Sep 9, 2008 11:54 pm US/Eastern
Judge Rejects Key Parts Of Marlins Stadium Lawsuit
Auto Dealer Norman Braman Rejected In Claim Stadium Deal Does Not Serve A 'Paramount Public Purpose'
Questions Of Constutionality Delayed By Judge
MIAMI (CBS4) ―
-
-
A sketch of the proposed Marlins Stadium at the former site of Miami's Orange Bowl.
A Miami-Dade judge has handed Miami auto dealer Norman Braman a partial defeat in his efforts to stop the construction of a new Marlins stadium, ruling Tuesday that the stadium does serve a 'paramount public purpose', a key criteria in allowing a controversial city-county plan to build the stadium to go forward.
However, Judge Jeri Cohen's decision does not bring the Marlins much closer to scheduling a groundbreaking ceremony at the stadium site. In a second portion of the 41-page ruling, Judge Cohen withheld a decision on the claim that the city-county plan violates the Florida constitution, saying she would rule on that question after a similar case is decided later this month by the Florida Supreme Court.
Braman's lawsuit has tried to force politicians to put the issue of the Marlins stadium and the Megaplan proposal of which it is a part before the voters. Braman claimed the City of Miami and Miami-Dade county had not proved the Stadium would benefit the area, that the Marlins would be able to meet future obligations under the agreement, and claimed the Marlins were getting what he called a 'sweet deal' under the plan.
Judge Cohen basically rejected all of those claims, and said they were at least debatable.
"Evidence concerning the revitalization of Little Havana, the effect on tourism resulting from jewel events and national broadcasting, the entertainment value of the stadium and its effect on civic pride and social cohesion, the ability of the stadium to retain and induce businesses to reside in South Florida are all issues of great debate," Judge Cohen wrote.
"The Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden and, therefore, failed to convince this Court that such determinations by the Commission and the witnesses at trial are not, at least, "fairly debatable."
Judge Cohen also disagreed with the claim that the city and the county would not see significant economic benefits from the stadium.
"The building of the stadium utilizes land that would otherwise lay bare, and the City of Miami will collect at least $200 million in parking revenues over the course of the Marlins' lease," Judge Cohen wrote. "…it is just as reasonable to believe that businesses will come into the area immediately surrounding the stadium as to believe that they will not."
In making it's argument that the stadium deal was part of a paramount public purpose, attorneys for Miami-Dade County argued that without it the region might lose the Marlins, which loses its rights to play at Dolphin stadium in just 2 years. Lack of a stadium would leave the team homeless, the county argued, and likely to leave the area.
Judge Cohen ruled that argument was valid.
"Regardless of how likely such a move actually is or was, it is certainly\ reasonable for County officials to believe the Marlins might leave Florida that without the (agreement), Judge Cohen said. "It is also reasonable for them to believe that if the Marlins left, the County's reputation and image would suffer."
Judge Cohen said the county's purpose was served by its efforts to use the stadium, and the agreement to keep the Marlins in South Florida, as an effort to build civic pride.
"By building the stadium, the County seeks to improve civic pride and camaraderie. In changing their name from the Florida Marlins to the Miami Marlins, both the City of Miami, the largest city in the County, and the County will benefit with respect to branding and image building. As Mayor Alvarez told the County Commission, "That publicity you can't put a price tag on. It's a good global public relations coup for us every time the name is mentioned."
The Judge's decision also addressed the question of the broader Megaplan on which the stadium is a part, including plans for a Port of Miami Tunnel and other costly civic projects. The city and county claims the plan will improve quality of life and help build the region into a 'world class' community.
Judge Cohen said she could not judge the value of that claim. "Rather, the Court can only determine whether the stadium as part of a long- range vision for Miami, as adopted by the Commission, satisfies a paramount public purpose with only an incidental private benefit. The answer to that question is clearly, yes."
While the decision announced Tuesday does not clear the way to build the ballpark, it clearly knocks down major portions of Braman's efforts to block the plan, leaving only the issue of constitutionality standing in the way.
Even if the Supreme Court rules that a similar agreement in Escambia County is constitutional, Braman has previously indicated he would appear any negative decision. Braman could not immediately be contacted Tuesday.
(© MMX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
Super Bowl Ad: Snickers & Betty White
Click to enlarge
Stumble It!
Comments