NY Times Tells Us What We Already Know: Marlins Stadium Deal Sucks
|Courtesy Florida Marlins.|
|A new stadium, right in the taxpayer's proverbial balls.|
There's not that much in the way of fresh reporting in the Times' dispatch. But you have to love this sentiment:
Miami and Miami-Dade County have agreed to cover three-quarters of the projected $645 million cost to build the Marlins a home with a retractable roof and four huge parking garages. In return, the city and the county will receive no new revenue from the park, and the team can keep all the money from the 50 luxury suites, concessions, and advertising, as well as from naming rights, which alone could generate more than $100 million.Yeah! That's the kind of tough bargaining Miami-Dade voters look for from their illustrious and totally unbiased leaders.
What's that? We reported months ago about how contractors poured money into one commissioner's account just before he provided a crucial swing vote on the project? OK, so maybe unbiased isn't the best adjective.
Either way, just in case you're not feeling gloomy enough about the deal, the Times reminds us there's no guarantee that Miami tourism will ever rebound to pre-recession levels -- especially considering city tourism is down 19 percent this year.
And other cities that expected big revenue boosts from new stadiums have frequently watched tax dollars go unreturned.
The Times cites Cincinnati, which promised voters 3 percent annual tax revenue growth when they approved new taxes for a Reds stadium -- but instead got only 1.6 percent growth, and a staggering 10 percent drop this year.
Mayors Extraordinaire Diaz and Alvarez, meanwhile, declined to defend their horrible stadium deal in the nation's largest newspaper.