Previous entry: 
Next entry:
Marlins Stadium Update No. 100,308
Another deadline, another delay.
Rather than issue her ruling on the final count in auto dealer Norman Braman’s case challenging the financing for a Marlins ballpark, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jeri Beth Cohen said Friday she would wait - once again - until the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in a similar case is final.
Since attorneys for Gregory Strand filed a motion Monday with the Florida Supreme Court to re-hear Strand v. Escambia County, which challenges the use of property tax dollars to repay a $135 million bond issue without first asking taxpayers, the high court’s ruling is not considered final. After re-hearing the case last year, the court overturned an earlier 7-0 ruling and decided on Sept. 18 in a 4-2 ruling that referendums are not needed to use property taxes to pay back bonds on large public projects.
The court isn’t likely to re-hear the case a second time, but it also has no deadline by which it must decide whether to re-hear the case.
“Although I anticipate that the Court will deny the rehearing, it is incumbent on me to wait until the decision becomes final before issuing a definitive ruling. Thank you for your patience,” Cohen wrote Friday in a note to the attorneys in the Braman case.
Cohen has said she plans to follow the Supreme Court and rule a public vote is not needed for a portion of the financing for $3 billion in Miami projects. Braman has said he plans to appeal.
The Marlins, Miami-Dade County and the city of Miami do not believe a referendum would apply to the ballpark financing and are likely to continue with their plans to finalize definitive agreements spelling out the financing, construction management and other details of the ballpark.
Comments
Actually, I don't think Judge Cohen is necessarily "against the Marlins." The way she comes across is deliberate and careful. She does not believe the Florida Supreme Court will re-hear the case a second time - and yes, if the court decides not to re-hear the case, the current ruling will be "final" - but she doesn't want to appear to be over-stepping her bounds. She recognizes she will have to rule at some point, but in court she has said the Marlins, county and city have proceeded with plans for the ballpark, even though they knew there was a lawsuit pending.
Posted by: Sarah Talalay | October 6, 2008 10:48 AM
Norman can still appeal then and likely will, but the Supreme Court declining to hear the case it is hearing currently will e final.
Posted by: Alan | October 4, 2008 2:12 PM
The fate of the Marlins is really up in the air. This judge is against the Marlins, and will find any way possible to rule against them, while at the same time, providing political cover for herself. She knows better than anyone, that there is a drop dead date to leave Dolphins Stadium, and if a new stadium, is not erected, there is a real chance this team will not only, not be in South Florida, but they may be out of business. Yet, she goes along with the stall tactics of Braman and his attorney.
The sports stadium construction issue, is hitting critical mass, with the credit crunch, and the likely possibility of anti-business Democrats having total control over the goverment. Teams like the New York Islanders, the Rays, the Nets, the Vikings, the Chargers, the 49ers, BOTH Oakland teams (Raiders & A's), and of course, the Fish, are at risk. Getting legislation passed that affects taxes takes time, so come January, nothing will change. But, I believe that teams need to start getting shovels in the ground by May at the earliest, or else.
Posted by: David Brown | October 4, 2008 11:10 AM
Since there is no time limit, technically we can be waiting long enough for the make-up of the actual Supreme Court to change. If this happens, the favorable 4-3 vote may be in jeopardy.
The more important question is: Once the Supreme Court decides not to rehear the case, will that decision be final?
Posted by: Andrew | October 4, 2008 5:47 AM