Got it .

 

The Mayor sets the record strait on why it's important for Miami to vote he's..

Miami taking out no debt on the deal. All debt on the Dolphins' side.

Mayor says their research showed over $300M in direct economic impact from each SB.

 

The 2013 (season's) Super Bowl is already in NYC.

 

The Dolphins don't repay a penny until 30 years from now.

If you think any of that money gets repaid I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Sun Life stadium will be long demolished and some toher tax payer soaking deal made long before 30 years expires. Read Carl Hiassen's column. It's a boondoggle.

And the vote might end up being al for naught anyway. unless the legislature makes the necessary changes to the law, and passes the Dolphins bill by May 3rd, which is the end of the session, the vote won't even take place.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/13/3340699/good-news-and-bad-on-dolphins.html

 

And like the mayor said. The Dolphins are the only team in the NFL that pays property taxes go up. By increasing the value of the stadium, Miami-Dade in fact gets more property tax revenue as a result.

 

One of those 2 quotes are wrong. The Dolphins won't receive "more than $289 million" they will receive up to $289 million, but no more, at least as the deal is written now.

I do agree that this deal as it is now, can very much change by the time it concludes in 30 years. However that is true for any kind of deal. If you're going to be concerned about that, then no deal will ever, ever get done.

I think the bottom line is that even if in 30 years the Dolphins find a way to not pay any money or pay less than the deal stipulates, and Miami has received no "marquee" event whatsoever, the county still has not lost money but in fact actually made money of the increase in bed tax. Remember the county keeps 25% of the proposed increase.

 

I'm sorry, but this isn't a legitimate argument. Suggesting that the deal is bad because the taxpayer will get soaked in a future deal isn't logical.

 

How can we not be concerned? The suppsoed repayments are the way the deal is being sold. Similarly with the Super Bowl, etc. The biggest point of this deal from the county's perspective is making sure we get Super Bowls. If we don't get them, then what the hell was the point?

And yes, the county is keeping 25% of the increase, which is not even legal yet. But the point remains, if you are trying to change the law to increase the bed tax, is it's best use on a project like this?

I just find it depressing that the county is moving heaven and earth to make this deal to give money to the Dolphins but if a plan to increase the bed tax was floated to have more money for schools, etc., it would be shot down out of hand

 

Of course it's a legitimate argument. The repayment is supposedly the key reason this is such a great deal.

If only any of us could get such a deal. I guarantee you $286 million dollars in yearly payments over 30 years. You don't owe me a penny back until the expiration of that 30 years and even if you do pay me at that time, you pay me back less than half. It's a gift.

I guarantee in less than 15 years, the new owner will want a new stadium.

 

If Miami doesn't get SBs, then they get back a lot of money???

 

To be clear, there is no guaranteed dollar amount. All the Dolphins are guaranteed is 75% of the 1% tax increase.

And in return I give you a personal guaranty of 4 SBs, each of which you estimate brings you $300M+ of direct economic activity.

That is great. In 15 years, judge the merit of that deal on its own. Using this logic, you essentially can never make any type of deal ever, because you're afraid you'll be screwed in the future? And how exactly does this deal make a difference anyway then?

 

Yes, I'm sure 30 years from now when the stadium is as likely to be (literally) underwater as it is still standing and being used that such a payment will be made. and even if it is, the penalty could be incredibly paltry.

Let's just call this what it is. A gift to the Dolphins. If people are good with that, then fine. Such is life. But let's not pretend we're entering into some kind of partnership here. We're not.

 

You cannot increase bed tax for schools. Bed tax is used for tourism and sports because those things directly impact tourism back, so in essence its reinvesting money made by tourism, on tourism. If you change the law to use that money for other things that have no impact, or little impact, on tourism, you are going to open a Pandora's box and set precedent for everyone and everything to demand money from tourism and not give anything back, thus crippling it.

We can at least agree that Miami will get, conservatively, at least 2 Super Bowls in 30 years, based on the fact that they've been awarded the most Super Bowls of any city. So tourism will get return for its investment.

 

The entire premise behind this is a joke. Haha the weather. Someone reminded us that the next Superbowl will be played in NYC during winter time. Whatever, bring on the debt and taxes.

 

Its an economic development grant. Every city gives them out. Its not a gift. There is a huge difference.

And again, Miami-Dade isn't paying out money once the stadium is "underwater" as you fear.

 

There is no debt for Miami-Dade. Zero. Not a cent.

 

It's not really a gift. It's more an investment now, in the hopes of future increased return.

The fact that the county is not on the hook for anything at all, and is expected to see increased return on its investment for the foreseeable future, makes this a good deal for the county.

 

And we might get those 2 Super Bowls even if we do nothing. We haven't actually been turned down yet and many owners, including John Mara have said that Miami will get more Super Bowls, regardless of the stadium.

 

True. However, i can also argue that we might get more than 2 Super Bowls and other events if we renovate. Also, that stadium needs some fixing. Whether it is now, 5 years from now or 10 years from now. The stadium needs fixing. The sooner you deal with it, the sooner you can deal with the costs and the sooner you can reap the benefits.

 

There doesn't seem to be any substance to the suggestion that it will never be paid back. Carl Hiassen's "say so" doesn't make it so. No contract with a potential $200+ million payment due will be a foggy memory in 30 years. The idea that everyone in Miami-Dade County will simply forget about the contract is ridiculous. And, of course, there are numerous ways that payment can be assured whether Stephen Ross is dead or alive and whether or not he still owns the Dolphins.

 

Its a personal guaranty. If Ross is dead, it comes from his estate. The notion that they'll simply just ignore the contract is not believable.

 

If the Dolphins and the NFL think this is a good deal, then so be it. I don't know how much it will take to improve the stadium, but since Hiuzenga spent $200 mil and not much was done, a deal whereby the city/county gives Miami a loan of $100 mil does not sound like much.

No doubt the deal is not bad for the city/county and should pass the referendum. I do not think the NFL will be eager to award Miami the SB this May looking at this deal, so my feeling is the deal will fall through.

I think Sedano's question was right on the money when he asked about Broward county. It's obvious that Miami-Dade is spent and cannot offer much, and the stadium being in Miami Dade is a hinderance. It is becoming painfully obvious that the new home for the Dolphins should be in Broward County and a new stadium should be built there.

However Ross owns the stadium outright and will not part with it, it's a big part of his asssets. So Miami Dade which is spent, and Ross staying in Miami Dade, are tied at hips, for now. The two must reach an agreement. Mayor Gimenez knows this and is playing hard ball for political points. But playing hard ball will not get much done. Mayor should have been looser with his demands. I don't think demanding the SB so soon on a deal that is poor for NFL is negotiating in good faith, knowing that the deal will likely fall through.

 

At this point the biggest obstacle IMO is the NFL. No way they can be happy with this deal and it's ramifications.

 

This is certainly a fair point. One of the considerations that should be made.

 

But look at San Diego, they haven't had a Super Bowl in 10 years. You don't think with the exception of the stadium that owners wouldn't want to have the Super Bowl there?

 

I tend to think the NFL is bluffing, at least to some degree, with the threat to have no more Super Bowls in Miami without the upgrades. But why gamble on that? Whether it needs them now or in 5-10 years, the stadium will need upgrades eventually. The County could call Ross' bluff and try to force him to pay for the upgrades himself, but why do that when the current proposal doesn't really cost the County anything? Getting more SBs in Miami benefits almost everyone and the costs are paid for by tourists who will not be deterred from coming to Miami as a result of a tourist tax increase.

 

Even take it a step further. In the future the political climate will be much different than it is now. It's very likely the county will have a lot less leverage in the future. It's in their best interest to take this favorable deal now.

 

And yet San Diego has not collapsed as a city, nor have they failed to lure tourists. And I might add, they've yet to be seriosuly threatened with losing the Chargers.

At some point this public financing of stadiums has to stop. Once the league's bluff start getting called, perhaps sanity will return.

 

San Diego absolutely has lost out on economic activity because they don't host SBs.

Also keep in mind that SD never had the opportunity to take a deal like Miami has been offered. We aren't talking about a billion dollar subsidy. We are talking much less, to the point where the benefit should outweigh the cost.

EDIT: also, this does not constitute "public financing". This is essentially a grant. There is a big difference.

 

Of course it's public financing. $90 million of the price is the sales tax rebate, which is directly public money.

Even the tourist taxes is money that is generated by the public at large and could be used to fund many different projects. Yes, the county is not taking out bonds, which is great, but it's still public money.

And let's see if this vote even takes place. Supposedly the new laws don't have a ton of traction in Tallahassee.

 

When have I ever intimated Miami would collapse without Super Bowls or that San Diego did? I merely noted their lack of Super Bowls despite being a great destination aside from the stadium.

There is really no argument that Super Bowls aren't great for local economies, so SD has lost something in that regard at least, and it would be bad to see Miami lose it as well.

 

$500 million in Wrigley Field renovations. Completely privately funded by the Ricketts family. Chicago providing infrastructure and loosening restrictions on signage and night games (Cubs will now be allowed at least 40 night games per year)

Now, that is a partnership and the way government typically supports business. I'm more than happy to provide infrastructure improvements, or even tax breaks to help a large business in my community. I don't need to simply hand them hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

I argue it. If it were true, then why hasn't San Diego been spurred, in these many years, to improve or build a new stadium for the Chargers?

If it were so important, and the city was losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars, wouldn't a plan have been formulated by now?

 

I've thought long and hard about this and have vacillated a bit on it.....I agree this should be done by the organization without public money.

The government should hook them up like they are in Chicago, but not give any money to Ross. He'll benefit more than anyone with the needed changes.