami-Dade would need an extra $38 million to cover bond payments by the end of 2016, the analysis shows. Under the county’s more bullish budget forecasts, the cumulative deficit would be only $6 million.

OUTLOOK FOR TOURISM

Some industry experts predict a far grimmer tourism landscape in the short term than what the county foresees.

Citing an 8 percent increase in hotel rooms and popular one-time events like January’s college football championship, Miami-Dade’s budget office predicts that hotel taxes will set another record this year, growing by 2.4 percent to $75.1 million.

But PKF Hospitality Research in Atlanta forecast a 6.9 percent decline in hotel revenue for this year, Miami-Dade’s worst showing in seven years. With hotels cutting rates, corporations slashing meeting plans and vacationers wary of spending, the consulting firm said Miami-Dade would have a hard time posting gains.

”I think most hoteliers in Miami, and around the country, would laugh at the thought of an increase in hotel tax collections in 2009,” PKF research director Robert Mandelbaum wrote in an e-mail.

Since the county has not completed a financing plan, elements in The Miami Herald’s analysis could change before the scheduled Feb. 13 vote on the stadium deal by Miami and Miami-Dade commissioners.

For example, the county has $25 million in surplus hotel-tax revenue that it could use to pay down construction costs, saving about $2 million a year in debt service, Glazer-Moon said.

But Larry Spring, Miami’s chief financial officer, said the city expects its yearly bed-tax payment from the county to rise to $6 million, from $2 million, under the stadium agreement being negotiated between the two governments. That would reduce the amount available for Miami-Dade’s bond payments.

George Burgess, Miami-Dade’s county manager, dismissed the notion of the current economic crisis causing lasting damage to the tourism industry. He pointed to the years that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when hotel taxes dropped by 6 percent in 2002 and then surged to a record by the end of 2004.

”Our belief is the slowdown will last two or three years and then rebound,” he said. “Is it reasonable that we’ll be flat-lining for six or seven years? It is not.”

Between 2000 and 2007, the average growth for hotel taxes hit 6 percent a year despite the terrorist attacks, active hurricane seasons and a battered housing market. Current county forecasts cap hotel-tax revenue growth at 4 percent.

NO CRYSTAL BALL

”We shouldn’t be judging a 20- to 30-year financing plan based solely on current market conditions. There will be highs and lows,” Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said in a statement Friday. “Our bed tax growth estimates, once complete, will be conservative as they have been in the past.”

But those questioning the stadium plan warned against putting too much faith in optimistic projections in the current economic climate.

County Commissioner Katy Sorenson said it is ”just stunning” that the county administration would be willing to move forward if hotel taxes are not high enough to cover the debt in the early years. ”The public strikes out with this deal,” she said. “I think it’s all going to unravel in July.”

If commissioners in Miami and Miami-Dade approve the plan, either government would have until June 30 to cancel the deal. ”If we are presented with a worst-case scenario by June 30, we can walk away,” Mayor Alvarez said in his statement.

The Miami Herald analysis assumed that Miami-Dade would sell 35-year bonds at a 6 percent interest rate, the return administrators said they expect Wall Street to accept during the current credit crisis. That amounts to a yearly bond payment of about $20 million, assuming equal installments for 35 years.

That figure was added to core expenses already covered by Miami-Dade’s 6 percent tax on hotel-room rent: existing obligations, including debt payments that range from $20 million to $67 million a year; $7.5 million for the Adrienne Arsht Performing Arts Center; and about $11 million in tourism promotion.

The analysis left out a number of current hotel-tax recipients, such as the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. County commissioners also could opt to reduce funding to the Arsht Center or tourism efforts should hotel taxes fall short.

How hotels perform in the coming months will be crucial to whether the Florida Marlins move to Miami, since cratering tax receipts likely would signal a hotel market too shaky to support the debt.

”In the environment we’re in now, we’re looking at it on a month-to-month basis,” said John Incorvaia, a Moody’s debt analyst who focuses on Florida. While worsening declines would signal long-term trouble, “it tells us a little bit different story if they’re down for a few months but the rate of decrease isn’t down as much. . . . Maybe that’s a sign of stabilization to come.”

Hotel-tax revenue began to drop in the fall, after a strong summer boosted by foreign visitors. The revenue dipped by 2 percent in September and October, the first consecutive monthly decline since September 2002.

November brought more bad news, with tax revenue down by 9 percent. And despite the December reopening of the Fontainebleau, Miami-Dade’s largest resort, revenue dropped by 8 percent that month.

But even if hotel taxes fall short in early years, county officials say they are confident of the tourism destination’s long-term prospects.

Reducing early loan payments to make larger ones later would increase Miami-Dade’s borrowing costs by millions of dollars.

In 1997, needing money for the future Arsht center and some smaller projects, Miami-Dade borrowed $170 million by promising future hotel taxes to pay off the debt. The repayment schedule has Miami-Dade making only $5.8 million of interest payments on the loan through 2028.

The next year, Miami-Dade would owe $4.5 million in principal and $23 million in interest. In all, the $170 million loan would cost Miami-Dade $651 million through 2038, according to county bond documents.

FINDING A BALANCE

Glazer-Moon said the approach allows the county to consider current needs while taking advantage of the near certainty of future tax growth.

”If you size it in such a way that I’m going to make the payment that I can afford to make this year forever, then you’re basically not optimizing the use of that revenue,” she said. “Because there’s all of this money coming in [during later years] that you’re not taking advantage of.”

The stadium has been controversial not just for the large price tag, but for the priority given to the ballpark over a pet project for the tourism industry: improving the Miami Beach Convention Center.

A $75 million expansion and renovation of the facility has stalled over cost concerns, and hotel advocates want Miami-Dade to spend money on the convention center first.

”The bottom line is very simple: The economic engine that generates that [hotel] tax has been allowed to decay over a period of 20 years,” said Stuart Blumberg, president of the Greater Miami and the Beaches Hotel Association, which also receives hotel taxes. “Which means there will be less bed taxes generated from that engine.”

County Commissioner Carlos Gimenez said he supports spending hotel taxes on the convention center instead of the stadium. He opposes the idea of taking on debt that current revenues won’t support.

”You’re mortgaging the future,” he said. “You are also stripping any future commission from the ability to do projects. It’s troublesome.”
———————————————————————

Injecting reason into the steroids debate

I contend that science, sports nutrition and statistics offer us sane MLB fans a way out [see the last paragraph] of the boring steroids monologue and phony outrage which sports commentators threaten to drown us with this coming season. The latest trigger were the recent disclosures about MLB players failed drug tests in 2003.

To recap, Alex Rodriguez is currently being vilified for admitting to taking performance enhancing drugs [PED] at a time when their use was widespread in MLB and not illegal. Further, the reason we know this is because a United States Attorneys Office subpoenad drug tests which players voluntarily submitted to under the explicit condition that the results be destroyed. J.C. Bradbury summarizes:

This is an absolute embarrassment to the US government. Here we have a private organization implementing a program to fix a problem that government officials wanted fixed. Players did not have to agree to random testing, and without the 2003 anonymous testing we might have a very different MLB drug policy today. The samples ultimately got used for something other than their intended purpose, and people wonder why players are were to reluctant to agree to testing in the first place? President Obama is right to shut down Gitmo for violating civil rights. He should shut down the BALCO case as well. The proper role of government isn’t to satisfy our curiosity about doping in sports. This has what this case is about.

Last night I was driving home from work and tuned into The Inside Pitch with Josh Friedman [O’Brien interview available], an interesting new radio show geared towards MLB fans. I heard someone, not Friedman, commenting on A-Rod and thought they made an interesting, but not well thought out point. His point was that he would support Barry Bonds for the Hall of Fame [HOF], but not A-Rod. The reason he gave was that Bonds career was HOF-worthy prior to his steroid use–he could tell when that began based on his obvious physical transformation–whereas he could not make a similar assessment of A-Rod.

The problem with that analysis is that not all PED’s result in the bulking up associated with body builders and Bonds in particular, for example Rafael Palmeiro. What I heard next was a little depressing. The guy talking was Dave O’Brien [not the Marlins former radio guy], the current president–based on a rotating system–of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America BBWAA.

I have no idea what kind of writer O’Brien is, I happily assume he is a good one. But based on his views with respect to the HOF and PED’s, he is clearly not very analytical when it comes to this issue. But PED’s are the hot issue in his profession at the moment, so the idea that he would be more analytical in other areas is unlikely. Sure enough, when you start reading about it, there is a bit of a turf war going on between newspaper writers and the web-based writers, let alone with the hard-core statistical guys. Given the revolution in the use of statistics to analyze MLB, which began with the great Bill James, it is a shame that those in the forefront of quantifying performances in a sport which lends itself more than most to quantifying performances, don’t have a more prominent role with mainstream fans.

Time to pick sides. I hope the statistical turks start their own HOF. The battle which Michael Lewis documented in the area of scouting with Moneyball, should be also come to the mainstream analysis of MLB and the HOF. From the average fans point of view, the main issue with steroids is how to properly weight the statistically inflated results associated with the era. It’s not hard to foresee various studies done which discount power numbers by 25% and improves ERA’s by 13%, etc. While they are at it, they can adjust for the size of ballparks throughout MLB’s history. Goodbye asterisks, hello promotional flash drives which contain revised leaders in various statistical categories. Pete Rose and I will bet on it.

My dream for MLB this year is that one of those brilliant people at The Hardball Times or Sabernomics come up with an analysis which shows how many home runs Babe Ruth would have hit if he was happily married, allergic to hot dogs, and spent the off-season working out with Red Grange. My own estimate is 822. Or how about estimating how many homers discrimination cost Hank Aaron’s. How about filling out Ted Williams career with full MLB seasons instead of being interrupted twice–TWICE–with stints in the armed services of his country.

There you have it, a new and improved career leaders in the MLB statistical clubhouse, end of outrage, but the beginning of incredibly fun statistical modeling. My current HR leader at 822 is not very scientific I grant you, but it is as reasoned as the criteria used by the current head of the BBWAA for determining his HOF vote in approximately 12 years.

Hannibal Lecter’s lesson

The next time you read or hear about “A-Fraud,” remember The Silence of the Lambs. FBI agent-in-training Clarice Starling is trying to profile a serial killer called Buffalo Bill with the help of famed psychologist and serial killer, Hannibal Lecter, who teaches Starling the following:

He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? … We begin by coveting what we see every day.

So take a closer look at those by-lines or program hosts, maybe they just covet.

A Catholic Man

Follow me as I do my best to walk the walk......

specialneedschild

Our Autistic Son's journey onto his Teenage years

katechristensen

don't let it bring you down

%d bloggers like this: