Task	Jeffrey Loria, owner of the Florida Marlins major league baseball team, has been agitating for a new baseball-only stadium for his team to play in for several years. Currently, the team plays in Dolphins Stadium, a facility Loria argues is more suited to football.  Mr. Loria also notes that H. Wayne Huizenga, owner of Dolphins Stadium (and the stadium's winter tenant -- the NFL’s Miami Dolphins) has suggested that he may not allow the Marlins to continue playing in his facility after 2010. The proposed $420 million financing plan for the new stadium, which would have a retractable dome, calls for the following contributions and provisions: entity revenue source $ in millions Miami-Dade County (would own the stadium) hotel bed taxes $138 City of Miami tourist development taxes $28 Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria rent payments (mostly) $192 Parking garage self-financed by parking fees $32 Total revenue $390 While all parties are in agreement, there is still a $30 million funding gap. FL State Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera (R-Miami) is pushing a proposal (HB 1287) that would close the $30 million gap in financing using a state sales tax abatement.  It is estimated that economic activity associated with Marlins games would generate approximately $8 million in sales tax revenues for the state, annually.  Among other things, the Lopez-Cantera bill directs the state to forgive $2 million of that amount, allowing the Marlins to use that money to help pay off a loan that they would take out to cover the $30 million funding gap.  The tax abatement would run for 30 years (amounting to $60 million in state financing in current dollars by the end of the term) to cover the principal and interest of the Marlins' loan. Your job is to help your clients achieve their goals.
Important dates	¤ Monday, April 18: Opening day quiz (Major League Losers Chs. 1-4 and Marlins situation) ¤ Thursday, April 21: Client position papers (graded work products) • 1-page; memo format; written for your client (and for your client's eyes only).  •  Address these basic questions: Who is your client, what goals does your client have, and what resources does your client have that might be useful in achieving those goals? The purpose of this memo is to PROVE to your client that you are up to the task of consulting on this project.  As such, it is expected that you will cover things the client already knows in the process of helping the client clarify his or her organization's goals and values.  ¤ Monday, April 25: Lobbyist-guest -- Matt Steck, Greenlee Partners ¤ Thursday, April 28: Field trip to Baltimore (pickup behind HUB 11 am) ¤  Monday, May 2 •  Press conference: Each team will make public their latest positions and public strategies.  This event will be different than previous presentations: you will be using this opportunity to do more than inform; you will use it to advance your client's cause as creatively and effectively as possible.  Surprise announcements and other well-thought out public relations strategies may be in order. •  Executive Summary (2-3 pages):  Due  (same day as press conference). •  Background research report: waived ¤ Thursday, May 5: Last day of class (wrap up course material; take questions; conduct peer and course evaluations; celebration; optical illusions) ¤ Tuesday, May 10:  Final report binder (including recommendations) due at 9 a.m., staff associate suite, 2nd floor of Denny Hall). ¤ Exit interviews: 15-minute individual interviews on either Tuesday (May 10) or Friday (May 13) or other times as pre-arranged during final exams period.
Clients	360 Inc. S.O.S./Miami -- Save Our Society/Miami is a fledgling grassroots organization concerned with social safety net issues, especially those related to children and young adults (e.g., health care, education, crime, violence, and child welfare -- the issues are very real, only the group is imaginary).  SOS is asking 360 to do some pro bono consulting on their behalf, to help them find effective ways to fight this stadium deal and redirect funding to address the issues they are most concerned about. Jigsaw Miami-Dade county manager George Burgess and Miami city manager Joe Arriola pooled their resources and hired Jigsaw to look out after their mutual interests. Compass Florida Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria C.A.R.E. Knight-Ridder CEO Tony Ridder.  Knight Ridder owns the Miami Herald and several other daily newspapers in Florida. Polaris FL Governor Jeb Bush Lighthouse FL State Senate President Tom Lee (R-Brandon) Magellan FL State Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera (R-Miami), author of HB 1287, the $60 million state funding gap proposal.
Academic	¤ Heartland Institute Studies + Sports Stadium Madness (full .pdf report) ¤ Do new major league ballparks pay for themselves? (.pdf) ¤  Squeeze Play: The Campaign for a New Twins Stadium
Public input	¤  Project Ballpark: future/miami ¤  Marlins New Stadium One Step Closer to Reality (blog) ¤  Sports Stadium Stampede (NTUF Press Release re: Issue Brief 133) ¤  Talk About Bush League
News	¤  Clubs could bear the cost of ballparks ¤  Don't refuse this deal ¤  Key House panel OKs tax break for new Marlins stadium ¤  Herald's backing of Marlins stadium based on pure myth ¤  State refuses to play ball ¤  Let sports empires build their stadiums -- with their money ¤  For Capital's Baseball Fans, Time Is Set to Begin Anew

News articles

---

Don't refuse this deal
OUR OPINION: MARLINS' STADIUM IS A WIN FOR GOVERNMENT, COMMUNITY, FANS
Miami Herald, Mar. 28, 2005


In the realm of baseball-stadium deals, the plan to build a new home for the Marlins near downtown Miami is a good one for the city, county, state and fans, too. State Rep. Carlos López-Cantera, R-Miami, is pushing a bill seeking a $60 million sales-tax rebate from the state for the stadium. The bill, HB 1287, goes before the House Tourism Committee Tuesday and deserves a favorable report.

 A paying tenant

It's easy to see why. Think of it this way: If you planned a house and found a tenant who agreed to lease terms covering half of the mortgage, would you build? Of course you would. But the county's and city's deal with the Marlins is even better. The Marlins agree to cover any cost overruns. Once the stadium is built, they will occupy it for only half the year, leaving the county free to use the stadium for other paying events.

In our example, that's like having the tenant to whom you're leasing agree to cover cost overruns on your house and, to boot, vacate the house for half a year, leaving you free to rent to others.

The $420 million stadium would be built near the Orange Bowl, an area ripe for redevelopment. The county would contribute $138 million from bed taxes, the city $28 million from tourist-development taxes and the Marlins $192 million, mostly in rent payments. A $32 million parking garage would be self-financed with parking fees. The tax rebate would cover a $30 million funding gap.

Critics says the government shouldn't build a stadium for millionaire baseball players and that no economic benefits will result from a new stadium. We beg to differ. Commerce builds community and creates jobs. That's obvious. Less obvious, however, is the way education, arts and sports build community. Do you doubt it?

 A common bond

Think about teaching our kids a common cannon to which they refer for the rest of their lives in a democracy. Think about the power of everyone singing together to a Celia Cruz or Frank Sinatra. And think about the common bond created in this community around the Dolphins of old, the Marlins of World Series victories, or the Heat of Shaquille O'Neal.

It doesn't matter whether you're old or young, black, Hispanic or Anglo, whether you speak Creole, English, Portuguese or Spanish, you cannot fail to find a common bond with others when you experience these community events. They don't happen in a vacuum. And so we support creating performing arts centers and world class museums and, yes, a first-class baseball stadium.

---

Key House panel OKs tax break for new Marlins stadium
Linda Kleindienst
South FLorida Sun Sentinel, March 30 2005 

TALLAHASSEE --  Saying the Florida Marlins are good for tourism and economic development, a key House committee on Tuesday approved a $60 million tax break to keep the two-time World Series champions from leaving the state.

 A smaller tax break measure would help Fort Lauderdale improve its spring training facilities at Fort Lauderdale Stadium to keep the Baltimore Orioles.

 "Unless you're generating tax dollars to benefit all Florida, we won't make the investment in your team," said House Tourism Chairwoman Nancy Detert, R-Venice. "It looks like you're rewarding glamorous occupations but ... we all recognize that they do generate dollars."

 The tax breaks unanimously approved were included in a measure to help build a new $420 million baseball stadium east of the Orange Bowl and to help three Florida citiesimprove their spring training facilities.

 . Miami-Dade officials estimate the Marlins stadium would generate up to $8 million in new sales taxes for the state and in return they are asking the state to let them keep $2 million of that each year for the next 30 years.

 "It's a good economic development bill that ensures the Marlins will stay in Florida," said Rep. Carlos Lopez-Cantera, R-Miami, the bill's sponsor. "We should do everything we can to keep a team like this in Florida."

 The Marlins begin their quest for a new home after learning the team would have to leave Dolphins Stadium after the 2010 season. Only in recent days has Dolphins owner H. Wayne Huizenga somewhat softened his position, indicating he might allow the Marlins to stay if their plea to the Legislature fails.

 The financing plan for the new stadium, which would have a retractable dome, calls for Miami-Dade County, which would own the stadium, to kick in $138 million in hotel bed taxes while the city of Miami would provide $28 million in tourist development taxes and the Marlins, $192 million in mostly rent payments. A $32 million parking garage would be self-financed by parking fees.

 A $30 million gap would be covered by state money. But because that debt would be paid off with interest at $2 million a year over 30 years, the total state sales tax rebate would be $60 million.

 "If we want a world championship team, we need to make sure they stay here," said Rep. Rene Garcia, R-Hialeah, a member of the Tourism Committee.

 The plan (HB 1287) also provides a smaller but similar tax break aimed at helping local governments pay for improvements to their spring training stadiums. Arizona has identified three teams to lure away from Florida: the Baltimore Orioles, who train at Fort Lauderdale Stadium; the Cincinnati Reds, who train at Sarasota; and the Cleveland Indians, who train at Winter Haven.

 The measure now goes to the House Finance and Tax Committee, where it is expected to face a tougher challenge.

 No Senate committee has yet voted on the Marlins' request, but the Senate Commerce and Consumer Services Committee on Tuesday approved its version of the spring training bill in a 6-2 vote. The Senate plan (SB 1644), filed by Sen. Skip Campbell, D-Fort Lauderdale, would provide financial help to five cities instead of three. Both the House and Senate version would require any team benefiting from the state funds to stay where they are for 15 years.

 "Fort Lauderdale Stadium is a stadium I played baseball in when I was a small fellow. ... It is in need of renovation and repair," said Campbell, 56. "If the teams are forced to move because the facilities are not up to their standards, we lose them."

 The Legislature is getting flooded with requests for help from professional sports teams and NASCAR, but legislators appear ready to whittle that down, being most receptive to tax breaks needed to stop teams from seeking new homes in other states.

 "At some point in time we just can't say yes to all of them," said House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City. "We'll look at the economic benefit of each. The trick is going to be which can help the state of Florida the best."

Staff Writers Mark Hollis and Jennifer Peltz contributed to this report.

 Linda Kleindienst can be reached at lkleindienst@sun-sentinel.com or 850-224-6214.

---

Herald's backing of Marlins stadium based on pure myth
Michael Lewis
Miami Today, April 7, 2005

   As sure as Miami's summer brings humidity, a baseball stadium deal brings accolades from the Miami Herald. After all, that paper pushed for American Airlines Arena and the Performing Arts Center, so why not another county giveaway?
   Editorializing, dead right or dead wrong, is constitutionally protected so that the public can weigh all views. Since the Herald is the only real game in town, however, its views are the only ones most of us get.
   That should compel the Herald to weigh positions carefully and be sure it gets the facts straight. Support or oppose based on facts, not fiction.
   A key reason the Herald backs the Marlins stadium deal, in the words of its March 28 editorial, is that "once the stadium is built, they will occupy it for only half the year, leaving the county free to use the stadium for other paying events."
   What the Herald is saying is that once government lays out about $400 million to build a stadium, it can at least program offseason events and pocket the revenue. If we don't find that argument compelling, it's at least a reason to support a stadium built at public expense.
   Unfortunately, that argument is pure fiction.
   The written agreement the Herald is supporting states clearly that other than 16 days a year, the Marlins or an operator they choose would program everything in the stadium and the Marlins would get every penny from everything they program. And even those 16 days are for non-profit events only.
   Here's the wording:
   "The Ballpark Operator and the Marlins shall be entitled to all of the revenues arising from or with respect to the Ballpark. The County and the City shall have up to sixteen (16) days combined for non-profit events, subject to customary restrictions. The County and the City shall receive all revenues and pay all direct expenses from such events."
   So where did the paper come up with a half-year of government use and revenue?
   "I was wondering about that when I read it," said County Manager George Burgess, who is pivotal in the deal. And, he said, that provision has not changed - it's still just 16 days.
   If this deal goes through - it's still in question - Mr. Burgess says he'd be pleased to see the Marlins use the site profitably year round so they could afford the rent: "The stronger they are, the stronger we are."
   But that's it: Offseason programming would be strictly the Marlins' prerogative, and receipts from tickets, concessions, stadium advertising, sponsorships and the rest would be totally the Marlins' money, not the county's.
   It is, of course, a perfectly rotten deal for taxpayers, who would pay almost all the stadium's costs and get nothing but rent that's far less than the Marlins now pay at Dolphins Stadium.
   In that respect, it parallels the American Airlines Arena deal. The chairman of Knight Ridder, which owns the Herald, represented the county, the City of Miami and Miami's sports authority and personally negotiated handing the billionaire owner of the Miami Heat a half-billion-dollar arena on Miami's bayfront from which government, nine years later, has yet to get a thin dime in return. The Heat's owner controls a major Herald advertiser, Carnival Cruise Lines.
   The Herald's support also parallels its strong backing of a terrible Performing Arts Center site half-surrounded by land that parent Knight Ridder had just bought cheap under dummy corporate names and today is about to sell for $190 million.
   Let's assume that in the case of the baseball stadium, the Herald has nothing hidden to gain and that its leaders sincerely believe the deal is good for this county. They have a constitutional right to be wrong.
   It would be nice, however, if they had actually read the deal before misleading us about what it says.
   The editorial might fool legislators from whom the Herald and the Marlins seek a $60 million sales-tax rebate for the stadium. Legislators won't read the agreement any more than the members of the Herald editorial board did.
   As a result, we might end up with a baseball stadium, which is what the Herald wants. The only losers would be the public and the truth.

---

State refuses to play ball
ROBERT TRIGAUX
St. Petersburg Times, April 8, 2005

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/08/Columns/State_refuses_to_play.shtml

In the Sunshine State, where the obsession with sports borders on religion, it seems heresy that a pro baseball team - one with World Series wins in 1997 and 2003 - cannot persuade Tallahassee to hand over millions from the state coffers for a new stadium.
Sure, Florida government can summon the backbone to ignore an expensive amendment approved by voters for smaller class sizes in schools. The state can successfully overturn a voter-mandated high-speed rail project. Those are just pesky little issues of education and transportation easily dismissed with political sleights of hand.

But what about a request to provide a mere $60-million state tax break to help Miami-Dade County build a $420-million roofed ballpark for the champion Florida Marlins?

Remarkably, the state Legislature has shown unusual common sense and financial restraint. Without a new stadium, the Marlins are threatening to uproot the young franchise and head to more subsidy-friendly cities. To their credit, state legislative leaders aren't biting. At least not yet.

In a country that never met a new and publicly funded sports stadium it can't live without, Florida just might buck the national trend.

The issue loomed anew this week in Tallahassee in a Senate committee hearing. Staff economist Ross Fabricant argued that publicly financed sports stadiums do not increase economic activity but merely shift money around that otherwise would have been spent on area entertainment.

Citing dozens of academic studies, Fabricant said public subsidies of stadiums are a lousy way to create jobs or build tax revenues. Fabricant apparently is in good company. I checked with some of the nation's top sports economists.

"The number of economists not on the consulting payrolls of leagues, teams or chambers of commerce who think that (sports) stadiums provide net economic benefits for an area could fit comfortably into a phone booth or a Geo Metro," says University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson.

Adds Clemson University economics professor Raymond Sauer: "Academic economists are in almost unanimous agreement that sports venues are not economic engines."

Philip Porter, an economics professor at the University of South Florida, for years has consistently pooh-poohed most financial impact studies that claim sports stadiums and major sporting events contribute significantly to a region's economic well-being.

If it were only that cut and dried.

Yes, the wise use of state tax dollars is a discipline Florida never seemed to learn. But true economic development and the creation of new and decent-paying jobs are rarely the only driving forces behind public spending.

Consider New York City's imbroglio. Last week, the New York Jets - who play football in New Jersey - were awarded the right to build the world's most expensive football stadium on the western edge of midtown Manhattan.

The award was immediately contested - hey, this is New York - as rigged and unfair. But the reality is the city is as keen on a new stadium to boost its chances of winning the Olympics there in 2012 as it is on returning the Jets to their namesake New York.

Montreal could not muster enough support for its Expos baseball franchise, so the team moved to Washington, D.C. and was renamed the Nationals. The team plays this year in temporary quarters at RFK Stadium but eventually will settle into a new baseball stadium.

Does the D.C.-area public support spending tax dollars on a new facility? No. But watch it happen anyway.

In southern California, the San Diego Chargers are pitching a new stadium as part of a larger development project that includes more than 6,000 housing units, offices, retail, a hotel and a park. The project goes before city voters in November 2006.

That's clever packaging. A lone stadium sure to be voted down is now just one piece of a broader offering to taxpayers. Here's a wild idea. Rather than exaggerate, obscure or fib outright about the economic benefits of sports stadiums, tell it like it is.

This brand new stadium won't generate much new economic development or create many, if any, worthwhile jobs. But it might offer some civic pride and entertainment and keep our pro sports team here."If citizens want to spend money on a sports facility - and don't rob the poor in the process - just because it would be fun, and with their financial eyes wide open in terms of it not being any catalyst for economic growth, then I have no problem with such a commitment," says the University of Chicago's Sanderson.

One looming sports battle could hurt Florida's economy.

Arizona, which has its own Cactus League and spring training facilities for Major League Baseball teams, is targeting several Florida-based MLB teams to move their spring training out west.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano in February named a 25-member commission to expand the state's 12-team Cactus League by luring two teams from Florida's 18-team Grapefruit League. The most vulnerable teams are the Cleveland Indians in Winter Haven; the Baltimore Orioles, which want a new stadium to remain in Fort Lauderdale; and the Cincinnati Reds, which want $25-million in public money to renovate their stadium in Sarasota.

(For the record, the Reds' Ed Smith Stadium ranks among the more pitiful facilities in Florida.)

What should Florida do? It can let Arizona swoop in with subsidized promises of new facilities and other perks. Or it can be prepared to make a counter offer, judiciously, to preserve a significant component of Florida's tourism industry and history.

Clemson professor Sauer says Florida has more cause to protect spring training, which attracts out-of-state tourists, than to contribute tax dollars to a Marlins stadium.

"If I were Gov. Bush and Major League Baseball threatened to pull up stakes unless the state invested many millions, here is what I would do," Sauer said. "I would look at the numbers, then call their bluff."

The Tampa Bay area had more than its share of baseball brinksmanship in the 1980s and 1990s when team after team threatened to move here from other cities. Nobody came. A new franchise, the Devil Rays, was born and started playing in 1998.

 A few months ago, the Marlins huffed and puffed that the team might move to Las Vegas if a tax-subsidized stadium was not approved. On Jan. 5, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said he hoped to make an announcement about a Major League Baseball team coming to Las Vegas "within the next month."

Nothing happened.

But the season is young. This year's economic games are just beginning.

---

Let sports empires build their stadiums -- with their money
CARL HIAASEN
Miami Herald, April 10, 2005

The Florida Marlins stadium deal is running out of gas in the state Legislature, thanks in part to the good old boys at NASCAR.

One of the most lucrative sports empires in the world, NASCAR is asking the hard-working residents of Florida to contribute $75 million in sales taxes toward a new ''NASCAR Hall of Fame'' in Daytona Beach.

The plan is to build a world-class facility that presumably would display acres of blown engine parts and other historic racing memorabilia, attracting hordes of stock-car fans from far and wide.

Nothing wrong with that, except that NASCAR can well afford to build its own Hall of Fame. Last year, it raked in $2.1 billion on merchandising alone.

Competing with the stock-car moguls for subsidies are the Orlando Magic, which wants $99 million for a new basketball arena; Fort Lauderdale and other cities seeking funds to improve their spring-training parks; and of course the long-suffering Marlins, who want a second $60 million tax break to cement a financing package for a new stadium next to the Orange Bowl.

Lawmakers now must decide whether to dispense the money to all, some or none of the greedy-in-waiting. As of late last week, the odds looked lousy for the Marlins.

It didn't help that Dolphins owner Wayne Huizenga told Senate President Tom Lee that he wasn't really going to kick the team out of the football stadium, if they wanted to stay.

This assertion is muddling in light of the notice sent to the Marlins last November, stating that their lease at the stadium wouldn't be renewed after the 2010 baseball season.

In any event, Huizenga's word seems to have convinced Lee that the Marlins aren't doomed to be homeless and are therefore in no urgent need of a bailout. And without Lee's support, the franchise won't get a penny.

 Team owners benefit the most

Also working against the Marlins was a report by Ross Fabricant, an economist for the Senate, who reviewed 40 academic studies of publicly financed arenas and stadiums.

His conclusion: a bad deal for taxpayers. ''These kinds of activities do not yield a net economic benefit,'' he said.

Fabricant's report was covered as big news, but it wasn't. In almost every major city where public funds have been used to build or upgrade a pro sports facility, the promised boom and revitalization never came to pass.

Municipalities always fork out more than they get back. The much-hyped ''multiplier effect'' applies strictly to the enhanced net worth of the team owners.

Just look at downtown Miami, where not one but two publicly subsidized basketball arenas have brought traffic jams but no lasting commercial prosperity to Overtown.

Far away, in Broward's western suburbs, the Panthers hockey arena stands as a monument to fiscal foolishness. Built with $184 million of public funds, the facility has in seven years made only one pathetic $364,000 payment to the county.

No wonder that a recent opinion poll showed that 80 percent of surveyed Florida voters oppose the $60 million tax rebate commonly awarded to pro sports franchises. Even seven out of 10 self-described Marlins fans said it's wrong.

The team already cashed in once, then-owner Huizenga supposedly using all the money to refit the Dolphins stadium for baseball.

Judging by the dialogue so far, the current Legislature isn't quite as gullible, or as friendly to sports tycoons, as some in the past.

Florida is already on the hook for half a billion dollars in glorified welfare to 14 pro franchises as well as other sports-related rip-offs -- including $50 million for the PGA World Hall of Fame in St. Augustine and $15 million for the International Game Fishing Association museum in Dania Beach.

You can hardly blame the guys at NASCAR for trying to get in on the action. If taxpayers can be fleeced for stuffed bass and antique golf shoes, why not for 73 old pairs of Richard Petty's wraparound sunglasses?

Right now, NASCAR's got a better shot at scoring than the Marlins do.

The notion of a stock-car hall of fame has won favor with Sen. Jim King, the Jacksonville Republican who chairs the important Senate Commerce and Consumer Services Committee.

King and other supporters say Daytona Beach has a nifty plan to reimburse Floridians for the lost taxes. How? By selling specialty license plates.

Seriously.

Every time somebody buys a NASCAR tag, a few bucks would go toward paying back all those taxes that paid for the racing hall of fame instead of less glamorous needs such as schools, child protection or the eviscerated Medicaid program.

There's a bright side for baseball fans: If the Legislature is dumb enough to fall for Daytona's license-plate scheme, the Marlins might still have a chance at a stadium deal.

They should immediately promise to repay the state by selling Carlos Delgado key chains and Josh Beckett bobble-heads. By the time sales reach $60 million, nobody will remember what the money was for.

Which is the whole point of the game.