The city of Miami indicated that it "should not have to pay property taxes on the four parking garages it built at the new Little Havana ballpark for the Miami Marlins," according to Mazzei & Rabin of the MIAMI HERALD. Miami-Dade County property appraiser Pedro Garcia "suggests otherwise," and now "both sides are poring over state law to make their case." The Florida Constitution said that for a government-owned property to be exempt from taxes, it "must be used solely for a public purpose." Garcia has said that "letting the Marlins pay the city $10.03 a space to use the garage’s 5,700 spaces for the team’s 81 home games each year constitutes having a private enterprise operating on public property." Miami counters that the garages should be exempt because they "serve the public by being open 24 hours a day, seven days a week." City Attorney Julie Bru "calls the city’s parking agreement with the Marlins a 'bulk sale' -- the city sold the spaces to the ballclub for certain hours a day, certain days a year, for a fee." It is "unclear, however, how many people not going to a ballgame would be able to park in the garages during game days." The city has calculated that the Marlins "will have control of the parking spaces less than 11 percent of the year, though the team will keep 250 spaces year-round." The remaining spaces "will be saved for the Marlins from two hours before games to two hours after games, and for special Major League Baseball events and concerts at the stadium." The rest of the time, the spaces "will be available to the public like any other city garage." Miami indicated that it does not matter that the city will "make more money from the Marlins than from drivers parking there outside of games" (MIAMI HERALD, 12/24).
TAKING A CLOSER LOOK: In Miami, Charles Rabin cited experts as saying that a "newly launched federal investigation into public bond sales for the Marlins’ $634 million baseball stadium is likely focusing on whether investors were misled about city finances, and whether anyone who championed the wildly unpopular giveaway of public money was improperly influenced." The city and county covered "nearly 80 percent of the costs" of the new ballpark and the Marlins will receive "virtually all revenues" from the facility. County leaders later acknowledged that they "had never reviewed the Marlins’ books before reaching the agreement, and it was later revealed that the Marlins -- who had cried poor -- were in a much better financial situation than had been believed." The SEC "could be examining whether the county failed to exercise due diligence by not demanding to see the team’s financials" (MIAMI HERALD, 12/24).
