Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by CANEPHINS, Apr 8, 2013.
Meh. This had to happen for the vote, so it's not really a surprise, but I'm still glad that they're moving in the right direction.
Yep, and now it will come down to the vote. It has to happen.
I hate when people continue to say things like "Miami voters..the chance to weigh in on whether their tax dollars...."
It is not the voters tax dollars. It's bull**** like this that give people inaccurate or erroneous information and then they make poor decisions based on that inaccurate or erroneous information.
Silly question time..if the citizen vote is against passing it, is that it?, nothing else matters?, and if so, why did we decide to put the fate in such an important economical decision for this city in people's hands who don't have a clue?
You have got to be kidding me with this statement. Beyond the fact that people should have some say as to how their tax dollars get spent, this is going to referrendum because it wouldn't get passed any other way. The county and state showed no interest in this project prior to the referrendum being announced.
The reason for that is that it's completely politically toxic otherwise. Gimenez and most of the county commissioners only have their jobs because they opposed the Marlins stadium deal.
Except it isn't their tax dollars.
It is their tax dollars. Sure, tourists are ultimately paying for it, but then it belings to the county who is supposed to sue it for the highest and best use.
And I'm still waiting to see what voodoo mumbo jumbo Gimenez puts into this deal that will somehow allow the county to raise over $200 million without taking out a loan or dipping into the general fund. Unless of course they can somehow buold this thing without cash and the contractors and workers are accepting a barter arrangement
Any tax the government collects is "your money".
In our system you elect people who are supposed to use that money for the general welfare. Too often they don't.
The money comes from tourism, not from taxes against Miami residents. The fact that it belongs to the county, does not erase the fact that residents do not pay for it.
The county is supposed to use it for the highest and best use, but it can only be used for these types of public works. Constructing and bettering sporting facilities in our city is the highest and best of uses.
As i said, the fact that it belongs to the county does not erase the fact that it is not being taken from the pockets of residents. This money is allocated for precisely these types of works.
Also, i'm speaking mainly on how it sounds when people say "Miami voters get to weigh in on whether their tax dollars are to be used". When people say things like that, the automatic rationale of the average voter is to think "hey, they're going to use the money they take from my pockets to remodel a stadium" when in fact that is not accurate.
The closer this gets, the more confidence I have in it being passed. Very little vocal opposition from what I can tell.
So are they looking at taking the entire hotel tax or raising the tax and only taking the percent the was raised?
The county isn't making a $200M outlay. A lot of their contribution will be through $3M worth of sales tax rebates for 30 years, or something to that affect.
I believe they will raise the hotel tax a small amount, and then borrow against those future earnings to finance this deal now. It then becomes incumbent on our elected officials to not screw up and do the accounting correctly and craft a deal that does not hurt the residents in the future.
Sorry but you're wrong. They may not be paying those taxes but the taxes are generated there to be spent at the pleasure of the people who live there. They dang sure should have their say.
With your proposal, either the hotels (one of the largest collective employers) have to take a loss (probably inducing layoffs, wage freezes) or increase their rental rates, which curbs tourism...
You're digging deeper and deeper.
Any revenue that is accrued through taxation, regardless of source, is money for that jurisdiction--the people's money. If the people decide that they'd rather have that money spent on infrastructure, or any other number of areas, it's their right as citizens to decide that.
In all honesty, even though it's a better deal than the Marlins gave them, there's very little incentive for the people to vote for this, IMO. There is little to no correlation between stadium renovation and increased revenue for the team and/or city.
Sorry but you are misquoting me. I never said they had no say in how the money is spent. My complaint is how this type of thing is always worded to imply that the money comes from taxes payed by residents. They should use better wording to avoid misinformation.
Again, i am not questioning whether the voters have a right to vote or not. That was not my complaint.
Also, the economic ramifications of the deal are a valid argument too. That was also not my complaint.
This tax revenue can't be used for any other purpose. If the referendum fails, there is no tax.
Since I dont live in S. Fl....what is they climate in Dade County..for this? I just....cant believe Miami wont back this. The Dolphins are part of Miami. Its gotta get done.....right?
Fair enough (I'm not local), but it's still the peoples' money....either in the form of money in the pockets of hard workers in the industry (a better economic stimulus than a new stadium), or more meaningful future taxes (again, better).
This simply isn't true. The hotel industry supports the proposal.
Did I say that they didn't?
The implication was that the tax would be detrimental to the industry. Why would they support it then?
listen man, I don't pretend to know how all this sh&$ works, and from the looks of it, we can't even decide as a group who's paying for what, whats allocated to who, so, whatever it is, I just don't agree with letting the public, where some don't understand the impact of a professional team to its community, and whom others don't give a rats *** about it, having them them vote on its importance from a national perspective and it's economic impact to the city, makes no sense to my lamen ***, especially when it's not coming out of their pockets, and, it's been approved by the hotel committee..
I suppose that they are looking forward to the potential for increased volume making up for, and/or exceeding the loss from the tax.
There's quite a bit of empirical evidence out there that that won't be the case, and so I disagree with that logic if their stance is truly what you're saying it is.
Obviously, as a fan, I'd like a new stadium, but there is no free lunch.
My personal viewpoint is that it's simply not the best investment to be made with tax dollars.
Not to mention that there are rumors that Ross would go on with the renovations with or without the city (and another that he'd sell the team without the city lol).
Anyway, don't you agree that it would've been better if the decision to build Marlins Park was left to the people, and not the politicians?
Not sure if serious.
Let's just pray that history doesn't repeat itself.
Let me ask you this hurricane, do you think there was a chance that the marlins would of been able to survive at sunlife stadium long term?
No it would not have been better. Building Marlins Park was good. If it was left to the people, the park would not have been built. The fault lies with the politicians who showed their monumental incompetence by getting completely hosed by those worms who run the Marlins organization. You cannot expect the private businessman to not try to get the best deal he can get. It was up to the publicly elected politicians to represent their constituency effectively. They clearly failed.
Agreed. They likely settled under the table though so it was probably considered a success on their part.
So your going to look at one situation and so no way?, just because folks got hosed on one deal, no taking into context that it's a completely different situation, a totally different set of numbers, under different parameters to pay back, as in eventually all will get paid back, and if it doesn't, penalties accrued will be responsible by the owner, and the simple concept of no more superbowls for your city..to me it's a simple math problem..
They want 143 mill from the public, the economy will make that back and a hell of a lot more, they will also get their loan guranteed to be paid back, and it will be put in writing or else..
Doesn't every situation, or for that matter, every investment oppurtunity, need to be judged independently, with a clean slate, so you don't generalize two situations and make a bad decision based on nothing??
I mean your essentially telling me that because the marlins park hasn't worked out til this point, that you will not hear other scenarios..regardless if their totally different visions, and circumstances, regardless if its risk free?
I know the politicians screwed the pooch big time on that Marlins deal. That being said, i don't know how those numbers in the Forbes link add up. Stadium cost 630M, of which i believe the Marlins payed 200M. So that Forbes link is saying that the county is going to owe over 3 billion (with a b) in interest for construction on a stadium that cost them 430M? Something doesn't add up.
Unless the screw up is something of biblical proportions.
yeah I call BS on those numbers.
Marlins put the county and city on the hook for maintenance. Several more million.
Dolphins and County agree on framework for stadium deal...
There is a free lunch for the city that gets to host the Super Bowl. Even the harshest criticisms of the economic impact of Super Bowls estimate $50-$100M in added economic activity. If Miami gets two SBs because of the stadium, then it pretty much pays for itself.
Strike that. Bonds. County and city took out bonds and borrowed from our good friends on Wall Street.