Wednesday, February 11, 2009


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 11 Article 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!

Tuesday, February 10, 2009


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. JC 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.


Read more!

Sunday, February 8, 2009


We have been through the Gospels, but have the Gospels been through us?

We have been through the Gospels but have the Gospels been through us? So asks our favorite ethernet priest, Fr Vallee. Here is an excerpt of his homily from Feb 8th, 2009:

You and I know the Gospels pretty well. We meet here every week and read the Gospels. We sing about them and I am constantly talking about the them. But faith is not a intellectual game to be played. We don’t prepare for faith the way we prepare for an academic test. We have been through the Gospels but have the Gospels been through us? Here’s how we tell: does it change who we are and how we are? We about to take up the ABCD pledges. The Gospels have a clear and consistent “preferential option for the poor.” We all know that, but knowing it doesn’t do us one whit of good if we don’t act upon it. It is hard to sacrifice in these difficult economic times; the only thing harder is to do nothing.
Homily referenced is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fr Vallee's Feb 8, 2009 Homily

I. Vae enim mihi est, si non evangelizavero
A very short, yet lovely, passage from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is given in today’s second reading. Actually it is the motto on Bishop’s Roman’s coat of arms: “Vae enim mihi est, si non evangelizavero.” For those of you who have not kept up your Latin, that is, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel.” It strikes me here as very strange that Paul anticipates “woe” if he does not preach the Gospel. In that, Paul claims that he has been beaten, imprisoned, ridiculed and tortured for the sake of preaching the Gospel. He writes, “Brothers, this is the Gospel I preach and in its service, I have suffered hardship like a criminal; yea even unto imprisonment; but there is no imprisoning the Word of God.” And in another place, “Dear Beloved, I believe that God has made us apostles the most abject of mankind. We hunger and thirst, we are naked, we have are roughly handled, and we have no fixed abode...They curse us and we bless. They persecute us and we suffer it... They treat us as the scum of the earth and the dregs of humanity, to this very day.” If this is what happens when Paul preaches the Gospel, one shudders to think about what sort of woe might befall him if he did not preach the Gospel. It seems that the only thing more terrible, for Paul, than preaching the Gospel is not preaching the Gospel.

II. All of my suffering is not equal to the suffering of not having suffered enough
St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, a 17th century French mystic, once said, “None of my sufferings is equal to the pain of not having suffered enough.” An odd little passage, I suppose it is no accident that Saint Margaret Mary was almost a contemporary of the Marquis de Sade. Nevertheless, once we get past the initial shock of such seemingly masochistic sentiments, they make sense. Paul suffers all sorts of persecutions and trials for the sake of the Gospel. But woe to him if he does not preach the Gospel. Because the greatest suffering, the most terrible torture would be not to preach the Gospel, not to know the Lord Jesus Christ. All of Paul’s sufferings would not be the equal of a life lived without God. Hence, Woe to him, woe to me, woe to you, woe to us, if we do not preach the Gospel. Even though preaching the Gospel, entails all sorts of trials, not preaching the Gospel is a deeper, darker, more deadly woe.

III. Paul’s dilemma is our dilemma
The preaching of the Gospel is never easy. I mean it is, of course, easy to read the Gospel. It is even easy to talk about the Gospel. But to live the Gospel, to make it real here and now – that is a woeful and difficult thing to do. There is story told of the great Jewish Scripture scholar, Abraham Heschel. He wrote a book called “The Prophets” which is a classic, and the most beautiful and poetic work of Scripture scholarship I have ever read. Anyhow a young student came to him one day and asked Heschel to test him. He said that he knew the Torah inside and out and there was nothing left for him to learn. The young man said, “Professor, I have been all through the Scriptures.” Heschel smiled at the young man and said: “Yes, but have the Scriptures been through you?”

IV. Conclusion
You and I know the Gospels pretty well. We meet here every week and read the Gospels. We sing about them and I am constantly talking about the them. But faith is not a intellectual game to be played. We don’t prepare for faith the way we prepare for an academic test. We have been through the Gospels but have the Gospels been through us? Here’s how we tell: does it change who we are and how we are? We about to take up the ABCD pledges. The Gospels have a clear and consistent “preferential option for the poor.” We all know that, but knowing it doesn’t do us one whit of good if we don’t act upon it. It is hard to sacrifice in these difficult economic times; the only thing harder is to do nothing. Vae enim mihi est, si non evangelizavero. Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel! It is hard to sacrifice in these difficult economic times; the only thing harder is to do nothing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!

Friday, February 6, 2009


Peggy Noonan's Serious Question

Peggy Noonan formulates the national security question for the Obama Administration very succinctly in her recent column:

The question for the Obama administration: Do they think Mr. Cheney is essentially correct, that bad men are coming with evil and deadly intent, but that America can afford to, must for moral reasons, change its stance regarding interrogation and detention of terrorists? Or, deep down, do the president and those around him think Mr. Cheney is wrong, that people who make such warnings are hyping the threat for political purposes? And, therefore, that interrogation techniques, etc., can of course be relaxed? I don't know the precise answer to this question. Do they know exactly what they think? Or are they reading raw threat files each day trying to figure out what they think?
I think that it is very important that we are clear before any tragedy may occur, that it is a choice to be made by the Administration. What should not be allowed to happen, is for the terrorist-doves in America to claim to be able to do both. I see it as a choice between doing everything possible to avert an attack on American soil and having a stated policy which wins the approval of the type of people who otherwise hate America and/or its military.

Noonan's column is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bracing Ourselves - America prepares for the worst, and Republicans suddenly seem serious

FEBRUARY 6, 2009, 2:51 A.M. ET

By PEGGY NOONAN

All week the word I kept thinking of was "braced." America is braced, like people who are going fast and see a crash ahead. They know huge and historic challenges are here. They're not confident they can or will be met. Our most productive citizens are our most sophisticated, and our most sophisticated have the least faith in the ability of our institutions to face the future and get us through whole. They have the least faith because they work in them.

Tuesday I talked to people who support a Catholic college. I said a great stress is here and coming, and people are going to be reminded of what's important, and the greatest of these will be our faith, it's what is going to hold us together as a country. As for each of us individually, I think it's like the old story told about Muhammad Ali. It was back in the 1960s and Mr. Ali, who was still Cassius Clay, was a rising star of boxing, on his way to being champ. One day he was on a plane, going to a big bout. He was feeling good, laughing with friends. The stewardess walked by before they took off, looked down and saw that his seatbelt was unfastened. She asked him to fasten it. He ignored her. She asked him again, he paid no attention. Now she leaned in and issued an order: Fasten the seatbelt, now. Mr. Clay turned, looked her up and down, and purred, "Superman don't need no seatbelt."
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

She said, "Superman don't need no airplane. Buckle up." And he did.

We all think we're supermen, and we're not, and you're lucky to have a faith that both grounds you and catches you.

But during the part in which I spoke in rather stark terms of how I see the future, I think I saw correctly that the physical attitude of some in the audience was alert, leaned forward: braced. Again, like people who know a crash is coming. Afterward I asked an educator in the audience if I was too grim. He looked at me and said simply: No.

A sign of the times: We had a good time at lunch. It is an era marked by deep cognitive dissonance. Your long-term thoughts are pessimistic, and yet you're cheerful in the day to day.

On Wednesday, in an interview with Politico, Dick Cheney warned of the possible deaths of "perhaps hundreds of thousands" of Americans in a terror attack using nuclear or biological weapons. "I think there is a high probability of such an attempt," he said.

When the interview broke and was read on the air, I was in a room off a television studio. For a moment everything went silent, and then a makeup woman said to a guest, "I don't see how anyone can think that's not true."

I told her I'm certain it is true. And it didn't seem to me any of the half dozen others there found the content of Cheney's message surprising. They got a grim or preoccupied look.

The question for the Obama administration: Do they think Mr. Cheney is essentially correct, that bad men are coming with evil and deadly intent, but that America can afford to, must for moral reasons, change its stance regarding interrogation and detention of terrorists? Or, deep down, do the president and those around him think Mr. Cheney is wrong, that people who make such warnings are hyping the threat for political purposes? And, therefore, that interrogation techniques, etc., can of course be relaxed? I don't know the precise answer to this question. Do they know exactly what they think? Or are they reading raw threat files each day trying to figure out what they think?

The bad thing about new political eras is that everyone within them has to learn everything for the first time. Every new president starts out fresh, in part because he doesn't know what he doesn't know. Ignorance keeps you perky.

On the economy, I continue to find no one, Democrat or Republican, who has faith that the stimulus bill passed by the House will solve anything or make anything better, though many argue that doing absolutely nothing will surely make things worse by not promising at least the possibility of improvement through action.

Meanwhile, the inquest on President Obama's great stimulus mistake continues.

His serious and consequential policy mistake is that he put his prestige behind not a new way of breaking through but an old way of staying put. This marked a dreadful misreading of the moment. And now he's digging in. His political mistake, which in retrospect we will see as huge, is that he remoralized the Republicans. He let them back in the game.

Mr. Obama has a talent for reviving his enemies. He did it with Hillary Clinton, who almost beat him after his early wins, and who was given the State Department. He has now done it with Republicans on the Hill. This is very nice of him, but not in his interests. Mr. Obama should have written the stimulus bill side by side with Republicans, picked them off, co-opted their views. Did he not understand their weakness? They had no real position from which to oppose high and wasteful spending, having backed eight years of it with nary a peep. They started the struggle over the stimulus bill at a real disadvantage. Then four things: Nancy Pelosi served up old-style pork, Mr. Obama swallowed it, Republicans shocked themselves by being serious, and then they startled themselves by being unified. But it was their seriousness that was most important: They didn't know they were! They hadn't been in years!

One senses in a new way the disaster that is Nancy Pelosi. She was all right as leader of the opposition in the Bush era, opposition being joyful and she being by nature chipper. She is tough, experienced, and of course only two years ago she was a breakthrough figure, the first female speaker. But her public comments are often quite mad—we're losing 500 million jobs a month; here's some fresh insight on Catholic doctrine—and in a crisis demanding of creativity, depth and the long view, she seems more than ever a mere ward heeler, a hack, a pol. She's not big enough for the age, is she? She's not up to it.

Whatever happens in the Senate, Republicans have to some degree already won. They should not revert to the triumphalism of the Bush era, when they often got giddy and thick-necked and spiked the ball. They should "act like they been there before." They should begin to seize back the talking mantle from the president. And—most important—they must stay serious.

The national conversation on the economy is frozen, and has been for a while. Republicans say tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Democrats say spend, new programs, more money. You can't spend enough for the Democratic base, or cut taxes enough for the Republican. But in a time when all the grown-ups of America know spending is going to bankrupt us and tax cuts without spending cuts is more of the medicine that's killing us, the same old arguments, which sound less like arguments than compulsive tics, only add to the public sense that no one is in charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!

Saturday, January 31, 2009


Achieving a Fair and Fast Sudden Death

Tim Harford is another one of the interesting young economists which use their profession to make sense of things in the real world. Like a possible overtime game in the Super Bowl.

OK here's the problem; In NFL overtime games, there is a statistically proven [60 to 70%] advantage to the team which wins the coin toss. Harford gives us two possible solutions.

Divide-and-Choose

In a football overtime, the divide-and-choose rule would dispense with the kickoff and just give the ball to one side. The coin-toss loser would decide how far forward the offense would start—say, the 30-yard line. The coin-toss winner would then decide whether to take possession or let the coin-toss loser have the ball at the 30. The nice thing about these rules is that they would naturally adapt to the game's changing dynamics. The current system, by contrast, seems to have been fair when introduced in 1974, but as field-goal kickers became more accurate, possession has become more valuable.

"Divide and choose" isn't perfect. The coach who divides is at a small disadvantage, because what he does gives a hint about his thinking and his concerns—all sorts of imponderables from his kicker's form in training to the morale of his defensive lineup. The other coach, however, can keep his cards to his chest until the last moment.

Chris Quanbeck's Field Position Auction

Auction off possession of the ball in the natural currency of the game: field position. The team that was willing to begin closest to its own goal line would receive the privilege of possession.

Football's number crunchers reckon that this "privilege" turns dubious about 15 to 20 yards away from your own goal line. That is, the expected value of having the ball so far back is negative—it's more likely that your opponent will score before you do. But it's not clear that the same would be true in overtime, when teams would be attempting to get within field-goal range rather than trying for touchdowns. If this system were implemented, it might take a couple of seasons for a consensus to develop about how far back is too far back. Still, everyone would be trying to work that out from a position of equal ignorance.

The auction idea puts the emphasis on the skill and judgment of the head coaches and their backroom staff—exactly where it should be. And it has some subtlety. For instance, having a powerful defense has an unexpected advantage in an auction: Because the other coach will fear your defense, he's more likely to drop out of the auction and concede possession to your offense in a favorable field position.
Article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flipping Awful - Why the NFL should replace the overtime coin toss with an auction system

By Tim Harford - Posted Thursday, Jan. 29, 2009, at 6:49 AM ET

If the Super Bowl goes into overtime for the first time ever, it's fairly certain who will be victorious: the team that wins the coin toss. In the first round of the playoffs, the Chargers beat the Colts 23-17 in OT, marching down the field for a touchdown after winning the toss. In the 14 overtime games that produced a winner this season, the coin-toss victor won 10 of the games, more than 70 percent. Since 2002, the team that's gotten the toss has won more than 60 percent of overtime games.

Chess faces a similar problem—it's generally regarded as an advantage to play white. But the chess world has long had a solution: Take it in turns and play a lot of games. That's easy for the chess guys—they have all the time in the world, and more forgiving TV schedules. College football has a similar philosophy, giving each team the ball at the opponents' 25-yard line and alternating possessions until someone breaks the tie. But the NFL's competition committee, which pondered the overtime problem in depth in 2003, decided to stick with the status quo of "sudden death."

With a little ingenuity, there is a way for overtime to be both fair and fast. One solution is usually associated with cake-cutting: one person divides, the other chooses which half to take. In a football overtime, the divide-and-choose rule would dispense with the kickoff and just give the ball to one side. The coin-toss loser would decide how far forward the offense would start—say, the 30-yard line. The coin-toss winner would then decide whether to take possession or let the coin-toss loser have the ball at the 30. The nice thing about these rules is that they would naturally adapt to the game's changing dynamics. The current system, by contrast, seems to have been fair when introduced in 1974, but as field-goal kickers became more accurate, possession has become more valuable.

"Divide and choose" isn't perfect. The coach who divides is at a small disadvantage, because what he does gives a hint about his thinking and his concerns—all sorts of imponderables from his kicker's form in training to the morale of his defensive lineup. The other coach, however, can keep his cards to his chest until the last moment.

An even more elegant solution to the overtime problem was proposed in 2002 by Chris Quanbeck, an electrical engineer (and Green Bay Packers fan). Quanbeck's idea was to auction off possession of the ball in the natural currency of the game: field position. The team that was willing to begin closest to its own goal line would receive the privilege of possession.

Football's number crunchers reckon that this "privilege" turns dubious about 15 to 20 yards away from your own goal line. That is, the expected value of having the ball so far back is negative—it's more likely that your opponent will score before you do. But it's not clear that the same would be true in overtime, when teams would be attempting to get within field-goal range rather than trying for touchdowns. If this system were implemented, it might take a couple of seasons for a consensus to develop about how far back is too far back. Still, everyone would be trying to work that out from a position of equal ignorance.

The auction idea puts the emphasis on the skill and judgment of the head coaches and their backroom staff—exactly where it should be. And it has some subtlety. For instance, having a powerful defense has an unexpected advantage in an auction: Because the other coach will fear your defense, he's more likely to drop out of the auction and concede possession to your offense in a favorable field position.

After Quanbeck and his brother Andrew worked out the details of their overtime proposal, they wrote letters to various NFL owners and coaches in 2003. They won some attention—including an expression of interest from the NFL's head of officiating, Mike Pereira—but no changes in the rules of the game.

One person who did notice the Quanbeck proposal was Columbia University economist Yeon-Koo Che, a leading light in the theory and practice of auction design. Che wrote not to the NFL but to the economics journals and proved that "divide and choose" was much fairer to the loser of the toss than the current system. But what interested Che and co-author Terrence Hendershott was whether an auction might be even fairer than "divide and choose." They concluded that it would be, because the auction is completely symmetric—unlike with the "divide and choose" method, neither coach is forced to make the first move, so nobody has a built-in advantage. For Che and Hendershott, then, "divide and choose" partly solves the coin-toss problem; the auction fixes it completely.

While it's easy to see why the game's authorities don't want to mess with a successful formula, I'm guessing that the overtime auction would prove intuitive and popular. Just imagine the possibilities for stagecraft. The Quanbecks suggested that the referee could act as an auctioneer, calling out the field position in 1-yard increments. The first coach to throw his red challenge flag wins the ball at whatever yard line the ref last spat out. Or perhaps the two head coaches could come to midfield with sealed bids, with the envelopes to be opened by a cheerleader representing each team—a gridiron version of Deal or No Deal. Now doesn't that sound way better than calling out heads or tails?

Tim Harford is a Financial Times columnist. His latest book, The Logic of Life, will be published in paperback on Feb. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!

Friday, January 30, 2009


How Senate Republicans Saved Obama

If we are lucky, that will be the headline four years from now when people look back on Obama's first term. If we are not, the fiscal stimulus plan will emerge largely unchanged in the Senate and become law. I don't think that will happen. I have faith in our political institutions that they will not make a mistake as big and as obvious as this one. While avoiding bad laws is easier than creating good ones, it is no less a valuable skill.

The stimulus bill will be good for one thing though. It will help cement who the Obama kool-aid crowd is. Some [not me] may be willing to give a pass of sorts for the campaign bias, but reasonable people will not be supporting this bill. Anyone who praises this bill can rightly be dismissed as a political hack going forward.

Here is why the bill is so bad:

David Brooks

They’ve created a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord, which has spun off a series of unintended consequences.
  1. The money spent on long-term domestic programs means there may not be enough to jolt the economy now (about $290 billion in spending is pushed off into 2011 and later).
  2. By pumping so much money through government programs, the bill unleashes a tidal wave on state governments. A governor will suddenly have to administer an additional $4 billion or $5 billion. That money will be corrosive both when washing in, and when it disappears in a few years time.
  3. Permanently alters the role of the federal government, thus guaranteeing a polarizing brawl at the very start of the Obama presidency.
  4. Warnings about deficits have been put aside. There is no fiscal exit strategy. Instead, permanent spending commitments are entailed with no permanent funding stream to pay for them.

WSJ Editorial

The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects.

Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus.

Martin Feldstein

The largest proposed outlays amount to just writing unrestricted checks to state governments. Nearly $100 billion would result from increasing the "Medicaid matching rate," a technique for reducing states' Medicaid costs to free up state money for spending on anything governors and state legislators want. An additional $80 billion would be given out for "state fiscal relief." Will these vast sums actually lead to additional spending, or will they merely finance state transfer payments or relieve state governments of the need for temporary tax hikes or bond issues?

The plan to finance health insurance premiums for the unemployed would actually increase unemployment by giving employers an incentive to lay off workers rather than pay health premiums during a time of weak demand. And this supposedly two-year program would create a precedent that could be hard to reverse.

A large fraction of the stimulus proposal is devoted to infrastructure projects that will spend out very slowly, not with the speed needed to help the economy in 2009 and 2010. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than one-fifth of the $50 billion of proposed spending on energy and water would occur by the end of 2010.

If rapid spending on things that need to be done is a criterion of choice, the plan should include higher defense outlays, including replacing and repairing supplies and equipment, needed after five years of fighting. The military can increase its level of procurement very rapidly. Yet the proposed spending plan includes less than $5 billion for defense, only about one-half of 1 percent of the total package.
All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleaner and Faster

By DAVID BROOKS - January 30, 2009 - Op-Ed Columnist

Throughout 2008, Larry Summers, the Harvard economist, built the case for a big but surgical stimulus package. Summers warned that a “poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured.” So his proposal had three clear guidelines.

First, the stimulus should be timely. The money should go out “almost immediately.” Second, it should be targeted. It should help low- and middle-income people. Third, it should be temporary. Stimulus measures should not raise the deficits “beyond a short horizon of a year or at most two.”

Summers was proposing bold action, but his concept came with safeguards: focus on the task at hand, prevent the usual Washington splurge and limit long-term fiscal damage.

Now Barack Obama is president, and Summers has become a top economic adviser. Yet the stimulus approach that has emerged on Capitol Hill abandoned the Summers parameters.

In a fateful decision, Democratic leaders merged the temporary stimulus measure with their permanent domestic agenda — including big increases for Pell Grants, alternative energy subsidies and health and entitlement spending. The resulting package is part temporary and part permanent, part timely and part untimely, part targeted and part untargeted.

It’s easy to see why Democrats decided to do this. They could rush through permanent policies they believe in. Plus, they could pay for them with borrowed money. By putting a little of everything in the stimulus package, they avoid the pay-as-you-go rules that might otherwise apply to recurring costs.

But they’ve created a sprawling, undisciplined smorgasbord, which has spun off a series of unintended consequences. First, by trying to do everything all it once, the bill does nothing well. The money spent on long-term domestic programs means there may not be enough to jolt the economy now (about $290 billion in spending is pushed off into 2011 and later). The money spent on stimulus, meanwhile, means there’s not enough to truly reform domestic programs like health technology, schools and infrastructure. The measure mostly pumps more money into old arrangements.

Second, by pumping so much money through government programs, the bill unleashes a tidal wave on state governments. A governor with a few-hundred-million-dollar shortfall will suddenly have to administer an additional $4 billion or $5 billion. That money will be corrosive both when washing in, and when it disappears in a few years time.

Third, the muddle assures ideological confrontation. A stimulus package was always going to be controversial, because economists differ widely about whether or how a stimulus can work. But this bill also permanently alters the role of the federal government, thus guaranteeing a polarizing brawl at the very start of the Obama presidency.

Fourth, Summers’s warnings about deficits have been put aside. There is no fiscal exit strategy. Instead, permanent spending commitments are entailed with no permanent funding stream to pay for them.

Fifth, new government expenditures on complex matters are being designed on a hasty, reckless timetable. As readers may know, the policy I am most passionate about is pre-K education. Yet I fervently hope that the Head Start expansion is dropped from this bill. A slapdash and shambolic expansion could discredit the whole idea.

Wise heads are now trying to restore structure and safeguards to the enterprise. In testimony this week, Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton’s former budget director, raised the possibility of separating the temporary from the permanent measures and focusing independently on each. “A long-term investment program should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package,” Rivlin testified. “The elements of the investment program must be carefully planned and will not create many jobs right away.”

The best course is to return to the original Summers parameters — temporary, targeted and timely — thus making the stimulus cleaner and faster.

Strip out the permanent government programs. Many of them are worthy, but we can have that debate another day. Make the short-term stimulus bigger. Many liberal economists have been complaining it is too small, so replace the permanent programs with something like a big payroll tax cut, which would help the working class.

Add in a fiscal exit strategy so the whole thing is budget neutral over the medium term. Finally, coordinate the stimulus package with plans to shore up the housing and financial markets. Until those come to life, no amount of stimulus will do any good.

This recession is scary and complicated. It’s insane to try to tackle it and dozens of other complicated problems, all in one piece of legislation. Leadership involves prioritizing. Those who try to do everything at once will end up with a sprawling, lobbyist-driven mess that does nothing well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSJ Editorial - A 40-Year Wish List

JANUARY 28, 2009

You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An $800 Billion Mistake

By Martin Feldstein
Thursday, January 29, 2009; A19

As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two, if that's what it takes to produce a much better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.

Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That's not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year's tax rebates led to additional spending.

The proposed business tax cuts are also likely to do little to increase business investment and employment. The extended loss "carrybacks" are primarily lump-sum payments to selected companies. The bonus depreciation plan would do little to raise capital spending in the current environment of weak demand because the tax benefits in the early years would be recaptured later.

Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing incentives to households and businesses to increase current spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to households that purchase cars or other major consumer durables, analogous to the investment tax credit for businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements? In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much more spending and employment.

Postponing the scheduled increase in the tax on dividends and capital gains would raise share prices, leading to increased consumer spending and, by lowering the cost of capital, more business investment.

On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-intended items that, unfortunately, are not likely to do much for employment. Computerizing the medical records of every American over the next five years is desirable, but it is not a cost-effective way to create jobs. Has anyone gone through the (long) list of proposed appropriations and asked how many jobs each would create per dollar of increased national debt?

The largest proposed outlays amount to just writing unrestricted checks to state governments. Nearly $100 billion would result from increasing the "Medicaid matching rate," a technique for reducing states' Medicaid costs to free up state money for spending on anything governors and state legislators want. An additional $80 billion would be given out for "state fiscal relief." Will these vast sums actually lead to additional spending, or will they merely finance state transfer payments or relieve state governments of the need for temporary tax hikes or bond issues?

The plan to finance health insurance premiums for the unemployed would actually increase unemployment by giving employers an incentive to lay off workers rather than pay health premiums during a time of weak demand. And this supposedly two-year program would create a precedent that could be hard to reverse.

A large fraction of the stimulus proposal is devoted to infrastructure projects that will spend out very slowly, not with the speed needed to help the economy in 2009 and 2010. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than one-fifth of the $50 billion of proposed spending on energy and water would occur by the end of 2010.

If rapid spending on things that need to be done is a criterion of choice, the plan should include higher defense outlays, including replacing and repairing supplies and equipment, needed after five years of fighting. The military can increase its level of procurement very rapidly. Yet the proposed spending plan includes less than $5 billion for defense, only about one-half of 1 percent of the total package.

Infrastructure spending on domestic military bases can also proceed more rapidly than infrastructure spending in the civilian economy. And military procurement overwhelmingly involves American-made products. Since much of this military spending will have to be done eventually, it makes sense to do it now, when there is substantial excess capacity in the manufacturing sector. In addition, a temporary increase in military recruiting and training would reduce unemployment directly, create a more skilled civilian workforce and expand the military reserves.

All new spending and tax changes should have explicit time limits that prevent ever-increasing additions to the national debt. Similarly, spending programs should not create political dynamics that will make them hard to end.

The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big but that it delivers too little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit. It is worth taking the time to get it right.

The writer, an economics professor at Harvard University, is president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!

Thursday, January 29, 2009


The Ghost of Orange Bowl Past is Smiling [tic]

A historical injustice is about to be corrected. The Miami Herald article notes that plans have been finalized for another stadium to rise where the Orange Bowl once stood. In her informative The Business of Sports blog, Sarah Talalay from the Sun-Sentinel, highlights the various concessions the Marlins have made since the original outline of an agreement. The Marlins and local governments unveiled their plans--see the actual documents, about which more in due time--for the new stadium. The City and County votes has been set for Friday, Feb 13th, of course.

I am tempted to evoke the words of Hyman Roth, by wondering why there "isn't even a plaque - or a signpost - or a statue of [the OB] in that place!"--but it was hard to tell from the drawings released. You would think that honoring the Orange Bowl will be a given at the new stadium. If for no other reason, but to follow my lead.

Stadium Critics - A Few Observations

Something to keep in mind from those attacking the stadium plans between now and Feb 13th. For the local critics, it is fair, and telling I submit, to ask where they stood on the construction of the Arsht Center. If those who oppose the stadium were OK with the Arsht Center, their opposition is a matter of tastes not principle.

My other point is a great example of how bias is practiced underneath the surface of the stadium arguments. The actual stadium construction costs are listed at $515 million. The problem is that that has been the quoted cost for a few years now. Stadiums are notorious for costs overruns. I'm sure part of the reason the Marlins insisted on negotiating for their own architect and construction company, is an attempt to keep those costs under control. But a major factor in the stadium deal is the fact that the Marlins are on the hook for additional costs beyond the $515 million. If that were not the case, the fact that the $515 million is likely an understated amount would be prominent in those arguments against the stadium. Look for that the next time a stadium critic notes that the Marlins share of the stadium costs are too low. Fairness would dictate that they note that the Marlins percentage is certain to rise. My follow up question would then be; Too low compared to which other recent stadium construction project?

I provide Hyman Roth's full quote referred to above, below. I do so not for context, but out of pure lust. WARNING: Please don't try to read out loud without inserting the 16 verbal tics so necessary for an accurate rendition. The soul of Lee Strasberg is listening, you child. [Even this last sentence, if spoken, should be done so with a disdainful tone worthy of a Gust Avrakotos].
There was this kid I grew up with - he was younger than me. Sorta looked up to me - you know. We did our first work together - worked our way out of the street. Things were good, we made the most of it. During Prohibition - we ran molasses into Canada - made a fortune - your father, too. As much as anyone, I loved him - and trusted him. Later on he had an idea - to build a city out of a desert stop-over for GI's on the way to the West Coast. That kid's name was Moe Green - and the city he invented was Las Vegas. This was a great man - a man of vision and guts. And there isn't even a plaque - or a signpost - or a statue of him in that town! Someone put a bullet through his eye. No one knows who gave the order - when I heard it, I wasn't angry; I knew Moe - I knew he was head-strong, talking loud, saying stupid things. So when he turned up dead - I let it go. And I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen - I didn't ask who gave the order - because it had nothing to do with business!
Articles referenced are copied in full at end of the post.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marlins Stadium Update No. 2012000, Updated

Posted by Sarah Talalay at 2:07 PM

The Marlins are hoping Friday the 13th turns out to be their lucky day. Miami-Dade County Commissioners and Miami City Commissioners are to vote Feb. 13 on the five agreements that spell out the financing, construction and other details to make their ballpark at the site of the former Orange Bowl a reality.

The five agreements – Construction Administration; Operating; Non-Relocation; Assurance; and City Parking – were released Tuesday. If you want some light reading, take a look at the documents here on the county’s website.

Acknowledging that I haven’t read every page YET, the agreements overall appear to extract more from the team, thereby offering more protections for the public. The budget for the ballpark is to remain the same, the documents show, ($347 million from the county; $155 million from the team; and $13 million from the city), but the team is responsible for any cost overruns incurred on the ballpark AND the public infrastructure. That means if there are overruns on the estimated $21 million in drainage, sewer and road work the city and county will split, the team will be responsible for those.

The team’s rent payment of $2.3 million a year will rise 2 percent a year – meaning more money for the county to cover its debt. The team will provide 81,000 tickets – or 1,000 a game at an “affordable price” starting at $15 in the ballpark’s inaugural year. Another 10,000 – double the original 5,000 – a season will be provided free for youth groups and community organizations.

If the team is sold within seven years, the team would have to pay a higher percentage than initially planned, to the county as a profit share. Under last year’s agreement, the team would pay 10 percent if the team was sold in year one; under the new agreement, that’s shot up to 18 percent. The percentage falls each year, but is significantly more onerous than in the earlier agreement – arguably creating something of a disincentive to sell.

Neither County Manager George Burgess nor Marlins President David Samson would say the changes were made to appease the concerns of county commissioners who have threatened to vote against the ballpark agreements.

“We wanted to get something stronger,” Burgess said.

“You do what you think is right to achieve a goal you have. Our goal from the beginning was to partner with the city and county … through the course of negotiations there were certain provisions that changed,” Samson said. “Our focus has been to get this deal done.”

Even if the commissions sign off on the agreements, there’s still an option for any of the parties to terminate them by June 30. Burgess and Samson said they don’t expect that to happen. They expect construction to begin this summer with the ballpark opening in 2012.

The city commission is scheduled to meet at 9 a.m. Feb. 13, followed by a 1 p.m. meeting of the county commission. The county commission must approve the agreements by a two-thirds vote -- or 9 -- of the 13 county commissioners. Expect it to be another long day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote on Florida Marlins' stadium coming Feb. 13

Posted on Wed, Jan. 28, 2009

BY CHARLES RABIN AND JACK DOLAN

Miami and Miami-Dade leaders are poised to cast rapid-fire, historic votes that could end the decade-long search for a permanent home for the two-time World Series champion Florida Marlins.

If approved Feb. 13, the partially glass-encased, 37,000-seat facility with a retractable roof would rise to face the downtown skyline from the Little Havana grounds where the revered Orange Bowl once stood.

The votes, required for five contracts that must be approved before ground can be broken, could be vindication for team owner Jeffrey Loria, who, like the two owners before him, suffered through a series of broken last-minute deals at the hands of government.

Passage is not guaranteed, as construction and management agreements require a two-thirds majority vote by county commissioners. And, even if approval comes, critics question whether the dire economy could derail construction and cause the county's borrowing cost to jump.

Yet the team has never been closer to having its own stadium, with renderings and final contracts released Tuesday, and supporters saying the public-works project will infuse the economy with jobs.

As County Manager George Burgess released the terms of the five remaining contracts, city of Miami staff members unveiled previously unseen stadium renderings.

The stadium would be surrounded by garages and parking lots that could fit up to 6,000 vehicles, intersected by walkways, with a grassy open field to the northwest just above home plate. In between the field and home plate is the stadium's ``Grand Entry Plaza.''

Total cost, including parking spaces: $609 million, with almost two-thirds coming from the county, and the city donating land. The team is contributing $120 million, and will repay the county another $35 million via rent payments.

TEAM CONCESSIONS

Burgess said the Marlins -- who would become the Miami Marlins -- agreed to a host of contract concessions, moves likely to help shore up support of the two contracts requiring a two-thirds County Commission approval. The other contracts to be approved involve an assurance agreement and deals for parking and nonrelocation.

''We got more because I felt like we needed to get more,'' said Burgess.

Among the changes:

• If Loria sells the team next year, the county would get 18 percent of the profit, a share that diminishes annually until year eight, when the county would no longer share in the profit.

• The ball club's $2.3 million in yearly rent will go up by 2 percent each year.

• Extra costs incurred due to scheduling or problems between the contractor and subcontractors will now be paid by the Marlins.

The Marlins or any potential buyer would be obligated to play at the Little Havana ballpark for 35 years, the team will give away 10,000 free tickets to youth groups each year and 1,000 seats for each home game will go for $15.

''He's [Marlins President David Samson] probably throwing darts at our pictures as he speaks. He's made a lot of concessions,'' said Burgess.

Not exactly. Reached Tuesday, Samson called the deal fair and said he will meet personally with the 18 commissioners from the two boards over the next two weeks.

''We had very strict marching orders from Jeffrey,'' Samson said. ``That was to save baseball in South Florida.''

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT

The county's share of the stadium's cost is likely to rise. That's because Miami and Miami-Dade have agreed to split the cost of moving electrical lines and road improvements, expected to be as high as $10 million each. Both governments will also pay $1.7 million to keep the Little Havana ballpark green.

Also, because of rising interest rates, the county's ultimate cost over the 35-year-agreement may rise by millions of dollars.

To pay the yearly nut, the county will rely on tourist taxes. Its most recent budget predicts growth in tax revenue but acknowledges that the stream of money ``could be affected by economic conditions.''

Tourist taxes already pay for the Performing Arts Center, the Miami Beach Convention Center, the Homestead Miami Speedway and the AmericanAirlines Arena.

Any of the three parties -- city, county or team -- can kill the deal by July 2009 if bonding is in jeopardy. The county gets more days to use the stadium, with 50 percent of the profits going to yearly stadium capital improvements. The county and city each get use of a suite for 40 games.

The team gets all the revenue from the stadium, including the naming rights, which could exceed $2 million a year.

BARRIERS & INCENTIVES

The question now is whether the team's contract changes will be enough to persuade a County Commission that barely passed a series of votes a year ago to keep the stadium deal alive.

Because there was no bidding for the construction or management groups -- both hired by the Marlins -- a two-thirds majority of the 13-member County Commission must vote to accept.

County Commissioner Carlos Gimenez, a stadium-deal skeptic, said the Marlins aren't paying enough. He also fears that the souring global economy could undermine the county's plan to pay for its share through loans and hotel bed taxes.

''Last I heard, tourist revenues were down,'' he said. As for interest rates to be applied to bonded money, ``Are we just going to roll the dice and hope they are not too bad?''

Commission Chairman Dennis Moss, a stadium supporter, agreed that the current economic climate is tough but said it can't last forever. ''Clearly, there's risk involved,'' Moss said, ``but it's kind of a leap of faith.''

In contrast with earlier approvals, which critics felt were rushed with little public input, Moss insisted that commissioners get at least two weeks to review the new proposal, which includes more than 350 pages of contracts, budgets and artists' renderings.

''I hope by then we have enough information to vote this thing up or down,'' Moss said. ``That's going to be the big day.''

To sweeten the pot, Major League Baseball agreed to pay $3.2 million to build a youth baseball academy in Hialeah. It comes with a caveat: Commissioners must pass the vote before the academy is built.

County Commissioner Jose ''Pepe'' Diaz said MLB's input goes a long way. ''I think they're generally interested in helping the kids in our community,'' he said.

Loria and Samson believe that a new ballpark, with money from concessions and corporate suites, will keep the franchise in South Florida.

FACE TO THE FUTURE

Annually ranking near the bottom of baseball in payroll and attendance, the Marlins have long cried foul about the team's lease agreement with H. Wayne Huizenga at Dolphin Stadium.

That lease ends after the 2010 season, but the new ballpark will not be ready until Opening Day 2012. Team officials hope to work out a one-year lease with soon-to-be Dolphins owner Stephen Ross.

Samson said Loria has good relationships with the banks ''that are eager to do business with us.'' The team doesn't have to pay its $120 million until construction is almost complete -- giving it the benefit of accumulating cash through ticket sales before it borrows money.

County Mayor Carlos Alvarez, trying to sell the deal in a county with a skyrocketing unemployment rate, said Tuesday that the stadium was being built for the community -- not the Miami Marlins.

''Let's not forget -- right now a stadium means jobs, thousands of jobs,'' the mayor said.

Miami Herald staff writer Larry Lebowitz contributed to this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!

Wednesday, January 28, 2009


Disenchanted With Castro's Revolution

A WSJ article takes a hard look at life in Cuba today for a 56 year old woman and her family. An excerpt:

In 1981, with the blessing of her husband, Ms. Vallejo used an opportunity of a trip to Finland to get eye treatment to take a ferry to Sweden to try to defect. But Sweden's then-socialist government of Olaf Palme handed her back to the Cubans, who swiftly exacted revenge. Her husband and mother both lost their jobs, and they began to be constantly harassed by party officials. On the door of their family home, someone spray-painted "Gusanos," or "Worms," the Cuban words for counterrevolutionaries. When Ms. Vallejo would run across teachers at the university, they would spit in her path.

Ms. Vallejo and her husband sank into a depression that lasted until 1988, when Mother Teresa visited Cuba to open up one of her charity's missions. Because Ms. Vallejo was active in the Catholic church, she served as Mother Teresa's interpreter. During the visit, the late sister befriended Ms. Vallejo and told her God had a mission for her: To care for Cuban children with cancer. "After our first visit to the children's ward (in Havana's main oncology hospital), I cried and prayed to God that I wouldn't have to do this," says Ms. Vallejo. "But, somehow, Mother Teresa knew exactly what we needed."

For the next 15 years, Ms. Vallejo and her husband visited the children in the cancer ward several times a week, organizing parties, bringing presents and trying to cheer them up.
The entire article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disenchanted With Castro's Revolution

JANUARY 28, 2009 - WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter

On Jan. 8, 1959, 50 years ago this month, Fidel Castro rode into Havana on a column on tanks to mark the triumph of the Cuban revolution, cheered on by throngs of flag-waving Cubans and heralding what many hoped would be a new dawn for the island, the hemisphere and the world. It was a day that would forever mark Carmen Vallejo's life.

The story of Carmen Vallejo and her family is, in many ways, the story of the revolution itself and its legacy over the past half century. Like many other Cubans, the Vallejo family strongly supported the revolution that ousted dictator Fulgencio Batista and brought Mr. Castro to power. But the ensuing years brought disillusionment, disappointment and despair..

Today, Ms. Vallejo, 56, feels trapped by the events of 1959. She can't travel outside Cuba or hold a prominent job, the result of a failed attempt to defect in 1981. Desperate to find meaning in their lives outside of politics, she and her husband, Rey, have dedicated the past 19 years to helping Cuban children with cancer. But even that mission is met with hostility from a government that never forgives those who question it.

"Having a totalitarian system means total control. They don't like it when someone else tries to resolve problems for people," she says.

Such talk is rare in Cuba, where most people are afraid of getting jailed for speaking out against the government. But Ms. Vallejo has spent her life coming to terms with her country, her family's role in helping the revolution, and her fate. Her favorite poet is Anna Akhmatova, a Russian who lived under Stalin and wrote about the despair of totalitarianism. Ms. Vallejo has underlined the following lines from one of the poems: "I am not one of those who leave my country. I am, unfortunately, where my people are doomed to be."

Ms. Vallejo's family had an unusually distinguished revolutionary pedigree. Her father was a prominent Cuban physician named Rene Vallejo, who served with the Third U.S. Army in postwar Germany, running a hospital that cared for the sick and war wounded. There, he met a Ukrainian nurse who had been in a Nazi forced labor camp and passed herself off as Polish to avoid being sent to the USSR. The couple married before returning to Cuba.

After about a decade in Cuba, Mr. Vallejo left a successful medical practice and took his two brothers to join Fidel Castro in the Sierra Maestra mountains to topple the Batista regime. Later, he rose to the rank of commander and became Mr. Castro's personal doctor, aide de camp and close friend. Mr. Vallejo's wife, Maria Witowska, also helped the cause, using her home to hide rebels and send supplies to Mr. Castro during the revolution. After the revolution, she became his personal secretary. A picture of her taken by Alberto Korda, the photographer who took the iconic portrait of Che Guevara, still hangs in Carmen Vallejo's Havana apartment.

Children with cancer celebrated a patient's birthday at the library of Havana's main oncology hospital. Ms. Vallejo and her husband, Rey, visit a couple times a week to organize parties and cheer up the patients.

During the first few years after the revolution, Mr. Castro remained so close to Rene Vallejo that the comandante often spent the night at Mr. Vallejo's home, staying up for hours discussing politics. "I never liked Fidel because every time he would come to our house, I was rushed by my father into a bedroom and told to be quiet," says Carmen.

But the Vallejo family slowly fell out of favor with the revolution. Her father, having spent time with the Americans in World War II, encouraged Mr. Castro to make amends with Washington. He was heavily involved in a then-secret attempt to re-establish U.S.-Cuban ties in 1963, according to Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst at the Washington-based National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institution. That effort, which had President Kennedy's blessing, ended with the president's assassination.

Ms. Vallejo thinks her father simply ended up being too much of a free spirit for Mr. Castro to fully trust. "He had respect for every person, for every individual, and the regime does not care about individuals," she says. Whatever the cause, after Mr. Vallejo's death in 1969, he was largely airbrushed out of Cuban history, and today few Cubans know of his role in the revolution.

Ms. Vallejo's mother, Maria, meanwhile, became suspect for her Catholic beliefs. She gave her daughter a first communion ceremony in 1960, raising eyebrows among Communist Party officials. Soon, she was demoted from Mr. Castro's personal secretary to translator. She grew increasingly disillusioned about having survived Stalin and the Nazis only to end up with another totalitarian regime.

Before her death in 1990, Maria Vallejo wrote a letter to her dead mother: "My life is wrecked. I ask myself: What am I doing in this land? .... What sentence do I have to pay and why? Why do I have to suffer like this? …. Must I always, always have to suffer? Will they keep humiliating me? Why? What did I do that was so wrong? …. Mother, come, don't leave me alone. Why didn't you tell me the world and its men were so cruel?"

Carmen Vallejo suffered the privations of ordinary Cubans, despite her family's prominence in the revolution. A lack of vitamins during her college years left her with damage to her left eye.

In 1981, with the blessing of her husband, Ms. Vallejo used an opportunity of a trip to Finland to get eye treatment to take a ferry to Sweden to try to defect. But Sweden's then-socialist government of Olaf Palme handed her back to the Cubans, who swiftly exacted revenge. Her husband and mother both lost their jobs, and they began to be constantly harassed by party officials. On the door of their family home, someone spray-painted "Gusanos," or "Worms," the Cuban words for counterrevolutionaries. When Ms. Vallejo would run across teachers at the university, they would spit in her path.

Ms. Vallejo and her husband sank into a depression that lasted until 1988, when Mother Teresa visited Cuba to open up one of her charity's missions. Because Ms. Vallejo was active in the Catholic church, she served as Mother Teresa's interpreter. During the visit, the late sister befriended Ms. Vallejo and told her God had a mission for her: To care for Cuban children with cancer. "After our first visit to the children's ward (in Havana's main oncology hospital), I cried and prayed to God that I wouldn't have to do this," says Ms. Vallejo. "But, somehow, Mother Teresa knew exactly what we needed."

For the next 15 years, Ms. Vallejo and her husband visited the children in the cancer ward several times a week, organizing parties, bringing presents and trying to cheer them up.

Children with cancer in Cuba get free treatment courtesy of the state, but they also face additional horrors in addition to their disease, including a lack of the latest treatments, clean sheets, air conditioning and even basic food. Aimee Linares's son Nelson, 7, had a malignant tumor in his intestines. During bouts of chemotherapy, the only food the boy seemed able to digest was apples, which the hospital couldn't provide. His mother would walk the streets until her feet blistered looking for a single apple for sale.

Ms. Vallejo and her husband's group began attracting attention from foreign diplomats stationed in Havana, and soon got donations from abroad, mostly from Europe and the U.S. A hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., began a program to send chemotherapy medications that were unavailable in Cuba, and bringing Cuban cancer specialists for month-long stays to learn the latest treatments.

But in 2003, during the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Cuba arrested scores of dissidents and threw them in jail. The European Union broke diplomatic relations. The following week, the children's ward ended visiting hours, making it impossible for Ms. Vallejo to carry on her work. Ms. Vallejo says she learned from the hospital staff that party officials were punishing the group for their contact with foreign enemies.

The couple convinced a local priest to let them organize a cancer support group at the church held every Saturday. Parents with children at the oncology hospital come and meet with former patients who survived or children who still have cancer but are living at home. During a recent Saturday, the children were busy drawing with crayons (a luxury in Cuba) while the adults talked with Sergio Davila about his four-year-old son Brian, who has leukemia.

"I feel like crying when I see him, but I know the thing he needs most is for me to be strong, and smile," said Mr. Davila, 47, who is from another city and has been living in Havana since his son entered the hospital. He sleeps in the hospital corridors.

Despite the altruistic nature of the group's work, the Cuban state still interferes, throwing up bureaucratic obstacles and harassing the children's mothers. Recently, some Western diplomats were going to throw a Christmas party for the kids, many of whom had never seen a Santa Claus. Secret police turned up at the homes of several parents and told them not to send their kids to the party because it was being held by the enemy. "I told them that I didn't care what country someone was from as long as they could put a smile on my little boy's face," says Ms. Linares.

Ms. Vallejo says the group has given her life meaning again after she lost all hope of ever leaving Cuba and building a normal life. Looking back on 50 years of the revolution and her family's role in it, she has only one thing to say: "No more revolutions, please. My life has taught me that change should be gradual. No more revolution. Never again."
---------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!

Tuesday, January 27, 2009


Wayne Huizenga -- Great Yield, No Grace

My take on Wayne Huizenga's effect on sports in Miami is: great personal yield, no public grace.

That is an obvious imitation of the famous line penned by a fellow Cuban, former MLB player and then scout, Mike Gonzalez. Gonzalez--partially due to a lack of English skills--once wired in a four-word scouting report now revered for its brevity: "Good field, no hit."

South Florida Sun-Sentinel sports columnist David Hyde, does a great job of presenting the money side of sports ownership when he provides a bottom-line financial analysis of Wayne Huizenga's ownership of the Miami Dolphins--a $735 million profit.

Hyde avoids the typical columnist outrage over the fact that someone profited as much as Huizenga did, while benefiting in part from public monies [State tax refund and transit infrastructure around the stadium]. He also avoids the other side of the morality-based analysis, by trying to tell us what a great person the owner--who was already incredibly wealthy before his very profitable investment in the team--was. We really have no idea what kind of a person people in sports are by their public reputation; So why pretend?

We can't even tell what kind of person they are by their charitable contributions. To the mega-wealthy, charitable contributions are a necessary line item on a financial statement in terms of their public persona. But by virtue of their hard work and good fortune, it is difficult to give enough to hurt themselves financially. So Huizenga's millions are really no match for the little old lady who unfurls a dollar bill at Mass on life's real scoreboard. Don't think people like Huizenga don't realize that late at night. OK, maybe very very late at night.

Here is the type of thing we can rationally deduce. As a stadium owner, he benefited to the tune of approximately $4 million annually by having the Marlins as a tenant. Once he sold the Marlins, his incentives no longer included having the Marlins find a new home. That would explain why a typical businessman would seek to block the Florida Marlins plans to secure a mostly publicly--but not from local taxes--funded new stadium. But we've established he's not typical. He earned a dominant position in our local sports market and he chose to use that power to block the new stadium. His right of course. As is our prerogative to judge the man in the court of stadiums public opinion.

That's the part which regular fans like me can't quite put our finger on the motivations. It evokes the 'how much is enough' poor-man's query--the Mammon-ites know the answer is always, 'a little more.' The Miami Dolphins did not explode in value over the past few years. Owning an NFL franchise has been a great investment for many years now. As such, Huizenga could have been reasonably secure in knowing that a large payday for selling the team was his for the asking, especially since the time of Marino's retirement [1999]. Let's even grant him that Ross was a great catch as a buyer. Instead of an approximate net profit of $700 million, let's say $400 million was a more reasonable estimate.

As someone who profited as much as Huizenga has from Miami's sports fans, his efforts to block the MLB team from securing a new stadium are as reflective of his character than any legacy spending sprees will reveal. As with much about Huizenga, his record is pockmarked because of that.

Column referenced is copied in full at end of post.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Huizenga, Dolphins were money in the bank

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Dave Hyde - Sports Columnist - January 27, 2009

I can back into this column by noting H. Wayne Huizenga was a fine Dolphins owner who spent money, tried to win, was liked by employees, hired people who were considered best for the job and, in this final season, finally reaped a public reward for his 15 years as owner. All of which I believe.

Or I can just note Huizenga banked an estimated $731 million by owning the team and stadium and that surely trumps his warm and fuzzy feeling from this final season. Or any pain of the Wannstedt Years.

Did he have fun as an owner or what?

Some fans who don't know the facts of life, or sports, will be surprised by this number. Others, of course, will be angry, for some reason. But Huizenga simply was following the normal walk of a successful sports owner and never forgot the most important goal: Sell high.

Actually, it wasn't even a normal walk for Huizenga. He didn't get a stadium built for him, which is typically the foundation of most sports-induced fortunes. Instead, he spent big on the stadium, as you'll see.

Still, it goes without saying as fans and media shout about Ernest Wilfork's $6 million signing bonus how this is mere spittle in the spittoon of the bigger game playing out. At the right price, in the right sport, time always makes the owner a winner. It sure did for Huizenga in the NFL.

Let's examine how. First, there were his costs. Huizenga paid $168 million for the team and stadium in 1994 and assumed $100 million of debt on Joe Robbie Stadium. He bought 107 acres around the stadium for $11 million. He also said the recent upgrades around the stadium totaled $300 million. Total cost: $579 million.

Now, let's add up the profits. First, there's the biggie, the $1.1 billion sales price that Stephen M. Ross reportedly is paying for the team, stadium and land.

Next come the team and stadium profits. The two were intertwined in some cases. Club and suite seats, for instance, were set up to pay off the stadium's debt. Two sources said the Dolphins made an estimated $10 million to $15 million annual profit, depending on varying factors such as players' signing bonuses, facility upgrades or, say, the cost of Bill Parcells.

Andrew Zimbalist, a prominent sports economist, said those annual profit figures are in line with what the Dolphins should make. Let's be conservative. Let's say they made $10 million a year. So in the 15 seasons Huizenga owned the Dolphins outright, the team's profit would have been $150 million.

The trickiest part is the Marlins' payment to the stadium. It's a mathematical game where the Marlins pay the stadium 5 percent of ticket sales on attendance up to 1.5 million, 30 percent of concessions and merchandise, 62.5 percent of parking and so on.

A source said, after costs and annual upkeep, the stadium made about $2 million a year on the Marlins. That would be in line with a Zimbalist study in 1997 (back when Huizenga owned the team) based on an internal Marlins document. The stadium also has received $2 million annually from the state as a stadium tax refund. Put all this at $4 million a year — or $60 million over 15 years.

So is it as simple as adding the $1.1 billion sales price with the $150 million Dolphins profit and the $60 million from the stadium — $1.31 billion — and subtracting the costs of $579 million?

"It's that simple," Zimbalist said.

Estimated payout: $731 million. Not bad considering his Dolphins investment began with four season tickets on the Orange Bowl's bench seats in 1966.

Why is this anyone's business?

There is a practical answer to this, of course. It's that you can stick your fingers in your ears and hum, "Money makes the world go 'round" the next time a sports owner bellyaches about how much it costs to run a team. Eventually, they'll get theirs. At least if they're in a well-run sport like the NFL.

There is an answer of fairness, too. For all the times media and fans drub players about their high-priced contracts, the wider view of sports economics needs to be shown. Well, here it is.

There is the answer of moving forward as well. The Marlins want the public to finance a new stadium. It's a fair request, given what's gone on with some South Florida teams as well as other cities. But can you look at Huizenga's story — $400 million into the stadium between debt service and enhancements — and see why a free stadium is such a draw?

Huizenga, if you meet him, is more than just money. His employees will say that. But to not address the money is to miss the person, too. I once met him in his office, early in his sports career, and he addressed his interest in sports.

With Waste Management, he said, he rented trash cans. With Blockbuster Entertainment, he said, he rented movies. With his sports teams?

"I'm renting seats," he said.

Better yet, he rented the team. He just handed it to Ross, the new renter. Ross may win more games than Huizenga. But let's see him try to beat Huizenga on the real scoreboard.

Dave Hyde can be reached at dhyde@SunSentinel.com

Copyright © 2009, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Read more!