Finally Sorta Good Economic News

In today’s WSJ, Nouriel Roubini gives the best economic news I’ve heard in a while. It’s not what we normally think of as good news though, so let’s put the news in context. First understand that Roubini’s nickname is the “Dr Doom” and yet he has been very accurate in his predictions about the financial collapse.

David Ignatius, a Washington Post economics columnist, did a very useful thing recently, he documented why Roubini spotted trends others had missed. Here are the reasons:

The first involves standard number-crunching of the sort that economists routinely do — and that Roubini just did better and sooner. It’s his second answer that’s more interesting, because it goes to the heart of what we should take away from this crisis: Roubini decided to discard the assumption of market rationality that underlies most economics and to embrace the psychological insights of what’s known as “behavioral economics.”

I know this a huge deal, but have no idea what it means to how economics will be approached going forward, just that it will change. The good news is that even a guy like Roubini doesn’t advocate an alternative to capitalism. Here is how Roubini recently described his own feelings about proposing that banks be nationalized:

As free-market economists teaching at a business school [NYU Stern] in the heart of the world’s financial capital, we feel downright blasphemous proposing an all-out government takeover of the banking system. But the U.S. financial system has reached such a dangerous tipping point that little choice remains. And while Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s recent plan to save it has many of the right elements, it’s basically too late.

Roubini’s Good News – Govt Program Which Exposes Failing Banks

On Nov 25th of last year, the FDIC started the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, which backs all bank debt of less than three-year maturity with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. In essence, they got to issue debt at government rates. The program worked.

The government’s motivation for this program is to get banks back in the lending game. But in an economic and financial crisis, we want healthy banks to lend to creditworthy institutions and individuals, not for unhealthy banks to play with the credit spreads. There proved to be a remarkable coincidence between the banks with the largest writedowns — one measure of sickness — and those accessing the FDIC program. Since Nov 2008, the following banks have borrowed a total of $203 billion:

  • BofA – $35.5 billion
  • GE Capital – $27 billion
  • Citigroup – $24 billion
  • J.P. Morgan – $19 billion
  • Morgan Stanley – $19 billion
  • Goldman Sachs – $15 billion
  • Numerous other banks – $64 billion

The Bad News

Those banks noted above are probably insolvent

Why Roubini Likes Geithner’s Plan

  • Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s plan — call it Bailout 2.0 — stops the madness.
  • Bailout 2.0 lacks details, but it is clear it won’t propose more bank freebies — no new loan guarantee programs or backstops of losses on their bad assets, or government capital infusions in the form of underpriced preferred shares. Now the banks will have to prove themselves via a “stress test” on their solvency to access new capital. It won’t be a pretty picture.
  • The government is now going to do it alongside private capital. These investors aren’t going to overpay, so that game is up as well.
  • Since Mr. Geithner’s plan has been unveiled, the stock prices of the financial sector are off about 19%. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The banks were expecting another handout.
  • While it was not his intention, the reality is that Mr. Geithner is going to confirm the insolvency of the financial system. Once we face this truth, there really isn’t much left to do but nationalize.
  • We are not talking about the government operating the banks for the long-term. But, as was done in Scandinavia in the early 1990s, we are talking about orderly clean up, then reselling the banks to private investors.
  • The good news is that much of the risk will be borne by the banks’ common and preferred shareholders and their long-term unsecured creditors — as opposed to by taxpayers. This makes sense since shareholders and creditors were the ones who bet on banks in the first place. We’ll also stop repeating the mistakes we made with Fannie and Freddie.

According to the Financial Times, Alan Greenspan agrees.

All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post.

————————————————————————————-
There’s Virtue In Geithner’s Vague Bank Plan. At least he doesn’t want to guarantee more bad debt.

FEBRUARY 18, 2009

By MATTHEW RICHARDSON and NOURIEL ROUBINI

On Jan. 27, Bank of America sold a whopping $6 billion of three-year notes at a yield of 2.2% — a good 3.5% less than what its other bonds of similar maturity were trading for. How did it manage this feat?

For a mere fee of 0.75%, BofA accessed the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, which backs all bank debt of less than three-year maturity with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. In essence, they got to issue debt at government rates.

Since the program started last Nov. 25, BofA has gone to the well 11 times for a total of $35.5 billion. Other banks have lined up 91 times for a staggering $168 billion. They include GE Capital ($27 billion), Citigroup ($24 billion), J.P. Morgan ($19 billion), Morgan Stanley ($19 billion), and Goldman Sachs ($15 billion).

Feelings about the liquidity guarantee program weren’t always so rosy. On Oct. 31, 2008, the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell wrote the FDIC on behalf of nine banks, arguing that the government program to back the bonds of financial firms did not provide strong-enough guarantees. The letter asked that the guarantee cover principal and interest payment obligations as they became due, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The guarantee was included three weeks later when the final rule was issued. No prize for guessing which banks signed the letter.

The government’s motivation for this program is to get banks back in the lending game. But in an economic and financial crisis, we want healthy banks to lend to creditworthy institutions and individuals, not for unhealthy banks to take another flyer on credit spreads.

There is, however, a remarkable coincidence between the banks with the largest writedowns — one measure of sickness — and those accessing the FDIC program.

It’s not as if we haven’t seen this before. On Sept. 7, 2008, the government put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. They were bankrupt because of an accumulated portfolio of $1.5 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities, of which $225 billion was subprime mortgages and the other $1.275 trillion were illiquid prime mortgages.

While some of Fannie and Freddie’s portfolios were hedged against interest rate movements using interest rate swaps, the subprime portion was an outright bet on default rates of low quality mortgages. How much cushion did they have? Only $1 of capital for every $25 of debt. What type of crazy creditor would lend to them? Almost anyone, because the debt had the implicit, now explicit, guarantee of the U.S. government.

With the economic dangers we now face, do we really want to go down this road again?

We don’t, and that’s why, for all the criticism, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s plan — call it Bailout 2.0 — does have a silver lining. It stops the madness.

Yes, Bailout 2.0 lacks details, but it is clear it won’t propose more bank freebies — no new loan guarantee programs or backstops of losses on their bad assets, or government capital infusions in the form of underpriced preferred shares. Now the banks will have to prove themselves via a “stress test” on their solvency to access new capital. It won’t be a pretty picture.

And by the way, if banks want Uncle Sam to buy all those “toxic” assets, the government is now going to do it alongside private capital. These investors aren’t going to overpay, so that game is up as well.

Since Mr. Geithner’s plan has been unveiled, the stock prices of the financial sector are off about 19%. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The banks were expecting another handout.

While it was not his intention, the reality is that Mr. Geithner is going to confirm the insolvency of the financial system. Once we face this truth, there really isn’t much left to do but nationalize.

We are not talking about the government operating the banks for the long-term. But, as was done in Scandinavia in the early 1990s, we are talking about orderly clean up, then reselling the banks to private investors.

The good news is that much of the risk will be borne by the banks’ common and preferred shareholders and their long-term unsecured creditors — as opposed to by taxpayers. This makes sense since shareholders and creditors were the ones who bet on banks in the first place. We’ll also stop repeating the mistakes we made with Fannie and Freddie.

Messrs. Richardson and Roubini are professors who have contributed to the NYU Stern School of Business book, “Restoring Financial Stability: How to Repair a Failed System,” forthcoming by John Wiley & Sons.
———————————————————————————–
The Death of ‘Rational Man’

By David Ignatius

Sunday, February 8, 2009; B07

What allowed some people to see the financial crash coming while so many others missed its gathering force? I put that question recently to Nouriel Roubini, who has come to be known as “Dr. Doom” because of his insistent warnings starting in 2006 that we were heading into a global firestorm.

Roubini gave two kinds of answers. The first involves standard number-crunching of the sort that economists routinely do — and that Roubini just did better and sooner. It’s his second answer that’s more interesting, because it goes to the heart of what we should take away from this crisis: Roubini decided to discard the assumption of market rationality that underlies most economics and to embrace the psychological insights of what’s known as “behavioral economics.”

First, the standard analytical explanation: Roubini said that he studied a chart in economist Robert J. Shiller’s book “Irrational Exuberance.” It showed that U.S. housing prices, adjusted for inflation, had remained essentially flat for a century, until the mid-1990s, when they began to shoot up. What’s more, Roubini saw that the most recent housing correction in the late 1980s had a severe effect on the financial system — leading ultimately to the collapse of the savings and loan industry.

So Roubini knew two things: Housing prices wouldn’t keep going up forever, and when they went down, they would take a big piece of the financial system with them. From then on, it was a matter of watching the data.

But everyone else had those same numbers. Why did Roubini act? The answer is that he decided to trust his gut, which told him there was trouble ahead, rather than Wall Street’s “wisdom of the crowd,” which — as reflected in stock prices — said everything was rosy. He concluded that the markets were not pricing in the degree of risk that was actually present in housing.

“The rational man theory of economics has not worked,” Roubini said last month at a session of the World Economic Forum at Davos. That’s why he and other prominent economists are paying more attention to behavioral economics, which starts from the premise that economic decisions, like other aspects of human behavior, are influenced by irrational psychological factors.

The most compelling rebuttal of the rational model, paradoxically, was delivered by the ultimate rationalist, Alan Greenspan. “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders,” the former Fed chairman told Congress last October.

That’s why Greenspan didn’t see it coming, argues Daniel Kahneman, a Princeton professor who is often described as the father of behavioral economics. His rational-actor model wouldn’t let him.

Let me put in a plug here for the godfather of behavioral economics, John Maynard Keynes. His 1936 “General Theory” is often interpreted simplistically as a call for fixing recessions by boosting demand with government spending. But at a deeper level, Keynes was analyzing the role of psychological factors, such as greed and fear, in economic decisions. He understood that markets freeze when people panic and start hoarding cash. (“Extreme liquidity preference,” he called it.) Conversely, economies start to roar when investors feel a surge of what Keynes called “animal spirits.”

One of the most powerful ideas I heard at Davos was the idea of “pre-mortem” analysis, which was first proposed by psychologist Gary Klein and has been taken up by Kahneman.

A pre-mortem analysis can provide a real “stress test” to conventional thinking. Let’s say that a company or government agency has decided on a plan of action. But before implementing it, the boss asks people to assume that five years from now, the plan has failed — and then to write a brief explanation of why it didn’t work. This approach stands a chance of bringing to the surface problems that the decision makers had overlooked — the “black swans,” to use former trader Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s phrase, that people assumed wouldn’t happen in the near future because they hadn’t occurred in the recent past.

One more take-away from this year’s Davos forum was a Japanese proverb cited by one speaker: “An inch ahead is darkness.” Recognizing the inherent unpredictability of economic life — the darkness that’s just ahead — should make us wary. But it can also make us smart.

The writer is co-host of PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address is davidignatius@washpost.com.
———————————————————————

Tagged , | Leave a comment

Bill Moyers — PBS Moralist Exposed

Bill Moyers is a long-time left-wing political commentator. As with most commentators on the left, his attacks take on the ‘how could they’ faux-saintly tone, which is grating. It turns out that during all that preening, he was greatly [millions] enriching himself as a result of his association with taxpayer-funded PBS. What a lout.

WSJ Editorial referenced is copied in full at end of post.

—————————————————————————-
Bill or J. Edgar Moyers — The TV moralist’s government record.

FEBRUARY 21, 2009

One of the darker periods of modern American history was J. Edgar Hoover’s long reign over the FBI, as we have learned since he died in 1972. So it is more than a historical footnote to discover new records showing that prominent public television broadcaster Bill Moyers participated in Hoover’s exploits.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Washington Post has obtained a few of the former FBI director’s secret files. According to a Thursday front-page story, Hoover was “consumed” with exposing a (nonexistent) relationship between a gay photographer and Jack Valenti, the late film industry lobbyist who was then an aide to Lyndon Johnson. Hoover’s M.O. was to amass incriminating personal information as political blackmail.

But as the Post reports in passing, the dossier also reveals that Mr. Moyers — then a special assistant to LBJ — requested in 1964 that Hoover’s G-men “investigate two other administration figures who were ‘suspected as having homosexual tendencies.'”

This isn’t the first time Mr. Moyers’s name has come up in connection with Hoover’s abuse of office. When Laurence Silberman, now a federal appeals judge, was acting Attorney General in 1975, he was obliged to read Hoover’s secret files in their entirety in preparation for testimony before Congress — and as far as we know remains one of the only living officials to have done so. “It was the single worst experience of my long governmental service,” he wrote in these pages in 2005.

Amid “bits of dirt on figures such as Martin Luther King,” Judge Silberman found a 1964 memo from Mr. Moyers directing Hoover’s agents to investigate Barry Goldwater’s campaign staff for evidence of homosexual activity. A few weeks before, an LBJ aide named Walter Jenkins had been arrested in a men’s bathroom, and Mr. Silberman wrote that Mr. Moyers and his boss evidently wanted leverage in the event Goldwater tried to use the liaison against them. (He didn’t, as it happened.)

When that episode became public after Mr. Silberman testified, an irate Mr. Moyers called him and, with typical delicacy, accused him of falling for forged CIA memos. Mr. Silberman offered to study the matter and, should Mr. Moyers’s allegations pan out, he would publicly exonerate him. “There was a pause on the line and then he said, ‘I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?’ And then he rang off.”

Memories are short in Washington, and Mr. Moyers has gone on to promote himself as a political moralist, routinely sermonizing about what he claims are abuses of power by his ideological enemies. Since 9/11, he has been particularly intense in criticizing President Bush for his antiterror policies, such as warrantless wiretapping against al Qaeda.

Yet the historical record suggests that when Mr. Moyers was in a position of actual power, he was complicit in FBI dirt-digging against U.S. citizens solely for political purposes. As Judge Silberman put it in 2005, “I have always thought that the most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends.”

Mr. Moyers told us through a spokeswoman that he “never heard of the Valenti matter until this story and had nothing to add to it.” He also pointed to a 1975 Newsweek article in which he wrote that he learned of the LBJ-Hoover relationship in “the quickly fading days of my innocence.” In the Nixon days, this was called a nondenial denial.
———————————————————————

Posted in Current Affairs & History | Tagged , | Leave a comment

John Updike Reporting on Ted Williams as Recommended by the Great Tom Wolfe

John Updike was a great American writer who died very recently. Ted Williams was a great American baseball player who died not so recently. In reading about Updike, I discovered that he had written an essay on Ted Williams last game at Fenway Park in 1960. Any baseball fan worth their Balco PED’s can tell you that Williams last at bat was a home run and that he famously raced around the bases, never tipped his cap to the fickle Boston fans and practically retired as he crossed home plate.

It is the stuff of MLB legend. When it comes to Ted Williams, the record can match the legend with ease. This from the Wikipedia entry on Williams:

… an American left fielder in Major League Baseball. He played 21 seasons, twice interrupted by military service as a Marine Corps pilot, with the Boston Red Sox. He is widely considered to be one of the greatest hitters in the history of baseball.

OK let’s get this straight. One of the greatest hitters ever, he hit .400 in 1941, interrupts his career to serve in WWII. Then at the age of 34, he serves in the Korean War as a fighter pilot. Misses 2 more years and returns to baseball again. Then at the age of 39 he hit .388. But before I even knew all that about Williams, I was already a fan when I heard that he had a very specific idea about how he wanted to be remembered.

“When I walk down the street and meet people,” Ted Williams once said, “I just want them to think ‘There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.’ “

I approached Updike’s essay with some trepidation. Updike had in his later years, been attacking my favorite writer Tom Wolfe. I’m sure Updike made worse mistakes, but the Wolfe attacks cost him dearly as he became one of the objects of Wolfe’s funniest essays, My Three Stooges. In the essay, Wolfe makes a great case about why writer’s need to get out and do reporting in the ‘lurid carnival’ which is America, instead of relying on their imagination and laurels. Wolfe gave as examples of the type of work he respected was Carl Hiaasen and Richard Price. In effect Wolfe called Updike [Larry], Norman Mailer [Curly] and John Irving [Mo] out for being lazy and referred to them as effete and irrelevant. I’m not sure I could enjoy writing more than I enjoyed that essay–it can be found in Wolfe’s book Hooking Up. It’s hard to read Irving’s work afterwards without laughing at the guy. Here’s a sample from that essay by Wolfe, commenting on Irving’s novel, A Widow for One Year:

… about two neurotic writers who seemed unable to get out of a house in Bridgehampton, Long Island. As the pages wore on, I kept waiting for them to kindly make it into town, just once, even though town–I’ve been there–is only a two-block strip along a two-lane highway. At one point the two of them … leave the house! They get in a car! They’re driving through a nearby hamlet called Sagaponack, a lovely little Hamptons Rural Chic retreat–I’ve been there, too–and I’m begging them to please stop–park next to the SUVs and German sedans and have a soda at the general store there on Sagg Main–take a look, just a one look, at a $125,000 show-circuit hunter pony in the pasture over there at the Topping Riding School–do something–anything–to show that you are connected to the here and now, that you actually exist where the author claims you exist, on Long Island U.S.A.! But they don’t listen … they just drift on, encapsulated in their neurosthenia … and disappear behind the walls of another timeless, abstract house.

Then the great Tom Wolfe moves in for the kill. Caution, you might want to wear a bib to avoid the ego’s of the 3 stooges splattering on you:

… they’ve wasted their careers by not engaging the life around them, by turning their backs on the rich material of an amazing country at a fabulous time in history. Instead of going out into the world, instead of plunging into the irresistibly lurid carnival of American life today in the here and now, instead of striding out with a Dionysian yea-saying, as Nietzsche would have put it, into the raw, raucous, lust-soaked rout that throbs with amped-up octophonic tympanum all around them, our old lions had withdrawn, retreated, shielding their eyes against the light, and turned inward to such subject matter as their own little crevice, i.e., the literary world.

So I knew I had to read Updike on Williams, but was hoping I didn’t like it. [Listen, I know that’s not intelligent or logical, but it is how I ‘think’]. First good sign, Updike was actually there for the game. He enjoyed baseball! The reason he went to that game was that a lady stood him up on a date. Those two facts [liking baseball and women] probably exclude 99% of male literary types.

Then I began reading the essay and found sentence after sentence like these:

Fenway Park, in Boston, is a lyric little bandbox of a ballpark. Everything is painted green and seems in curiously sharp focus, like the inside of an old-fashioned peeping-type Easter egg. It was built in 1912 and rebuilt in 1934, and offers, as do most Boston artifacts, a compromise between Man’s Euclidean determinations and Nature’s beguiling irregularities. Its right field is one of the deepest in the American League, while its left field is the shortest; the high left-field wall, three hundred and fifteen feet from home plate along the foul line, virtually thrusts its surface at right-handed hitters. On the afternoon of Wednesday, September 28th, as I took a seat behind third base, a uniformed groundkeeper was treading the top of this wall, picking batting-practice home runs out of the screen, like a mushroom gatherer seen in Wordsworthian perspective on the verge of a cliff. The day was overcast, chill, and uninspirational.

Along with these tots and second-honeymooners, there were Harvard freshmen, giving off that peculiar nervous glow created when a quantity of insouciance is saturated with insecurity; thick-necked Army officers with brass on their shoulders and lead in their voices; pepperings of priests; perfumed bouquets of Roxbury Fabian fans; shiny salesmen from Albany and Fall River; and those gray, hoarse men—taxidrivers, slaughterers, and bartenders who will continue to click through the turnstiles long after everyone else has deserted to television and tramporamas. Behind me, two young male voices blossomed, cracking a joke about God’s five proofs that Thomas Aquinas exists—typical Boston College levity.

The batting cage was trundled away. The Orioles fluttered to the sidelines. Diagonally across the field, by the Red Sox dugout, a cluster of men in overcoats were festering like maggots. I could see a splinter of white uniform, and Williams’ head, held at a self-deprecating and evasive tilt. Williams’ conversational stance is that of a six-foot-three-inch man under a six-foot ceiling.

It goes on and amazingly on like that. About fifteen minutes later, I was in awe and upset I had rushed through my reading of it. So I printed it out and looked forward to rereading it on paper to extract a full enjoyment of the writing, even as I was slightly bummed to discover that Larry wasn’t always a stooge.

John Updike’s essay,’Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu,’ is copied in full at end of post.

—————————————————————————-
Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu by John Updike

October 22, 1960

Fenway Park, in Boston, is a lyric little bandbox of a ballpark. Everything is painted green and seems in curiously sharp focus, like the inside of an old-fashioned peeping-type Easter egg. It was built in 1912 and rebuilt in 1934, and offers, as do most Boston artifacts, a compromise between Man’s Euclidean determinations and Nature’s beguiling irregularities. Its right field is one of the deepest in the American League, while its left field is the shortest; the high left-field wall, three hundred and fifteen feet from home plate along the foul line, virtually thrusts its surface at right-handed hitters. On the afternoon of Wednesday, September 28th, as I took a seat behind third base, a uniformed groundkeeper was treading the top of this wall, picking batting-practice home runs out of the screen, like a mushroom gatherer seen in Wordsworthian perspective on the verge of a cliff. The day was overcast, chill, and uninspirational. The Boston team was the worst in twenty-seven seasons. A jangling medley of incompetent youth and aging competence, the Red Sox were finishing in seventh place only because the Kansas City Athletics had locked them out of the cellar. They were scheduled to play the Baltimore Orioles, a much nimbler blend of May and December, who had been dumped from pennant contention a week before by the insatiable Yankees. I, and 10,453 others, had shown up primarily because this was the Red Sox’s last home game of the season, and therefore the last time in all eternity that their regular left fielder, known to the headlines as TED, KID, SPLINTER, THUMPER, TW, and, most cloyingly, MISTER WONDERFUL, would play in Boston. “WHAT WILL WE DO WITHOUT TED? HUB FANS ASK” ran the headline on a newspaper being read by a bulb-nosed cigar smoker a few rows away. Williams’ retirement had been announced, doubted (he had been threatening retirement for years), confirmed by Tom Yawkey, the Red Sex owner, and at last widely accepted as the sad but probable truth. He was forty-two and had redeemed his abysmal season of 1959 with a—considering his advanced age—fine one. He had been giving away his gloves and bats and had grudgingly consented to a sentimental ceremony today. This was not necessarily his last game; the Red Sox were scheduled to travel to New York and wind up the season with three games there.

I arrived early. The Orioles were hitting fungos on the field. The day before, they had spitefully smothered the Red Sox, 17–4, and neither their faces nor their drab gray visiting-team uniforms seemed very gracious. I wondered who had invited them to the party. Between our heads and the lowering clouds a frenzied organ was thundering through, with an appositeness perhaps accidental, “You maaaade me love you, I didn’t wanna do it, I didn’t wanna do it . . .”

The affair between Boston and Ted Williams has been no mere summer romance; it has been a marriage, composed of spats, mutual disappointments, and, toward the end, a mellowing hoard of shared memories. It falls into three stages, which may be termed Youth, Maturity, and Age; or Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis; or Jason, Achilles, and Nestor.

First, there was the by now legendary epoch when the young bridegroom came out of the West, announced “All I want out of life is that when I walk down the street folks will say ‘There goes the greatest hitter who ever lived.’ ” The dowagers of local journalism attempted to give elementary deportment lessons to this child who spake as a god, and to their horror were themselves rebuked. Thus began the long exchange of backbiting, hat-flipping, booing, and spitting that has distinguished Williams’ public relations. The spitting incidents of 1957 and 1958 and the similar dockside courtesies that Williams has now and then extended to the grandstand should be judged against this background: the left-field stands at Fenway for twenty years have held a large number of customers who have bought their way in primarily for the privilege of showering abuse on Williams. Greatness necessarily attracts debunkers, but in Williams’ case the hostility has been systematic and unappeasable. His basic offense against the fans has been to wish that they weren’t there. Seeking a perfectionist’s vacuum, he has quixotically desired to sever the game from the ground of paid spectatorship and publicity that supports it. Hence his refusal to tip his cap to the crowd or turn the other cheek to newsmen. It has been a costly theory—it has probably cost him, among other evidences of good will, two Most Valuable Player awards, which are voted by reporters—but he has held to it from his rookie year on. While his critics, oral and literary, remained beyond the reach of his discipline, the opposing pitchers were accessible, and he spanked them to the tune of .406 in 1941. He slumped to .356 in 1942 and went off to war.

In 1946, Williams returned from three years as a Marine pilot to the second of his baseball avatars, that of Achilles, the hero of incomparable prowess and beauty who nevertheless was to be found sulking in his tent while the Trojans (mostly Yankees) fought through to the ships. Yawkey, a timber and mining maharajah, had surrounded his central jewel with many gems of slightly lesser water, such as Bobby Doerr, Dom DiMaggio, Rudy York, Birdie Tebbetts, and Johnny Pesky. Throughout the late forties, the Red Sox were the best paper team in baseball, yet they had little three-dimensional to show for it, and if this was a tragedy, Williams was Hamlet. A succinct review of the indictment—and a fair sample of appreciative sports-page prose—appeared the very day of Williams’ valedictory, in a column by Huck Finnegan in the Boston American (no sentimentalist, Huck):

Williams’ career, in contrast [to Babe Ruth’s] has been a series of failures except for his averages. He flopped in the only World Series he ever played in (1946) when he batted only .200. He flopped in the playoff game with Cleveland in 1948. He flopped in the final game of the 1949 season with the pennant hinging on the outcome (Yanks 5, Sox 3). He flopped in 1950 when he returned to the lineup after a two-month absence and ruined the morale of a club that seemed pennant-bound under Steve O’Neill. It has always been Williams’ records first, the team second, and the Sox non-winning record is proof enough of that.

There are answers to all this, of course. The fatal weakness of the great Sox slugging teams was not-quite-good-enough pitching rather than Williams’ failure to hit a home run every time he came to bat. Again, Williams’ depressing effect on his teammates has never been proved. Despite ample coaching to the contrary, most insisted that they liked him. He has been generous with advice to any player who asked for it. In an increasingly combative baseball atmosphere, he continued to duck beanballs docilely. With umpires he was gracious to a fault. This courtesy itself annoyed his critics, whom there was no pleasing. And against the ten crucial games (the seven World Series games with the St. Louis Cardinals, the 1948 playoff with the Cleveland Indians, and the two-game series with the Yankees at the end of the 1949 season, winning either one of which would have given the Red Sox the pennant) that make up the Achilles’ heel of Williams’ record, a mass of statistics can be set showing that day in and day out he was no slouch in the clutch. The correspondence columns of the Boston papers now and then suffer a sharp flurry of arithmetic on this score; indeed, for Williams to have distributed all his hits so they did nobody else any good would constitute a feat of placement unparalleled in the annals of selfishness.

Whatever residue of truth remains of the Finnegan charge those of us who love Williams must transmute as best we can, in our own personal crucibles. My personal memories of Williams begin when I was a boy in Pennsylvania, with two last-place teams in Philadelphia to keep me company. For me, “W’ms, lf” was a figment of the box scores who always seemed to be going 3-for-5. He radiated, from afar, the hard blue glow of high purpose. I remember listening over the radio to the All-Star Game of 1946, in which Williams hit two singles and two home runs, the second one off a Rip Sewell “blooper” pitch; it was like hitting a balloon out of the park. I remember watching one of his home runs from the bleachers of Shibe Park; it went over the first baseman’s head and rose meticulously along a straight line and was still rising when it cleared the fence. The trajectory seemed qualitatively different from anything anyone else might hit. For me, Williams is the classic ballplayer of the game on a hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Baseball is a game of the long season, of relentless and gradual averaging-out. Irrelevance—since the reference point of most individual games is remote and statistical—always threatens its interest, which can be maintained not by the occasional heroics that sportswriters feed upon but by players who always care; who care, that is to say, about themselves and their art. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter’s myth, he is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money. It may be that, compared to managers’ dreams such as Joe DiMaggio and the always helpful Stan Musial, Williams is an icy star. But of all team sports, baseball, with its graceful intermittences of action, its immense and tranquil field sparsely settled with poised men in white, its dispassionate mathematics, seems to me best suited to accommodate, and be ornamented by, a loner. It is an essentially lonely game. No other player visible to my generation has concentrated within himself so much of the sport’s poignance, has so assiduously refined his natural skills, has so constantly brought to the plate that intensity of competence that crowds the throat with joy.

By the time I went to college, near Boston, the lesser stars Yawkey had assembled around Williams had faded, and his craftsmanship, his rigorous pride, had become itself a kind of heroism. This brittle and temperamental player developed an unexpected quality of persistence. He was always coming back—back from Korea, back from a broken collarbone, a shattered elbow, a bruised heel, back from drastic bouts of flu and ptomaine poisoning. Hardly a season went by without some enfeebling mishap, yet he always came back, and always looked like himself. The delicate mechanism of timing and power seemed locked, shockproof, in some case outside his body. In addition to injuries, there were a heavily publicized divorce, and the usual storms with the press, and the Williams Shift—the maneuver, custom-built by Lou Boudreau, of the Cleveland Indians, whereby three infielders were concentrated on the right side of the infield, where a left-handed pull hitter like Williams generally hits the ball. Williams could easily have learned to punch singles through the vacancy on his left and fattened his average hugely. This was what Ty Cobb, the Einstein of average, told him to do. But the game had changed since Cobb; Williams believed that his value to the club and to the game was as a slugger, so he went on pulling the ball, trying to blast it through three men, and paid the price of perhaps fifteen points of lifetime average. Like Ruth before him, he bought the occasional home run at the cost of many directed singles—a calculated sacrifice certainly not, in the case of a hitter as average-minded as Williams, entirely selfish.

After a prime so harassed and hobbled, William was granted by the relenting fates a golden twilight. He became at the end of his career perhaps the best old hitter of the century. The dividing line came between the 1956 and the 1957 seasons. In September of the first year, he and Mickey Mantle were contending for the batting championship. Both were hitting around .350, and there was no one else near them. The season ended with a three-game series between the Yankees and the Sox, and, living in New York then, I went up to the Stadium. Williams was slightly shy of the four hundred at-bats needed to qualify; the fear was expressed that the Yankee pitchers would walk him to protect Mantle. Instead, they pitched to him—a wise decision. He looked terrible at the plate, tired and discouraged and unconvincing. He never looked very good to me in the Stadium. (Last week, in Life, Williams, a sportswriter himself now, wrote gloomily of the Stadium, “There’s the bigness of it. There are those high stands and all those people smoking—and, of course, the shadows. . . . It takes at least one series to get accustomed to the Stadium and even then you’re not sure.”) The final outcome in 1956 was Mantle .353, Williams .345.

The next year, I moved from New York to New England, and it made all the difference. For in September of 1957, in the same situation, the story was reversed. Mantle finally hit .365; it was the best season of his career. But Williams, though sick and old, had run away from him. A bout of flu had laid him low in September. He emerged from his cave in the Hotel Somerset haggard but irresistible; he hit four successive pinch-hit home runs. “I feel terrible,” he confessed, “but every time I take a swing at the ball it goes out of the park.” He ended the season with thirty-eight home runs and an average of .388, the highest in either league since his own .406, and, coming from a decrepit man of thirty-nine, an even more supernal figure. With eight or so of the “leg hits” that a younger man would have beaten out, it would have been .400. And the next year, Williams, who in 1949 and 1953 had lost batting championships by decimal whiskers to George Kell and Mickey Vernon, sneaked in behind his teammate Pete Runnels and filched his sixth title, a bargain at .328.

In 1959, it seemed all over. The dinosaur thrashed around in the .200 swamp for the first half of the season, and was even benched (“rested,” Manager Mike Higgins tactfully said). Old foes like the late Bill Cunningham began to offer batting tips. Cunningham thought Williams was jiggling his elbows; in truth, Williams’ neck was so stiff he could hardly turn his head to look at the pitcher. When he swung, it looked like a Calder mobile with one thread cut; it reminded you that since 1953 Williams’ shoulders had been wired together. A solicitous pall settled over the sports pages. In the two decades since Williams had come to Boston, his status had imperceptibly shifted from that of a naughty prodigy to that of a municipal monument. As his shadow in the record books lengthened, the Red Sox teams around him declined, and the entire American League seemed to be losing life and color to the National. The inconsistency of the new superstars—Mantle, Colavito, and Kaline—served to make Williams appear all the more singular. And off the field, his private philanthropy—in particular, his zealous chairmanship of the Jimmy Fund, a charity for children with cancer—gave him a civic presence somewhat like that of Richard Cardinal Cushing. In religion, Williams appears to be a humanist, and a selective one at that, but he and the Cardinal, when their good works intersect and they appear in the public eye together, make a handsome and heartening pair.

Humiliated by his ’59 season, Williams determined, once more, to come back. I, as a specimen Williams partisan, was both glad and fearful. All baseball fans believe in miracles; the question is, how many do you believe in? He looked like a ghost in spring training. Manager Jurges warned us ahead of time that if Williams didn’t come through he would be benched, just like anybody else. As it turned out, it was Jurges who was benched. Williams entered the 1960 season needing eight home runs to have a lifetime total of 500; after one time at bat in Washington, he needed seven. For a stretch, he was hitting a home run every second game that he played. He passed Lou Gehrig’s lifetime total, then the number 500, then Mel Ott’s total, and finished with 521, thirteen behind Jimmy Foxx, who alone stands between Williams and Babe Ruth’s unapproachable 714. The summer was a statistician’s picnic. His two-thousandth walk came and went, his eighteen-hundredth run batted in, his sixteenth All-Star Game. At one point, he hit a home run off a pitcher, Don Lee, off whose father, Thornton Lee, he had hit a home run a generation before. The only comparable season for a forty-two-year-old man was Ty Cobb’s in 1928. Cobb batted .323 and hit one homer. Williams batted .316 but hit twenty-nine homers.

In sum, though generally conceded to be the greatest hitter of his era, he did not establish himself as “the greatest hitter who ever lived.” Cobb, for average, and Ruth, for power, remain supreme. Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, Joe Jackson, and Lefty O’Doul, among players since 1900, have higher lifetime averages than Williams’ .344. Unlike Foxx, Gehrig, Hack Wilson, Hank Greenberg, and Ralph Kiner, Williams never came close to matching Babe Ruth’s season home-run total of sixty. In the list of major-league batting records, not one is held by Williams. He is second in walks drawn, third in home runs, fifth in lifetime averages, sixth in runs batted in, eighth in runs scored and in total bases, fourteenth in doubles, and thirtieth in hits. But if we allow him merely average seasons for the four-plus seasons he lost to two wars, and add another season for the months he lost to injuries, we get a man who in all the power totals would be second, and not a very distant second, to Ruth. And if we further allow that these years would have been not merely average but prime years, if we allow for all the months when Williams was playing in sub-par condition, if we permit his early and later years in baseball to be some sort of index of what the middle years could have been, if we give him a right-field fence that is not, like Fenway’s, one of the most distant in the league, and if—the least excusable “if”—we imagine him condescending to outsmart the Williams Shift, we can defensibly assemble, like a colossus induced from the sizable fragments that do remain, a statistical figure not incommensurate with his grandiose ambition. From the statistics that are on the books, a good case can be made that in the combination of power and average Williams is first; nobody else ranks so high in both categories. Finally, there is the witness of the eyes; men whose memories go back to Shoeless Joe Jackson—another unlucky natural—rank him and Williams together as the best-looking hitters they have seen. It was for our last look that ten thousand of us had come.

Two girls, one of them with pert buckteeth and eyes as black as vest buttons, the other with white skin and flesh-colored hair, like an underdeveloped photograph of a redhead, came and sat on my right. On my other side was one of those frowning, chestless young-old men who can frequently be seen, often wearing sailor hats, attending ball games alone. He did not once open his program but instead tapped it, rolled up, on his knee as he gave the game his disconsolate attention. A young lady, with freckles and a depressed, dainty nose that by an optical illusion seemed to thrust her lips forward for a kiss, sauntered down into the box seats and with striking aplomb took a seat right behind the roof of the Oriole dugout. She wore a blue coat with a Northeastern University emblem sewed to it. The girls beside me took it into their heads that this was Williams’ daughter. She looked too old to me, and why would she be sitting behind the visitors’ dugout? On the other hand, from the way she sat there, staring at the sky and French-inhaling, she clearly was somebody. Other fans came and eclipsed her from view. The crowd looked less like a weekday ballpark crowd than like the folks you might find in Yellowstone National Park, or emerging from automobiles at the top of scenic Mount Mansfield. There were a lot of competitively well-dressed couples of tourist age, and not a few babes in arms. A row of five seats in front of me was abruptly filled with a woman and four children, the youngest of them two years old, if that. Someday, presumably, he could tell his grandchildren that he saw Williams play. Along with these tots and second-honeymooners, there were Harvard freshmen, giving off that peculiar nervous glow created when a quantity of insouciance is saturated with insecurity; thick-necked Army officers with brass on their shoulders and lead in their voices; pepperings of priests; perfumed bouquets of Roxbury Fabian fans; shiny salesmen from Albany and Fall River; and those gray, hoarse men—taxidrivers, slaughterers, and bartenders who will continue to click through the turnstiles long after everyone else has deserted to television and tramporamas. Behind me, two young male voices blossomed, cracking a joke about God’s five proofs that Thomas Aquinas exists—typical Boston College levity.

The batting cage was trundled away. The Orioles fluttered to the sidelines. Diagonally across the field, by the Red Sox dugout, a cluster of men in overcoats were festering like maggots. I could see a splinter of white uniform, and Williams’ head, held at a self-deprecating and evasive tilt. Williams’ conversational stance is that of a six-foot-three-inch man under a six-foot ceiling. He moved away to the patter of flash bulbs, and began playing catch with a young Negro outfielder named Willie Tasby. His arm, never very powerful, had grown lax with the years, and his throwing motion was a kind of muscular drawl. To catch the ball, he flicked his glove hand onto his left shoulder (he batted left but threw right, as every schoolboy ought to know) and let the ball plop into it comically. This catch session with Tasby was the only time all afternoon I saw him grin.

A tight little flock of human sparrows who, from the lambent and pampered pink of their faces, could only have been Boston politicians moved toward the plate. The loudspeakers mammothly coughed as someone huffed on the microphone. The ceremonies began. Curt Gowdy, the Red Sox radio and television announcer, who sounds like everybody’s brother-in-law, delivered a brief sermon, taking the two words “pride” and “champion” as his text. It began, “Twenty-one years ago, a skinny kid from San Diego, California . . .” and ended, “I don’t think we’ll ever see another like him.” Robert Tibolt, chairman of the board of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, presented Williams with a big Paul Revere silver bowl. Harry Carlson, a member of the sports committee of the Boston Chamber, gave him a plaque, whose inscription he did not read in its entirety, out of deference to Williams’ distaste for this sort of fuss. Mayor Collins presented the Jimmy Fund with a thousand-dollar check.

Then the occasion himself stooped to the microphone, and his voice sounded, after the others, very Californian; it seemed to be coming, excellently amplified, from a great distance, adolescently young and as smooth as a butternut. His thanks for the gifts had not died from our ears before he glided, as if helplessly, into “In spite of all the terrible things that have been said about me by the maestros of the keyboard up there . . .” He glanced up at the press rows suspended above home plate. (All the Boston reporters, incidentally, reported the phrase as “knights of the keyboard,” but I heard it as “maestros” and prefer it that way.) The crowd tittered, appalled. A frightful vision flashed upon me, of the press gallery pelting Williams with erasers, of Williams clambering up the foul screen to slug journalists, of a riot, of Mayor Collins being crushed. “. . . And they were terrible things,” Williams insisted, with level melancholy, into the mike. “I’d like to forget them, but I can’t.” He paused, swallowed his memories, and went on, “I want to say that my years in Boston have been the greatest thing in my life.” The crowd, like an immense sail going limp in a change of wind, sighed with relief. Taking all the parts himself, Williams then acted out a vivacious little morality drama in which an imaginary tempter came to him at the beginning of his career and said, “Ted, you can play anywhere you like.” Leaping nimbly into the role of his younger self (who in biographical actuality had yearned to be a Yankee), Williams gallantly chose Boston over all the other cities, and told us that Tom Yawkey was the greatest owner in baseball and we were the greatest fans. We applauded ourselves heartily. The umpire came out and dusted the plate The voice of doom announced over the loudspeakers that after Williams’ retirement his uniform number, 9, would be permanently retired—the first time the Red Sox had so honored a player. We cheered. The national anthem was played. We cheered. The game began.

Williams was third in the batting order, so he came up in the bottom of the first inning, and Steve Barber, a young pitcher who was not yet born when Williams began playing for the Red Sox, offered him four pitches, at all of which he disdained to swing, since none of them were within the strike zone. This demonstrated simultaneously that Williams’ eyes were razor-sharp and that Barber’s control wasn’t. Shortly, the bases were full, with Williams on second. “Oh, I hope he gets held up at third! That would be wonderful,” the girl beside me moaned, and, sure enough, the man at bat walked and Williams was delivered into our foreground. He struck the pose of Donatello’s David, the third-base bag being Goliath’s head. Fiddling with his cap, swapping small talk with the Oriole third baseman (who seemed delighted to have him drop in), swinging his arms with a sort of prancing nervousness, he looked fine—flexible, hard, and not unbecomingly substantial through the middle. The long neck, the small head, the knickers whose cuffs were worn down near his ankles—all these points, often observed by caricaturists, were visible in the flesh.

One of the collegiate voices behind me said, “He looks old, doesn’t he, old; big deep wrinkles in his face . . .”

“Yeah,” the other voice said, “but he looks like an old hawk, doesn’t he?”

With each pitch, Williams danced down the baseline, waving his arms and stirring dust, ponderous but menacing, like an attacking goose. It occurred to about a dozen humorists at once to shout “Steal home! Go, go!” Williams’ speed afoot was never legendary. Lou Clinton, a young Sox outfielder, hit a fairly deep fly to center field. Williams tagged up and ran home. As he slid across the plate, the ball, thrown with unusual heft by Jackie Brandt, the Oriole center fielder, hit him on the back.

“Boy, he was really loafing, wasn’t he?” one of the boys behind me said.

“It’s cold,” the other explained. “He doesn’t play well when it’s cold. He likes heat. He’s a hedonist.”

The run that Williams scored was the second and last of the inning. Gus Triandos, of the Orioles, quickly evened the score by plunking a home run over the handy left-field wall. Williams, who had had this wall at his back for twenty years, played the ball flawlessly. He didn’t budge. He just stood there, in the center of the little patch of grass that his patient footsteps had worn brown, and, limp with lack of interest, watched the ball pass overhead. It was not a very interesting game. Mike Higgins, the Red Sox manager, with nothing to lose, had restricted his major-league players to the left-field line—along with Williams, Frank Malzone, a first-rate third baseman, played the game—and had peopled the rest of the terrain with unpredictable youngsters fresh, or not so fresh, off the farms. Other than Williams’ recurrent appearances at the plate, the maladresse of the Sox infield was the sole focus of suspense; the second baseman turned every grounder into a juggling act, while the shortstop did a breathtaking impersonation of an open window. With this sort of assistance, the Orioles wheedled their way into a 4–2 lead. They had early replaced Barber with another young pitcher, Jack Fisher. Fortunately (as it turned out), Fisher is no cutie; he is willing to burn the ball through the strike zone, and inning after inning this tactic punctured Higgins’ string of test balloons.

Whenever Williams appeared at the plate—pounding the dirt from his cleats, gouging a pit in the batter’s box with his left foot, wringing resin out of the bat handle with his vehement grip, switching the stick at the pitcher with an electric ferocity—it was like having a familiar Leonardo appear in a shuffle of Saturday Evening Post covers. This man, you realized—and here, perhaps, was the difference, greater than the difference in gifts—really intended to hit the ball. In the third inning, he hoisted a high fly to deep center. In the fifth, we thought he had it; he smacked the ball hard and high into the heart of his power zone, but the deep right field in Fenway and the heavy air and a casual east wind defeated him. The ball died. Al Pilarcik leaned his back against the big “380” painted on the right-field wall and caught it. On another day, in another park, it would have been gone. (After the game, Williams said, “I didn’t think I could hit one any harder than that. The conditions weren’t good.”)

The afternoon grew so glowering that in the sixth inning the arc lights were turned on—always a wan sight in the daytime, like the burning headlights of a funeral procession. Aided by the gloom, Fisher was slicing through the Sox rookies, and Williams did not come to bat in the seventh. He was second up in the eighth. This was almost certainly his last time to come to the plate in Fenway Park, and instead of merely cheering, as we had at his three previous appearances, we stood, all of us—stood and applauded. Have you ever heard applause in a ballpark? Just applause—no calling, no whistling, just an ocean of handclaps, minute after minute, burst after burst, crowding and running together in continuous succession like the pushes of surf at the edge of the sand. It was a sombre and considered tumult. There was not a boo in it. It seemed to renew itself out of a shifting set of memories as the kid, the Marine, the veteran of feuds and failures and injuries, the friend of children, and the enduring old pro evolved down the bright tunnel of twenty-one summers toward this moment. At last, the umpire signalled for Fisher to pitch; with the other players, he had been frozen in position. Only Williams had moved during the ovation, switching his hat impatiently, ignoring everything except his cherished task. Fisher wound up, and the applause sank into a hush.

Understand that we were a crowd of rational people. We knew that a home run cannot be produced at will; the right pitch must be perfectly met and luck must ride with the ball. Three innings before, we had seen a brave effort fail. The air was soggy; the season was exhausted. Nevertheless, there will always lurk, around a corner in a pocket of our knowledge of the odds, an indefensible hope, and this was one of the times, which you now and then find in sports, when a density of expectation hangs in the air and plucks an event out of the future.

Fisher, after his unsettling wait, was wide with the first pitch. He put the second one over, and Williams swung mightily and missed. The crowd grunted, seeing that classic swing, so long and smooth and quick, exposed, naked in its failure. Fisher threw the third time, Williams swung again, and there it was. The ball climbed on a diagonal line into the vast volume of air over center field. From my angle, behind third base, the ball seemed less an object in flight than the tip of a towering, motionless construct, like the Eiffel Tower or the Tappan Zee Bridge. It was in the books while it was still in the sky. Brandt ran back to the deepest corner of the outfield grass; the ball descended beyond his reach and struck in the crotch where the bullpen met the wall, bounced chunkily, and, as far as I could see, vanished.

Like a feather caught in a vortex, Williams ran around the square of bases at the center of our beseeching screaming. He ran as he always ran out home runs—hurriedly, unsmiling, head down, as if our praise were a storm of rain to get out of. He didn’t tip his cap. Though we thumped, wept, and chanted “We want Ted” for minutes after he hid in the dugout, he did not come back. Our noise for some seconds passed beyond excitement into a kind of immense open anguish, a wailing, a cry to be saved. But immortality is nontransferable. The papers said that the other players, and even the umpires on the field, begged him to come out and acknowledge us in some way, but he never had and did not now. Gods do not answer letters.

Every true story has an anticlimax. The men on the field refused to disappear, as would have seemed decent, in the smoke of Williams’ miracle. Fisher continued to pitch, and escaped further harm. At the end of the inning, Higgins sent Williams out to his leftfield position, then instantly replaced him with Carrol Hardy, so we had a long last look at Williams as he ran out there and then back, his uniform jogging, his eyes steadfast on the ground. It was nice, and we were grateful, but it left a funny taste.

One of the scholasticists behind me said, “Let’s go. We’ve seen everything. I don’t want to spoil it.” This seemed a sound aesthetic decision. Williams’ last word had been so exquisitely chosen, such a perfect fusion of expectation, intention, and execution, that already it felt a little unreal in my head, and I wanted to get out before the castle collapsed. But the game, though played by clumsy midgets under the feeble glow of the arc lights, began to tug at my attention, and I loitered in the runway until it was over. Williams’ homer had, quite incidentally, made the score 4–3. In the bottom of the ninth inning, with one out, Marlin Coughtry, the second-base juggler, singled. Vic Wertz, pinchhitting, doubled off the left-field wall, Coughtry advancing to third. Pumpsie Green walked, to load the bases. Willie Tasby hit a double-play ball to the third baseman, but in making the pivot throw Billy Klaus, an ex-Red Sox infielder, reverted to form and threw the ball past the first baseman and into the Red Sox dugout. The Sox won, 5–4. On the car radio as I drove home I heard that Williams had decided not to accompany the team to New York. So he knew how to do even that, the hardest thing. Quit.
———————————————————————

Tagged , , | Leave a comment

>Focused Gouveia Ready for Marquardt

>Local sports writer and television producer, Armando Alvarez, gives us a glimpse into the world of Mixed Martial Arts. Alvarez wrote a feature on the UFC’s Brazilian middleweight, Wilson Gouveia:

It looks as Gouveia has been training harder than ever since his lost to Reljic. In his last fight he beat Canadian submission artist Jason MacDonald, and he defeated him with such a dominant performance that this 30 year-old, who arrived in the United States in 1999 to fulfill his dream of becoming an MMA champ, opened up a lot of eyes and has once again cemented himself as a top contender in the sport.

“I feel stronger with each fight since I dropped the weight,” Gouveia said. “I’ve fought my whole career at 205, so I feel so much stronger than my opponents. Jason is a very talented fighter, probably one of the most talented in UFC and I was really impressed the way I was able to finish him. No one was as impressed as I was.”

A smile came across Gouveia’s face as he spoke of that victory, but he knows starting over in a new division hasn’t been easy. To be able to drop the weight and stay in good shape has been a struggle and a sacrifice.

Article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

—————————————————————————-
Focused Gouveia Ready for Marquardt By Armando Alvarez

Feb 15, 2009

A change in weight is just what the doctor ordered for UFC fighter Wilson Gouveia. No, he wasn’t at a risk for heart disease,

his cholesterol wasn’t high and he was nowhere near overweight, but this native of Fortaleza, Brazil lost in disappointing fashion to Goran Reljic last May and his career needed a jump start.

Gouveia dropped down a division from the light heavyweight limit of 205 pounds to compete at middleweight, 185 pounds. Though there was no doctor, Gouveia himself took it into his own hands to make it happen, and two impressive wins later the move seems to be paying off.

Now Gouveia looks to make it three wins in a row when he takes on well rounded contender Nate Marquardt on February 21 on the undercard of UFC 95: Diego Sanchez vs. Joe Stevenson. Gouveia will travel across the Atlantic and descend upon London’s O2 Arena to take on Marquardt, who himself is coming off a spectacular win against Martin Kampmann in September. The winner of this fight moves a little closer to a shot at UFC middleweight king Anderson Silva.

“I have a lot of respect for Nate Marquardt,” Gouveia said. “He is a great fighter who always trains really hard and always leaves his all inside the Octagon. After the champion, Anderson Silva, he’s the best fighter in the division. In my eyes he’s the number one contender, so a win over him would be huge. I’ve been training harder than ever for this fight.”

It looks as Gouveia has been training harder than ever since his lost to Reljic. In his last fight he beat Canadian submission artist Jason MacDonald, and he defeated him with such a dominant performance that this 30 year-old, who arrived in the United States in 1999 to fulfill his dream of becoming an MMA champ, opened up a lot of eyes and has once again cemented himself as a top contender in the sport.

“I feel stronger with each fight since I dropped the weight,” Gouveia said. “I’ve fought my whole career at 205, so I feel so much stronger than my opponents. Jason is a very talented fighter, probably one of the most talented in UFC and I was really impressed the way I was able to finish him. No one was as impressed as I was.”

A smile came across Gouveia’s face as he spoke of that victory, but he knows starting over in a new division hasn’t been easy. To be able to drop the weight and stay in good shape has been a struggle and a sacrifice.

“I had to drop 20 pounds to get here and at first my body wasn’t liking it one bit,” Gouveia said. “This process has been one of the hardest things I’ve had to do. The first fight I still felt a little awkward, but I’m telling you that now my body feels better than it ever has. I feel like I’m a better fighter than I was before.”

Gouveia isn’t the only 205 pounder to be trying out the 185 pound experience. Wanderlei Silva is looking to drop down to the middleweight division and British sensation Michael Bisping has already started to make his mark at 185. Gouveia says it’s a great thing for the sport.

“All these guys dropping down makes for one very exciting division,” Gouveia said. “Every weight class in UFC is tough, but with Silva dropping and Bisping dropping the weight class is now as good as any other in the sport. There’s going to be some very competitive fights coming up.”

At 185 Gouveia has gotten what he views as a fresh start. Gouveia, who has won two fights in a row, is no stranger to winning streaks. He had won four in a row and was inching ever so closely to a title shot at 205 when he walked into the Octagon to face Reljic at UFC 84. Eight minutes and 15 seconds later Gouveia was a defeated man and Reljic had his arms raised in victory. It was a result that changed Gouveia.

“That fight did a lot to me,” Gouveia said. “Even though I lost I see it as a good thing. The loss motivated me. This sport is all about motivation. Getting inside the Octagon for a fight is the easy part. You just walk in there and you fight. I’d go in there to fight a lion, but the training is the hard part. It’s the part I hate.

“I learned after that fight that I have to always be focused and pump myself up for every training session. I’ve been training my ass off for every fight since then, and it’s all because I don’t want to have to go through that again. I’ve changed my work ethic a lot. I’m training harder, focusing more and acting more professional. I’m taking the business a lot more serious. I can’t joke around anymore. Every win means more money for my family and I can’t risk that. I’m dedicating myself to be a better athlete and what you see is a new Wilson Gouveia. I’ve grown up a lot since that loss to Reljic.”

Gouveia feels he has the proper element to get motivated while training since he trains at the American Top Team Gym in Coconut Creek, FL with some of his closer friends: Marcus Aurelio, who has been a mentor to him, and Thiago Alves, a top contender in the welterweight division.

In May of last year Gouveia spoke to UFC.com about being able to train with his fellow Fortalezan fighters.

“It’s like training everyday with family,” Gouveia said. “We play around like little kids. We’re grown men, but we mess around so much. This is my second home. Everybody has their bad days and good days, but my friends are always there for me. I spend so much time here that the coaches are like my fathers and the boys are like my brothers.”

Since then Alves has become a sensation and it’s looking like he’ll get a title shot against Georges St. Pierre very soon. Another training partner, Mike Brown, won the WEC featherweight title in November by defeating heavy favorite Urijah Faber by knockout. Gouveia lauds the success of his gym mates.

“2008 was a good year for ATT (American Top Team) and 2009 will be even better,” Gouveia said. “If Thiago wins the belt that would be huge, and I myself look to win a title this year. We’re always excited here and ready for any challenge.”

The same doctor that recommended Gouveia drop to 185 has now given his prescription for success in 2009: Defeat Nate Marquardt on the 21st and then to set his sights on Anderson Silva. Beat him and become champion. It is a prescription that’s easy to follow where the reward outweighs the risk.

“I’m focused on Marquardt and not looking past him at all,” Gouveia said. “He’s a very tough fighter, but once I beat him I don’t see anybody between me and Anderson Silva. He’s next as far as I’m concerned.”

Armandoalvarez02@hotmail.com
———————————————————————

Tagged , | Leave a comment

Order is Restored to the Force

Fairness dictates that I acknowledge that the Miami Herald ran an editorial today endorsing the stadium plan. Ya gotta love that paper! The Herald’s editorial in full:

Now is a good time to build a stadium: City, county commissions should approve new home for Marlins

The conventional wisdom in our community is that it’s a bad idea for the city of Miami and Miami-Dade County to help build a new baseball stadium for the Florida Marlins. It’s a poor use of public funds. The timing is wrong. The financing doesn’t work. The fan base is too small. There are better uses for the money. You get the picture.

Air all concerns

There are many good reasons behind each one of these objections — but we believe that none of them, whether considered alone or collectively, should scuttle the deal. All these concerns and more should be thoroughly vetted at the city and county commission meetings on Friday. When the dust settles, we hope that both commissions say Yes to the project, not because we have drunk the stadium-or-bust Kool-Aid but because a viable baseball team in an environment that can draw fans and produce revenue for the team would be an asset that produces tangible and intangible benefits throughout South Florida.

Sports enliven and bring excitement to a community, as do museums, concerts, theaters and performance centers. Sports help to build and unify communities by bringing diverse groups, cultures and people together for a common goal, instilling pride when the team wins and stronger purpose when they don’t.

The Marlins deal requires a huge outlay of public funds, mostly from bed taxes generated by visitors, at a time when the economy is suffering the worst contraction since the Great Depression. Picking the right moment for an investment is always a gamble. But the investment should be considered over the full 35-year term of the loan, not the cyclical up-and-down swings of the economy. Long-term return on Convention Development Tax dollars has averaged 5 ½ percent, enough to cover the estimated 4 percent average annual cost of money borrowed for the project, says County Manager George Burgess.

Fans want comfort

Building a retractable-roof stadium will help eliminate the biggest factor contributing to poor attendance. More than any other team in the League, fans don’t go to Marlins’ games when there is even a chance of rain. A modern, comfortable stadium would generate revenue streams (something the Marlins currently don’t have much of), which, in turn, would be used to invest in quality players, said Marlins President David Samson.

A baseball team committed to staying in the city would complement South Florida’s many attractions. It would be a positive step in our community’s quest to better itself. The Marlins should win a green light on Friday. After all, the deal has been in the works for nearly a decade. Conventional wisdom has its place, but it shouldn’t stop a dream whose time has come.

Posted in Marlins Ballpark & Finances | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Empire keeps striking back

Please forgive all the grammatical and sloppy errors you might have seen in the Miami Herald over these past few weeks. There is a reason they ran a picture of UNC coach Roy Williams when they were in fact referring to the NFL receiver. [In a stroke of politically correct luck, the coach is old and white, whereas the player is young and black, so no one had to be suspended for a lack sensitivity in confusing the two].

The reason for the recent upheaval is that the Herald has been pulling an all hands on deck assault on local government’s plans to partner with the Marlins and build a new facility for the MLB team. The weeks long attacks continued today with an article which compares the stadium deal in Miami with stadium deals in other cities.

A little experiment. I’d like to illustrate how bias against the stadium deal would have affected the presentation of the article. By merely ‘re-editing’ the actual article, I can create a positive story about the stadium deal without changing any of the facts. I’ll note any ‘additions’, things I’ve added, in bold. The actual Herald article is copied at the end of the post.

————————————————————————————

Florida Marlins stadium deal better than most for county, among smaller market MLB teams

The Florida Marlins stadium deal coming up for final showdown votes Friday — would have the public responsible for a lower percentage of the planned construction costs than stadiums built this decade in Cincinnati, Houston, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Washington, a Miami Herald analysis found. Important to note that the public’s percentage could possibly drop even further, given that the Marlins are responsible for any construction cost overruns as per the agreement.

Bob Starky, who consults for Major League Baseball on stadium deals, reviewed the newspaper’s findings. ”The most difficult thing to do with these deals is compare them,” he said.

For example, fourteen Major League stadiums have been built, or begun, since 2000. The average public contribution for construction of those stadiums has been 44 percent, the newspaper found. Under the proposed Miami deal, the Marlins would rank ninth of the 14 in the percentage of construction costs borne by the team, the newspaper found.

However, those figures include the New York stadiums, worth nearly $2 billion, include no upfront public payments — but the city is investing nearly $400 million in infrastructure surrounding the ballparks.

Further, in some cases teams were willing to put up more of their own money because they own the property adjacent to their new stadiums and would profit from the development of restaurants and shopping. San Diego, Detroit and St. Louis fall into that category, Starky said.

Stadium deals are complex financial transactions that can be difficult to compare. Some involve outright gifts of public land, which can be hard to value, some involve taxpayer-funded infrastructure that benefits the team and the public, and almost all involve varying degrees of low-interest financing subsidized by government agencies.

Those factors make it impossible to draw an across the board, apples to apples, comparison of every financial variable.

However, it did make sense to compare the initial stadium construction agreements to the other smaller market teams, rather than have our analysis skewed by including large market teams like the Yankees and the Giants, or even smaller market teams with historically high revenues, like the Cardinals.

The Herald analysis of those deals shows cities that drove the hardest bargains often did so after putting stadium deals to a public vote, or after politicians dismissed threats from team owners to move.

Voters in St. Louis refused to finance a stadium for the venerable Cardinals, so team owners raised 88 percent of the construction money themselves, relying on a county loan for the rest. Such are the perks of having a team owner which is a major American corporation–Anheuser-Busch–and whom has been St Louis’ largest employer for more than century.

In San Francisco, where voters rejected four ballot measures that would have committed public funds to a new Giants stadium, a local grocery magnate built a spectacular waterfront park with money from Silicon Valley investors and deep-pocketed fans. Obviously, no such legendary industries are available to tap into in the South Florida market.

“We really would have preferred if the public had taken the risk instead of us,” said Peter Magowan, who bought the Giants after the failed ballot measures. “But voters had spoken in unmistakable terms to us a number of times.”

The San Diego Padres opened their new stadium in 2005, built with 67 percent public funds, slightly less than in Miami. But the team promptly collected $60 million in naming rights, which significantly reduced the team’s net contribution percentage.

As part of the San Diego deal, the team owner invested $300 million to help develop the neighborhood surrounding the stadium. There is no such requirement for the Marlins to invest in Little Havana. However, Little Havana today is a far cry from the real estate market surrounding Petco Stadium 10 years ago. Condo construction was booming in the area, which is why the city had to resort to eminent domain to clear out homeowners who were in the way of the planned redevelopment. No such upheaval efforts are necessary in the Little Havana neighborhood, which has long been accustomed to having a towering neighbor. From Little Havana’s perspective, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar just sub-leased to Yao Ming.

After noting how local taxpayers concerns had derailed stadium efforts in St Louis, San Francisco and Minnesota, the Marlins and local leaders carefully avoided a public referendum by structuring the deal so most of the public money comes from hotel bed taxes paid primarily by tourists.

Under the proposed Marlins deal, outright public gifts would cover $361 million of the $515 million stadium construction. The Marlins would pay $119 million and get another $35 million loan from the county, to be repaid in escalating annual installments.

The Marlins will not have to buy land: The county will host them rent free for 35 years on the site in Little Havana, which is assessed at $16 million by the county appraiser. The county will own the stadium, so the Marlins won’t pay property tax.

So-called bed taxes will cover $311 million of the total $515 million cost.

But revenue from the bed tax has been severely compromised by the global recession, raising questions about whether the county would have to dip into the general fund, which pays for a wide range of services, including police and garbage collection.

Public money also paid the estimated $10 million cost of demolishing the Orange Bowl, which had occupied the site, and will cover an estimated $24 million in infrastructure work.

Other cities have constructed finances differently. In 2004, the Washington, D.C., council voted to cover all $600 million of construction costs for the Nationals. But, Washington also shares significantly in the team’s proceeds.

To help cover the city’s roughly $35 million annual construction loan payments, the Nationals pay an average rent of $5.5 million a year. The city also collects tax on tickets and merchandise at the stadium; their share came to $12.5 million in 2008. Taxes on businesses and utilities cover the rest of D.C.’s annual loan payment.

Marlins President David Samson said up until six months ago, he offered the county the exact same deal that D.C. received.

But county officials say they’re better off with Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria spending $154 million toward construction costs than creating dedicated revenue sources for the stadium.

“Washington, D.C., is all public money, it’s taxes imposed on users of the stadium,” County Manager George Burgess said. “We have not created any new tax or fee, or raised any, for the financing.”

Robert A. DuPuy, president of Major League Baseball, said of Loria: “This is an owner who is reaching in his own pocket in a market that, frankly, is unproven.”

Other variables to consider. The city of San Diego is able to pay off its debt with proceeds from other events at the stadium, including concerts, soccer matches and motocross races. The city makes more than $1 million per year through such events, said Tim Moore, the city’s ballpark administrator.

Under the Marlins’ pending deal, all revenue from the first 10 non-baseball events at the stadium each year would go to the team. After that, the county would get half the profits, but the money must be spent on capital improvements at the park — another benefit to the Marlins.

“Wow, the Marlins negotiated a good deal,” Moore said. Actually, the residents of San Diego don’t think Mr Moore negotiated much of a deal either. There is much anger over the fact that the Padres are being sold and the city will not realize any of those revenues, even though the team’s value has been significantly boosted by the stadium. Something which Miami’s local governments have addressed in their agreements.

In Milwaukee, emotions are still raw even though the stadium opened eight years ago and the Brewers made the playoffs in 2008.

“You’re gonna get ripped off, lookout,” Wisconsin state Sen. Michael G. Ellis said last week. “Bud Selig is on the way; hold on to your wallet.”

Selig, now the commissioner of Major League Baseball, owned the Brewers when stadium negotiations began in Milwaukee in the early 1990s.

The initial conversations involved Selig paying for his own stadium, said Ellis, who was majority leader of the state Senate during key votes. Through relentless lobbying, “the worm turned,” Ellis said, and the public wound up footing 78 percent of the bill.

Selig got the site he wanted, in a remote location where the team wouldn’t have to compete with other restaurants and businesses.

The Miami deal sounds familiar, Ellis said. “So it’s a self-contained unit? They get the revenue and they don’t pay property taxes? It’s the same modus operandi as they used up here.”

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, who went on to serve in President George W. Bush’s Cabinet, was originally a strong supporter of the Brewers’ deal. ”It couldn’t have happened without me,” Thompson said in an interview last week.

But as the deal progressed, Thompson soured. The Seligs, he said, “were going to contribute a lot more money and a lot more support, and they just kept pulling back, all during construction.”

Thompson said if he were a Miami politician, he would not vote until he saw signed, enforceable contracts for every aspect of the deal. He would insist the Marlins prove they have the financial wherewithal to live up to their end of the deal.

Contracts for stadium construction and operation are written, but not signed. The Marlins have fought for years to keep their finances private, and so far have not offered public proof they can cover their share of the construction costs.

Marlins President Samson said he expects to approach lenders in the next 18 months, and that “the banks are comfortable today” with lending money to Major League baseball teams. “People want to own that paper because they know there are revenue streams that never go away,” he said.

Selig could not be reached for comment.

City and county commissioners will cast votes on five separate stadium contracts on Friday, the final votes in the franchise’s decade-long quest for a permanent home.

Passage could come down to a one-vote swing, as the County Commission must approve two contracts — for construction and management — by a 2-1 majority because the Marlins hired contractors without formal bid, requiring a bid waiver.

MLB’s DuPuy added that the Marlins might be better off somewhere else if a stadium deal can’t be hammered out. “Anyplace is better than Miami without a ballpark,” DuPuy said.

In an unguarded–but not inaccurate assessment based on the Miami Herald’s findings–Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez commented after his State of the County speech on Tuesday. “It’s probably not the best deal that has ever been worked out between a community and a team.” But he insisted it’s better than most and comes at a time the region is thirsting for a public works jolt.

—————————————————————————-
Actual Miami Herald article – Florida Marlins stadium deal better than most for team

Posted on Wed, Feb. 11, 2009

BY JACK DOLAN AND CHARLES RABIN

The Florida Marlins stadium deal coming up for final showdown votes Friday — where the public would foot 70 percent of the construction bill and share none of the revenue — would be among the more generous to a team owner this decade, a Miami Herald analysis found.

Fourteen Major League stadiums have been built, or begun, since 2000. The average public contribution for construction of those stadiums has been 44 percent, the newspaper found.

Under the proposed Miami deal, the Marlins would rank ninth of the 14 in the percentage of construction costs borne by the team, the newspaper found.

”It’s probably not the best deal that has ever been worked out between a community and a team,” Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said after his State of the County speech on Tuesday.

But he insisted it’s better than most and comes at a time the region is thirsting for a public works jolt, adding: “At some point, negotiations have to stop.”

The Herald examined public records, reviewed media reports and spoke with city and county officials across the country to create its list, showing:

• The public paid a higher percentage for construction costs for stadiums in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee. Taxpayers in Washington and Houston also paid more initially, but will recoup much of their investment through generous revenue sharing with the teams.

• Team owners are on the hook for a greater share of construction costs in Minneapolis, San Diego, Philadelphia, Detroit, St. Louis, New York — with stadiums for both the Mets and Yankees — and San Francisco. The New York stadiums, worth nearly $2 billion, include no upfront public payments — but the city is investing nearly $400 million in infrastructure surrounding the ballparks.

Stadium deals are complex financial transactions that can be difficult to compare. Some involve outright gifts of public land, which can be hard to value, some involve taxpayer-funded infrastructure that benefits the team and the public, and almost all involve varying degrees of low-interest financing subsidized by government agencies.

Those factors make it impossible to draw an across the board, apples to apples, comparison of every financial variable.

However, the initial stadium construction agreements are generally comparable, typically setting the tone for how generous local governments are going to be to the team over the multidecade life of the deal.

The Herald analysis of those deals shows cities that drove the hardest bargains often did so after putting stadium deals to a public vote, or after politicians dismissed threats from team owners to move.

Voters in St. Louis refused to finance a stadium for the venerable Cardinals, so team owners raised 88 percent of the construction money themselves, relying on a county loan for the rest.

In San Francisco, where voters rejected four ballot measures that would have committed public funds to a new Giants stadium, a local grocery magnate built a spectacular waterfront park with money from Silicon Valley investors and deep-pocketed fans.

”We really would have preferred if the public had taken the risk instead of us,” said Peter Magowan, who bought the Giants after the failed ballot measures. “But voters had spoken in unmistakable terms to us a number of times.”

In Miami, the Marlins and local leaders carefully avoided a public referendum by structuring the deal so most of the public money comes from hotel bed taxes paid primarily by tourists.

Bob Starky, who consults for Major League Baseball on stadium deals, reviewed the newspaper’s findings.

”The most difficult thing to do with these deals is compare them,” he said.

Starky questioned how fair it is to compare the Marlins to large market teams like the Yankees and the Giants, or even smaller market teams with historically high revenues, like the Cardinals.

”They can put more toward the ballpark than Miami, or Minnesota or Pittsburgh,” Starky said, “just like some people can afford to buy a bigger house.”

In some cases, teams were willing to put up more of their own money because they own the property adjacent to their new stadiums and would profit from the development of restaurants and shopping. San Diego, Detroit and St. Louis fall into that category, Starky said.

Under the proposed Marlins deal, outright public gifts would cover $361 million of the $515 million stadium construction. The Marlins would pay $119 million and get another $35 million loan from the county, to be repaid in escalating annual installments.

The Marlins will not have to buy land: The county will host them rent free for 35 years on the site in Little Havana, which is assessed at $16 million by the county appraiser. The county will own the stadium, so the Marlins won’t pay property tax.

So-called bed taxes will cover $311 million of the total $515 million cost.

But revenue from the bed tax has been severely compromised by the global recession, raising questions about whether the county would have to dip into the general fund, which pays for a wide range of services, including police and garbage collection.

Public money also paid the estimated $10 million cost of demolishing the Orange Bowl, which had occupied the site, and will cover an estimated $24 million in infrastructure work.

Other cities have constructed finances differently. In 2004, the Washington, D.C., council voted to cover all $600 million of construction costs for the Nationals. But, Washington also shares significantly in the team’s proceeds.

To help cover the city’s roughly $35 million annual construction loan payments, the Nationals pay an average rent of $5.5 million a year. The city also collects tax on tickets and merchandise at the stadium; their share came to $12.5 million in 2008. Taxes on businesses and utilities cover the rest of D.C.’s annual loan payment.

Marlins President David Samson said up until six months ago, he offered the county the exact same deal that D.C. received.

But county officials say they’re better off with Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria spending $154 million toward construction costs than creating dedicated revenue sources for the stadium.

”Washington, D.C., is all public money, it’s taxes imposed on users of the stadium,” County Manager George Burgess said. “We have not created any new tax or fee, or raised any, for the financing.”

Robert A. DuPuy, president of Major League Baseball, said of Loria: “This is an owner who is reaching in his own pocket in a market that, frankly, is unproven.”

The San Diego Padres opened their new stadium in 2005, built with 67 percent public funds, slightly less than in Miami.

As part of the deal, the team owner invested $300 million to help develop the neighborhood surrounding the stadium. There is no such requirement for the Marlins to invest in Little Havana.

The city of San Diego is able to pay off its debt with proceeds from other events at the stadium, including concerts, soccer matches and motocross races. The city makes more than $1 million per year through such events, said Tim Moore, the city’s ballpark administrator.

Under the Marlins’ pending deal, all revenue from the first 10 non-baseball events at the stadium each year would go to the team. After that, the county would get half the profits, but the money must be spent on capital improvements at the park — another benefit to the Marlins.

”Wow, the Marlins negotiated a good deal,” Moore said.

In Milwaukee, emotions are still raw even though the stadium opened eight years ago and the Brewers made the playoffs in 2008.

”You’re gonna get ripped off, lookout,” Wisconsin state Sen. Michael G. Ellis said last week. “Bud Selig is on the way; hold on to your wallet.”

Selig, now the commissioner of Major League Baseball, owned the Brewers when stadium negotiations began in Milwaukee in the early 1990s.

The initial conversations involved Selig paying for his own stadium, said Ellis, who was majority leader of the state Senate during key votes. Through relentless lobbying, ”the worm turned,” Ellis said, and the public wound up footing 78 percent of the bill.

Selig got the site he wanted, in a remote location where the team wouldn’t have to compete with other restaurants and businesses.

The Miami deal sounds familiar, Ellis said. “So it’s a self-contained unit? They get the revenue and they don’t pay property taxes? It’s the same modus operandi as they used up here.”

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, who went on to serve in President George W. Bush’s Cabinet, was originally a strong supporter of the Brewers’ deal. ”It couldn’t have happened without me,” Thompson said in an interview last week.

But as the deal progressed, Thompson soured. The Seligs, he said, “were going to contribute a lot more money and a lot more support, and they just kept pulling back, all during construction.”

Thompson said if he were a Miami politician, he would not vote until he saw signed, enforceable contracts for every aspect of the deal. He would insist the Marlins prove they have the financial wherewithal to live up to their end of the deal.

Contracts for stadium construction and operation are written, but not signed. The Marlins have fought for years to keep their finances private, and so far have not offered public proof they can cover their share of the construction costs.

Marlins President Samson said he expects to approach lenders in the next 18 months, and that ”the banks are comfortable today” with lending money to Major League baseball teams. ”People want to own that paper because they know there are revenue streams that never go away,” he said.

Selig could not be reached for comment.

City and county commissioners will cast votes on five separate stadium contracts on Friday, the final votes in the franchise’s decade-long quest for a permanent home.

Passage could come down to a one-vote swing, as the County Commission must approve two contracts — for construction and management — by a 2-1 majority because the Marlins hired contractors without formal bid, requiring a bid waiver.

MLB’s DuPuy added that the Marlins might be better off somewhere else if a stadium deal can’t be hammered out. ”Anyplace is better than Miami without a ballpark,” DuPuy said.
———————————————————————

Posted in Marlins Ballpark & Finances | Tagged , | Leave a comment

How the power that be in Miami operates

The Miami Herald seems to oppose the building of a stadium which would ensure MLB remains in Miami. I write that because of the one-sidedness of their reporting. Here is how I see the Herald wielding its influence:

Wednesday, Feb 11– Michael Putney Op-ed piece – A stadium we can’t afford

  • Putney argues that the real cost of the stadium should include the compounded interest on the initial debt incurred. Which is fine, if you make that point consistently. For example, on the front page, the Herald reported on the $838 Billion stimulus plan which it then endorsed on its Op-Ed page, with no mention of ‘real’ costs. Would anyone argue that the ‘real costs’ will exceed $2 Trillion? Will the Herald be revising all stated government costs to approximate real costs?
  • I wish I remembered Mr Putney’s positions on the Carnival/Arsht Center, but accountability and sunshine laws do not extend to the powers that be. They are nowhere to be found on the web.
  • Putney notes the excellent analysis–against the stadium plan, naturally–done by Miami Today’s Michael Lewis. The one time I took a close look at Mr Lewis’ figures, I discovered sloppy if not intentionally misleading financial reporting. You be the judge, click here.
  • A major portion of the stimulus plan involves transferring monies back to the states for their spending on, among many other things, infrastructure projects. If you are a stadium opponent–which is encompassed by the Megaplan–and stimulus plan supporter, intellectual honesty would force you to acknowledge the contradiction.

Wednesday, Feb 11Article Headline – Mayor Carlos Alvarez’s State of Dade speech hypes stadium

  • Note the use of the word ‘hype’ in the headline. Subtlety can not be risked in the final week.

Wednesday, Feb 11– Total Florida Marlins stadium debt is unclear

  • Here’s what Neil deMause, a critic of publicly funded stadiums, says about the Hearld’s reporting

    “It’s not quite a fair assessment – the Herald counts money deferred for 20 years the same as money due tomorrow, for starters, which skews its figures.”

  • This is the article which Putney based his Op-Ed piece on. Again re consistency, Treasury Secretary Geithner excluded many details from TARP II, which many have criticized, but not the Miami Herald.

Tuesday, Feb 10– Marlins stadium, symphony hall vie for Dade bed-tax dollars

  • A little divisiveness can’t hurt. Clarion call to the Arts crowd to protect their turf.

Sunday, Feb 8– Ballpark design a hit; shops, garages less so

  • The most egregious slam job. The Herald even provides links to bloggers critical of the stadium, in case they weren’t negative enough in their full page spread. [Full disclosure, that’s not something I normally criticize.]
  • In an article ostensibly about the design of the new stadium, the Herald takes the space to note that the cities of San Diego and St Louis had ‘extracted far more extensive redevelopment commitments’ than Miami had for the Marlins. The conditions between the 3 cities could not be more different.
  • The St Louis team is owned by a company [Anheuser-Busch] with roots in the community dating back to the 19th century as a corporate headquarters and the city’s largest employer. In what possible manner is St Louis a reasonable comparison to Miami?
  • The San Diego stadium [Petco] was built in the most appealing piece of real estate in the city during a condo boom. The comparison would have been less egregious if the Marlins had been submitting a design for a stadium in the former Bicentennial Park location. By the way, one of the bloggers promoted in the article–Field of Schemes–notes that the San Diego team ownership’s contribution of $173 million should be considered net of a $60 million naming rights deal. For those keeping score, that means the Marlins are contributing more than the San Diego ownership did to the construction of a stadium.
  • All this while ignoring a key fact during all of their recent reporting; The Marlins are responsible for any cost overruns. If that were not the case, that would be argument #1 for not entering into this agreement for local governments.
  • Where was the comparison to Pittsburgh? A city which recently built a stadium and has similar demographics to Miami. Was the comparison too favorable to risk disclosing?

Sunday, Feb 1– Tax revenue for Florida Marlins stadium falling short?

  • Tax revenues will decrease during a recession. Video at 11.

No word yet on the exact number of widows and orphans to be interviewed–scheduled to run on Thursday–about something positive in their lives the stadium will prevent.

All articles referenced are copied in full at end of post. This way there is a record of what appears in the Herald, given that no one, and I mean no one, pays for their archive services. But I don’t need to remind McClatchy stockholders of that.

———————————————————————————————-
Total Florida Marlins stadium debt is unclear

Posted on Wed, Feb. 11, 2009

BY DOUGLAS HANKS

Days before the final votes on a $515 million ballpark, Miami-Dade’s top stadium expense remains a mystery: how much it will cost to pay back the construction debt.

County Manager George Burgess said Tuesday his staff may not release a repayment plan on $347 million in ballpark bonds until Miami-Dade commissioners meet Friday.

Without those details, it’s almost impossible to estimate the strain a new Florida Marlins stadium might place on Miami-Dade’s budget or how much the ballpark ultimately would cost the county.

Miami-Dade would borrow $50 million for the stadium from a previous bond referendum and pledge $297 million in debt to future hotel taxes. The rest would come from the Marlins, with $13 million from Miami.

Using past Miami-Dade bond sales as a guide, the pace of paying back hotel bonds for the stadium could swing borrowing costs from as low as $528 million to more than $1.1 billion, according to Miami Herald calculations.

Top county administrators have already said hotel taxes do not generate enough revenue to fund the bulk of the stadium debt. They plan to delay paying down the $297 million in hotel-tax bonds until later years, when history suggests tourism will emerge from its current decline and generate record revenue.

”We’re looking at making long-term investments with long-term financing and long-term revenue streams,” Burgess said this week.

The county’s annual report to bond holders offers a lesson in how repayment schedules can have more impact on borrowing costs than the original debt itself:

• In 1998, Miami-Dade pledged future hotel taxes to $95 million worth of bonds for athletic facilities across the county, including the Key Biscayne tennis complex.

The county set up a steady payment plan, reducing the principal each year and keeping annual interest expenses below $6 million. The total cost of the debt is listed at $169 million. That 178 percent increase would translate into a $528 million tab for the stadium’s hotel bonds.

• A year earlier, Miami-Dade borrowed $170 million for Miami’s new performing arts center and two suburban theaters by selling bonds pegged to hotel taxes.

The bonds only cost Miami-Dade $5.8 million a year in interest payments through 2028. After that, the annual interest expense spikes to as high as $55 million. Unless it’s repaid early, the total cost on the $170 million debt will be $651 million.

Should the borrowing costs of the stadium debt follow a similar arc — increasing 383 percent from the original amount — the hotel-tax bonds on the ballpark would cost $1.1 billion to pay back.

”It’s not like a regular mortgage where you have principal and interest,” said Commissioner Carlos Gimenez, a stadium critic. “I don’t think it’s responsible.”

The Burgess plan relies on hotel taxes growing enough in later years to compensate for a sharp decline now.

This decade saw hotel taxes grow an average of 6 percent, despite steep declines after the 2001 attacks and double-digit improvement during the recovery. They’re now falling by the same amount.

The stakes are high, since a shortfall would cause havoc with the $94 million in county expenses funded by hotel taxes this year. Museums receive about $4 million, roughly $10 million goes to the Greater Miami tourism bureau and downtown Miami’s Adrienne Arsht Performing Arts Center gets almost $8 million a year.

Bond holders have first claim on those dollars should hotel taxes fall drastically short. If hotel taxes cannot cover debt payments, bond holders also can dip into the county’s sales-tax revenue — money that goes into the county’s general budget.

County officials said stadium bond holders will also have a claim to dollars from the county general budget.

That’s a worst-case scenario Miami-Dade has never faced — despite past pressure on hotel taxes caused by foreign tourist murders, Hurricane Andrew and 9/11.

Stadium backers see past recoveries as a reason not to let the current economic crisis derail the plan. ”We know from our history that we are resilient,” Mayor Carlos Alvarez said during his State of the County speech Tuesday. “We have faced worse and have rebounded.”
———————————————————————————-
Mayor Carlos Alvarez’s State of Dade speech hypes stadium

Posted on Wed, Feb. 11, 2009

BY CHARLES RABIN

A battered economy and a historic upcoming baseball stadium vote dominated Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez’s annual State of the County address Tuesday.

Alvarez described ”the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression” and said the bleak economy is a key reason the public, and the County Commission, should back a deal to spend hundreds of millions of public dollars to build a new stadium for the Florida Marlins.

The mayor’s 37-minute speech, at the Fillmore Miami Beach at the Jackie Gleason Theater, touched upon other issues as well: closing a large gap in the county’s budget, the revival of a plan to build a $1 billion tunnel to the Port of Miami and the importance of the world’s largest ongoing airport construction job.

But Alvarez spoke most assertively of keeping the Marlins in South Florida, a promise that has been a cornerstone of his administration since he took office in 2004.

”Commissioners, I humbly ask for your vote,” Alvarez said during his speech.

JOBS ENGINE

He said the public works project will become an economic engine at a time the region needs it most.

”Now is the time people need jobs. It’s so frustrating to hear people say this is not the time to do it,” the mayor said at a press conference immediately following his speech.

Critics, including a group calling itself the Coalition Against the Marlins Bailout Deal, argue that the county is getting a raw deal by putting in so much money.

”This is the worst deal I’ve seen in 35 years,” said vocal opponent Frank Del Vecchio, whose group held a brief rally outside the Miami Beach auditorium. “This project will have cost overruns. The only way to complete construction and operate it will be for public funds to be continually put into it.”

Friday, Miami and Miami-Dade commissioners will vote on five contracts that — if approved — would cement a deal in which the county would come up with about $350 million of the $515 million ballpark eyed for Little Havana.

The Marlins would spend $120 million on construction and repay the county a $35 million loan through yearly rent payments.

The city of Miami would pay for and build the parking structures.

The primary public contribution would come from a tax charged to hotel patrons that, as it now stands, would not provide enough money to cover all debt costs on a standard loan.

DEAL BETS ON TOURISM

Instead, government leaders and the team are banking on record tourism returning to South Florida after the economy rebounds.

A new stadium for the Marlins, to be built where the Orange Bowl once stood and open in 2012, is as close to being a done deal as it ever has been.

Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria, like the owner before him, says he’s hamstrung by the lack of concession, parking and advertising money he receives from his Dolphin Stadium lease agreement.

The mayor addressed another public works project that has also faced hurdles: the massive port tunnel project needing resuscitation after the state backed out late last year. Alvarez and others have pressed Gov. Charlie Crist to re-fund the project.

”Governor, if you are listening, this is the right project, right now, and we are depending on you,” said Alvarez, adding that Crist “assured me that it’s not dead.”

The mayor said the county has cut 1,300 jobs in the past year through retirement or attrition, helping cover a $400 million shortfall.

On the flip side, he cited Miami International Airport’s $5 billion renovation and announced a new initiative stressing volunteerism in public works.

Miami Herald staff writer Jack Dolan contributed to this report.
———————————————————————————–
Marlins stadium, symphony hall vie for Dade bed-tax dollars

Posted on Tue, Feb. 10, 2009

BY DOUGLAS HANKS

In calculating how to finance half of a $609 million baseball stadium with hotel taxes, Miami-Dade County is not reserving money for the New World Symphony’s expanded home in Miami Beach, county officials said.

Although only a planning decision, the omission calls into question a $27 million infusion of hotel taxes the symphony is counting on to pay for the $140 million high-tech concert hall under construction off Lincoln Road.

”The money is needed to complete this project and do it properly,” said Neisen Kasdin, a former Miami Beach mayor and chairman of the symphony’s board.

County Manager George Burgess said the budget forecasts involved in the stadium plan are unrelated to the symphony’s funding request. He said it would be a mistake to connect the two.

”You’re pitting projects against each other that shouldn’t be pitted against each other,” he said. “Nobody’s made a decision not to do New World.”

With a final commission vote on the stadium plan set for Friday, Burgess’ staff faces pressure to show hotels will produce enough taxes to fund current expenses as well as $297 million in new debt for the ballpark.

Last week, Miami Beach’s mayor urged Miami-Dade to pledge hotel taxes to the city’s convention center before funding the new home for the Florida Marlins. Miami-Dade’s tourism bureau recently cut salaries to absorb an 8 percent decline in the hotel taxes that fund a large chunk of its budget.

As construction workers secure the steel girders that make up the skeleton for the complex designed by famed architect Frank Gehry, the New World Symphony is awaiting county dollars tentatively pledged to the project last spring.

In May, commissioners unanimously approved a motion instructing Burgess to negotiate a deal that would hand the symphony $27 million from a countywide hotel tax. The agreement requires a second commission vote, but Burgess has not presented a final deal with the symphony.

Michael Spring, director of the county’s Cultural Affairs office, said his department was assigned the task of working out the details with the symphony. He said an agreement was reached and he is waiting for Burgess to bring the matter back to the commission.

The economic crisis and declining tourism are combining to make the $609 million stadium financing plan even more complicated than it would be otherwise.

Miami-Dade would borrow $297 million against future hotel taxes, debt that would average out to at least $20 million in annual payments over 35 years.

Using last year’s $74 million revenue figure, stadium debt would take up about one of every four tax dollars hotels generate.

But hotel taxes are dropping, down 6 percent since September. The sharp decline — the first since the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks — has organizations that depend on hotel taxes worried about their budgets.

”We, like everyone else, are not sure what the future is going to hold,” said Aaron Podhurst, board chairman of the Miami Art Museum, which will receive $1.7 million in hotel taxes this year. “If we have to raise more [from donors] for operating expenses, we will.”

Jennifer Glazer-Moon, head of Miami-Dade’s Strategic Business Management office, said she included current hotel-tax spending — including museum subsidies — as she mapped out the county’s ability to take on stadium debt.

The forecast does not contemplate new dollars for the symphony hall, she said.

Burgess said Miami-Dade might fund New World with other revenues besides hotel taxes.

Or the county could rely on hotel taxes growing to pay for the building.

”While we don’t have New World listed as an obligation [in the ballpark plan], that doesn’t mean it’s not on our radar screen in terms of possible future use for excess hotel taxes,” he said.
—————————————————————————-
Ballpark design a hit; shops, garages less so

Posted on Sat, Feb. 07, 2009

BY ANDRES VIGLUCCI

Florida Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria, a modern-art dealer, wanted a sculpture for his team’s proposed new stadium, and he got one. Instead of the retro ballparks built recently across the country, his architects delivered an avant-bowl of concrete, glass and metal topped off with a sliding roof — a structure perhaps as dashing and au courant as Miami itself.

That, or a flying saucer crash-landed in Little Havana. ”A futuristic bidet?” one New York journalist cracked on his blog.

Love it or hate it, Loria and his architects at HOK, the firm that has virtually monopolized major-league stadium design, delivered a distinct vision for the Marlins’ ballpark in the city.

The same can’t be said when it comes to everything else around the stadium — the critical city blueprint that will determine how well the new ballpark does by the long-suffering neighborhood around it.

DEVELOPMENT

Central to the Marlins’ and public officials’ pitch to taxpayers was a promise that, in exchange for $450 million in public subsidies, the $609 million stadium project would propel redevelopment in the surrounding area, luring commerce, jobs, amenities and foot traffic to an area that sorely lacks them.

But the stadium site plan released this month suggests that the city of Miami’s approach might best be summed up as “build it and hope.”

The main feature of the plan, aside from the stadium itself, comprises four massive parking garages flanking the ballpark — the sum total of the city’s economic development scheme to date.

The garages would contain ground-floor space for unspecified shops and restaurants that city officials hope will attract crowds to the neighborhood on a daily basis, and not just at game time. The plans also include up to 96 row-house-style apartments attached to the two southernmost garages.

The five-level garages are also designed in part to buffer the surrounding neighborhood of modest three- and four-story apartment buildings from the colossal stadium, whose height will soar to the equivalent of a 20-story building, or about 10 stories taller than the Orange Bowl it would replace.

The city doesn’t yet know who will build the garages or the housing, however. Nor does it know exactly how much they will cost. But officials say they are committed to the plan, which they characterize as a start to drawing in the kind of economic activity that would benefit Little Havana residents.

DEADLINES BLAMED

City officials say they were constrained from developing a wider-ranging plan by deadlines imposed by the Marlins’ need to leave Dolphin Stadium, where their lease expires in 2010. Under a 300-page contract with the team and Miami-Dade County, the city controls redevelopment on the stadium site, the former home of the demolished Orange Bowl.

Some other U.S. cities with new major-league stadiums, including San Diego and St. Louis, extracted far more extensive redevelopment commitments — including substantial investment and plans for new urban districts — from team owners in return for public subsidies.

”Our design steps away from that old paradigm of the old Joe Robbie Stadium in the middle of nowhere, with 20,000 flat parking spaces around it,” said Miami’s chief financial officer, Larry Spring. “That generates no economic development.

“What we have is a baby version of the other end of the spectrum. We were mindful enough to know we need businesses there 365 days. But there is no fully vetted-out development plan. Time was not on our side.”

The city hopes the stadium will eventually attract further commercial development, perhaps including a hotel, to several city-owned parcels on the site’s eastern and western flanks that will be left undeveloped for now. Those lots will be occupied temporarily by surface parking and an existing recreational ball field.

But critics of the plan see myriad missed opportunities. Many fear that the stadium will become another sports venue that fans largely evacuate after a game, like the old Miami Arena or the current AmericanAirlines Arena, both of which failed to spur promised redevelopment.

By giving over most of the 42-acre Orange Bowl site to the Marlins stadium and multistory garages, some say, the city has sharply reduced the options for a broader mix of development — such as retail, offices and housing — with sufficient economic oomph to revitalize the larger neighborhood around it.

WHEN BALLPARK IS IDLE

The commercial space available under the city’s plan is unlikely to draw enough customers on nongame days to make a significant impact, said Tony Garcia, an architect and urban designer who criticized the scheme on the Transit Miami urban policy blog (wwwtransitmiami.com).

”Why are people going to come to this area? What’s going to make it a destination, and not just for baseball games?” Garcia said. “You need a better mix of uses here, not just parking garages.”

By contrast, St. Louis taxpayers who provided no more than a $45 million loan for the Cardinals’ new baseball stadium got far more for their pains: a $600 million plan from the team, in partnership with a large private developer, to transform an adjacent rundown area into an urban district of stores, apartments and offices called Ballpark Village.

In San Diego, the city required the Padres to do $300 million worth of private redevelopment in the East Village neighborhood next to their taxpayer-funded stadium, completed in 2004. That amount has been far exceeded, reaching $1.5 billion in new hotels, offices, condos and apartments around the stadium by 2007, and utterly transforming what had been a derelict zone.

Even in Washington, D.C., where taxpayers covered almost the entire cost of a home for the Nationals, the stadium fits into a larger city plan to revitalize the surrounding Anacostia area.

As a result, plans for those stadiums included far more elaborate schemes than Miami’s for the sites and adjacent urban districts, blending the ballparks more seamlessly with surrounding blocks of hotels, office towers, homes, shops and restaurants.

Parking in those plans is mostly integrated into the commercial structures instead of standing alone.

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Academics and activists have long contended that baseball stadiums, absent a larger redevelopment strategy as in San Diego, do little for their surroundings. One longtime critic of public subsidies to ballparks who has analyzed the Marlins stadium plan says it’s unlikely to prove much different in Little Havana.

”I certainly don’t think the city or the county have learned anything. The question is, what do the residents need? If they need supermarkets, that’s hard for a stadium to accomplish,” said Neil deMause, a journalist who mocked the Marlins stadium design on his blog site, fieldofschemes.com, named after a book he co-authored that is critical of such public subsidies.

”Stadiums in particular are lousy anchors. They’re dark much of the year, and no one is going to open a restaurant for customers who are only there 81 days a year,” he said, referring to the number of home games in a baseball season. “And then if you are not catering to the fans, you have to deal with traffic jams on game days, so it’s really hard to capture customers.”

POSITIVE BLEND

Given the constraints the city faced on the Marlins stadium site, however, urban designers and architects at the University of Miami say the team’s and the city’s architects and planners have done a creditable job in physically blending ballpark and neighborhood — although there is room for improvement.

”It’s so similar to the Orange Bowl organization — a stadium surrounded by parking, only it’s in garages instead of surface lots,” said UM architecture professor Jean-Francois Lejeune, who analyzed the renderings with colleague Allan Shulman at The Miami Herald’s request.

One potential jewel they identified: a broad public plaza at the western end of the proposed stadium that would be shaded by the massive roof when the ballpark is open.

With some tweaking — adding a multistory cafe and residences on its edge, for instance — the plaza could become a signature gathering space, Lejeune said. That could be done by shrinking the footprint of one of the parking garages to make room for more commercial and residential space.

”It would be a space unlike any other in Miami, and much better than anything Little Havana has ever seen,” Lejeune said.

But the garages, in spite of efforts to add architectural pop with exposed staircases jutting from the corners, may be too monotonous, Lejeune said.

”They are four stories everywhere, and flat,” he said. “There is nothing interesting. Why not make a tower or something?”

City planners say the size and shape of the garages were dictated largely by the Marlins’ need for 6,000 spaces and quick exit times.

The planners and their consultant, Rolando Llanes of Civitas, say the garages, which are more traditional in style than the stadium, will serve as a buffer or ”transition” between the stadium and the modest dwellings around it.

City planners asked Civitas to dress up the garages, breaking up their mass with relief patterns while ensuring that cars, lighting and other unattractive building fixtures are not glaringly visible to pedestrians, planning records show.

The garage fronts that face Northwest Seventh Street, a major corridor, will be lined with retail spaces to serve the neighborhood. Where they face the stadium, the garages will have space for shops and restaurants.

Because the initial stadium designs had blank walls rising starkly from the ground, planners also had HOK add glass and openings, as well as a granite base and better architectural detailing at the pedestrian level, said Dakota Hendon, who coordinates the city’s design reviews of major projects. Colored glass along the stadium’s exterior at ground level will be designed by local artists.

The goal is an attractive and pedestrian-friendly architecture that would fill spaces around the garages and the stadium with people and activity, he said.

”We didn’t want the stadium rising out of the ground like a saucer,” Hendon said. “We wanted to minimize blank walls and open up vistas, so that as you walk around the stadium, you will find interesting things to look at.”

APPROVALS PENDING

The stadium design and site plan, which were endorsed this month by the city’s Urban Design Review Board, will ultimately go to the city’s Planning Advisory Board and the City Commission for approval and public hearings.

Loria declined to be interviewed, but in a brief written statement said he had been thinking about the stadium ”for years,” and he called the results “glorious, magical and unique.”

”It will be Miami’s coolest place in town,” he said.
—————————————————————————-
Tax revenue for Florida Marlins stadium falling short?

Posted on Sun, Feb. 01, 2009

BY DOUGLAS HANKS, JACK DOLAN AND CHARLES RABIN

Tourists would need to spend record amounts of money at Miami-Dade County hotels to pay the debt on a proposed baseball stadium in Little Havana, according to a Miami Herald analysis.

Even before the autumn economic tailspin, the analysis found, hotels were not generating enough revenue to cover payments on $297 million in stadium debt that Miami-Dade wants pegged to hotel taxes.

That leaves Miami-Dade administrators counting on continued growth in the hotel industry even as South Florida suffers its worst tourism decline since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Hotel taxes — also known as ”bed taxes” — would fund nearly half of the construction tab for the new $609 million home for the Florida Marlins. As administrators finish their financing plan for the stadium, they are grappling with a complicated question made more complex by the current tourism slide: How much more debt can hotel taxes sustain?

To answer that question, The Miami Herald mapped future debt payment scenarios on the proposed stadium and parking garage.

The analysis combined county budget figures and annual borrowing costs of about $20 million for a generic $297 million bond. It found that without a quick turnaround in tourism, it would be 2017 before Miami-Dade’s hotel taxes could sustain the stadium’s debt.

Jennifer Glazer-Moon, director of the county’s Strategic Business Management office, confirmed that initially, there probably would not be enough bed taxes to cover debt on the 37,000-seat stadium.

As in the past, Miami-Dade would structure the bonds to allow smaller payments upfront and then larger payouts in future years when hotel taxes are likely to be higher.

”Our economy is a resilient economy,” said County Commission Chairman Dennis Moss, a stadium supporter. “You’ll see the bed tax start to grow.”

Should hotel taxes stay flat through 2010, Miami-Dade would need an extra $38 million to cover bond payments by the end of 2016, the analysis shows. Under the county’s more bullish budget forecasts, the cumulative deficit would be only $6 million.

OUTLOOK FOR TOURISM

Some industry experts predict a far grimmer tourism landscape in the short term than what the county foresees.

Citing an 8 percent increase in hotel rooms and popular one-time events like January’s college football championship, Miami-Dade’s budget office predicts that hotel taxes will set another record this year, growing by 2.4 percent to $75.1 million.

But PKF Hospitality Research in Atlanta forecast a 6.9 percent decline in hotel revenue for this year, Miami-Dade’s worst showing in seven years. With hotels cutting rates, corporations slashing meeting plans and vacationers wary of spending, the consulting firm said Miami-Dade would have a hard time posting gains.

”I think most hoteliers in Miami, and around the country, would laugh at the thought of an increase in hotel tax collections in 2009,” PKF research director Robert Mandelbaum wrote in an e-mail.

Since the county has not completed a financing plan, elements in The Miami Herald’s analysis could change before the scheduled Feb. 13 vote on the stadium deal by Miami and Miami-Dade commissioners.

For example, the county has $25 million in surplus hotel-tax revenue that it could use to pay down construction costs, saving about $2 million a year in debt service, Glazer-Moon said.

But Larry Spring, Miami’s chief financial officer, said the city expects its yearly bed-tax payment from the county to rise to $6 million, from $2 million, under the stadium agreement being negotiated between the two governments. That would reduce the amount available for Miami-Dade’s bond payments.

George Burgess, Miami-Dade’s county manager, dismissed the notion of the current economic crisis causing lasting damage to the tourism industry. He pointed to the years that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when hotel taxes dropped by 6 percent in 2002 and then surged to a record by the end of 2004.

”Our belief is the slowdown will last two or three years and then rebound,” he said. “Is it reasonable that we’ll be flat-lining for six or seven years? It is not.”

Between 2000 and 2007, the average growth for hotel taxes hit 6 percent a year despite the terrorist attacks, active hurricane seasons and a battered housing market. Current county forecasts cap hotel-tax revenue growth at 4 percent.

NO CRYSTAL BALL

”We shouldn’t be judging a 20- to 30-year financing plan based solely on current market conditions. There will be highs and lows,” Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said in a statement Friday. “Our bed tax growth estimates, once complete, will be conservative as they have been in the past.”

But those questioning the stadium plan warned against putting too much faith in optimistic projections in the current economic climate.

County Commissioner Katy Sorenson said it is ”just stunning” that the county administration would be willing to move forward if hotel taxes are not high enough to cover the debt in the early years. ”The public strikes out with this deal,” she said. “I think it’s all going to unravel in July.”

If commissioners in Miami and Miami-Dade approve the plan, either government would have until June 30 to cancel the deal. ”If we are presented with a worst-case scenario by June 30, we can walk away,” Mayor Alvarez said in his statement.

The Miami Herald analysis assumed that Miami-Dade would sell 35-year bonds at a 6 percent interest rate, the return administrators said they expect Wall Street to accept during the current credit crisis. That amounts to a yearly bond payment of about $20 million, assuming equal installments for 35 years.

That figure was added to core expenses already covered by Miami-Dade’s 6 percent tax on hotel-room rent: existing obligations, including debt payments that range from $20 million to $67 million a year; $7.5 million for the Adrienne Arsht Performing Arts Center; and about $11 million in tourism promotion.

The analysis left out a number of current hotel-tax recipients, such as the Vizcaya Museum and Gardens. County commissioners also could opt to reduce funding to the Arsht Center or tourism efforts should hotel taxes fall short.

How hotels perform in the coming months will be crucial to whether the Florida Marlins move to Miami, since cratering tax receipts likely would signal a hotel market too shaky to support the debt.

”In the environment we’re in now, we’re looking at it on a month-to-month basis,” said John Incorvaia, a Moody’s debt analyst who focuses on Florida. While worsening declines would signal long-term trouble, “it tells us a little bit different story if they’re down for a few months but the rate of decrease isn’t down as much. . . . Maybe that’s a sign of stabilization to come.”

Hotel-tax revenue began to drop in the fall, after a strong summer boosted by foreign visitors. The revenue dipped by 2 percent in September and October, the first consecutive monthly decline since September 2002.

November brought more bad news, with tax revenue down by 9 percent. And despite the December reopening of the Fontainebleau, Miami-Dade’s largest resort, revenue dropped by 8 percent that month.

But even if hotel taxes fall short in early years, county officials say they are confident of the tourism destination’s long-term prospects.

Reducing early loan payments to make larger ones later would increase Miami-Dade’s borrowing costs by millions of dollars.

In 1997, needing money for the future Arsht center and some smaller projects, Miami-Dade borrowed $170 million by promising future hotel taxes to pay off the debt. The repayment schedule has Miami-Dade making only $5.8 million of interest payments on the loan through 2028.

The next year, Miami-Dade would owe $4.5 million in principal and $23 million in interest. In all, the $170 million loan would cost Miami-Dade $651 million through 2038, according to county bond documents.

FINDING A BALANCE

Glazer-Moon said the approach allows the county to consider current needs while taking advantage of the near certainty of future tax growth.

”If you size it in such a way that I’m going to make the payment that I can afford to make this year forever, then you’re basically not optimizing the use of that revenue,” she said. “Because there’s all of this money coming in [during later years] that you’re not taking advantage of.”

The stadium has been controversial not just for the large price tag, but for the priority given to the ballpark over a pet project for the tourism industry: improving the Miami Beach Convention Center.

A $75 million expansion and renovation of the facility has stalled over cost concerns, and hotel advocates want Miami-Dade to spend money on the convention center first.

”The bottom line is very simple: The economic engine that generates that [hotel] tax has been allowed to decay over a period of 20 years,” said Stuart Blumberg, president of the Greater Miami and the Beaches Hotel Association, which also receives hotel taxes. “Which means there will be less bed taxes generated from that engine.”

County Commissioner Carlos Gimenez said he supports spending hotel taxes on the convention center instead of the stadium. He opposes the idea of taking on debt that current revenues won’t support.

”You’re mortgaging the future,” he said. “You are also stripping any future commission from the ability to do projects. It’s troublesome.”
———————————————————————

Posted in Marlins Ballpark & Finances | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Injecting Reason into the Steroids Debate

I contend that science, sports nutrition and statistics offer us sane MLB fans a way out [see the last paragraph] of the boring steroids monologue and phony outrage which sports commentators threaten to drown us with this coming season. The latest trigger were the recent disclosures about MLB players failed drug tests in 2003.

To recap, Alex Rodriguez is currently being vilified for admitting to taking performance enhancing drugs [PED] at a time when their use was widespread in MLB and not illegal. Further, the reason we know this is because a United States Attorneys Office subpoenad drug tests which players voluntarily submitted to under the explicit condition that the results be destroyed. J.C. Bradbury summarizes:

This is an absolute embarrassment to the US government. Here we have a private organization implementing a program to fix a problem that government officials wanted fixed. Players did not have to agree to random testing, and without the 2003 anonymous testing we might have a very different MLB drug policy today. The samples ultimately got used for something other than their intended purpose, and people wonder why players are were to reluctant to agree to testing in the first place? President Obama is right to shut down Gitmo for violating civil rights. He should shut down the BALCO case as well. The proper role of government isn’t to satisfy our curiosity about doping in sports. This has what this case is about.

Last night I was driving home from work and tuned into The Inside Pitch with Josh Friedman [O’Brien interview available], an interesting new radio show geared towards MLB fans. I heard someone, not Friedman, commenting on A-Rod and thought they made an interesting, but not well thought out point. His point was that he would support Barry Bonds for the Hall of Fame [HOF], but not A-Rod. The reason he gave was that Bonds career was HOF-worthy prior to his steroid use–he could tell when that began based on his obvious physical transformation–whereas he could not make a similar assessment of A-Rod.

The problem with that analysis is that not all PED’s result in the bulking up associated with body builders and Bonds in particular, for example Rafael Palmeiro. What I heard next was a little depressing. The guy talking was Dave O’Brien [not the Marlins former radio guy], the current president–based on a rotating system–of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America BBWAA.

I have no idea what kind of writer O’Brien is, I happily assume he is a good one. But based on his views with respect to the HOF and PED’s, he is clearly not very analytical when it comes to this issue. But PED’s are the hot issue in his profession at the moment, so the idea that he would be more analytical in other areas is unlikely. Sure enough, when you start reading about it, there is a bit of a turf war going on between newspaper writers and the web-based writers, let alone with the hard-core statistical guys. Given the revolution in the use of statistics to analyze MLB, which began with the great Bill James, it is a shame that those in the forefront of quantifying performances in a sport which lends itself more than most to quantifying performances, don’t have a more prominent role with mainstream fans.

Time to pick sides. I hope the statistical turks start their own HOF. The battle which Michael Lewis documented in the area of scouting with Moneyball, should be also come to the mainstream analysis of MLB and the HOF. From the average fans point of view, the main issue with steroids is how to properly weight the statistically inflated results associated with the era. It’s not hard to foresee various studies done which discount power numbers by 25% and improves ERA’s by 13%, etc. While they are at it, they can adjust for the size of ballparks throughout MLB’s history. Goodbye asterisks, hello promotional flash drives which contain revised leaders in various statistical categories. Pete Rose and I will bet on it.

My dream for MLB this year is that one of those brilliant people at The Hardball Times or Sabernomics come up with an analysis which shows how many home runs Babe Ruth would have hit if he was happily married, allergic to hot dogs, and spent the off-season working out with Red Grange. My own estimate is 822. Or how about estimating how many homers discrimination cost Hank Aaron’s. How about filling out Ted Williams career with full MLB seasons instead of being interrupted twice–TWICE–with stints in the armed services of his country.

There you have it, a new and improved career leaders in the MLB statistical clubhouse, end of outrage, but the beginning of incredibly fun statistical modeling. My current HR leader at 822 is not very scientific I grant you, but it is as reasoned as the criteria used by the current head of the BBWAA for determining his HOF vote in approximately 12 years.

Hannibal Lecter’s lesson

The next time you read or hear about “A-Fraud,” remember The Silence of the Lambs. FBI agent-in-training Clarice Starling is trying to profile a serial killer called Buffalo Bill with the help of famed psychologist and serial killer, Hannibal Lecter, who teaches Starling the following:

He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? … We begin by coveting what we see every day.

So take a closer look at those by-lines or program hosts, maybe they just covet.

Posted in Marlins Ballpark & Finances | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

We have been through the Gospels, but have the Gospels been through us?

We have been through the Gospels but have the Gospels been through us? So asks our favorite ethernet priest, Fr Vallee. Here is an excerpt of his homily from Feb 8th, 2009:

You and I know the Gospels pretty well. We meet here every week and read the Gospels. We sing about them and I am constantly talking about the them. But faith is not a intellectual game to be played. We don’t prepare for faith the way we prepare for an academic test. We have been through the Gospels but have the Gospels been through us? Here’s how we tell: does it change who we are and how we are? We about to take up the ABCD pledges. The Gospels have a clear and consistent “preferential option for the poor.” We all know that, but knowing it doesn’t do us one whit of good if we don’t act upon it. It is hard to sacrifice in these difficult economic times; the only thing harder is to do nothing.

Homily referenced is copied in full at end of post.

—————————————————————————-
Fr Vallee’s Feb 8, 2009 Homily

I. Vae enim mihi est, si non evangelizavero
A very short, yet lovely, passage from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is given in today’s second reading. Actually it is the motto on Bishop’s Roman’s coat of arms: “Vae enim mihi est, si non evangelizavero.” For those of you who have not kept up your Latin, that is, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel.” It strikes me here as very strange that Paul anticipates “woe” if he does not preach the Gospel. In that, Paul claims that he has been beaten, imprisoned, ridiculed and tortured for the sake of preaching the Gospel. He writes, “Brothers, this is the Gospel I preach and in its service, I have suffered hardship like a criminal; yea even unto imprisonment; but there is no imprisoning the Word of God.” And in another place, “Dear Beloved, I believe that God has made us apostles the most abject of mankind. We hunger and thirst, we are naked, we have are roughly handled, and we have no fixed abode…They curse us and we bless. They persecute us and we suffer it… They treat us as the scum of the earth and the dregs of humanity, to this very day.” If this is what happens when Paul preaches the Gospel, one shudders to think about what sort of woe might befall him if he did not preach the Gospel. It seems that the only thing more terrible, for Paul, than preaching the Gospel is not preaching the Gospel.

II. All of my suffering is not equal to the suffering of not having suffered enough
St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, a 17th century French mystic, once said, “None of my sufferings is equal to the pain of not having suffered enough.” An odd little passage, I suppose it is no accident that Saint Margaret Mary was almost a contemporary of the Marquis de Sade. Nevertheless, once we get past the initial shock of such seemingly masochistic sentiments, they make sense. Paul suffers all sorts of persecutions and trials for the sake of the Gospel. But woe to him if he does not preach the Gospel. Because the greatest suffering, the most terrible torture would be not to preach the Gospel, not to know the Lord Jesus Christ. All of Paul’s sufferings would not be the equal of a life lived without God. Hence, Woe to him, woe to me, woe to you, woe to us, if we do not preach the Gospel. Even though preaching the Gospel, entails all sorts of trials, not preaching the Gospel is a deeper, darker, more deadly woe.

III. Paul’s dilemma is our dilemma
The preaching of the Gospel is never easy. I mean it is, of course, easy to read the Gospel. It is even easy to talk about the Gospel. But to live the Gospel, to make it real here and now – that is a woeful and difficult thing to do. There is story told of the great Jewish Scripture scholar, Abraham Heschel. He wrote a book called “The Prophets” which is a classic, and the most beautiful and poetic work of Scripture scholarship I have ever read. Anyhow a young student came to him one day and asked Heschel to test him. He said that he knew the Torah inside and out and there was nothing left for him to learn. The young man said, “Professor, I have been all through the Scriptures.” Heschel smiled at the young man and said: “Yes, but have the Scriptures been through you?”

IV. Conclusion
You and I know the Gospels pretty well. We meet here every week and read the Gospels. We sing about them and I am constantly talking about the them. But faith is not a intellectual game to be played. We don’t prepare for faith the way we prepare for an academic test. We have been through the Gospels but have the Gospels been through us? Here’s how we tell: does it change who we are and how we are? We about to take up the ABCD pledges. The Gospels have a clear and consistent “preferential option for the poor.” We all know that, but knowing it doesn’t do us one whit of good if we don’t act upon it. It is hard to sacrifice in these difficult economic times; the only thing harder is to do nothing. Vae enim mihi est, si non evangelizavero. Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel! It is hard to sacrifice in these difficult economic times; the only thing harder is to do nothing.
———————————————————————

Posted in Catholic Faith & Inspiration | Tagged | Leave a comment

Peggy Noonan’s Serious Question

Peggy Noonan formulates the national security question for the Obama Administration very succinctly in her recent column:

The question for the Obama administration: Do they think Mr. Cheney is essentially correct, that bad men are coming with evil and deadly intent, but that America can afford to, must for moral reasons, change its stance regarding interrogation and detention of terrorists? Or, deep down, do the president and those around him think Mr. Cheney is wrong, that people who make such warnings are hyping the threat for political purposes? And, therefore, that interrogation techniques, etc., can of course be relaxed? I don’t know the precise answer to this question. Do they know exactly what they think? Or are they reading raw threat files each day trying to figure out what they think?

I think that it is very important that we are clear before any tragedy may occur, that it is a choice to be made by the Administration. What should not be allowed to happen, is for the terrorist-doves in America to claim to be able to do both. I see it as a choice between doing everything possible to avert an attack on American soil and having a stated policy which wins the approval of the type of people who otherwise hate America and/or its military.

Noonan’s column is copied in full at end of post.

—————————————————————————-
Bracing Ourselves – America prepares for the worst, and Republicans suddenly seem serious

FEBRUARY 6, 2009, 2:51 A.M. ET

By PEGGY NOONAN

All week the word I kept thinking of was “braced.” America is braced, like people who are going fast and see a crash ahead. They know huge and historic challenges are here. They’re not confident they can or will be met. Our most productive citizens are our most sophisticated, and our most sophisticated have the least faith in the ability of our institutions to face the future and get us through whole. They have the least faith because they work in them.

Tuesday I talked to people who support a Catholic college. I said a great stress is here and coming, and people are going to be reminded of what’s important, and the greatest of these will be our faith, it’s what is going to hold us together as a country. As for each of us individually, I think it’s like the old story told about Muhammad Ali. It was back in the 1960s and Mr. Ali, who was still Cassius Clay, was a rising star of boxing, on his way to being champ. One day he was on a plane, going to a big bout. He was feeling good, laughing with friends. The stewardess walked by before they took off, looked down and saw that his seatbelt was unfastened. She asked him to fasten it. He ignored her. She asked him again, he paid no attention. Now she leaned in and issued an order: Fasten the seatbelt, now. Mr. Clay turned, looked her up and down, and purred, “Superman don’t need no seatbelt.”

She said, “Superman don’t need no airplane. Buckle up.” And he did.

We all think we’re supermen, and we’re not, and you’re lucky to have a faith that both grounds you and catches you.

But during the part in which I spoke in rather stark terms of how I see the future, I think I saw correctly that the physical attitude of some in the audience was alert, leaned forward: braced. Again, like people who know a crash is coming. Afterward I asked an educator in the audience if I was too grim. He looked at me and said simply: No.

A sign of the times: We had a good time at lunch. It is an era marked by deep cognitive dissonance. Your long-term thoughts are pessimistic, and yet you’re cheerful in the day to day.

On Wednesday, in an interview with Politico, Dick Cheney warned of the possible deaths of “perhaps hundreds of thousands” of Americans in a terror attack using nuclear or biological weapons. “I think there is a high probability of such an attempt,” he said.

When the interview broke and was read on the air, I was in a room off a television studio. For a moment everything went silent, and then a makeup woman said to a guest, “I don’t see how anyone can think that’s not true.”

I told her I’m certain it is true. And it didn’t seem to me any of the half dozen others there found the content of Cheney’s message surprising. They got a grim or preoccupied look.

The question for the Obama administration: Do they think Mr. Cheney is essentially correct, that bad men are coming with evil and deadly intent, but that America can afford to, must for moral reasons, change its stance regarding interrogation and detention of terrorists? Or, deep down, do the president and those around him think Mr. Cheney is wrong, that people who make such warnings are hyping the threat for political purposes? And, therefore, that interrogation techniques, etc., can of course be relaxed? I don’t know the precise answer to this question. Do they know exactly what they think? Or are they reading raw threat files each day trying to figure out what they think?

The bad thing about new political eras is that everyone within them has to learn everything for the first time. Every new president starts out fresh, in part because he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. Ignorance keeps you perky.

On the economy, I continue to find no one, Democrat or Republican, who has faith that the stimulus bill passed by the House will solve anything or make anything better, though many argue that doing absolutely nothing will surely make things worse by not promising at least the possibility of improvement through action.

Meanwhile, the inquest on President Obama’s great stimulus mistake continues.

His serious and consequential policy mistake is that he put his prestige behind not a new way of breaking through but an old way of staying put. This marked a dreadful misreading of the moment. And now he’s digging in. His political mistake, which in retrospect we will see as huge, is that he remoralized the Republicans. He let them back in the game.

Mr. Obama has a talent for reviving his enemies. He did it with Hillary Clinton, who almost beat him after his early wins, and who was given the State Department. He has now done it with Republicans on the Hill. This is very nice of him, but not in his interests. Mr. Obama should have written the stimulus bill side by side with Republicans, picked them off, co-opted their views. Did he not understand their weakness? They had no real position from which to oppose high and wasteful spending, having backed eight years of it with nary a peep. They started the struggle over the stimulus bill at a real disadvantage. Then four things: Nancy Pelosi served up old-style pork, Mr. Obama swallowed it, Republicans shocked themselves by being serious, and then they startled themselves by being unified. But it was their seriousness that was most important: They didn’t know they were! They hadn’t been in years!

One senses in a new way the disaster that is Nancy Pelosi. She was all right as leader of the opposition in the Bush era, opposition being joyful and she being by nature chipper. She is tough, experienced, and of course only two years ago she was a breakthrough figure, the first female speaker. But her public comments are often quite mad—we’re losing 500 million jobs a month; here’s some fresh insight on Catholic doctrine—and in a crisis demanding of creativity, depth and the long view, she seems more than ever a mere ward heeler, a hack, a pol. She’s not big enough for the age, is she? She’s not up to it.

Whatever happens in the Senate, Republicans have to some degree already won. They should not revert to the triumphalism of the Bush era, when they often got giddy and thick-necked and spiked the ball. They should “act like they been there before.” They should begin to seize back the talking mantle from the president. And—most important—they must stay serious.

The national conversation on the economy is frozen, and has been for a while. Republicans say tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. Democrats say spend, new programs, more money. You can’t spend enough for the Democratic base, or cut taxes enough for the Republican. But in a time when all the grown-ups of America know spending is going to bankrupt us and tax cuts without spending cuts is more of the medicine that’s killing us, the same old arguments, which sound less like arguments than compulsive tics, only add to the public sense that no one is in charge.
———————————————————————

Posted in Current Affairs & History | Tagged | Leave a comment