There's nothing quite like waking up bleary-eyed and hung over to a swift kick in the balls from the Gray Lady. No, seriously, that's why we subscribe to the New York Times. It's better than a stiff colada.
The Times delivered big-time this weekend, with a Messi-esque shot to the groin in the form of a timely reminder about how badly we're all getting screwed by the new Marlins Stadium deal.
There's not that much in the way of fresh reporting in the Times' dispatch. But you have to love this sentiment:
Miami and Miami-Dade County have agreed to cover three-quarters of the projected $645 million costYeah! That's the kind of tough bargaining Miami-Dade voters look for from their illustrious and totally unbiased leaders.
to build the Marlins a home with a retractable roof and four huge
parking garages. In return, the city and the county will receive no new
revenue from the park, and the team can keep all the money from the 50
luxury suites, concessions, and advertising, as well as from naming
rights, which alone could generate more than $100 million.
What's that? We reported months ago about how contractors poured money into one commissioner's account just before he provided a crucial swing vote on the project? OK, so maybe unbiased isn't the best adjective.
Either way, just in case you're not feeling gloomy enough about the deal, the Times reminds us there's no guarantee that Miami tourism will ever rebound to pre-recession levels -- especially considering city tourism is down 19 percent this year.
And other cities that expected big revenue boosts from new stadiums
have frequently watched tax dollars go unreturned.
The Times cites
Cincinnati, which promised voters 3 percent annual tax revenue growth
when they approved new taxes for a Reds stadium -- but instead got only
1.6 percent growth, and a staggering 10 percent drop this year.
Mayors Extraordinaire Diaz and Alvarez, meanwhile, declined to defend their horrible stadium deal in the nation's largest newspaper.