Approval Friday of a new Florida Marlins ballpark is far from a done deal, especially after local officials were informed the proposed lease is the most favorable given to a major-league team this decade.
Approval Friday of a new Florida Marlins ballpark is far from a done deal, especially after local officials were informed the proposed lease is the most favorable given to a major-league team this decade.
The Miami Herald did an analysis of the lease and found that the public was picking up 70 percent of the cost of construction, while receiving none of the revenue from the ballpark. That’s the best lease presented to a MLB this decade — better than what the Nationals received for Nationals Park, a situation where the District Columbia put up the construction funds but is sharing in revenue from the facility.
To be sure, it’s hard to compare MLB leases; each one is a snowflake, unique and previous. But on a broad scale you can compare revenue streams versus construction costs, and in those terms of the Marlins deal is the worst drawn up by a municipality this decade. In Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee, municipalities paid more up front but were repaid through various revenue streams generated by the venue. In Minnesota and San Diego — two smaller markets — the teams contributed more in terms of construction costs.
And, of course, in San Francisco, New York City and St. Louis the teams are picking up most or all construction costs.
Whether the report changes anything remains to be seen; on Friday the Miami-Dade County Commission and city of Miami will be meeting jointly to discuss five separate contracts. Some require a super-majority — a 2-1 majority — because they were undertaken without public bidding. There have been grumblings for months about some of the shaky support for the project; we’ll see if the lease information changes any minds.