Orlando Vanity Press

Sarah Palin's daughter

2008-09-04T08:14:00.002-04:00

The brouhaha over media coverage of Sarah Palin’s unmarried pregnant daughter is not without merit. The line between journalism versus paparazzi sensationalism is clearly blurred.

All families have imperfections. Few first marriages endure. Unfortunately, Americans have become to expect, even demand perfection in those selected to lead. Human foibles that do not undermine the public trust or the public interest are exploited by members of both warring camps to disparage -- even hound opponents out of office. However, corruption, graft and greed are tolerated as part of the status quo.

While Sarah Palin’s personal family issues are not fair game, her politics of family values are. This is a woman who wishes to impose her values through force of law upon all those who disagree with her. Be it personal choice, sex education, creationism or what constitutes a loving relationship between consenting adults Sarah Palin and her supporters appear to believe that their views are omnipotent.

Thomas Sowell said, “What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long.” Perhaps a paraphrase of the lyrics of Jonathon Edwards’ Sunshine provides focus for this issue. If one can't even run his/ her own life without imperfection, why should he/ she have governmental power to dictate how I run mine?

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Abortion

2008-08-25T08:48:00.002-04:00

As I move toward postings of a spiritual nature, I thought it would be appropriate to make clear my position concerning abortion.

I am a prochoice Christian. I believe that God granted mankind free will. I will not deny that which God granted.

As for the moral/ ethical component of the debate, I follow the younger Son. As did He, I leave judgment to God.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Welcome to Central Florida Rev. Huckabee

2008-08-16T08:00:00.002-04:00

Welcome to Central Florida Rev. Huckabee. In honor of your visit I offer the Tale of Two Sons:

Tale of Two Sons

A Father sends his two sons out into the world to round-up, care for and ultimately return home with his now scattered herd of sheep. The eldest son heads into the hills and finds a huge herd of sheep happily grazing. However, he notices that there are many among them who are not all pure white. In his heart he knows that his Father, being pure, loves all the sheep but hates mottled fleece -- loves the sinner but hates the sin, if you will. Soon, his righteousness begets a condescending manner that belittles and devalues the mottled sheep. The sheep trust and believe that this son represents the Father. Therefore, many sheep rationalize that the Father must be on their side as they abuse, torment and even kill the others. As time goes by, the mottled sheep disappear.

At the appointed time the eldest son returns home proudly shepherding a pure white flock. He beams as he tells his Father that he has found his sheep and brought them all home.

However, in the distance he can see his younger brother approaching. His younger brother's herd stretches as far as the eye can see all across the horizon; yet, it is clearly filled with imperfection. As he approaches the younger son proclaims, "Father I loved them as you love me and they willingly followed me home. Though all are imperfect I still love them and would rather die than forsake a single one. I trusted You to judge which are worthy to be called Your own."

In the Spirit of the younger son I extend the warmest of welcomes to you. I will also remind you that “sin no more” was not just addressed to the accused adulteress but the hypocrites accusing her.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Meeting follow-up email

2007-08-10T12:33:00.000-04:00

The below email is public record.
rk
==============

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

Just a quick follow-up to thank you for your service to Orange County and express my appreciation for your willingness to listen to my opinion. I have posted my comments from last night on my blog should any wish to review them http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/08/ethics-task-force-8907-comments.html.

For those interested in John Rawls book, A Theory of Justice and his Veil of Ignorance concept a brief overview can be found here: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/entropy/rawls.html. A more in-depth look is here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/.

Several copies of the book are held in the Orange County Public Library collection: http://tinyurl.com/33l2bu . It is available for purchase from Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781.

Finally, I leave you with my evolving viewpoint after reflecting upon the many thoughtful comments made in last night's meeting:

Ethical behavior requires sufficient personal integrity to uphold the spirit of just and fair laws. Moreover, ethical behavior on occasion will require acts up to and including non-violent civil disobedience in an effort to overturn laws enabling injustice and inequality. The depth of one’s ethical integrity is perhaps measured by one’s willingness, or lack thereof, to exploit an advantageous loophole that evades the spirit yet complies with the letter of the law.

Again, thank you for your time, courtesy and consideration. I trust that you will endeavor to err on the side of the citizens fully knowing that it is the people’s government.

Sincerely yours,

Ray Kockentiet

bcc

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Ethics Task Force 8/9/07 comments

2007-08-10T10:11:00.000-04:00

The Orange County Task Force for Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform 8/9/07 meeting solicited public comments. For more information see the Task Force web page ( new window )

A copy of my intended public comments concerning limiting campaign contributions to one per heartbeat are below. However, as always I may have slightly drifted. The verbatim record is in the transcript.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ray Kockentiet. I am speaking concerning the merit of restricting campaign donations to one per heartbeat {ad-libbed.}

Opponents claim such a restriction infringes upon corporate freedom of speech. As a layperson I note that the Preamble to the Constitution begins, “We the people.” Not “We the corporations” or even “We the people and corporations.” The word corporation cannot be found in either the Preamble or the First Amendment. Only two named non human entities appear in the First Amendment. One is the press. The other is religion. Protection for those two entities is a requirement for pluralistic, democratic societies. Extending such protection to corporations is clearly not.

Furthermore, speech requires self-awareness and some communication method. People do this; corporations do not. Corporations are not self-aware. The best corporations employ spokespersons; the worst mouthpieces. Thus, the freedom of speech argument suffers from a fatal, faulty analogy.

Next, I want to present philosophical support for the one heartbeat limit. To do so, I will describe John Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance concept discussed in his book A Theory of Justice. John Rawls is considered by many as the most influential late 20th century philosopher.

A key point of the Veil of Ignorance is that while behind it, a person does not know anything about his/her status in the real world. The premise is that rational, self-interested, persons will formulate just laws because they are ignorant regarding whose “shoes” they may ultimately find themselves walking in. Because they could be a victim, they would all agree that laws punishing crimes against persons and property, for example, murder, assault, rape, theft, etc., are just and deserve punishment. In contrast, laws that allow slavery, segregation or discrimination based on any human condition, etc. are unjust. No one would like to emerge from behind the Veil to discover him/herself a slave or in separate, unequal institutions or discriminated against for any human condition.

Using the Veil concept ensures equality and fairness which are cornerstones of ethical laws. The Veil concept mandates absolute empathy for all humankind. At this philosophical level one truly understands the essence of the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as one wants done unto you.” At a practical level it is two friends sharing the last piece of their mutually favorite cake. One will cut it and the other gets first choice.

Now, let’s go behind the Veil and analyze the merits of restricting contributions to one heartbeat. Corporations are not monolithic. Some persons control many while others are the smallest businesses. Not everyone controls one. Thus, when exiting the Veil one does not know he/ she will control one, many or none. Friends, I see no means to cut this corporate donation cake so all share equally.

Only limiting contributions to one per heartbeat ensures equality. Its legal rationale is firmly rooted in judicial philosophy. Moreover, the arguments against it if sustained, allow inequality under the law.

Thank you for allowing me to speak. I urge you to support this reform.

I also provided some off-the-cuff remarks concerning gifts. I was not prepared as I was under the assumption that all attendees were restricted to one 3 +/- minute comment.

My exact words escape me but in hindsight I was attempting to convey:
• Endorsement of the State’s stand on the issue as outlined in the meeting by Representative Gardner and Commissioner Fred Brummer.
• A reference as to the emotional power of gifts via examples of all attendees receiving gifts as children that one perceived as better or worse that those received by one’s siblings. In addition, a reference to the all too often workplace competition to see who can give the best gift to the boss.
• The most important issue in any policy is to examine whose needs are being met. From my perspective I was certain that few if any politicians are swayed by gifts. However, the greatest need all elected officials must serve is to ensure the citizens’ faith and trust in their government. Receiving gifts can undermine that trust so the best policy is to ban them.
• That some will always find a loophole via perhaps seeing gifts are made to cousins, etc.
• That unless mistaken, some organizations in the community are purportedly giving sporting events tickets to commissioners so that they may redistribute them to charities. To me this seems a method for commissioners to curry favor. If organizations wished to donate tickets to charity they could do so directly, there was no need to hand them to commissioners to do so.

For those interested in John Rawls book A Theory of Justice and his Veil of Ignorance concept a brief overview can be found here: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~piccard/entropy/rawls.html. A deeper summary is here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/.

The book is held in the Orange County Public Library collection: http://tinyurl.com/33l2bu . It is available for purchase from Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Justice-John-Rawls/dp/0674000781.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Axe follow-up

2007-08-09T14:10:00.000-04:00

Mike Thomas discusses the Sentinel's coverage of Harris Rosen. He mentions my email (below), too. Does Harris Rosen get a fair shot from the Sentinel? ( new window )

Scott Maxwell also discusses tonight’s Ethics Task Force Meeting in his column. However, I did not link it because it goes behind the Sentinel’s Iron Curtain in 7 days.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Does the Sentinel have an axe to grind?

2007-08-09T10:46:00.000-04:00

I sent the below to the Sentinel's Public Editor Manning Pynn. A copy of Mr. Dameron's article is below this email. It is used under the Fair Use Doctrine especially since after 7 days it will no longer be available in the public domain.
=============
RE: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-campaign0907aug09,0,4292071.story?page=2

Mr. Pynn:

Is it mere coincidence that Mr. Dameron singles out Commissioners Brummer and Moore for scrutiny in the above referenced story? The $20,500 in donations mentioned for Commissioner Moore and the $4,500 in donations from Harris Rosen to Commissioner Brummer added together represent less than 4% of the $650,000 in corporate donations the article mentioned. Who received the other 96%?

Notably, both commissioners Brummer and Moore were the only ones to have sufficient courage to stand on democratic principles in the recent Venues debate. Is it also mere coincidence that Harris Rosen, a Venues opponent, was singled out, too? All three received less than veiled threats in the printed pages of the paper. If the paper has an axe to grind, I suggest that it not wantonly slash the throats of truth, fairness, accuracy and balance in the process.

Personally, as a reader and subscriber I am appalled at the lack of journalistic integrity in the community’s paper of record. Worse, it has become clearly obvious to the most casual observer that Sentinel’s Reader's Representative position is feckless.

From: OrlandoSentinel.com

Sentinel Special Report
Campaign-cash war brews: Plan to ban businesses' political contributions meets resistance

By David Damron, Sentinel Staff Writer. August 9, 2007

Businesses and political groups provided nearly half of all campaign contributions in last year's Orange County Commission races -- a source of funds that could dry up if local leaders adopt reforms that would limit donations to individual donors.

Proponents of a one donation "per heartbeat" rule argue that it could blunt the influence that commercial and development interests wield in local politics and renew residents' faith in how crucial government decisions are made.

"Even if those tens of thousands of dollars are not influencing votes, there's a perception . . . that it does," said Orange County Commissioner Teresa Jacobs, the lead proponent of banning business contributions in county campaigns. "And in some cases, perception may be reality."

An appointed campaign-finance and ethics task force led by Linda Chapin, a former Orange County chairman, the post now known as mayor, likely will propose a business-giving ban to commissioners for final consideration later this year.

The first public battle should unfold tonight as Chapin's task force holds a public hearing on campaign finance at 5:30 p.m. in the Orange County administration building at 201 S. Rosalind Ave. in Orlando.

An Orlando Sentinel analysis of contributions to the top County Commission candidates last year found that if such a ban were adopted, it could radically change how local campaigns are financed.

In 2005 and 2006, businesses poured in about $650,000 of the $1.4 million raised by the top two finishers in all four races, the analysis shows.

Developers dominate

Even among the remaining individual contributions that candidates received, the largest gifts and biggest volume of checks arrived from people with direct ties to the development industry, such as attorneys, architects, engineers and real-estate officials. The maximum allowable contribution is $500 per election cycle.

But critics of a ban say there is no proof that campaign contributions corrupt or unduly influence politicians. They argue that restrictions on corporate giving could make things worse.

By pushing the county system to mirror federal campaigns -- where business contributions are also banned -- it would encourage political donors to contribute through hard-to-trace special-interest groups and political parties.

"The current process is not broken," task-force member Jose Fajardo wrote in a memo on the proposal. "No one has yet to stake claim to any evidence that the current system is overtly or even slightly corrupt and in need of repair."

Fajardo, president and CEO of public-broadcasting organization WMFE, will join ranks with business and development leaders who are expected to lobby heavily against the "heartbeat" proposal.

Chamber defends system

The task force is expected to recommend a range of reforms, from stronger and more frequent financial-disclosure rules to a tighter ban on gifts. But the ban on business giving to campaigns is the most explosive issue under discussion.

"That's a total disarming of the business community at election time," said Mike Ketchum, a vice president at the Orlando Regional Chamber of Commerce. "And we're not going to do that."

Ketchum says the current system works well because large campaign contributors have to publicly report their donations.

But critics say this still leaves open the door for deep-pocketed contributors to bundle a big number of large contributions by using different corporate entities.

For instance, Commissioner Tiffany Moore raised nearly $100,000 to win her seat in a crowded field of candidates last year. She partly relied on a large number of smaller donations, many about $20 each.

But she also received $20,500 from entities connected to Picerne Real Estate Group, which develops apartment complexes, all listed at the same corporate address in Altamonte Springs. That accounted for one of every five dollars she raised in the race.

Company consultant Don Miller said Robert Picerne was impressed with Moore's "Christian values." Miller also said the company has no development plans in Orange County for the next few years.

Moore said that banning such bundled contributions would make it harder for her to fund a campaign, since her minority-heavy district has so few affluent political givers.

"It could have a chilling effect on minority candidates," she said.

Would a ban work?

County Commissioner Fred Brummer, who knocked out four opponents last year, enjoyed similar corporate support in his campaign.

One day last August, the former state lawmaker received $4,500 from hotel magnate Harris Rosen, his top employees and various businesses Rosen runs out of his 9840 International Drive headquarters.

But if businesses were banned from giving, Brummer's take from Rosen that day would have been reduced by nearly 80 percent, to just two $500 gifts from Rosen and a top executive. Rosen could not be reached for comment.

Brummer says businesses will find other ways to fund campaigns, such as encouraging top executives to donate, and that rules requiring speedy disclosure of contributions on the Internet should improve the current system.

Jacobs, who was not up for re-election in 2006, concedes some businesses will try to subvert the ban, but even small reforms could help restore public confidence in campaigns.

"It's a step in the right direction," Jacobs said.

Scott Maxwell weighs in on special interests. Page B2

Copyright © 2007, Orlando Sentinel

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Orlando Weekly: Much worse than spin

2007-08-04T15:58:00.000-04:00

{I have fallen behind. Posting date represents date email was sent not the actual posting date which was 8/8/07.}

Mr. Pynn:

This is a follow-up to my last email stating my extreme disappointment with the paper's neglect of its reader-customers' best interests. I wanted to make sure that you saw this: MUCH WORSE THAN SPIN ( new window )

This is a peer's perspective concerning the Sentinel's coverage of the Venues. Having asked you, in your capacity as Reader's Representative, and senior Sentinel management over the course of more than 14 months for something other than stenographic reports on this topic, I concur fully with Mr. Whitby's assessment.

With luck, other peers of the Sentinel will evaluate its behavior that many local readers see as abandonment of its watch dog role in the community. Hopefully, many will be appalled. If not, the 4th estate is dead and the future of our democratic form of government is in serious jeopardy.

-------------------------------------------------

Half a truth is often a great lie.
-- Benjamin Franklin

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Reader appeals fall on deaf ears

2007-08-02T16:44:00.000-04:00

This very lengthy thread contains a series of email exchanges with the Sentinel beginning in June, 2006. At that time, I began asking for investigative coverage of the Venues projects. {I have fallen behind. Posting date represents date email was sent not the actual posting date which was 8/8/07.}
================

Mr. Pynn:

While archiving emails concerning the Venues I re-read this exchange (below) from more than a year ago. I also re-read Mr. Schlueb's comment, "This project is not being trumpeted by anyone in the Sentinel's newsroom, including me, regardless of the supposed bias of which you so easily accuse me."

That brought to mind Mr. Schlueb's May 8, 2007 piece "Magic poll: Most think team's arena offer is fair," that is now safely hidden from public view, including subscribers, without paying an admission fee. It brought to mind my many emails giving information and links to nationally recognized authorities concerning the lack of economic benefits to communities from subsidizing pro sports that were never investigated. It brought to mind the column inches devoted to CSL's spin versus those worthy of being called investigative journalism. It brought the to mind the paper's inability to report that a UCF Sales and Marketing Professor was passing himself off as an expert in economic development in Town Hall Meetings. It brought to mind the paper's blindness regarding CSL's disclaimer in the MOEDC economic impact report.

Although outside your purview, I reflected on the many editorials by the Board. I thought once again about Ms. Healy’s, “Facts build foundation for strong opinion (See: http://tinyurl.com/ytgsee) piece. I laughed reading her assertion, “Beyond having the facts, opinion should involve finding -- and considering -- the strongest argument from the critics. If you can't answer their argument, your opinion may not hold up to scrutiny. It's all part of the due diligence of research.”

Ultimately you are only responsible to yourself to uphold professional, ethical principles. However, it is important that you know as a reader and a subscriber I believe the Sentinel's role as the fourth estate was abandoned in this debate. It is also important for you to know that as the Reader's Representative you let not only myself but the community down, too.

The claim that the Sentinel is fair, balanced, objective and diligently seeks the truth and reports it is a charade. In this debate I ran into numerous credible individuals who over the years claimed to have brought empirical evidence contrary to what was being reported and editorialized about in the paper only to be ignored. In every case these individuals reported that nary a drop of ink was spilled reporting or debunking the information provided. It is now very clear that the Sentinel actively manages the message and cannot be considered as a trustworthy source of news and information when its management structure has an agenda.

This behavior is not new in the industry. However, in the past there were competing outlets. I suggest that this is the greatest damage that media consolidation has wrought. Democracy will not survive without an independent, objective fourth estate. Hopefully for the sake of our democracy, the Internet will replace the information management system aka "big media" now in place.

Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns. From my perspective, when your role is solving complaints about TV listings and the location of the weather page, you are merely window dressing.

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.
– Leo Tolstoy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: WRK
To: Sentinel Reader's Rep
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:01 PM
Subject: Fw: Citrus Bowl struggles...

Mr. Pynn:

You have been copied on my many exchanges concerning these projects. When reading about these projects in the Sentinel they often appear to be stenographer's reports interviewing some vested interest. The source's conflicts of interest are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

Running quotes from vested interests espousing PR messages developed by spin artists at some point approaches running unpaid advertising. In my opinion there is no investigative reporting nor any attempt to dig into the meat behind this enormous spending project. To my knowledge, there has been no community-wide poll of voters.

Perhaps your hands are tied; I do not know. However, I believe that the community deserves much more before local leaders spend nearly a billion dollars. Please do what you can.

ray

----- Original Message -----
From: WRK
To: MSchlueb@orlandosentinel.com
Cc: {removed}
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Citrus Bowl struggles...

Mr. Schlueb:

Please accept my sincere apology if I implied your reporting was biased. It was inadvertent but completely inexcusable and I am truly sorry. I hope that you can forgive me. The purpose of copying all of the original recipients is to make this a public apology.

While the Sentinel does have an award winning Sports section, it's parent owns the Cubs, a renovated arena and stadium projects are in the #1 goal listed in the 1/1/06, Sentinel editorial section and the media and sports reporters desperately need professional sports to supply content; to imply that such potential conflicts of interest could taint your, other reporter's or editor’s views was clearly renounced in your reply. I stand humbled and appropriately corrected. Moreover, my guess from your reply is that if someone tried to get you to slant a story you and many others would leave.

My very poorly worded innuendo was completely inappropriate; however, it was an attempt to challenge you and newsroom editors to get the story behind this story. While coverage has been OK, I find it superficial. Content frequently reprints quotes prepared by spin artists to be spoken by persons having potential conflicts of interest. In my opinion coverage desperately needs increased analysis by members of the 4th estate.

Who are the players and what do they gain or lose? What are the risks to the community taxpayer if the tourist market sours or revenues decline? Are there campaign contributions and how much from the movers and shakers behind these projects? Who is involved with whom in what business deals? Who stands to get big construction projects if this passes? Who benefits if a bond issue is floated?

For example, Mr. DeVos is listed at #23 in Top Individual Contributors to 527 Committees in the 2004 election cycle per the Center for Responsive Politics. His over $2 million in contributions benefited Republican causes that year. Did that $2 million have any influence on another elected official who is also a Bush Pioneer? Perhaps not; regardless, it is impossible to prove. Yet, how does Mayor Crotty balance that fact when he votes on this issue? Should he recuse himself from voting on projects that benefit Mr. DeVos? If not, are ethics reforms perhaps needed in this area? Why or why not? I believe that these and other facts are ones urgently needed by readers and voters to get the whole story.

Next, while proponents will surly trumpet studies saying how much economic impact these sports venues have for the community, at what cost? How does the community economic impact compare to Gay Days, the Bay Hill Invitational or Cirque de Soleil, etc., all of which operate without tax subsided venues?

My point is something does not smell right. Professional sports ownership is concentrated in extremely powerful, wealthy hands, pays millions in salary to players yet relies on taxpayer funds to make ends meet under their business model. Why? Perhaps professional sports are overbuilt and operating on a bubble that needs to burst.

Ironically, many elected and community proponents of these public works projects normally want to privatize everything. Most are free market advocates. Why are they pushing this deal? What’s in it for them?

Again, please accept my apology for impugning your integrity. I am asking that you use your reporter's nose, talk to your editors and get someone to dig deep for readers and the community. Running a story in the future about why this was a bad deal will be too late.

Sincerely,
rk

----- Original Message -----
From: MSchlueb@orlandosentinel.com
To: WRKoke@cfl.rr.com
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: Citrus Bowl struggles...

Mr. Kockentiet,

Thanks for your email. A couple of points, however: When it comes to the Citrus Bowl and the other projects proposed downtown, you'll find the same range of opinions inside the Sentinel newsroom as you'd find in the community. This project is not being trumpeted by anyone in the Sentinel's newsroom, including me, regardless of the supposed bias of which you so easily accuse me. (And just so we're clear, to a reporter, being accused of slanting a story to benefit an advertiser is akin to accusing a prosecutor of taking a bribe from the mob. It's quite insulting.)

The Tribune's ownership of the Cubs is no secret to anyone. Neither is the fact that the Sentinel relies on advertising. But I know of no one in the newsroom, from the clerks on up to the top editors, who even know those advertisers. (I don't think the Sentinel accepts advertising from Anheuser-Busch, and I know the paper doesn't take liquor ads. But I'm not certain, because I don't work in the advertising department.) Further, no reporter or editor would ever even consider changing one word based on the thoughts of an advertiser. The Sentinel ran a series of stories about two years ago on shoddy home construction, which cost the paper literally millions in lost advertising from angry homebuilders. But we still published it, and would do it again.

It's not a reporter's job to say whether a project is a good idea or a bad idea. Rather, what we have done is present the plan proposed by Florida Citrus Sports. As this process continues, we will cover the ensuing debate.

Mr. Kockentiet, you read the story about the Citrus Bowl plan, and formed an opinion based on those facts. That's how it's supposed to work. We trust our readers to form their own opinions, without telling them what they should think. I have received lots of email and phone calls about this project, all from people opposed to it. If I'm as biased as you say, I'm not doing a very good job of it.

Best,
Mark
Mark Schlueb
Orlando Sentinel
P.O. Box 2833
633 N. Orange Ave.
Orlando, Florida 32802
407.420.5417
fax 407.418.5231

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: WRK [mailto:WRKoke@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 1:48 PM
To: OSC IA Insight
Cc: {removed}
Subject: Citrus Bowl struggles...

The article, “Citrus Bowl struggles to be winning venue” by David Damron and Mark Schlueb discloses that the Citrus Bowl project is needed to enhance the lifestyle of upper income groups, businesses and lobbyists. The article specifically states, “…add 4,000 pricier club seats and 80 luxury suites…” and “… create 130,000 square feet of combined banquet, entertaining and meeting space.”

Next, the habitual rhetoric, “… for Orlando to be a big city, it needs to have professional sports…,” reeks of the Emperor’s new clothes syndrome. Moreover, this “fact” is unchallenged by usually good reporters even though City Beverages' President Ford Kiene certainly has glaring conflicts of interest. As the sole distributor of Anheuser-Busch products such as Budweiser and other beverages in Orange and most of Osceola and Lake Counties, City Beverages directly/indirectly profits handsomely via these subsidized venues.

Sports are multi-billion dollar businesses. Notably, professional sports franchises are owned by some of the wealthiest individuals in the world. Many are horizontally integrated and controlled by media empires. The Sentinel’s parent owns the Chicago Cubs (See: http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/ .).

Moreover, Tribune Media's various businesses certainly receive millions; perhaps billions in sports related advertising revenue including affiliated industries such as Anheuser-Busch and its distributors. Routinely, the largest section of the Sentinel is the sports section. Perhaps the purported walls between the newsroom, editorial and advertising are better than the alleged wall Elliot Spitzer found between security analysts and underwriters. Regardless, it still begs the question, why is such information routinely withheld from readers, listeners and viewers?

Next, despite the alleged $42.3 million ripple from The Capitol One Bowl cited in the article, it primarily enriches special interests via a public subsidy. In contrast, note that per, “Support stays in the closet,” by Susan Strother Clarke in the 6/2/06, Sentinel, Gay Days participants will drop an estimated $100 million in the community during the six-day event. This apparently is before any ripple effect. Moreover, it is spent without requiring publicly funded and tax-subsided venues.

Finally most ironically, in a Nation founded by rebels protesting taxation without representation elected State and Local leaders have no problems taxing visiting colonists from other regions to benefit the bottom line of wealthy barons of industry including the reigning King, Rich DeVos. Thus, perhaps because of conflicts of interest the story behind this publicity campaign remains unwritten. Furthermore, no reporter dare question, why do purported fiscal conservatives and free-market advocates rush to tax and spend on these boondoggles?

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Congratulations to Venues supporters

2007-07-30T10:57:00.000-04:00

I sent the below email to elected officials. It is public record. {I have gotten behind. Posting date is the date actually written not the date posted which was 8/9/07.}
================
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

Congratulations to the Community Venues supporters on their victory. I am certain that all elected officials did as best as they are capable in this process. In the end, it’s not about winning or losing -- it’s how one plays the game.

I sincerely appreciated the opportunity to speak and be heard. Unfortunately, Commissioner Brummer’s initiative for a public referendum failed to gain sufficient support.

Finally, the place of the common citizen in this community’s form of government was made perfectly clear Thursday night. The fact that roughly the first 25 speakers “randomly drawn” were special interests and/ or the community’s pro venues movers and shakers speaks volumes.

Sincerely yours,

Ray Kockentiet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right.
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

7/26/07 Public Hearing Comments

2007-07-26T23:10:00.000-04:00

{I have fallen behind. Posting date represents date comments were made not the actual posting date which was 8/8/07.}

My name is Ray Kockentiet. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak. I am speaking in support of Commissioner Brummer’s initiative for a public referendum on the Venues.

The “no referendum” side states that voters elected officials to make the tough decisions. If one agrees is there any reason for a commissioner to support a referendum? I believe that there are several:

There are many issues plaguing the Venues planning process. The Downtown Strategic Transition Team developed the Venues plan. The Team’s Chair was Ms. Cari Coats. At the time of her appointment Ms. Coats had spent 16 years with the Magic as Vice President of Business Development. Clearly, Ms. Coats former business relationship creates an appearance of a conflict of interest. In addition, in Commissioner Jacobs’ Town Hall Meeting, Parramore Business woman Lawanna Gelzer’s stated that Parramore residents and business owners were not consulted or even allowed a seat at the table concerning the projects. Certainly Ms. Coats and the 26 members on the Team are honest, civic minded citizens. However, since there is an appearance of numerous conflict of interest issues, the Team’s vision needs voter approval.

The Venues are being sold via a high-pressure spin campaign funded by special interests -- not on merit. Economists all agree that there is no economic benefit from building pro sports facilities to a community. Claims of economic benefits from attracting special events and post-season play are usually just that: claims. Worse, there is no independent, empirical evidence that the Venues will succeed as a downtown redevelopment plan. Finally, how is plan fiscally responsible when it fails to gain the comptroller’s full support? Commissioners have a fiduciary duty in spending tax dollars -- voters do not. That indicates a referendum is required.

Clearly, the principal benefactor from a new Events Center will be Richard DeVos. It is estimated that a new arena will increase the team’s value by $350 to $450 million dollars. Notably, Mr. DeVos has contributed in excess of $2,800,000 to political allies since 1978. In 1997 Mr. DeVos’ Amway was the beneficiary of a special $238 million tax break that his detractors portray as a payoff. Yet, even if Mr. DeVos built the arena with his own funds and gave it to the community some persons still would whine he benefited from favoritism. Only voter approval can remove this cloud.

In fact, some elected leaders are already profiting from pro venue special interest campaign contributions. A referendum is the best way to ensure the venues are not portrayed as a mechanism to raise campaign funds and as a conduit to higher office by an already cynical electorate. In the words of founding father Thomas Paine, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."

There are others but my time is limited. Ladies and gentlemen, it is tough for politicians to say NO to powerful people. However, the toughest decision for elected officials is transferring a decision to the people. In theory at least, it is the peoples’ government.

Again, thank you for allowing me to speak. I urge you to support Commissioner Brummer’s initiative. There is no right way to rationalize doing the wrong thing.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

TDC meeting

2007-07-24T11:40:00.000-04:00

{I have fallen behind. Posting date represents the date the email was sent not the actual posting date which was 8/8/07. Mr. Veech is the Community Relations Liaison for Sales, Marketing and Event Management with the Orange County Convention Center}
==================
Mr. Veech:

Thank you for the courtesy of a reply. Since public comments will not be allowed at the upcoming TDC meeting I hope that you and others on the committee will take the time to ponder the following:

* All economists publishing in peer-reviewed, academic journals conclude that there is no economic benefit from subsidizing pro sports facilities.
In addition, research published in peer, reviewed academic economic journals all conclude that post season bowl games and playoff events do not produce the economic benefits claimed.

* The impact on tourism, if any, from these projects will be miniscule. Project Hometown is even loudly proclaiming the Venues as using tourist dollars to benefit local residents – not tourism.

* Comptroller Haynie’s office confirmed that the TD funds could be used in different ways. For example, all advertising could be shifted to cent #6 freeing up a half penny in cents one through four. Cents one through four are less restricted. Carefully planned, museums and a host of other possibilities that would increase tourism are fundable under cents one through four.

* Cities such as Chicago and Atlanta are gearing up to compete in an already highly competitive convention center environment.

All of the economic information above is fully supported via visiting links posted on my Orlando Vanity Press blog: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/community-venues-links.html. Noteably, despite an open offer to supporters to post peer reviewed, academic research rebuttals, none has produced even one.

Frankly, in my opinion, a smart business decision would be to use the excess funds to retire the convention center debt early. If the additional TDT revenue was used to retire convention center debt instead of building the Venues, convention center obligations would rapidly decline. Thus, a paid for convention center would be in an enviable competitive position because of lower overall costs compared to competitors. Moreover, after the debt was retired there should be considerable excess revenue rewarding the community's initial investment in the convention center.

Again, thank you for your reply. Since public comments will not be allowed I appreciate your taking the time to hear my opinion.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Making the toughest decision

2007-07-23T17:57:00.000-04:00

I sent the email below to elected officials. It is public record
-- rk
====================

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

This week commissioners will vote on the Community Venues. Most of you have been diligently weighing the facts and opinions on the topic.

Frankly, I have nothing to add concerning the Venues that has not already been said: there is no economic benefit from subsidizing pro sports facilities, the public is being misled via disinformation, specifically the MOEDC Economic Impact Report and there is no independent, impartial, empirical evidence that the proposed revitalization plan will achieve its stated purpose and goals. Thus, I decided to remain silent the last two months trusting that you had heard me.

That brings me to the purpose of this email. It is being reported that prior to the Venues vote Commissioner Brummer will propose that the Venues be subjected to a public referendum.

The “no referendum” side asserts that voters elected officials to make the tough decisions. If one stipulates that commissioners are elected to make tough decisions is there any rationale for a commissioner to support a referendum on the Venues? I believe there are several that lead to that conclusion. Feel free to take your pick:

* Some elected leaders are already profiting from pro venue special interest campaign contributions. Hopefully, some will find that behavior disturbing. Although legal and common in politics to use pork to garner favor and further one’s political career the behavior has an unsavory, Abramoff-like appearance for many in the electorate. Ideally in such a scenario a decision maker seeking to uphold the highest ethical principals would either refuse all campaign contributions from the direct and indirect benefactors of the pork project or recuse his/herself, handing the decision over to the voters. Unfortunately, this rationale requires a deep look in the mirror too few in politics are willing to risk.

* There are numerous issues plaguing the planning stages beginning with Cari Coats. Ms. Coats had served as the Magic’s Vice President of Business Development for the past 16 years prior to being appointed Chair of the Downtown Strategic Transition Team (DSTT). The DSTT came up with the Venues plan. Her former business relationship taints the outcome with an appearance of a conflict of interest. Furthermore, given Ms. Coats’ capacity with the Magic causes some to question professional competence given the DSTT’s apparent ignorance of the consensus in academic, economic outcome research regarding the lack of economic benefits to communities from building pro spots facilities. There is also an allegation that the interests of the Parramore business owners and leaders were insufficiently represented on the DSTT. This allegation is evidenced by Parramore business owner Ms. Lawanna Gelzer’s statement at Commissioner Jacobs’ Town Hall Meeting that they (Parramore residents and business owners) were not consulted or even allowed a seat at the table. (See segment at approximately 3:03 in: Jacobs’ Town Hall Meeting ( new window )
available at Video on Demand ( new window ). Ms. Gelzer’s allegations, if true, suggests that an unelected, appointed, unaccountable body has planned the fate of a significantly affected segment of the community without providing it representation, consultation or benefit of independent, impartial analysis to support its findings and recommendations. Thus, while Ms. Coats and the 26 members on the DSTT Mayor Dyer Announces Downtown Strategic Transition Team ( new window ) are certainly honest, civic minded citizens their vision for the community needs further vetting by the electorate, since there is an appearance of numerous conflict of interest issues in the planning process.

* The Venues are being sold via a high-pressure spin campaign -- not on merit. There is copious evidence of promoters disseminating half-truths. For example, the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission Economic Impact Report clearly states it should not be relied upon, yet boosters ignore the caveat and continue to tout its illusory economic claims. TDT taxes are not just tourists’ money; persons transitioning from homelessness to short-term housing are paying TDT taxes. The fact that the community is taxing some of its poorest residents to fund these Venues will not be found in Project Hometown mailers. For some, promoters’ promises of jobs for Parramore residents will be viewed as an example of trickle down economics at its worst. That is, give corporate welfare to the Magic and they will ensure that a few dollars trickle down to Parramore residents. Also hidden from the pubic is the fact the consensus among economists clearly states that there is no economic benefit from pro sports to a community and there is no economic benefit from post season bowl games like those held at the Citrus Bowl. Moreover, there is no independent, empirical evidence that the Venues will succeed as a redevelopment plan. This sufficiently indicates that as a package the Venues cannot be objectively proven to be the highest and best use of tax funds. Thus, it is not fiscally prudent. However, whereas commissioners have a fiduciary responsibility to act as prudent persons, voters do not. Thus, a public referendum is clearly in order.

* It is estimated that a new arena will increase the value of the Magic by $350 to $450 million dollars. Therefore the Magic’s contribution still allows windfall profits that are excessive/ improper. Clearly, the principal financial benefactor from a new Events Center will be Richard DeVos. Mr. DeVos has contributed in excess of $2,800,000 to Republicans and their allies since 1978 Political Donations ( new window ). In 1997 Mr. DeVos’ Amway was the beneficiary of a special $238 million tax break that his detractors portray as a payoff for his campaign contributions Congress distributes a tax break to Amway, by Molly Ivins: The Star-Telegram ( new window ). Given Mr. DeVos’ stature in the political arena it is inconceivable that there is not political pressure involved. If Mr. DeVos built the arena with his own funds and gave it to the community there would still be some persons whining he benefited from favoritism. For some, Mr. Devos’ stature so ethically taints any project involving him as to require that his projects be subjected to voter approval. Pragmatically, if the message is sent that any Magic agreement for a new arena will require voter approval, it will vastly strengthen elected officials’ hands in negotiations.

* Some elected officials publicly profess fiscally conservative beliefs to constituents. That is, belief in the merits of small government, privatization, low taxes and that government should not be investing funds outside of those for the basics of government such as health, safety and public welfare. The Venues are inconsistent with that philosophy. To remain philosophically consistent with those core values means the Venues require citizen approval via referendum.

* A belief that Legislation in Tallahassee limiting the use of TDT funds was choreographed by special interests. A belief that a February 28, 2005, Quinnipiac University Poll reporting, “Voters oppose 85 - 14 percent spending up to $40 million to help renovate an arena for the Orlando Magic basketball team, with Magic fans opposed 75 - 25 percent,” remains a true measure of voter sentiment that is not heard in Tallahassee Quinnipiac University Poll ( new window ). Sending the venues to the voters will concurrently send a message to the Central Florida Legislative delegation that cannot be lightly ignored.

* A belief that it is not good public policy to compete with other cities to see who can build the biggest money losing ventures. At the level of absurdity “keeping up with other cities” means building a beach in order to compete with Miami, Tampa/ St. Pete and Jacksonville. From this perspective it is wiser to differentiate, bolster strengths and create metropolitan individuality in order to attract new residents and businesses. This viewpoint may also include a suspicion that the era of the mega concert/ event is fading in favor of such venues as the House of Blues and Hard Rock Café. Regardless, in fairness to the hard work involved, the Venues should be given an opportunity to obtain the voter’s blessing versus a summary “no” vote.

* A nagging concern that perhaps the three projects were bundled to minimize opposition. Or three at once is too risky from a fiscal perspective. Perhaps support for one or two of the Venues but not all three. A referendum is the easiest and best way to determine which, if any, of the three projects should survive.

While fully stipulating that commissioners and the Mayor were elected to make the tough decisions, it is clear that perhaps the toughest of all decisions for elected officials is deciding that it is best to recuse oneself and hand the decision back to the people. In theory at least, it is the peoples’ government. Upon reflection I hope that you will agree with at least one of the above arguments and support Commissioner Brummer’s initiative for a referendum.

As always, thank you for your time, courtesy and consideration of my opinions. I trust that no matter how one ultimately votes on this matter that one will believe that he/she is doing the right thing.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Columnists’ Credibility & SPJ code of ethics

2007-05-19T13:03:00.000-04:00

I read Mr. Bianchi’s column today in the Sentinel. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/columnists/orl-bianchi1907may19,0,5093694.column What really jumped out was:

“One other thing: If you want to hear me further destroy Thomas' credibility, tune into the Sentinel's radio show -- "Keep'n Score" -- Monday morning at 9 on 740 AM. That's when Thomas and I will provide the quintessential debate on the downtown venues. . . .”

As Mr. Bianchi prepares for Monday’s debate to destroy someone's credibility I emailed him ten things to consider.

1) Start with a refresher of SPJ’s Code of Ethics http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp. Note that the Preamble states: “…The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility…” In addition, a major goal is to seek truth and report it.

2) Read an article at BusinessJournalism.org. BusinessJournalism.org is affiliated with the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism at Arizona State University and The Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. "Finding the Bottom Line for Sports: Observations from an Academic," by Brad Humphreys and posted on June 6, 2005 08:11 AM. http://www.businessjournalism.org/pages/biz/2005/06/finding_the_bottom_line_for_sp/

3) Dig a little. In developing the plan for revitalizing Downtown Mayor Dyer chose on 3/26/03, a long time friend Cari Coats. Ms. Coats had recently resigned after serving as the Magic’s VP of Business Development for the past 16 years. While I am certain Ms. Coats is a competent and capable business person her past relationship with the Magic threatens the credibility of the task force’s recommendations. http://www.ci.orlando.fl.us/executive/communications/news/2003/03_03_24_coats.htm

4) Then, on April 30, 2003, Mayor Dyer Announces Downtown Strategic Transition Team http://www.cityoforlando.net/Executive/Communications/news/2003/03_04_30_downtown.htm. As you review this list of business notables it is pretty easy to see severe conflicts of interest. However, that IS a two edged sword. If one is honest one must concede it is in all of these people’s best interests that the plan succeeded – they are invested in the community. In their heart of hearts I believe that they wanted this to work. They care.

However, I fault them for not seeking outside independent consultation from independent urban planners, economists and experts of National stature before recommending a revitalization plan. Particularly, since these plans have a very high failure rate: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/03/urban-planning-urban-renewal-links.html

5) Viola, in less than 90 days it appears much of the revitalization plan is known: http://www.cityoforlando.net/elected/mayor/speeches/budgetaddress03.htm

6) Next, a sales and marketing report was commissioned by the MOEDC: http://www.projecthometown.com/pdf/MOEDC_Economic_Impact_Study.pdf. These reports are well known to be full of empty promises: The disclaimer on page two of paragraph two states: “...All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose....”

7) Now, dig a little more. For example, it has been a settled fact in the outcome research by economists that building pro sports facilities provides no economic benefit to metropolitan areas. For a some back-up see: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/03/research-economic-benefits-pro-sports.html Talk with a few experts. I recommend that you contact some or all of these before Monday’s debate in order to “seek truth and report it”:

7a) Dr. Brad Humphreys’ Bio: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/brh/www/

7b) Dr. Robert A. Baade’s Bio: http://www.lakeforest.edu/academics/faculty/baade/

7c) Dr. Mark Rosentraub’s Bio: http://urban.csuohio.edu/faculty/rosentraub.htm

7d) Dr. Dennis Coates Curriculum Vitae: http://www.umbc.edu/economics/faculty_cv/CoatesCVSept2006

7e) There are also 10 economists writing about sports here: http://www.thesportseconomist.com/

8) Also note that it is settled economic fact that post season play, mega events and other such activities do not produce the economic benefits touted by promoters. For a sample see: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/03/research-economic-benefits-of-post.html

9) OK, now when you fall back to the last refuge, “quality of life” see: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/03/research-intangible-benefits-of-pro.html . Virtually no one can find where these intangible benefits are worth the size of the welfare check required to obtain them.

10) Re-review the SPJ Code of Ethics.

Readers who listen can objectively determine for themselves if Mr. Bianchi’s or Mr. Thomas’ credibility is destroyed on Monday. I wished him luck; he needs it.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Case of the missing cavaet

2007-05-18T12:01:00.000-04:00

I sent this email to Ms. Sutton, Orlando CFO, and elected officials. It is public record.
rk
=====

Ms. Sutton:

Time is of the essence. City Commissioners will be voting on Monday.

I have some grave concerns about the Regional Community Venues Development and Operations Report: Overview: http://www.cityoforlando.net/elected/venues/pdf/devopsreport/Overview.pdf on the City's website. I do not believe it is factually accurate as presented.

Page two, paragraph two of the cover letter to Mr. Charlie Sloan from CSL states:

The information contained in this report is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from research of the market, knowledge of the public assembly facility industry and other factors, including certain information you have provided. All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose…. From: http://www.projecthometown.com/pdf/MOEDC_Economic_Impact_Study.pdf

Yet, the opening paragraph of the Regional Community Venues Development and Operations Report: Overview http://www.cityoforlando.net/elected/venues/pdf/devopsreport/Overview.pdf states:

The development and construction of the Community Venues presents an opportunity for the City to make a significant and long-term, positive economic impact in the minority communities in Orlando and Orange County, along with the local community at large. According to an economic impact study commissioned by the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission, over a four-year period, the construction of the Community Venues is estimated to generate approximately $1.1 billion in total output, including approximately $453.1 million in personal earnings, and would support approximately 10,800 jobs during the three to four year construction period.

The qualifier from CSL’s report commissioned by the MOEDC is gone! Nowhere in this document is the qualifier mentioned. The CSL report is now being reported as factual information even though CSL clearly states, this report should not be relied upon for that purpose….

Looking at the CPA's ethical principles are you comfortable with the Regional Community Venues Development and Operations Report: Overview's accuracy and validity as it is currently being provided to the public and elected officials? Are you comfortable professionally with this disclaimer being omitted?

Moreover, economic benefit claims made in reports like the CSL report never hold up under after the fact examination. When subjected to academic, economic outcome research these sales and marking reports are routinely shown not to come to fruition. There is no dispute on this issue.

Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns. I hope that the needed qualifiers can be immediately and prominently returned to prevent misleading the public and elected officials.

Again, with City Commissioners voting on Monday and putting their fiduciary responsibility on the line, time is of the essence. I look forward to your reply.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Fake news at the Sentinel?

2007-05-17T18:20:00.000-04:00

The Sentinel story concerning Commissioner Jacobs’ meeting was mind-boggling. Magic poll: Most think team's arena offer is fair ( new window )

Mike Thomas sums up the issues with this story better than I could ever do on my best day: Magic poll about arena support is professional spin job ( new window )

I sent an email to the Sentinel’s reader’s representative. However, I neglected to post this in a timely fashion; it fell through the cracks. So today when I sent a reminder to Mr. Pynn that I had yet to get a reply I posted it.

Readers many want to look at the polling outfit: According to their site: OnMessage ( new window ) is the go-to marketing partner for leading companies – large and small.

This is a sales and marketing firm. How a story like this made it into the local paper of record is chilling.

Some time back the Sentinel had a major shake-up concerning an OxyContin story and a source's credibility. Hopefully, that indignation is still alive somewhere and not on mind-numbing medications.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Exhaustive review of Downtown?

2007-05-17T14:45:00.000-04:00

I sent the following email to elected officials. It is public record (I corrected a couple of typos).
rk
=====
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Monday the City Council will vote on the venues. I doubt that I will attend as I am previously obligated.

I would like readers to consider a few issues. If one goes back to March 26, 2003 there is an announcement: Dyer Appoints Cari Coats To Serve As Chairperson For The Downtown Strategic Development Transition Team. http://www.ci.orlando.fl.us/executive/communications/news/2003/03_03_24_coats.htm
I reposted this press release on my blog but chose the headline: “Dyer Appoints former Magic VP.” The headline is accurate but provides a very different perspective.

Next, on April 30, 2003, Mayor Buddy Dyer announced the formation of a 26-member Downtown Strategic Transition Team, chaired by Cari Coats. http://www.cityoforlando.net/Executive/Communications/news/2003/03_04_30_downtown.htm This press release is also on the blog.

The press release states, “The team has been charged with looking at all facets of how to best redevelop the downtown area. It will make recommendations to the Mayor and will not be confined to fact-finding.”

Roughly 90 days later is Mayor Buddy Dyer's Budget Address 2003-2004: July 28, 2003, which is on the City’s website http://www.cityoforlando.net/elected/mayor/speeches/budgetaddress03.htm It is also reposted on my blog.

It contains this statement, Mayor Dyer tasked “a Downtown Strategic Task Force, chaired by Cari Coats, to do an exhaustive review of how and what our Downtown should look like in the future. And, to make recommendations on how we get there.”

However, two paragraphs later in the same address the Mayor states: “Jim Pugh has accepted the challenge of helping to give direction to our plans to develop a new Performing Arts Center that will be located somewhere in our downtown corridor perhaps across the street on the Super Block.”

It appears that some/ all facets of how to redevelop downtown have been decided in less than 90 days. I do not intend to impugn the integrity of these outstanding community residents. I applaud their willingness to serve our community. They indeed have a vision.

However, if the teams’ mission is, “… looking at all facets of how to best redevelop the downtown area,” how did that happen so fast? Where are the economists, urban planners and independent, impartial analysts who were consulted?

If one appoints as the Chair of a Downtown redevelopment team someone who recently resigned from the Orlando Magic where she served as the Vice President of Business Development for the past 16 years is this an impartial, objective committee? Would it have ever looked into the economic outcome research concerning pro sports and tax subsidies? Did it do an exhaustive review and investigate all possible options as tasked by the Mayor?

I do not think it can be considered exhaustive. For example, I recently confirmed with Ms. Haynie’s office that the TD funds could be used in different ways.

All advertising could be shifted to cent #6 freeing up a half penny in cents one through four.
Cents one through four are less restricted. For example, the PAC could receive more funds from cents one through four and decrease its reliance on CRA and other funding sources. It may be possible to fully fund the PAC (no one that I am aware of has run the numbers) on TD funds alone if the other two projects were shelved and/or the State did away with CRA districts. Museums and a host of other possibilities are available under cents one through four.
This scenario will require that the TD plan be changed by Commissioners in a 5 to 2 vote.
Currently, cents one through four are pledged for the convention center bonds. Yet, not all revenue is used to service convention center debt, since some is used for advertising.
Technically if PAC bonds were backed by cents one through four then they would be subordinated to the convention center debt. How that would affect the rate or the insurance costs I do not know.
Regardless, when people say that the only thing that the half-cent in penny six of TD funds can be used for is the Events Center they are using blinders. Other options are available; one just has to think outside the box.

Did this ever make it to the table under Ms. Coats? What options were actually discussed? What impartial experts were consulted?

I urge you to consider these inconsistencies before you vote on Monday. Have these projects been subjected to sufficient due diligence to merit expenditure of taxpayer funds to meet one’s fiduciary responsibility?

Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns. I sincerely hope that you will take the time to answer these issues to your personal level of comfort before casting a vote.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

What is an exhaustive review?

2007-05-17T12:20:00.000-04:00

What I found of interest in this is:

“We have appointed a Downtown Strategic Task Force, chaired by Cari Coats, to do an exhaustive review of how and what our Downtown should look like in the future. And, to make recommendations on how we get there.”

and

"Jim Pugh has accepted the challenge of helping to give direction to our plans to develop a new Performing Arts Center that will be located somewhere in our downtown corridor perhaps across the street on the Super Block."

With a former Magic VP as Chair was this a brainstorming committee? This does not look like an exhausitve review to me.

Buddy Dyer's Budget Address 2003-2004: July 28, 2003 ( new window )

Buddy Dyer's
Budget Address
2003-2004
July 28, 2003

Good morning and welcome. I want to thank those citizens who have joined us today in the City Council chambers as well as those of you at home, who are watching this presentation in the comfort of your living rooms.

Today we mark the 153rd day of our administration. And, while the challenges we have faced in these first five months have at times been daunting, this administration and this City Council have met the challenge. Stop and think for a minute about the last five months.

After discovering a $23 million shortfall for this budget year, working with the city council we were able to balance the city’s budget without raiding the general fund reserves and we did it in the first 20 days of this administration.

We had a little more than 12 hours to transition from the Buddy Dyer for Mayor campaign to the Buddy Dyer administration at City Hall and I believe we managed that process seamlessly. Much of the credit for that successful transition must go to City staff.

City staff, who love their work, but above all, love this city and desperately want us to succeed and move the City Beautiful forward. City workers have been asked to roll up their sleeves and do more with less and we march forward today due in large part to their sacrifice and commitment to excellence. They have done enough.

Today, I am rescinding the implementation of the furlough program we designed in March to help us balance this year’s budget. Based on our end of the year projections, I believe we can maintain our balanced budget for this year without that sacrifice for those employees who have already worked a day or more without pay, those dollars will be returned to you.

Contained in my budget submission today is a 2% increase in salaries, a Holiday Bonus and Longevity Bonus. What is not in that budget document is my sincere thanks to all city employees for seeing us through a difficult couple of months. And, I want to again say thank you to each and every city employee. My hope is that maintaining these pay incentives and bonus programs will demonstrate the value I place on each one of you.

While transition time was short, we did manage to successfully launch a transition team to review the functions of the city from top to bottom. Wayne Rich, who today serves as our City Attorney, led that effort. The transition team was charged with leaving no stone unturned in its review of city government. They were told that there were no sacred cows. In less than 90 days they produced a roadmap that will, over time, help lead us to the revitalization of our great city and the services we provide.

In these first 153 days we have watched our nation go to war and Orlando has been in the national spotlight, as we welcomed home David Williams. In these first 153 days we have restored our relationship with Orange County, which has led not only to our staffs meeting and working together on a regular basis, but also to an agreement to move forward on Mobility 20/20. And we did it in a way that guarantees the City of Orlando will have a major role in the discussions surrounding our transportation future

And we didn’t stop there. In addition to the agreement on Mobility 20/20 we have reached seven additional agreements with the County Commission and Chairman Crotty. These include various boundary agreements, which had become contentious in the past, as well as an agreement facilitated by Commissioner Homer Hartage to provide reduced rate hook-ups to the city sewer system for county neighborhoods. I will continue to work to move the City and County forward together.

Working with your City Commissioners these first 153 days, we have moved forward on developing a town center in Metro West that will create family-wage jobs and a greater sense of community in that area. And, today the City Council will be asked to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with CNL that will create the impetus for building the first new office building in downtown Orlando in three years, creating over 400 new family wage jobs and allowing the citizens of Orlando to control the future development of the area we call the “Super Block” in our downtown corridor.

We have appointed a Downtown Strategic Task Force, chaired by Cari Coats, to do an exhaustive review of how and what our Downtown should look like in the future. And, to make recommendations on how we get there.

I have asked Bill Sublette to chair the Mayors Education Action Group. Bill has committed his energy and vitality to the mission of making the City of Orlando public schools better and to finding a way to expand the opportunity for children to attend Pre-K classes in Orlando.

Jim Pugh has accepted the challenge of helping to give direction to our plans to develop a new Performing Arts Center that will be located somewhere in our downtown corridor perhaps across the street on the Super Block.

We have in these first 153 days, in the face of record budget deficits, successfully reorganized City government. Today, the City of Orlando has a cabinet that meets with your Mayor twice a week to interact and advise on the progress and challenges each of our departments face on a daily basis. Never before has the city had a structure in which each city department can listen and realize the potential of the synergy between departments. Fire Chief Bowman and Police Chief McCoy will tell you that they are the envy of their colleagues around the state because of the access they have to their Mayor. And we are going to keep it that way.

And we have taken the necessary, but incredibly difficult, steps to streamline city operations and downsize our workforce.

With each action there is always a reaction. Some have argued that we have taken these steps and made these changes at city hall as a political calculation nothing could be further from the truth. The beaten path is always the safest doing nothing or maintaining the status quo is far easier and safer politically than taking bold steps to effect change even when change is desperately needed. Doing what is right for the city regardless of the political consequences has been my guiding principle as we are moving the city forward.

We have done much in 153 days, but we still have much to do.

As the City Commissioners and many of you know, we conducted extensive budget workshops for the first time in our city’s history. During the budget camp we were advised by our Office of Management, Budget and Accounting that we had a potential $14 million dollar shortfall based on revenue projections and the proposed 2003/2004 budgets that had been submitted. I asked our Directors to sharpen their pencils.

Today, I will give to the City Commissioners a balanced budget, while holding the line on property taxes, without touching our general fund reserves and without further work force reductions.

Many of the challenges we have faced as a city are due to circumstances beyond my control or the control of Mayor Hood. Since September 11, 2001 our state, and in particular our city, has been reeling from an economic downturn that has dramatically affected the travel and tourism industry. Unemployment is down slightly from last year’s high of 5.6%, when Mayor Hood presented her last budget address, to a slightly lower rate of 5.2% today. But what hasn’t changed in this economic downturn is the disproportionate and dramatic impact every economic downturn has on African American and Hispanic families in our city and across this country. While the overall rate of unemployment for Orlando today is 5.2%, the unemployment rate among African Americans and Hispanic families is substantially higher.

As I worked with the cabinet in crafting this budget, we operated with several guiding principles in mind as we tried to make the cuts necessary to get us to a balanced budget next year. The first principle was that we would not cut public safety services to our citizens to balance the budget.

Cities were founded and established to provide police and fire services to their citizens. The foundation and core of our administration is the police and fire departments of this city. I have pledged that regardless of the budget circumstances and economic downturn, I would not propose a city budget that compromises public safety services.

Working with Chief Bowman and Chief McCoy, as well as Sam Hoffman of the Fraternal Order of Police and Steve Clellan of the Orlando Firefighters, I am happy to report that, while we have done some belt tightening in both departments, the proposed budget will put more police officers on the street and more firefighters on trucks than last past years’ budgets. This will help ensure that the city beautiful also remains one of the safest cities in Florida.

In addition, we are moving forward with conceptual plans to move and replace the Orlando Police Headquarters on Hughey Street, which is 30 years old. In this years budget we have committed $1.5 million dollars for design work on a new public safety complex.

Protecting our citizens is the core business of our city and I am committed to developing a comprehensive public safety complex with state of the art technology to provide our police officers with the tools they need to protect us.

Second, while we have advised all of the social services groups that the city has traditionally funded that they may face a cut in their budgets, I rejected that avenue as a way to balance next year’s budget and advised Management, Budget and Accounting to go back to the drawing board. Why is it that when there is an economic downturn governments traditionally cut the very services people need when they are out of work? If our City Council adopts this budget we will not follow that trend.

Using funds which are available to us as a result of the Orlando Police Department’s work over the years in confiscating contraband, forfeitures and stolen property, we will maintain funding at the 02-03 levels for the Arnold Palmer Hospital-Sexual Trauma Recovery Center, the Boys and Girls Club of Central Florida, the Center for Drug Free Living, the Center for Independence, Technology and Education, the Central Florida Police Athletic League, the Children’s Home Society, the Christian Service Center, the Coalition for the Homeless, Community Care for Children, Community Services Network, Consumer Credit Counseling Service, the Devereux Foundation, Guardian Care, Harbor House, Legal Aid Society, Metropolitan Orlando Urban League, Quest, Salvation Army, Seniors First, Inc., Share the Care, Shepherd’s Hope, and the Stepping Stone Foundation.

We have also maintained funding for the Economic Development Commission. These economic times have further illuminated our dependence on our tourism-based economy. We must find a way to create family wage jobs and diversify our economy and now is the time to do it! The EDC is one of the tools we need to use in that effort. The budget I submit today maintains funding for the EDC at 02-03 levels.

As I have already pointed out, in these difficult economic times African Americans and Hispanics face unique challenges as they pursue the American Dream right here in Orlando. Government must play a role in helping our neighbors help themselves. Today, the budget I am proposing calls for a 50% increase over last year for the Black Business Investment Fund and the Hispanic Business Initiative Fund. Both of these programs help our struggling small businesses flourish and prosper. Now is the time to make this investment in both of these programs.

During tough economic times governments look to cut repair and replacement funds and to do away with any dollars for capital construction. After meeting with and listening to my cabinet and your city commissioners and hearing their recommendations, it became clear to me that to put off repair, replacement and capitol construction would set our city back not move us forward. I ran for Mayor because I want our city to move forward, I did not run for Mayor in order to preside over the demise of our city.

While unemployment is high, interest rates are at an all time low. With that in mind, I will ask the City Council to authorize the sale of $25 million dollars in bonds to fund and complete our City’s capital construction needs for the next 24 months. We live in a time when I can safely say that these projects will not get any cheaper to build, nor will the cost of borrowing money ever be as cheap.

It is time to stop talking about new pools at the Northwest Community Center and the Smith Center. It is time to actually build those pools! The citizens of Rosemont and College Park need, want and have waited for new community centers. We need to move forward and build those centers. We need to complete the revitalization and renovation of Lake Eola. And we need to have the matching funds available to maintain our commitment on the Hope VI project in Parramore. We must address the recreational needs of the families who live in Ivey Lane and Rock Lake. We need to keep Orlando moving forward and we can do so by being smart and taking advantage of market conditions in these difficult economic times.

We will take $5 million dollars from the Utility Tax Fund and maintain our commitment to things like curb ramp and brick street replacements, park signage replacement, neighborhood traffic management and sidewalk replacements. Under this plan all of our renovation and replacement needs will be met for this 2003-2004 budget year.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, I have asked Bill Sublette to chair the Mayors Education Action Group. One of the challenges that the committee faces is finding a solution to providing additional pre-K classes in the city of Orlando. Early childhood education is critical to the development of our children and their ability to excel academically later in their lives. Today, there are 12 pre-k classrooms in Orlando. In the budget I will submit to the City Commission today, I have requested $200,000 for the Orlando Pre-K initiative and I am committed to raising an additional $200,000 from private sources. In addition, the Orange County School Readiness Coalition has already pledged $100,000 to our efforts. These funds which total more than $500,000 will allow us to enter into a partnership with the Orange County School Board to increase the number of pre-k classrooms by almost 50%, taking the number of classrooms from 12 to at least 17 Pre-K classrooms in Orlando classrooms which will be located in the neediest areas of our city. The first two new classrooms will be ready in September with additional classrooms coming on line during the course of the year.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am able to make these recommendations today because of the difficult and prudent decisions this council has made these past few months. While other cities like Fort Lauderdale face devastating budget issues and questions your city commissioners and Mayor have wrestled with these issues since the 25th of February and I am happy to report that we are ahead of the curve. The Capitol markets recognize that this administration is committed to a prudent fiscal policy and a willingness to make the tough and necessary decisions in an effort to keep our budget balanced during these difficult economic times.

We are 153 days into building the great city I challenged all of us to envision on the steps of City Hall in February. Today, with the submission of this budget we maintain our course towards that end in the face of the daunting economic times we live in.

Fellow City Council members, Florida Statue Section 166.241 requires that I present you with a balanced budget of $589,987,149 (five hundred and eighty nine million, nine hundred eighty seven thousand, one hundred forty nine dollars). Today I am proud to do just that. At 10:00 this morning Rob Garner, our Director of Management, Budget and Accounting, will take you through the specifics of the budget in a workshop, which will be televised on Orange TV this evening. We will, again, have a workshop on the budget on Monday, August 4th. On September 15th and September 28th the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the budget starting at 5:00 PM on both days and those hearings will be held here in City Council Chambers.

Thank you for your time and attention and thank you for your confidence and support these past few months.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Mayor Dyer Announces Downtown Strategic Transition Team

2007-05-17T11:51:00.000-04:00

MAYOR DYER ANNOUNCES
DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC TRANSITION TEAM ( new window )

MAYOR DYER ANNOUNCES
DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC TRANSITION TEAM

ORLANDO, FL (April 30, 2003) Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer Wednesday announced the formation of a 26-member Downtown Strategic Transition Team, chaired by Cari Coats.

The team has been charged with looking at all facets of how to best redevelop the downtown area. It will make recommendations to the Mayor and will not be confined to fact-finding. As a result, all meetings of the team will be open to the public.

Jacqueline L. Bradley: Ms. Bradley is the vice-chairperson of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority.

Betsy Franceschini: Ms. Franceschini is the advocacy manager for the Corvel Corporation.

Rick Gonzalez: Mr. Gonzalez is president and CEO of T&G Constructors, one of Florida's fastest-growing Hispanic-owned businesses.

Edward E. Haddock, Jr.: Mr. Haddock, an attorney, is co-chairman and CEO of Full Sail Real World Education.

Doug Head: Mr. Head is the executive director of a national trade group.

Sarah Kelly: Ms. Kelly is the vice-president of business development at Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers. She also chairs the Downtown Development Board and Community Redevelopment Agency.

Richard C. Kessler: Mr. Kessler is the CEO of The Kessler Enterprises, Inc., a hotel development and operations company.

Ford W. Kiene: Mr. Kiene is the CEO of City Beverages and a board member of the Metro Orlando Film & Entertainment Advisory Board.

Dan Kirby: Mr. Kirby is development manager at Sandspur Housing Partners, LTD. He is responsible for design, scheduling and permitting of new multi-family and mixed-use communities.

Cameron Kuhn: Mr. Kuhn is the president of Kuhn Management, a development company with heavy emphasis on downtown Orlando.

William F. Merck, Jr.: Mr. Merck is vice president for administration and finance for the University of Central Florida.

Susan Morris: Ms. Morris is senior vice president/broker of Colliers Arnold and owns her own real estate consulting firm, Resource Development Investment Properties, Inc.

Mark E. NeJame: Mr. NeJame is a partner with NeJame, Harrington, Barker, Quintana, LaFay & Tumarkin, P.A.

Steven W. Patterson: Mr. Patterson is president and CEO of ZOM Holding, Inc., and Orlando-based real estate company.

Michael W. Poole: Mr. Poole is a principal in Poole Carbone Eckbert Investment Bank.

Philip C. Rampy: Mr. Rampy is the president and founder of Old Town Brokers, Inc., a company that sells, leases and manages residential and commercial property throughout Central Florida.

Jodi L. Rutmann : Ms. Rutmann is a planner with Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc.

John Saboor: Mr. Saboor is the executive director of The Central Florida Sports Commission, Inc.

Joanie Schirm: Ms. Schirm is president of Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc. (GEC).

Geri Spriggs: Ms. Spriggs is a retired business-owner and downtown resident.

Joel Springman: Mr. Springman owns and operates downtown establishments Wall St. Cantina, One-Eyed Jacks, Loaded Hog, the Globe, Tuk-Tuk Room and Slingapours.

George Stuart: Mr. Stuart is senior vice-president of Stellar Fundraising Executives, a company specializing in consulting services for non-profit organizations.

Holly Stuart: Ms. Stuart is president of Stuart Communications, Inc. a marketing and public relations consulting firm with specialties in local community issues, government and professional sports.

Edmund C. Timberlake, Jr.: Mr. Timberlake is the Central Florida president and commercial administration executive for Florida, Georgia and Tennessee with Bank of America.

Kathleen M. Waltz: Ms. Waltz is the president and CEO of Orlando Sentinel Communications and publisher of The Orlando Sentinel.

Thomas J. Wilkes: Mr. Wilkes is a partner at GrayHarris. He specializes in all aspects of state and local government law such as land use, taxation and finance, utility, constitutional, administrative and litigation.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Dyer Appoints former Magic VP

2007-05-17T11:42:00.000-04:00

It's amazing how a story looks depending on who wrote the headline. A news release from Mayor Dyer on March 26, 2003 announced: DYER APPOINTS CARI COATS TO SERVE AS CHAIRPERSON FOR THE DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT TRANSITION TEAM ( new window )

The release is copied below in its entirety.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Susan Blexrud 407-246-3107

DYER APPOINTS CARI COATS TO SERVE AS CHAIRPERSON FOR THE DOWNTOWN
STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT TRANSITION TEAM

ORLANDO, FL (March 26, 2003) Mayor Buddy Dyer announced Wednesday the appointment of Cari Coats to serve as the Chairperson for the Downtown Strategic Development Transition Team.

Coats recently resigned from the Orlando Magic where she served as the Vice President of Business Development for the past 16 years.

Cari Coats is a trusted confidant with the right mix of business sense and political acumen for this position. I know she will assemble a first-rate team of citizens who can look at what has been done and what we are planning to do in order to revitalize downtown, Dyer said. She shares my vision that our downtown must be a center for the arts, sports, entertainment, retail and restaurants, Dyer said.

Dyer has charged Coats with the task of putting together a committee to look at all facets of how to best redevelop the downtown area.

It is an honor for me to have Mayor Dyer ask me to take on this critical task. The Mayor has asked all of us to imagine a great city, and for each person who lives here that means something different, Coats said. But almost everyone believes that we need to have a vibrant downtown for Orlando to truly be a great city, Coats said. Looking at ways to make that happen and finding ways to instill a sense of urgency in that mission will be the primary focus of our Downtown Transition Team, Coats said.

Mayor Dyer also announced the Downtown Strategic Development Transition Team will be making recommendations to the Mayor and will not be confined to fact finding. As a result, all meetings of the Downtown Strategic Development Transition Team will be open to the public.

Coats, who grew up in Kissimmee, gives new meaning to the phrase long time confidant, adviser and friend to Mayor Dyer as they first met in the 7th grade while attending Beaumont Middle School and they both went on to attend Osceola High School in Kissimmee.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

History repeats itself

2007-05-11T10:57:00.000-04:00

The folly of building sports facilities is not new. For history buffs on boondoggles there is an excellent article in today’s Miami Herald.

Luisa Yanez’s piece is entitled, Miami Stadium: Field of broken dreams. ( new window ). The article discusses a new documentary on Miami Stadium entitled White Elephant ( new window ).

Article excerpts:

…Cuban millionaire José Manuel Alemán believed that building a new stadium in 1950s Miami would lure major-league baseball to the city. And he was willing to stake his personal fortune on it.”

Alemán was dead wrong….

''…Miami Stadium was a total folly,'' said Rolando Llanes, a local architect who spent a decade obsessed with the stadium's history and who teamed up with local filmmakers and producers Joe Cardona, Mario De Varona, John Graham and Gabriel Mena to chronicle its demise….

''The story of the stadium,'' said Llanes, ``transcends baseball.''

…The story begins in 1947, when the St. Louis Browns, who played spring training ball at the long-gone Miami Field next to the Orange Bowl, made a familiar threat: Build us a better ballpark or we're leaving.

The city said no, but the Browns' demand sparked an idea with José Manuel Alemán and his Miami business partners. Why not build a stadium to turn the then-sleepy winter resort city into a spring training mecca and eventually a major league hub? With Cuba so close, they felt they had built-in competition and fans.

'There was a sort of `if they build it, they will come' mentality at work, which can still be found today. These guys were dreamers, and Miami has always attracted dreamers,'' Llanes said.

The stadium was to be the jewel in the Alemán family's Miami real estate holdings, which included Cape Florida, now Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park; a home in the 4000 block of exclusive Pine Tree Drive; and the well-known McAllister Hotel in downtown Miami….

…The deal also included architectural drawings for a new stadium, a structure with a Broadway theater-like marquee and a cantilever roof which helped provide a rare, unobstructed view and shade for spectators.

Within nine months, the $2.2 million behemoth concrete and steel stadium rose on the corner of Northwest 10th Avenue and 23rd Street, near the railroad tracks.

Inside, the grandstand was meant to be a crowd pleaser, with luxurious lounges for club and reserved seat customers. It featured an 80-foot high elevator tower to the press box. Its signature feature: a 10-foot neon sign that flashed ``Miami Stadium.''

On opening night Aug. 31, 1949, the Sun Sox played against the Havana Cubans. ''The greatest single event in local baseball history is scheduled for tonight,'' that day's Miami Herald declared.

Typical of Miami fans, they bought up 13,007 tickets, deceiving owners into thinking they would always be there….

…The stadium never again attracted such a large crowd. Alemán's ambitious project would soon lose steam.

Fans, too, were losing interest in the Sox. One game attracted only 300 spectators. The team folded in 1954.

Alemán, then 25, wanting to be rid of his white elephant, sold it to the city of Miami in 1958 for $850,000 -- and it became the city's headache for the next 43 years.

He made news one last time. It was a Sunday morning in July 1983. He opened fire with a 9mm pistol inside the family's modest Miami home near Little Havana. He shot four relatives, killing his elderly aunt. He then turned the gun on himself.

He was 51.

Copyright 2007 Miami Herald Media Co.
All Rights Reserved

Of course smart business persons did learn something very important from Cuban millionaire José Manuel Alemán who staked his personal fortune on this debacle:

First, start with a sales and marketing report full of empty promises disavowed in fine print disclaimers.
Next, sell these the emperor’s new clothes promises to a gullible, starry-eyed public.
Frequently repeat how charitable the organization is. (Don't worry no one will compare you to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or Ted Turner.)
Be bold, the media rarely will investigate, too much at stake.
Pocket the profits while taxpayers foot the bill.

Go to the Herald and read the full story. Go to White Elephant Documentary web site and learn more.

Thanks for reading. Thanks for being involved.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Carolina Properties revisited

2007-05-10T13:14:00.000-04:00

In Parrramore land is polluted ( new window ) I was concerned that someone was not looking out for the taxpayer’s interest.

Soon after I sent the piece, I got an email from the City’s CFO Ms. Sutton informing me that the clean-up was budgeted for.

I also got some comments posted by Ms. Mayanne Downs:

Dear Sir:

First of all, thanks for the opportunity to respond to your statements. I can see that you are investing a substantial amount of time and energy into these issues, and that they are important to you.

I am the City Attorney for Orlando, and was very surprised to see your email labeling the City (and by extension me) "incompetent" in connection with the closing of the Carolina Properties site.

I (and others) recommended that the City proceed to close the Carolina Properties contract to acquire the land that is the subject of your post. We engaged in extensive due diligence, and to say that we did not, and that we are "incompetent," particularly when you do not have the facts to support that statement, suggests both bias and a lack of understanding.

Perhaps I'm wrong and you have extensive background and personal/professional experience with such transactions. I'd be surprised if that was the case, however, as we had more than adequate: (a) time to evaluate this transaction; (b) information about the environmental issues; (c) opportunity to become fully informed about our options going forward; (d) value to support proceeding to closing; and (e) analysis and vetting of all the open issues.

With kindest regards, I am

Very truly yours,

Mayanne Downs
Mayanne Downs 05.07.07 - 11:29 am #

Ms. Downs' comments started an email exchange between us. I asked her a question concerning eminent domain and the Carolina Properties site. I did not understand why that method was not used versus paying whatever someone wanted for something elected officials deemed they had to have. Ms. Downs agreed to allow me to post the information in her email:

As you know, a taker exercising eminent domain power must pay "just compensation" (under the Florida Constitution). That includes not only the fair market value of the property, but also attorneys' fees, and costs, including the costs of experts. I have practiced in the area of eminent domain for a number of years (but for the landowner of course since I was in private practice). The cost of attorneys' fees and expert fees and costs have the potential to be very sub'l in a case like this.

But the reason we proceeded ahead was that we felt certain ---- and vetted this thru not only our Planning team but also our real estate acquisition team (including our lawyers in house for the city, like Roy Payne, who has been doing eminent domain for the city for a number of years) --- that we could get the property cheaper by buying it outright rather than instituting eminent domain proceedings. Not only was the purchase price a good one, but we didn't have to pay attys' fees, expert fees and costs of an eminent domain proceeding, and take the risk that we'd have to pay millions in "just compensation." We also believed (and still believe) that if the arena deal isn't approved, we will have made a good investment.

BTW, we would've had the clean-up costs regardless, as the liability runs with the land.

Thanks for asking, and for your courtesy.

I appreciate her taking the time to inform me about the City’s side of the issue. She is an avid supporter of the Venues adding to that statement in one email, “I want my community to be the best it can be.”

I too, want our community to be the best it can be. That is the debate. When looking at the Community Venues, is some of the above, all of the above or none of the above the best way to get there?

Thanks for reading. Thanks for being involved.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Orlando Weekly story

2007-05-10T12:44:00.000-04:00

Jeff Billman did a story on the blog in the May 10 – 16 issue of the Orlando Weekly. See BLOG AGAINST THE MACHINE ( new window )

There is a correction for the print edition. I have never been employed by any county. I worked for two nonprofits with "Osceola County" in their names but they were private nonprofits. Neither was a government entity.

I should have known this is a potential stumbling block because it happened so often in the past. People hear the word “county” in an organization’s name and assume it is associated with government. It is a common mistake. I apologize for not making that fact clear to Mr. Billman.

Hopefully, Mr. Billman helps readers understand my goal and role. The purpose of the blog is to provide links to information so that citizens can decide for themselves.

Thanks for reading; thanks for being involved.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Community Venues & the Sentinel

2007-05-09T14:48:00.000-04:00

I sent this email to elected officials. It is public record.
================

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Community Venues & the Sentinel

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

Some of you have been on the receiving end of several Sentinel editorials concerning the venues. I and others in the community have copies of correspondence from Mr. Griffin stating that the Editorial Board is arguing from a quality of life perspective.

So, on the forum I asked Mr. Griffith to explain the Board’s position, specifically concerning quality of life. See: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_opinion_positionpage/2007/04/its_time_to_bui.html#comment-68391406

Mr. Griffin’s response begins,

“Gee, Ray, I've never been asked to explain the value of having fun and enjoying life, but I'll try.” The entire post is here: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_opinion_positionpage/2007/04/its_time_to_bui.html#comment-68407808

My rebuttal is here: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_opinion_positionpage/2007/04/its_time_to_bui.html#comment-68726134

So, the next time commissioners are skewered by the Sentinel at least you know why they are so Gung Ho on spending $1 billion plus on building the venues. How can you look yourself in the mirror being fully aware that you have the audacity to inconvenience the pursuit of the Board’s and their cohorts’ personal sense of what is fun?

Thank you for taking the time to fully investigate and understand this complex issue. I am glad there is backbone to withstand so much spin, self-interest and misinformation.

Full Forum thread: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_opinion_positionpage/2007/04/its_time_to_bui.html#comment-68407808

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Use of tourist taxes

2007-05-08T18:00:00.000-04:00

I sent the below to Orange County Comptroller Martha Haynie and other elected officials. It is public record.

==============

Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:23 PM
Subject: Tourist taxes

Ms. Haynie:

Thank you and everyone in your office for your hard work leading up to, and including last night’s presentation. However, I have questions that remain unanswered:

1) Can current uses of tourist tax funds be re-allocated/ assigned? If so, what is required to make a change?

If I understand correctly one-half of the sixth cent is tagged for advertising. The other half will be for the venues/ Events Center.

2) Is it possible to assign the entire sixth cent to advertising/ promotion of tourism?

Apparently, since it was highlighted, it appears that a portion of cents one through four is now being used to promote and advertise tourism.

3) How much is currently used in cents one through four for advertising/ promote tourism?

4) Could that portion of cents one through four be reallocated to cent six? If so, that frees up funds in cents one through four that are less restricted by Statute.

If the amount of funds used for advertising is less than a full half-cent in cents one though four, could some cents one though four marked for the convention bureau and tourist bureau be earmarked for solely advertising?

The short is: can funds be reallocated so that cent six only pays for tourist advertising and promotion? If so, is it possible to free-up a half-cent in cents one though four to pay for the PAC or other less restricted capital projects?

Thank you for your time and consideration in answering these questions. Again, I appreciate your excellent presentation.

Also see Ms. Haynie’s 05/07/07 presentation (pdf) ( new window ) This file may be subject to being moved/ replaced. If link is broken Try Here ( new window )

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Commissioner Jacobs' post-meeting email

2007-05-08T16:20:00.000-04:00

I sent the below to Commissioner Jacobs and other elected officials. It is public record.
==============

Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: Thank you

Commissioner Jacobs:

Thank you for holding last night's public hearing. I am gratefully that you allowed the public to voice opinions and concerns.

I slipped-out about 10:45 fearing my car would get locked-in. However, I learned while leaving that the garage would be left open late. I am sorry I did not stay until the end.

My concerns remain unabated. First, can anyone explain the rationale behind using a sales and marketing report as the financial justification for a billion dollars of re-development projects? It is well known in economic outcome research that promises made in such reports are never achieved. This is "settled" economic fact. There is no debate.

Moreover, a disclaimer stating the dubiousness of achievability is clearly evident in the MOEDC report. I believe the MOEDC Economic Impact Report misleads the public versus informing them. Frankly, it troubles me that proponents jump to correct "factual errors" yet, are still allowed to quote from this discredited report as if it were gospel.

Next, I am not aware if all options were discussed in the planning stages. For example it appears the region could build a zoo or a museum using tourist taxes. While the venues have many supporters, is it clear which would serve the greatest number or residents or provide the greatest good to the community? Would the community prosper with say, a PAC and a zoo or a museum? Did anyone consider partnering with UCF and its new stadium as a Citrus Bowl replacement? I heard a lot of people do not want to drive to Tampa or Miami for a concert. Yet, is it good public policy to compete with other cities to see who can build the biggest money losing ventures? Is it a sound public policy business model to mimic? Or is it wiser to differentiate, bolstering strengths to create metropolitan individuality? What project(s) produces the greatest good for the greatest number at an affordable cost?

Last, I am still searching for evidence that this is a cogent re-development plan. I was very interested in Mr. Brook's neighbor's comments concerning Parramore.

The outcome literature I have reviewed reveals that using public works projects such as the venues have a high re-vitalization failure rate in metro areas around the country. Moreover, it is well known that IF these venues fail to produce results promised, it will doom the city for 20 or more years.

It would seem prudent to invest in an impartial, academic, urban economist with stature to review the viability of these projects. I have no idea as to cost but it would seem minimal compared to the capital expenditure involved.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns. I am grateful that the process has slowed and is allowing several serious issues to be addressed.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

05/07/07 Public comments

2007-05-07T00:11:00.000-04:00

Below is a copy of the comments I made at the meeting. However, I was nervous so the actual record on videotape may differ than the prepared comments!

Some snickered when I stated that it is against the law to lie to Congress. The reason I stated that fact is to point out Professor Humphreys’ testimony should be stipulated as fact versus anecdotal. It is part of the US Congress' public record.

=============

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I am grateful to Commissioner Jacobs for having this meeting and allowing me to speak. My name is Ray Kockentiet I am semiretired. I want to share some information with you about tourist taxes, competition for entertainment dollars and finally economic development reports.

First, let’s look at tourist taxes. According to today’s Sentinel, tourist taxes will cover roughly 51% of the venues cost. Economies grow on new money. Tourists bring "new" money into the economy. Tourist taxes take "new" money out of the economy. Every dollar taken from a tourist’s wallet is one less dollar that could be spent in our local economy. This is actually siphoning fuel from the region’s economic engine.

Next, let’s look at entertainment dollars. The proposed Community Venues will thrive on entertainment dollars already in local residents’ pockets. For example, going to a Magic game spends “entertainment dollars.”

Yet, other local businesses compete for these same entertainment dollars. But unlike these venues, those businesses pay property taxes. Virtually all operate their business model without public welfare. Why are the Venues operators entitled to this special treatment?

Next, there are two kinds of economic development reports. The first is performed by sales and marketing specialists. They are selling promises, birds in the bush, if you will. In fact, since 1990 approximately $15 billion in inflation adjusted public dollars has been spent on sports facilities.

However, all sales and marketing reports have disclaimers. The cover letter for the Economic Impact Analysis for our Proposed Community Venues states, “...All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct….” The fine print shouts, “Buyer beware.”

The second type of economic development report is outcome research. Birds in the hand, if you will. Some outcome studies show that the presence of pro sports teams actually reduced wages for the entire metro area.

One researcher is Dr. Brad Humphreys. Professor Humphreys is an Associate Professor in the Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Professor Humphreys is an economist and serves on the editorial boards of three sport-related journals, Sport Management Review, and the International Journal of Sport Finance and the International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing.

Dr. Humphries recently testified before Congress. It is against the law to lie to Congress. Professor Humphreys testified:

“It is often said that economists cannot reach a consensus on matters of economic policy. While this might be accurate in areas like tax policy or international trade policy, it is clearly not the case when assessing the economic impact of professional sports facilities. There currently exists a large body of evidence published in peer-reviewed academic journals concluding that professional sports facilities and franchises have no positive tangible economic impact on income, earnings, employment, and tax revenues in American cities. This literature has examined regular season and postseason sporting events in all of the major North American professional sports leagues, as well as special events like All-star games and the Super Bowl. The research supporting this consensus examined economic performance in every U.S. city that hosted a professional sports team over the past thirty years”

As you learn about the venues, are you curious as to why this impartial, outcome information was hidden from the public? This isn’t new research. These facts have been reported in academic journals for nearly 10 years.

Dr Humphreys also testified:

“Professional sports facilities and franchises cannot be used to revitalize the economy in American cities. Subsidies for the construction and operation of professional sports facilities cannot be viewed as a viable economic revitalization strategy for our cities. Dozens of papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals support this consensus conclusion. “

Yet, economic revitalization is the rationale for using CRA funds. Is this a careful, well thought-out urban redevelopment plan? Or did a group of well-connect insiders gather and decide how to market and sell what they wanted?

We have covered tourist taxes and found someone siphoning fuel for personal gain. We have looked at entertainment dollars and found someone who wants to rig the game to compete unfairly. We have looked at economic development reports and found half-truths and empty promises were substituted for facts.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are left with many questions. What other half-truths and spin are in this plan? If these venues were such great investments, then why doesn’t the free market, private sector build them just like malls, theme parks and office towers?

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, our mayors have stood on the sidelines and allowed the public to be mislead concerning tourist taxes, entertainment dollars, CRA funds and economic impact. Based on that fact, I suggest the mayors need to allow voters to decide this issue.

This is your community. These venues will affect you children and grandchildren. Please educate yourself about the Community Venues. Thank you.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

NBA Playoff a bust in Vegas

2007-05-06T21:46:00.000-04:00

Well not everybody believes NBA playoff games meet the spin projections of promoters. I think I need to forward this to a few locals pushing for a playoff series in Orlando if the Magic get an new arena.

May 03, 2007

MGM Mirage 1Q profit misses expectations; CEO blasts NBA
By RYAN NAKASHIMA AP Business Writer

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Casino operator MGM Mirage Inc. said Thursday its first-quarter profit climbed 17 percent on strong non-gambling revenues in Las Vegas and its new Beau Rivage resort in Mississippi, but weaker casino results caused it to miss Wall Street estimates and its shares slid more than 4 percent.

Net income rose to $168.2 million, or 57 cents per share, for the three months ended March 31 compared with $144 million, or 49 cents per share, a year ago.

Earnings from continuing operations were $163 million, or 55 cents per share, up from $139.9 million, or 48 cents per share, a year ago.

Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, expected earnings of 63 cents per share.

Quarterly revenue after promotional allowances climbed 9 percent to $1.93 billion from $1.77 billion in the previous year, but missed analyst expectations of $1.95 billion.

Shares of MGM Mirage fell $2.94, or 4.3 percent, to close at $65.38. In after-hours trading, shares gained back $1.57, or 2.4 percent, to $66.95.

"Las Vegas Strip gaming revenue was below expectations," said analyst Robert LaFleur of Susquehanna Financial Group in a research note. "The results could raise concerns about property trends on the Las Vegas Strip."

The company said the NBA All-Star game in February, which fell on the same weekend as Chinese New Year, had a detrimental effect on normally higher table games revenue in Las Vegas.

Casino revenues grew 4 percent to $811.9 million for the quarter, but excluding Beau Rivage which opened in August, they slipped 6 percent, and table game revenue, including the baccarat game that many Asian players favor, slipped 7 percent.

During the All-Star game weekend there was a spike in arrests and complaints about rowdy behavior. Five people were shot during the weekend, including three outside a Las Vegas strip club. Tennessee Titans cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones and two friends are being investigated for their roles in an earlier brawl at the same venue.

"The gang-bangers and others who came for purposes other than attending the game, they weren't very good for Las Vegas," chief executive Terry Lanni told The Associated Press.

Instead of gambling, many people stayed in their hotel rooms, Lanni said.

Lanni said the weekend soured the company's support for bringing an NBA team to Las Vegas, a move under consideration by commissioner David Stern.

"Mr. Stern can keep his basketball franchises out of Las Vegas as far as I'm concerned," Lanni said.

Later, Lanni backed away from the comments. His complaints were "only meant to refer to the All-Star game," and not the possibility of having an NBA franchise in Las Vegas, said spokesman Alan Feldman.

Lanni said the company fared worse than competitors with operations in Macau during the important Chinese New Year, as it was less able to attract high-rolling customers from China. MGM plans to open its 50-50 joint venture casino in Macau, the $1.1 billion MGM Grand Macau, later this year.

"We'll be on a level playing field at the end of the year," he said.

Slot revenues were down about 3 percent excluding results from Beau Rivage. The company blamed remodeling of rooms at Mandalay Bay and Excalibur in Las Vegas, which decreased room nights by about 98,000, or 3 percent of the total, during the quarter.

The company said Las Vegas Strip revenue increased to $1.63 billion from $1.57 billion, thanks to the continued impact of new restaurants, nightclubs and shows at several resorts. Mississippi revenue surged to $142.5 million from $40.9 million.

It also said sales of condos was proceeding at its $7.4 billion CityCenter casino complex under construction on the Las Vegas Strip, which is set to open in late 2009.

MGM Mirage said it completed about $1.1 billion in condo sales on expected total sales of $2.7 billion just four months into an expected 30-month sales cycle.

MGM Mirage is the second biggest casino company in the world by revenue and runs 19 properties in Nevada, Mississippi and Michigan, and has investments in three properties in Nevada, New Jersey and Illinois.
---
On the Net: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2007/may/03/050310280.html

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Sentinel Editorial: 05.05.07

2007-05-05T17:37:00.000-04:00

RE: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed05307may05,0,1320957.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

More spin from the Sentinel.

I have sent links to reams of information on peer-reviewed, economic impact outcome research, yet it is ignored. There is no dispute among economists on this issue. This topic is just as settled as cigarette smoking and physiological harm.

An analogy is perhaps from the pharmaceutical industry. The Sentinel prefers to promote what the drug company says. Outside, independent researchers, MD’s and others are stonewalled.

For example:

Abstract
This paper examines issues related to the economic impact of sports championships on the local economy of host cities. While boosters frequently claim a large positive effect of such championships, a closer examination leads to the conclusion that the impact is likely much smaller than touted and may even be negative. "The Paradox of Championships: Be Careful What You Wish For, Sports Fans, by Matheson & Baade (2005) http://www.holycross.edu/departments/economics/RePEc/Matheson_Paradox.pdf

The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Code of Ethics (Revised 2006) http://www.orlandosentinel.com/about/orl-ethicspolicy-080106,0,7234165.htmlstory isn’t worth the electrons sacrificed to display on one’s monitor.

“Journalists' obligation to serve the public by pursuing and reporting the truth independently is more than a lofty principle – it is the very foundation of our daily work. Our success as a news organization depends absolutely on our credibility, which we maintain by gathering and presenting the news vigorously; by making decisions that are as free as possible of influence from self-interest or special interests; and by conducting ourselves in ways that earn the trust of our community.

This Editorial Code of Ethics for the Orlando Sentinel, incorporating Tribune Publishing's Code of Editorial Principles, can help to safeguard our credibility. It applies to all Editorial staff members, including those in administrative or clerical roles. By following its guidelines and openly discussing ethical issues as they emerge, each of us can take responsibility for protecting the Sentinel's reputation as a reliable and trustworthy source of information.”

Sorry, Sentinel Editorial Board, you have no credibility. You sold it for a skybox seat and for your sports section staff.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

05.04.07 Sentinel editorial

2007-05-04T12:31:00.000-04:00

I sent the following email to elected officials concerning a Sentinel editorial. It is public record.
===========

RE: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed04107may04,0,7617010.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

Commissioner Fernandez and Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

The Sentinel editorial states, “Ms. Fernandez sees herself as the taxpayer's protector, but she's smart enough to know the taxpayers who'll pay for this arena are tourists from all over the world, not locals.”

Kudos to Ms. Fernandez, one should never be ashamed of giving a voice to the voiceless and upholding core American values. Taxes are ideally raised for the general welfare. Taxing persons without a say is Taxation without Representation.

I have an ethical filter/ bias for this. It is called the Golden Rule. You know, do unto others as you would have done unto you. Taxing people without their approval to benefit myself cannot fit through my filter. Such taxes, in my opinion need to benefit the tourists or offset the costs of having them as guests.

I am not implying it is immoral or unethical; however, I personally cannot get it through my ethics filter. To support it would be a rationalization for me.

The editorial continues, “That's the important thing to remember: Orange County residents will get a new arena at virtually no cost to them.”

Free money -- hopefully, readers are not that naive. Raising tourist taxes drains fuel from the local economic engine. Every dollar taken from a tourist’s wallet means one less dollar that could be spent in our local economy. That means less money for local businesses. Many local businesses compete with the Magic for the same entertainment dollars in local resident’s pockets. But unlike the Magic those businesses don’t get subsidies and those businesses pay property taxes!

Add to that some economic outcome studies demonstrate that the presence of a pro sports franchise in a metro area decreases wages for the ENTIRE metro area. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2479 That is hardly, “no cost.”

The Board adds, “Oh, and the meeting was hijacked by scripted opponents led by political pariah Doug Guetzloe. Surely Ms. Fernandez isn't playing to that sad crowd.”

Mr. Guetzloe is a lightening rod, to say the very least. Yet, when one cannot rebut an argument factually then by all means taint the opposition and shoot the messenger.

The editorial adds, “…plus $10 million to construction of a performing-arts center.”

Is that Magic money guaranteed? If OPAC went forward but the Events Center was put on hold will the Magic still contribute $10 million?

The Board writes, “Critics never mention that the Magic would surrender profits that pro teams in other cities get to keep. The Magic would pay millions to Orlando from the sale of tickets to concerts and other events. Orlando would also share in concessions and naming rights.”

If the Magic’s rights to all revenue streams are LIMITED to the roughly 25% occupancy rate, then this is indeed a fair deal. Remember “what other teams pay” is at best an inflated sticker price. This is not a free market pricing arrangement. The supply is restricted and the value is based on hype and PR spin.

The Board adds, “Finally, the Magic have agreed to pay for any cost overruns in building the arena ….that's no small commitment.”

At last, a grain of truth.

The Board continues, “…Orlando is losing concerts to newer, more profitable arenas in Tampa and Miami.”

Concerts are put on schedules with only so many stops. While driving to Tampa or Miami may be an inconvenience it is not a hardship for the majority of the community. It affects a tiny segment of the regions nearly 2 million residents and 50 million visitors.

I also note that people drive and fly to Orlando to see Cirque Du Soleil, visit theme parks, come to the Fringe Festival and attend a convention.

The editorial concludes, “… all of Central Florida would benefit from a new arena, not just the Magic.”

I am not convinced that is true when subjected to the full light of day. A community identifies its core strengths and embellishes them. It avoids competing in money losing ventures to satisfy the entitlement whims of a few.

Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns. Just because someone can buy paper and ink in railroad car lots does not indicate they have a corner on the truth.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

New Pro-venue Magic web site

2007-05-03T15:38:00.000-04:00

Apparently there is a new web site OrlandoCommunityVenues.com ( new window ) for supporters to go sign an online petition in support.

“Bill” posted information on Mike Thomas’ blog ( new window ) According to Bill the site is owned by the Magic.

I copied the information Bill posted below:

Here's the registration info:
Registrant:
Orlando Magic
8701 Maitland Summit Boulevard
Orlando, Florida 32810
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: ORLANDOCOMMUNITYVENUES.COM
Created on: 30-Apr-07
Expires on: 30-Apr-09
Last Updated on:

Administrative Contact:
Gardner, Matthew mgardner@orlandomagic.com
Orlando Magic
8701 Maitland Summit Boulevard
Orlando, Florida 32810
United States
4079162834 Fax -- 4079162830

Technical Contact:
Gardner, Matthew mgardner@orlandomagic.com
Orlando Magic
8701 Maitland Summit Boulevard
Orlando, Florida 32810
United States
4079162834 Fax -- 4079162830

Domain servers in listed order:
NS47.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS48.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

The price of a trophy spouse

2007-05-03T14:14:00.000-04:00

This is the text of an email sent to public officials. It is public record.
=========

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

As Commissioner Fernandez steps bravely to the fore asking the Magic to put up $100 million, the Magic retort with what peer markets give. I like analogies. Analogies can sometimes help me put things in perspective.

When Orlando courted the Magic, the Magic demanded a new arena as a dowry. The Magic as a spouse was going to put this town on the big league map. The City dazzled by beauty, charm and bragging rights for possessing a “trophy spouse” succumbed. No one really felt the need to discuss that the City’s father-in-law in this upcoming marriage was enormously wealthy and politically, very well-connected.

Things went along well for awhile. The couple seemed to be fine. There were a few happy celebrations in the early years.

But eventually a steady stream of complaints began. The marriage was in trouble. On lookers overheard, “You don’t love me or you would buy me a new house.” “My peer spouses have had their significant others buy them new places; I am ashamed.”

Then came the threats, “if you don’t buy me a new house I am leaving you for City X.” And I’ll take the kids with me, too.” Eventually a compromise was reached and the redecorators were called in. However, the grumblings did not subside for long.

Once again, the rocky relationship was showing signs of strain. “You married me and you have to support the kids and I in the lifestyle to which we are accustomed,” was the clear message. “If not, I’ll get a divorce,“ was communicated without words.

Onlookers overheard the couple squabbling, “When I married you, you were a nobody.” “Look at all that I have done for you.” “I put you on the big league map.” “I made you a “world-class” city.” “Don’t you even dare mention the kids’ allowances; they have to keep up with their friends.” “Our house is so shabby.” “It is absolutely one of the worst compared to our peers.” “How can I entertain in this dump?” “I am so ashamed that you cannot be a good provider.” “If you loved me you would buy me the things that I want.”

Any attempt to suggest that some of the father-in-law’s money could be used to help build a new house, particularly since he would benefit too, was doomed. It was agreed that a small sum could be kicked-in out of the couple’s savings, but the refrain, “this is how much other cities value their spouses” was the broken record reply.

Convinced that the City’s social status and worth demanded a trophy spouse, a deal was rationalized to use mostly other peoples’ money to pay for the new house. Best of all these people had no choice but to pay. Even better, they could not vote on the issue. Moreover, lobbyists in Tallahassee had ensured that it was "legal."

This was going to be an “easy sell.” Just put together the usual economic development spin report with sufficient caveats. Just overlook that for 10 years it had been known in the hard economic, outcome research that what was in sales and marketing reports such as these never came to fruition.

Next, assume that most people are not knowledgeable enough to realize that economies grown on new money. They would never figure out that siphoning new money out of the economy actually hurts many local businesses. To top it off the most entitled generation is at the helm. Tell the boomers they are entitled to something; someone else is footing the bill and we have a slam dunk.

Fortunately members of the extended family are stepping in. They can clearly see the City is not in a mutually beneficial or peer-peer relationship. Thank you Commissioner Fernandez I know that you are not alone.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Parrramore land is polluted

2007-05-02T13:52:00.000-04:00

The Sentinel reports today Pollution taints arena site -- cleanup could cost $1M ( new window ) in a report by Mark Schlueb and David Damron. I am not surprised.
The Orlando Weekly had a blurb on it last week ( new window )

Incompetence permeating administrations throughout the nation is becoming the norm. Due diligence is passé. Why should Orlando be any different?

As I have often pointed-out in emails, it has been well-known for roughly 10 years in the academic, peer-reviewed, economic literature that pro sports do not produce economic benefits. This was even reported locally in the media by Channel 6 in February, 2001: Study: Orlando Magic Little Help To Economy ( new window ).

Yet, persons within the Dyer and Crotty Administrations failed to see something in plain sight. Instead of informing taxpayers, some apparently chose instead to spin a yarn. If the CEO of any corporation had staked his/her reputation on the MOEDC report, heads would roll. I further believe that all funding to that organization would be immediately terminated and lawsuits would be filed seeking re-imbursement.

A community re-development project requires enormous expenditures of political capital. A community re-development project cannot be based on half-truths, PR spin and steeped in incompetence. In my opinion, this sounds another death knell in what is clearly becoming evident as an ill-planed and poorly executed proposal.

If there is this much incompetence, how can anyone have faith in what is being said? Public trust has been egregiously violated. In my opinion, any elected official voting “yea” for these projects needs firm back-up to prevent charges of fiscal imprudence and abject abandon of fiduciary responsibility.

========
I sent an email to elected officials on this topic. It repeats much of what is above. Emails to elected officials in Florida are public record.

FYI: I received an email in response to this one from Orlando CFO, Ms. Sutton: “We have budgeted for this.”

05.07.07: Ms. Mayanne Downs, City Attorney for Orlando, made important comments that readers should read. I based my opinion on what I read in the Sentinel and the Orlando Weekly. Ms. Downs is much closer to the issue. See her comments below.

Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:48 PM
Subject: Community Venues contamination
RE: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/news/downtown/orl-mpollute0207may02,0,7125385.story?coll=orl-comm-downtown-utility

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

The Parramore land is contaminated. I am not surprised by this report. The Orlando Weekly had a blurb on it last week http://www.orlandoweekly.com/BLOG/default.asp?perm=489. However, this is not just another foible.

As I have often pointed-out in emails, it has been well-known for roughly 10 years in the academic, peer-reviewed, economic literature that pro sports do not produce economic benefits. This was even reported locally in the media by Channel 6 in February, 2001: http://www.local6.com/news/483823/detail.html.

Incompetence permeating elected administrations throughout the nation is becoming the norm. Due diligence is passé. Why should Orlando be any different?

Persons within the Dyer and Crotty Administrations continually fail to see things in plain sight. Instead, some chose to spin and keep an appearance of plausible deniability.

I suggest that if the CEO of any corporation had staked his/her reputation on the MOEDC report, heads would roll. I further believe that all funding to that organization would be immediately terminated and lawsuits would be filed seeking re-imbursement.

A community re-development project requires enormous expenditures of political capital. A community re-development project cannot be based on half-truths, PR spin and steeped in incompetence. In my opinion, this sounds another death knell in what is clearly becoming evident as an ill-planed and poorly executed proposal.

If there is this much incompetence, how can anyone have faith in what is being said? Public trust has been egregiously violated. In my opinion, any elected official voting “yea” for these projects will minimally need firm back-up to prevent charges of fiscal imprudence and abject abandon of fiduciary responsibility.

Sincerely yours,

Ray Kockentiet

http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/community-venues-links.html

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

The Sentinel's cheese has been moved

2007-05-02T12:23:00.000-04:00

The Sentinel announced Change is new constant for Sentinel newsroom ( new window ) in a story by Christopher Boyd today.

The Orlando Weekly BloggyTown ( new window ) has a report including a copy of the email sent by Managing Editor Charlotte Hall to staff.

I posted the following on the Topix forums associated with this story.

Growth and change are always painful. Society now more than ever needs honest brokers and dedicated individuals to seek truth and report it.

The paper is moving into a free market place where half-truths, spin and distortion often prevail. It has an opportunity to be an anchor for news consumers.

It also has an exciting opportunity to tap millions of eyes in communities that can provide tips, resources and assistance in the transformation of its business model. In my opinion the goal of a free and open press has never been this close to anyone’s grasp.

The community needs good, transparent, honest and objective providers of information. I suggest that those that choose to mange information will eventually be put in bright sunshine and wither on the electronic vine. I wish you the best of luck.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Community Venue links to public information

2007-05-01T17:59:00.000-04:00

Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 5:39 PM
Subject: Community Venue links to public information

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I recently posted several links to the City's site concerning the Community Venues. http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/community-venues-links.html The City's links have been moved to the very top of the Background / General Information section.

If anyone has informative, public, educational information on City or County websites concerning the Community Venues that they believe should be linked please advise. I will be happy to post it. The better the voters are informed the better the questions.

I fervently hope elected officials will get out in front of this issue and post all contract negotiations, meeting notes and details concerning the tentative agreement with the Magic. In this debate I suggest that complete transparency is in the community's best interest.

Thank you for you time and consideration. My goal for the website is to provide links to facilitate voter education and public dialogue. One person talking is not a conversation.

Orlando CFO, Ms. Sutton immediately responded and asked if my only interest was the Magic agreement.

I responded:

Thank you for pointing that out. I am glad you are watching the books!

Links to everything that you think will help educate the public will be graciously appreciated. Links to details on all agreements would be awesome. As you are aware the Magic is perhaps the most contentious followed by the Citrus Bowl.

I have also heard some rumblings about the public /private partnership and OPAC. Having them all would get the City and the County out in front. That is always a good place to be, in my opinion.

While I have an opinion, it is only fair to attempt to allow the public an opportunity to hear as much as they can tolerate. Educated voters make for a better community. Selling and spinning them risks creating a resentful, cynical electorate.

Again, thank you for correcting my error. I appreciate it.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

The dog ate my Topix post

2007-04-30T21:10:00.000-04:00

As some are aware, I have had numerous posts deleted on the Sentinel’s Topix Forums. This could have been a “bot” or a Spam Guard or any number or reasons. However, to date I still do not know what the Sentinel’s policy is concerning deleting posts.

As of late I have NOT had any problems.

I fully support the highest standards concerning verifying information, fairness, balance, etc. for the print and electronic editions. However, in the electronic medium where news consumers live I cannot tolerate managed news.

One person's editor is another's censor. On some threads I have seen as many as 20 posts deleted. Why?

Let me boil this down to one point: we have a national election coming up. Are readers comfortable with someone sitting at any electronic forum run by any newspaper company with an at-will delete key?

More information is in an electronic dialogue Topix Forum ( new window )

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Sentinel Editorial: Seize opportunity

2007-04-29T11:02:00.000-04:00

4/28/07 Sentinel editorial: Seize opportunity ( new window )

The editorial states:

...Opponents hijacked a meeting organized by County Commissioner Mildred Fernandez on Thursday. Not only did Ms. Fernandez allow these opponents to dominate the session, she reduced the time allotted for presentations about the arena and performing-arts center. Officials could not clarify inaccurate information spread by some speakers. How does that happen at a meeting that's supposed to educate the public? ...

The Sentinel Board will not discuss the inaccurate information being spun by promoters. For example, from Project Hometown one can view the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission report on the venues: MOEDC Economic Impact Study ( new window ) [Adobe Reader required]

On page two in paragraph two of the cover letter from CSL to Charlie Sloan:

..All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose....

Is democracy sloppy? Do tempers and emotions at times overcome the voice of reason? Of course.

However, residents are facing a sales and marketing spin campaign that is funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Despite sending tombs of evidence indicating pro sports do not have any economic development promoters still quote from the above report unchallenged. This is a well-funded disciplined message.

I have sent links and numerous emails to the editorial and news side linking hard, peer-reviewed economic data. The response from Mr. Griffin was they are not arguing economic benefits but quality of life.

When several peer-reviewed studies indicate wages are lower for entire metro areas that have pro sports how can a board argue in good faith that lowering wages improves quality of life?

The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states:

Today's code instructs journalists to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently and be accountable. SPJ Code of Ethics ( new window )

I’ll let readers decide if the Board is living up to that goal.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Email from Dr. Sutton

2007-04-28T13:54:00.000-04:00

Dr. Sutton was at Commissioner Moore’s Town Hall Meeting ( new window ). Dr. Sutton's bio is here ( new window ). He stuck me as a nice, polite, affable gentleman. He appears passionate about sports.

I emailed Dr. Sutton the day after the meeting. A copy of that email is below. However, the email that was forwarded to me contained a different email address for Dr. Sutton. So the original may never have gotten to him. However, it also was not returned as undeliverable to me.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Kockentiet
To: wsutton@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu
Cc: Byron W Brooks, A.I.C.P ; Tiffany Moore
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:32 PM
Subject: It was nice to meet you

Professor Sutton:

It was nice to meet you last night. I posted my version of the events on my blog: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/commissioner-moores-town-hall-meeting.html.

I welcome any research you have on this topic. However, it is expected that any such research is after the fact, outcome related and capable of withstanding peer review by economists. I believe that the study by the MOEDC is a sufficient example from sales and marketing researchers and consultants.

Over the years there have been many NBA play-off games. Given your claim last night, if I heard correctly roughly $300 million from an NBA play-off, I am sure that you have post-event research from economists fact that can verify such information. If you do, I would love to post it.

Again, it was a pleasure to meet you. I look forward to getting copies of peer-reviewed, after the fact economic research to support your claims.

Sincerely,

Ray Kockentiet

bcc

I never received a response. However, another member in the community forwarded an email they recieved from Dr. Sutton to me on 4/26:

Here are some files containing some of the information I promised – you can access even more with a lexis-nexus search. I hope that you find this information helpful. I would also suggest that you contact Dr.
Daniel Rasher at the university of San Francisco who specializes in economic impact research (academic and consulting)

Also - I lost the email (and he did not give me his name) of the gentleman that has the blog spot and was interacting with me during the town meeting - if you know his name or have information about how I can
contact him - (I was unable to access his blog) please forward me that information.

Sincerely,

Bill

William A. Sutton, Ed.D.,
DeVos Sport Business Program
University of Central Florida

Dr. Sutton attached four items. Two were already on the blog.

However the version I posted may have been older than the one he supplied so I posted it, too. International Association of Sports Economists Working Paper 06 -10 ( new window ) However, the report's conclusion of reductions in sales tax revenue does not seem to bolster Dr. Sutton’s case.

A second study was also posted as a link on the blog nearly since day 1. It is Rappaport, Jordan and Wilkerson (Adobe required) "What Are the Benefits of Hosting a Major League Sports Franchise?" Published in Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City), First Quarter 2001, p. 55-86.

This is more of an informed opinion piece than an economic analysis. Yet, the persons are very knowledgable and have informed opinions. It is worth taking the time to read their arguments.

The third is not in the public domain. The link is: The Economics of Sports Facilities and Their Communities by John Siegfried, Andrew Zimbalist. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Summer, 2000), pp. 95-114 ( new window ).

However, when searching for a public domain copy I was able to find a Q & A. SPORTS AND ECONOMICS A Conversation With Andrew Zimbalist ( new window )

The fourth and final was a Microsoft Word document. It appears to be the usual sales and marking stuff.

I also looked up Professor Daniel Rascher as Dr. Sutton suggested: Bio: Dan Rascher Director of Academic Programs: Sport Management ( new window ) However, his research does not appear to be in the public domain.

Professor Rascher's bio at getCited ( new window ) indicates his research interests concern those impacting the owners and industry not the tax paying public. Two examples:

Brown, Matthew; Rascher, Daniel; Ward, Wesley. (2006) The Use of Public Funds for Private Benefit: An Examination of the Relationship between Public Stadium Funding and Ticket Prices in the National Football League.

Brown, Matthew Mark NagelChad McEvoyDaniel Rascher. (2004) Revenue and Wealth Maximization in the NFL: The Impact of Stadia Journal Article in Sport Marketing Quarterly)

I emailed Dr. Sutton with a link to this page. I appreciate his time and efforts.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Reader question about Orlando Vanity Press

2007-04-28T11:15:00.000-04:00

A reader emailed me to ask: Isn't Orlando Vanity Press the name of a publishing house?

I responded:

Were you the person who came up to me after the meeting asking for my email address? If so, it was nice to meet you.

If Orlando Vanity Press is the name of a publishing house, I am not aware. A Google search did not turn it up when I registered it and I don't find it now.

I have had the site since 2004. I only posted for about two months. I took down all the old stuff and put up information on the Community Venues.

I have another blog here: http://sourdoughbaking.blogspot.com/ Also see the about this site page for that blog if interested: http://sourdoughbaking.blogspot.com/2006_10_08_archive.html#116074448872422861 I haven't posted there in months.

When I first started I also registered the name Florida Vanity Press : http://floridavanitypress.blogspot.com/ I have never posted there.

I chose the name as a sort of "fair warning." Vanity press outlets are notorious for printing anything for a fee. This is my work, my vanity if you will.

If any money is involved I am paying myself. I do not get any income from this blog.

I do not pay anything to have the blog. The ads by Blogger and Haloscan at the bottom of each page are required to use their services. They do not pay me but I do get to use their services for free as long as I put up their ads.

I am not in the league with the news and information pros. No matter where one gets his/her information I believe it is wise to verify it. If the war in Iraq, has failed to teach the public that elected officials now "sell" their ideas then I am most disappointed. It happens on every level of government.

The fair warning is: the quality, accuracy and fairness of the work by any blogger should always be verified. I am not a trained journalist. I don't have a corner on knowledge - I often just have a point of view.

Don't believe everything you read, see or hear no matter who says it. There are a lot of people in the media feeding the public fish; I am doing as best as I can to help others learn how to fish. If you go to my Research Links page you will hopefully see evidence of that.
http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/01/links-information-research-activitism.html

Frankly, the older I get the dumber I realize I am. I knew everything when I was sixteen. It has gone down hill since then.

My personal ethics require me to let people know both sides of an issue. I am trying to be an honest broker but like all people I am handicapped by human frailties. I have biases, blind spots etc.

I make an effort to give readers links to information that I believe is useful. I make every human effort to produce information on both sides of the story. I make an open invitation to Venue supporters to produce any peer-reviewed economic analysis performed by economists in the public domain that bolsters their position. I haven't gotten any yet.

I indirectly received from Dr. Sutton at UCF (http://www.bus.ucf.edu/wsutton/) four items. One is not in the public domain; I cannot read it or post it. Two have been on my Community Venues Links nearly since the beginning. The last is a sales and marketing analysis written in Microsoft Word -- more sales and marketing spin if you will. It is the same stuff as the MOEDC as far as I can determine. That is Dr. Sutton's specialty. I won't post it since after the fact evidence indicates what such studies claim never occurs.

As for background on that encounter, Dr. Sutton was my nemesis at Commissioner Moore's meeting. Elected officials effectively used him to stifle my questions and evidence. However, after the meeting I searched the web and found out that Dr. Sutton's expertise is in sports sales and marketing, not economics. I sent an email to Mr. Brooks and others pointing out that fact.

The point is if promoters send me information that is in the public domain by economists and capable of withstanding peer review I will post it. It may be out there and I have missed it. However, I think one has a better chance of finding a Unicorn. I want people to be informed and make their own decisions. It irritates me that this is a sales campaign.

The mantra is sell, market, spin and promote your plan. Half-truths repeated often enough become accepted. For example, some people still believe that Iraq and 9-11 are connected. As you know the 9-11 Commission and many, many others report they are/ were not. Yet, trying to defeat the PR machine that put that into the collective conscious is nearly impossible. Repeat anything often enough and it gets accepted as a "fact" by some.

For many elected officials voter education is too dangerous. It runs the risk that once voters know what is going on, they may disagree. However, to that I offer a quote:

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power. -- Thomas Jefferson

A very long-winded explanation. I will actually post this on the blog but refer to you only as a "reader." I hope that it answers what you were asking. If not, feel free to ask again. Thanks for asking and being involved.

Regards,

Ray

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Questions for Commissioner Fernandez

2007-04-27T16:45:00.000-04:00

Mr. Gonzalez is an aide to Commissioner Fernandez. At the meeting, he asked me to forward my questions by email. This is public record. {I am falling behind. The posting date and time are closer to the time it was actually emailed than the date it was posted.}
=================
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 4:45 PM
Subject: Community Venues questions

Mr. Gonzalez:

It was a pleasure to meet you last night. As you suggested I am forwarding my series of questions via this email. I have copied others as an FYI. However, I believe that answers to these questions may be of interest to them, too.

I know these will take some time to get answered. I am most grateful that Commissioner Fernandez is willing to seek answers for the public on this issue. In copying other elected officials I am hoping that many will support her in this effort. I sincerely believe answers to these questions are important if one is to make an informed decision.

Sincerely,

Ray Kockentiet
=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

Can the venues be separated into three projects and placed before the public in a referendum? If not, why not?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

Florida champions government in the sunshine. Can ALL the financial details concerning the Magic deal be put on the web for residents? Including all proposed contracts, meeting notes from negotiations, background on negotiators, persons in attendance in every meeting, etc. Can all the financial details and similar content of each project be put on the web? If not, why not?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

Please see the August 15, 2006, cover letter to Mr. Charlie Sloan, Executive Vice President Business Development, Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission from CSL International. On page 2 in paragraph 2 from the above:
...All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose....
Promoters have used this study to "sell" the venues and in good faith much of the public has relied upon it. Are promoters including MOEDC, the Magic, Project Hometown, Citrus Sports, etc., willing to post a performance bond guaranteeing a minimum of 90% the jobs, economic development and outcomes claimed to indemnify the public from harm? Outcome analysis must be verified after the fact by independent economists and subjected to peer review. If not, why not?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

Can promoters produce any after the fact, peer-reviewed, economic studies to support the promises that are being made concerning jobs, economic development, etc., anywhere such projects, pro sports teams or "special post season events" have occurred in the United States?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

I believe that there are after the fact economic studies where CSL did the pre-construction promotional study. How does the before and after compare? Why isn’t/ wasn't this information shared with elected officials and the public?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

Apparently, CSL does not include after the fact, performance based, peer-reviewed, economic outcome studies conducted for their projects by independent economic analysts. Without independent, peer-reviewed, after-the-fact, economic outcome research to support estimation methodology used, why did MOEDC choose CSL? Isn't that a due diligence failure on the part of MOEDC in awarding the contract?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

The MOEDC receives roughly $1,000,000 from Orange County taxpayer funds. The MOEDC gave $5,000 to Project Hometown to promote the venues. In my opinion this is a serious conflict of interest. Is the MOEDC going to be audited? Was this study a valid and prudent use of taxpayer funds? What about the $5,000 to Project Hometown? If any taxpayer funds were used for this flawed study and its promotion shouldn’t they be repaid?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

The Magic claim they will only be using the Events Center 25% of the time. If so, is their portion from revenue streams such as naming rights, concessions, parking, sky boxes, etc., limited to 25%? If not, why not. How does the Magic deal compare with the deal the Citrus Bowl had with UCF when they were a tenant of that facility?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

Economists use a tool called the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to determine the “worth/ value” to a community from certain things. Why shouldn’t the CVM be used to determine the worth to the community for each of these three projects?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

Appraisals are usually made via numerous, different methodologies. The Magic like to compare their contribution to what teams in “peer markets” give. While that is perhaps one method of estimating value, is it appropriate? Why shouldn’t the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) be used in helping determine the Magic’s true worth to the community?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

Can Mr. Brooks or anyone else produce any peer-reviewed economic reports where this renaissance of downtown strategy was employed indicating outcomes? Have Mr. Brooks and others reviewed outcomes from the Gateway Project in Cleveland, Harbor Place in Baltimore and projects in St. Louis, Detroit and Cincinnati? Those appear to be abysmal failures. What is different? Some economists do not advise this strategy for rebuilding New Orleans after Katrina. Based on that and numerous failures in other metro areas, what guarantee do citizens have that this redevelopment effort will work?

=================
Question for Commissioner Fernandez from Ray Kockentiet:

Communities in Florida and in other states use tourist taxes for a variety of purposes. Can elected officials lobby for changes to existing legislation to include additional public safety and transportation infrastructure costs associated with 50 million visitors? If not, why not?

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Commissioner Fernandez's Meeting

2007-04-27T13:30:00.000-04:00

I sent an email to Commissioner Fernandez regarding her meeting. It is public record. {I am falling behind this post was back-dated to better correspond with the time it was sent}
====================
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 1:21 PM
Subject: Community Venues meeting

Commissioner Fernandez:

Just a short note to express my sincere appreciation for allowing the community to speak last night. As you clearly now know there are very deep and valid concerns within the electorate. From my perspective it appears that most want the venues separated into three projects and then put to a vote. Obviously, promoters and those with financial conflicts of interest do not.

However, I may just be hearing what I want to hear. Regardless, only a referendum can determine that.

As you saw, poorly organized and unfunded citizens were speaking out against a very well-funded, powerful, elaborate sales and marketing effort. The promoters’ spin campaign is full of buzz words and half-truths.

Frankly, I was troubled by the Sentinel report insinuating so much of the dissatisfaction as coming from Mr. Guetzloe’s very small group. As Commissioners Diamond and Jacobs and attendees at large can assert that was not the case.

For example, several members from County Watch, which is bi-partisan, spoke and their presence was not even mentioned in the report. Fortunately, the meeting was captured on Orange TV. That tape will enable one to obtain a more complete picture of events than any editor will grant any journalist enough copy inches to tell.

As I implied in my comments last night, people who honestly look at the MOEDC study know that the game is winning at any cost. As you are aware, I can supply empirical evidence in support of my statements: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/community-venues-links.html.

My entire statement is posted here: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-public-hearing-comments.html

Also, I have offered in emails to many before, The City of New York Independent Budget Office's report: "Double Play: The Economics And Financing Of Stadiums For The Yankees And Mets." The report was produced to, "foster public understanding of the economic and budgetary effects of the Yankees and the Mets on the city and estimates the likely fiscal impact of building or completely refurbishing a stadium for each team." Please see: http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/doubleplay.html.

I would hope such honest, factual analysis would be forthcoming by the City’s and County's financial experts as their peers in New York were capable of producing. If not, why not?

Unfortunately, I am deeply saddened that the spiritual essence of sports contained in rules, fair play, truth and honesty seem to be irrelevant in this matter. It’s win, win, win however one can.

By copy of this email I am also extending my thanks to Ms. Sutton, Mr. Billingsley, and Ms. Taub who took time to discuss the matter. I have additional questions that I shall direct to them later.

As I said to Ms. Sutton after the meeting last night, none are probably paid enough to have been the recipients of this much voter dissatisfaction. I apologize if any frustration on my part was inappropriately expressed as I know in my heart with a cooler head that they are just trying to do the best that they can.

Again, thank you for giving a platform to the average citizen. Thank you for acknowledging that it is the citizens of Florida’s government.

Finally, I wish my own Commissioner would take the time to get out of the bubble to hear her constituents’ concerns on this issue. The projects will affect the community for a generation.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

My public hearing comments

2007-04-27T12:30:00.000-04:00

Below is a copy of the comments I stated last night at Commissioner Fernandez's meeting. My actual statements should also have been captured by Orange TV just in case I went off script in nervousness.
rk

==========================
Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I am grateful to Commissioner Fernandez for having this meeting and allowing me to speak. My name is Ray Kockentiet I am semiretired. I want to share some basic information with you.

There are two kinds of economic development reports. One is performed by sales and marketing specialists and subsidy promoters "promising" something. Bird in the bush, if you will. The second is after the fact measuring what was actually delivered. Bird in the hand, if you will. There are huge differences.

All sales and marketing reports have disclaimers. Visit Project Hometown’s website. Go to the Project Overview tab. View the Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Community Venues. I quote from page 2 in paragraph 2 of the cover letter for that analysis:

...All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose....

As citizens and elected officials listen to all the jobs, economic development and promises, ask if the people making those claims are willing to post a performance bond guaranteeing say even a minimum of 90% of their claims. Of course, the results must be confirmed by independent economists and subjected to peer review.

The truth is unlike sales and marketing studies, some outcome studies show that the presence of pro sports teams actually reduced wages for the entire metro area. There is a rarely consensus among economists. Yet, economists clearly agree that no positive economic impact is derived from subsidizing pro sports.

Do not be fooled into thinking that just because a significant portion of funding is from tourist taxes it is free. Economies grow on new money. Tourists bring "new" money into the economy. Tourist taxes take "new" money out of the economy. There is no free lunch.

Proponents will say hotel taxes can only be used for certain things. As the law is written that is true. Yet those same persons will not mention that lobbyists in $1,000 suits persuaded the legislation to be written as it currently stands.

Proponents shout it is about time we got something from the tourist tax. I have a personal ethical issue with that. In my opinion, taxes are ideally raised for the general welfare. Taxing persons without a say is Taxation Without Representation. Americans fought a war over that, if you recall.

From my viewpoint if we tax visitors then the taxes should go to things that benefit those visitors. That includes paying costs directly related to having those visitors as guests in our community.

Don’t let people in $1,000 suits fool you into thinking that protecting 50 million extra people coming to our area is free. Don’t be fooled into thinking these visitors don’t clog our roads.

The game has been rigged. However, local political will voiced in Tallahassee can change that.

I have created a website concerning the venues. Search for Orlando Vanity Press under blogs at Google or your favorite search engine.

Please educate yourself about the Community Venues:

http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/community-venues-links.html

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Letter from Lou Treadway

2007-04-24T15:22:00.000-04:00

I received an email with an attached letter from Mr. Lou Treadway asking me to post it on the Blog. Mr. Treadway is a former Orange County Commission Chair who served on the Board when the current arena was under discussion and subsequently built.

I encourage you to read his letter. The thoughts and content are his and remain his intellectual property.

rk
=========================

April 24, 2007

THE FALLACY OF FUNDING PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
FACILITIES WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS

There are only two questions one must ask to determine if public financing of a new Arena and renovation of the Citrus Bowl is good use of taxpayer dollars.

1. Is it good public policy to use taxpayer dollars to fund a new Arena for the 249th richest person in the world and renovate an obsolete and irrelevant Citrus Bowl?
2. Will these facilities provide a positive economic impact on the local economy or improve the quality of life for the citizens of Orange County?

If the answers to the above questions are “NO”, then a decision by the Orange County Commission to fund the construction of these facilities with taxpayer dollars borders on fiscal irresponsibility by that body. One could excuse a decision for approval if there was no credible research/studies that debunks the claims by team owners and promoters. Studies by consultants hired by team owners and supporters that show professional sports have positive economic benefit to the community cannot stand-up when exposed to daylight.

Access links to the peer-reviewed research/studies conducted by credible researchers and economists have been provided to each Orange County Commissioner and the County Mayor. It would be safe to say they have either not done their due diligence on this issue or they have chosen to ignore the evidence.

Forget the emotional hype being voiced daily by the supporters of these two venues and the self-serving editorials in the local newspaper. Forget the Magic’s attempting to justify its monetary contribution for a new arena as comparative to other sized markets. Forget the study sponsored by the local Economic Development Commission (EDC) that has more disclaimers than the Magic have excuses for losing games. Forget the erroneous claim the two venues will be paid for by the Tourist Tax. Forget the contention by the Orlando Sentinel that the tourist tax revenues cannot be used for other purposes. None of the foregoing have any bearing on whether funding these two facilities with taxpayer dollars is good public policy.

To justify spending taxpayer dollars on a new Arena and renovating the Citrus Bowl, there should be credible evidence to show they will provide a positive economic impact to the community or be a major contributor to the enhancement of the quality of life for all Orange County citizens.

Economists seldom agree; however, they agree there is no positive economic impact derived from public financed professional sports teams. In fact, the research shows the real beneficiaries to be the owners and players. Worse, some indicate that professional sports teams in a community may be a drain on local economies.

Local advocates for the two venues tout the facilities will be funded by tourist tax dollars. This is not totally true as the City of Orlando is proposing to increase the size of the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) to help fund the renovation of the Citrus Bowl. The tax dollars collected from the CRA are property tax dollars paid by the businesses and individuals located in the CRA area.

Also the cost of the capital derived from the tourist tax is not free, as the advocates would like for you to believe. Every tax dollar collected from a tourist is a dollar out of a family’s vacation budget that will not be spent in local businesses. This means local businesses, schools, fire and police and other government services lose because if that dollar were spent in local businesses, it would go through the positive multiplier process helping to fund traditional services. Instead, those dollars are being transferred out of the local economy to benefit the Magic’s billionaire owner.

Government ownership of the two venues means no property taxes will be collected. In other words, Joe Public and local businesses must make up the shortfall that would have been paid if a private entity owned the facilities.

Some supporters contend that the two venues improve our quality of life. Yet, they offer no peer-reviewed studies or research to support their contention.

I was always taught that the quality of life in a community was directly related to the quality of its infrastructure i.e. its transportation system, its educational facilities, its fire and police etc. coupled with a vibrant local economy with higher paying employment opportunities. It would be disingenuous to suggest that these two venues would offer higher paying employment opportunities or contribute to a vibrant local economy. It should also be noted that the two venues add significantly to the police, fire and EMT burden. In a post 9/11 environment, the public safety costs for protecting large public facilities can be sobering.

Quality of life also refers to the degree to which a person’s life is desirable versus undesirable often with emphasis on external components as environmental factors and income. I wonder if those citizens living in the vicinity of the present venues believe these facilities have improved their quality of life.

Some research suggests that public funding of professional sports facilities may be justified on the basis of community pride and bragging rights. It should be noted that this is only true for those communities where their team is consistently in the top tier in the league. How many times have the Magic been in the top tier during its years of existence? Are we to have community pride in a less than mediocre team in most of the years of its existence? When have we begun to embrace mediocrity as something to be proud of?

The Citrus Bowl has become irrelevant with the new UCF stadium coming on line. Alternative uses of the Citrus Bowl site must be given serious consideration. Hopefully, this will include evaluation by credible impartial academic urban planning specialists.

It appears that our elected leaders have been misled and spun into supporting “A Dog That Won’t Hunt.”

Whether we wish to accept it or not, our local economic engine is fueled by tourism. Any increase in the tourist tax should be used to not only enhance tourism but also enhance the quality of life for our citizens and visitors.

I am not opposed to a new arena for the Magic, but it is high time for our elected leaders to stop feeding billionaire sports team owners at the public trough. The message to the Magic should be: We are glad you are here and hope you will stay, but if you want a new arena, step up to the plate and pay for it yourself.

Lou Treadway
Former Orange County Commissioner

P.S. The information contained in the following websites is recommended reading on this issue.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf
http://www.brooks.edu/press/review/summer97/noll.htm
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070329144816-86227.pdf

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Educational forum or managed information?

2007-04-24T10:11:00.000-04:00

I spent considerable time over the weekend on the Sentinel’s website posting and discussing several recent Sentinel articles with other users. The forum is called Topix.

From the about Topix link: http://www.topix.net/topix/about:

Topix is the leading news community on the Web, connecting people to the information and discussions that matter to them in every U.S. town and city.

A Top 25 online news destination (Hitwise, February 2007), the site links news from 50,000 sources to 360,000 lively user-generated forums. Topix also works with the nation's major media companies to grow and engage their online audiences through forums, classifieds, publishing platforms and RSS feeds.

Based in Palo Alto, Calif., Topix LLC is a privately held company with investment from Gannett Co., Inc. (NYSE: GCI), The McClatchy Company (NYSE: MNI) and Tribune Company (NYSE: TRB)....

From the same link referenced above under the “A news community is born” section one finds:

More than 1 million people posted 5.5 million comments, adding more than 30,000 comments a day. And many of the most passionate discussions were happening at the local level.

But even with 50,000 news sources, there just wasn't enough local news - and what news there was, couldn't be tuned finely enough with algorithms alone.

So, in April 2007, we decided to open up our site, and give anyone the power to discuss, edit and share the news that matters to them.

At present, the last statement appears more myth than fact. That is, if one posts a link to share information on the web, the post will most probably be removed. I assume removal is because it is viewed as a violation of the Terms of Service under several sections listed in Section 7 including subsection v. (See: http://www.topix.net/topix/terms ). {Opps, I do apologize; I didn't read all the fine print!}

Yet, a simple search under Terms of Service found no mention of Fair Use. If this is an educational and sharing forum as it appears to be promoted then I suggest that there is a strong argument for the Fair Use Doctrine.

This is not a cut-and-dried issue. Would anyone investing in technology to increase visitors to your business want it to be used as a referral source for others? A few may, such as search engines, but the majority probably not. In addition, it is virtually impossible to monitor every post and every link that could be offered.

Yet, as I review what is left on several threads after my posts were deleted I see a very one-sided argument. Much of the original give and take discussion is deleted. In short, I suggest that not allowing users to post public domain information to bolster one’s position and help enlighten others will eventually reduce the forum to a rumor mill.

Will Topix be a high speed lane on the Information Superhighway? Or a check point to limit and manage information? That may well be determined by who wins the discussion: lawyers or journalists.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

WA legislature says no to Sonics funds

2007-04-23T20:45:00.000-04:00

The Blog Field of Schemes reports that the Seattle Sonics struck out in the Legislature. Are our Representatives in Tallahassee listening? WA legislature says no to Sonics funds ( new window )

Search for media stories using Google News ( new window )

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

What's not to like?

2007-04-23T16:31:00.000-04:00

This email was copied to elected public officials. It is public record.
=====================

RE: What’s not to like:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed22107apr22,0,6502894.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

In the 4/22/07 editorial referenced above the Sentinel asked what is not to like about the Community Venues. The Board can no longer intellectually support any claim of economic benefits so the fall back position has become “quality of life.”

A definition of quality of life depends on whom one asks. For some it demands having numerous choices as to where to spend excess disposable income in an effort to be amused and/or entertained.

For others it is being fortunate enough to have a roof overhead, a steady job, food in one’s stomach and the hope that the gun fire was not intentionally aimed at you.

Some pray that the home team will win. Others pray that a higher power will protect their children because of violence, poor jobs and a lack of healthcare.

Thus, I urge readers to view quality of life from differing points of view. It is easy to see where the Sentinel Editorial Board stands concerning the definition of quality of life.

The Sentinel Editorial Board claims that there is no cost to these venues. The capital is free. Yet, raising tourist taxes drains fuel from the local economic engine. Every dollar taken from a tourist’s wallet means one less dollar that could be spent in our local economy. That means less money for local businesses. Many local businesses compete with the Magic for the same entertainment dollars in local resident’s pockets. But unlike the Magic those businesses don’t get subsidies. Unlike the Magic, those businesses pay property taxes! There is a significant opportunity cost attached to these funds, don’t be fooled.

Adults know that capital is not free. The golden goose was killed for a campaign fund raiser and the money tree died in the extended drought.

Lacking firm footing the Board staggers and swings wildly at those benefiting from the convention center. As I have looked into the stadium fiasco I have naturally been exposed to arguments concerning the folly of building convention centers. However, I have not read virtually any of it. My focus has been restricted and thus, my scope of knowledge and fund of information are extremely limited.

My uninformed opinion postulates that the recipients receiving benefits from that public works project (convention center) are greater in number and wider in scope versus those receiving benefits from a new events center and renovated Citrus Bowl. My uninformed opinion would also postulate higher levels of synergy within the local economy. That is, I assume that Disney, Cirque de Soleil, theme parks and tourists attractions in general, restaurants, airlines, cab drivers, rental car agencies, etc., all may benefit as conventioneers bring family to take in attractions and perhaps extend length of stay. Tourism drives and is at the core of our regional economy. It is also perhaps why wages are so low.

Perhaps conventioneers spend more than vacationing families, bringing more fuel to the economy. Yet, the size of the subsidy (convention center) is probably much, much more than the benefits derived from it and the costs to the infrastructure to accommodate it. I guess what I am trying to say is that there are more people eating at that particular feeding station (convention center)! I suspect that it isn't just wealthy hotel owners dining mostly alone or with a few selected friends as is the case for the Events Center. Moreover, the visitors staying in hotels on I-drive but not Lake Buena Vista for example pay an extra penny in bed taxes for the convention center.

Yet, the above may merely be a rationalization. Bottom line, it probably was not efficient use of tax funds as structured. But it probably draws more advocates and thus in a democracy can win if subject to a referendum. That said, I defer to economists and their knowledge tool chest for an unbiased appraisal.

Finally, and most alarmingly, it appears that per the Sentinel it is completely ethical and morally justified to pick other peoples pockets for personal use. Apparently, the cries from the Nation’s forefathers, "No taxation without representation," cannot penetrate the wax in the Sentinel Editorial Board’s collective hearing. We are Americans first, Floridians second and Orange County residents third. We take care of, not take advantage of our own. Tourist taxes should benefit tourists not pro sports teams.

For those who have forgotten, history is very clear. The Sentinel Editorial Board’s side lost the war in 1783.

Enjoy your tea and cucumber sandwiches in your garden party folks. But do not rob Joe six-pack to pay your buddy Rich. I know he is severely dependent on welfare but he can be weaned.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Email from Commissioner Brummer

2007-04-23T11:41:00.000-04:00

Emails to public officials in Florida are public record.
======================
I received the below email from District 2 Commissioner Brummer:

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:25 AM
Subject: venues

Mr. Kockenteit: It is encouraging to see a citizen engaged in an issue. It is more encouraging when a citizen is thoughtful and willing to be informed and to inform others.

Thank you for your effort.

Fred Brummer

My Reply is below:

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: venues

Commissioner Brummer:

Thank you for your kind words. Yet, it is I and my fellow citizens who are deeply indebted to you. When you advocated for a referendum on the Venues you exhibited extraordinary courage of convictions. That is most refreshing. Standing up to wealthy, powerful, special interest groups on welfare can be political suicide. Your courage to speak-out is nearly as rare as a herd of unicorns.

In an age of rampant corporate welfare, earmarks and lobbyists in $1,000 suits, citizens find fewer and fewer advocates for government by, for and of the people. I believe that your stance made it much easier for other Commissioners to move forward and hold public hearings on this issue.

Furthermore, journey back to my first email on this subject: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/03/mayors-crotty-and-dyer-ignore-caution.html. Your voice gave me an anchor on which to hang my arguments. Because of your voice, I was not alone; thank you.

All who are willing to be intellectually honest know that the recent statements by the Magic concerning their contribution compared to peer markets is just an whining argument for a similar sized welfare check. Frankly, I believe that the Magic deeply fear use of the Contingent Valuation Method to determine the team's actual worth to the community. See:

Abstract
Using the Contingent Valuation Method, this paper estimates the value of public goods the National Football League’s Jaguars produce for Jacksonville, Florida, including the value of elevating Jacksonville to “major league” status and the value of improving racial relations. It also estimates the incremental value of public goods potentially produced by a National Basketball Association team in Jacksonville. The present value of public goods created by the Jaguars is $36.5 million or less, far below subsidies provided to attract the Jaguars. For a basketball team, the figure is less than $22.8 million. The results add to the growing body of CVM literature indicating that sports public goods probably cannot justify the large public expenditures on stadiums and arenas. “The Value of Public Goods Generated by a National Football League Team,” by Johnson, Mondello, & Whitehead (2005) http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp0415.pdf (Adobe Reader required)

Again, thank you. Hopefully, before a final vote you will again get an opportunity to put forward a motion to hold a referendum on the Venues. I believe that you will find support to pass such a proposal more forthcoming.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Commissioner Moore's Town Hall Meeting

2007-04-20T12:23:00.000-04:00

Commissioner Moore held the first Town Hall Meeting concerning property taxes and the Community Venues on April 19, 2007. The meeting was scheduled from 6:30 PM until 8:00 PM at Hope Church, 3032 Monte Carlo Trail, Orlando, FL 32805. The meeting ran over as Commissioner Moore made a valiant effort to answer all audience questions. It ended roughly around 8:30 PM.

I had attended hoping to make a speech concerning the Venues. However, speeches were not allowed under the rules. Former Commissioner Lou Treadway left when it was disclosed he would not be allowed to speak. I personally saw his comments as captured by WFTV Channel 9 and WESH Channel 2 reporters and broadcast on the 11:00 PM news. I do not know if other broadcast outlets reported on the meeting, although a truck from Fox 35 was on-site.

David Damron of the Sentinel reported on the meeting ( new window ). His report primarily focuses on concerns about minority contracting and workers getting a living wage. These most valid concerns for District 1 residents were well addressed by Mr. Byron Brooks, Chief Administrative Officer, for the City. I personally felt comfortable with his response but that is from a trust – not a verifying position. Mr. Brooks struck me as a man more than willing to speak with community persons who have concerns, however.

My written questions were answered as well as a few from voiced from the field. Yet, when I attempted to communicate information from academic economic research contrary to what was being reported I was challenged by Dr. Sutton from UCF. He voiced a much differing opinion.

Dr. Sutton's expertise is in sports marketing and sales. According to his bio he is also a consultant for the NBA. Dr Sutton’s Bio is here. ( new window ).

In contrast, a few of the bios for the researchers whose research I attempted to present but was not allowed are here:

Dr. Brad Humphreys’ Bio ( new window )

Dr. Robert A. Baade’s Bio ( new window )

Dr. Mark Rosentraub’s Bio ( new window )

Dr. Dennis Coates Curriculum Vitae ( new window ) [Adobe Reader required]

I will leave it to readers, elected officials and Community leaders to determine which individuals have more credibility when discussing economic research findings on this issue.

I offered to post research from Dr. Sutton if given links. However, it is expected that any such research is after the fact, outcome related and capable of withstanding peer review by economists. I believe that the study by the MOEDC is a sufficient example of the product from sales and marketing researchers and consultants.

I was concerned that proponents, such as representatives for the Magic and the MOEDC were allowed to answer questions and state opinions as "experts" without rebuttal or challenge. An attempt to note the qualifier to the CSL economic development study on page 2 was virtually ignored. That qualifier is below:

...All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose....

This qualifier is on page 2, paragraph 2 in the August 15, 2006, cover letter to Mr. Charlie Sloan, Executive Vice President Business Development, Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission from CSL International. CSL Economic Impact Analysis Report ( new window ) [Adobe reader required]).

However, it could have been much worse. Cheerleaders could have droned on without end spinning sound bites promising more than the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy combined could ever imagine in their wildest dreams of delivering. Those promises made me wonder. Is it reasonable to ask the MOEDC to post a performance bond guaranteeing the results claimed when over $1 billion is at stake?

Commissioner Moore made an earnest attempt to inform her constituents. She deserves praise for her efforts. The other issue on the agenda, property tax reform unfortunately did not get the attention it deserves.

This was the first meeting. The next is with Commissioner Fernandez on 4/27. The meeting information is posted on the links page. Community Venue Links ( new window ). I hope that you will attend.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Quality of life and other birds in the bush

2007-04-15T15:49:00.000-04:00

This email was forwarded to elected officials. It is public record.
===================

Proponents for the new Events Center and the renovation of the Citrus Bowl, such as the Sentinel Editorial Board, often espouse attracting special events and improving quality of life as underlying their position. However, I suggest that it is merely a rationalization that to date remains unsupported by any empirical evidence known to me.

Special events such as post-season bowl games and NCAA championships are great for the Sentinel’s sports section. However, I have posted numerous working papers relating to this topic which strongly indicate that again, the economic benefits to the community are mostly spin by promoters and gullibility by the uninformed. (See: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/community-venues-links.html. They are roughly in the bottom third of the page following some yellow introductory text.)

Next, how about improved “quality of life” benefits? Anyone who remembers the TV shots around the Super Dome in New Orleans during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina knows this was not an area of the city enjoying “quality of life” benefits from having the stadium as its neighbor. Local residents can drive to the Amway Arena and see first hand how having the arena in the neighborhood has impacted the “quality of life” for those residents. Finally, Congressional testimony on March 29, 2007, by Joyce Hogi, a 63-year-old widow who has lived in the South Bronx area surrounding Yankee Stadium for the past 30 years, concerning the “quality of life” impact from having the New York Yankees in the South Bronx for 80 years is sobering and a true reality check (http://www.goodjobsny.org/Hogi.pdf Adobe Reader required).

Furthermore, academic researchers that I have found to date do not indicate that pro sports are part of a quality of life index. For example see:

A white paper from International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies http://manta.cs.vt.edu/isqols/content/2007%20Diener%20Guidelines%202-15-07.pdf Adobe reader required)
Quality of Life in the Nation's 100 Largest Cities and Their Suburbs: New and Continuing Challenges for Improving Health and Well-Being. By Dennis P. Andrulis, Hailey M. Reid & Lisa M. Duchon (2004) http://www.downstate.edu/urbansoc_healthdata/Urban%20Center%20Website/web%20design2/pdf%20files/report4pdfs/urbanreport4.pdf = http://tinyurl.com/2249fc
CALVERT-HENDERSON QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS: A NEW TOOL FOR ASSESSING NATIONAL TRENDS. By Hazel Henderson, Jon Lickerman, and Patrice Flynn, Editors (2000) (http://www.flynnresearch.com/calvert.htm)

However, there may be improvements in the subjective sense of well-being for a small segment of the local population. Yet, this benefit should not be confused with the “quality of life” for the community as a whole.

A recent Sentinel article entitled, “Peer pressure pumps up parties,” by Laura Broast and Mark Chediak may point to a portion of that segment within the community. The report includes one family spending over $200,000 to hold a birthday party for a seven year old. (See: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orl-party1407apr14,0,2413123.story?coll=orl-news-headlines = http://tinyurl.com/2x5az9).

Some readers are flabbergasted by the sense of entitlement reflected in such reports. Yet, it is noteworthy that Jane Healy, Editorial Page Editor and Vice President of the Sentinel, stated in a recent “For The Record” show on News 13 with Jacob Stuart, “it’s about time that local residents got something out of the tourist tax.”

I suggest that the ingratitude expressed in that statement ignores the fact that last year roughly 50 million persons came to Orlando and pumped billions into the local economy. Our tax burden in the State is lowered tremendously because of these visitors. But for Ms. Healy, that apparently is not enough. She clearly feels entitled to more.

Given limited funds and no evidence of substantial economic benefits, tax dollars spent to improve the quality of life need to impact relatively large segments of the community’s population. Or perhaps influence relocation decisions by business and households; which pro sports, post season games and special events clearly do not.

Frankly, if the Sentinel has some hard, empirical evidence to support its position besides “birds in the bush” readers need to see it. If not, a retraction or clarification appears to be required.

Sentinel editorial: A little backbone please

2007-04-13T12:52:00.000-04:00

This email was copied to elected officials. It is public record.
=====================
To: Kathleen Waltz ; Manning Pynn

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: RE: Community venues and Sentinel editorial: A little backbone please

RE: A little backbone, please
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed11107apr11,0,5061098.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

Ms. Waltz and Mr. Pynn:

I find editorials, such as these disturbing when one looks at the significant conflicts of interest the business has with the Magic. Per Forbes.com the Sentinel is one of the Magic's major corporate sponsors (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/32/biz_06nba_Orlando-Magic_324583.html).

Anheuser-Bush is also listed on the same site. It is noteworthy that Mr. Ford Kiene, the President of City Beverages the local Anheuser-Bush distributorship, heads up the push for the Citrus Bowl renovation. And surprise of surprises one of Florida Citrus Sports Official Media Partners is the Orlando Sentinel
(http://www.fcsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=11300&KEY=&ATCLID=619674 ). Moreover, no mention is ever made on the impact that these two venues, if approved, will have on the Sentinel's award winning sports section.

Despite direct appeals by this reader, conflicts of interest apparently fall through the Editorial Board's code of ethics and remain undisclosed to the readers. Frankly, it looks like the code of ethics for the Editorial Board was written as a CYA piece.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/about/orl-ethicspolicy-080106,0,7234165.htmlstory?coll=orl-opinion-utility

It gets worse. In a January 1, 2007 piece (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-column0107jan01,0,5889105.story?coll=orl-opinion-utility) entitled "Facts build foundation for strong opinion," Ms. Healy states:

Beyond having the facts, opinion should involve finding -- and considering -- the strongest argument from the critics. If you can't answer their argument, your opinion may not hold up to scrutiny. It's all part of the due diligence of research.

Frankly, I am most perplexed. I have provided evidence that the Metro Orlando Economic Development study is fraught with caveats making it unbelievable. I have sent numerous links and information to the Editorial Board by eminent economists. Economists seldom agree but on this issue there is consensus: subsidies for pro sports are bad for taxpayers. At best they are benign; at worst detrimental to a community's economic health.

Moreover, I have offered evidence that many local businesses compete with the Magic for the same entertainment dollars in resident’s pockets. However, they pay property taxes, have ownership roots and make a significant economic contribution to the community without public subsidies. Peruse numerous links for yourself on this issue at: http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/community-venues-links.html

All of this in the face of enormous negative public opinion. See: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=655.

To date, all of my efforts have been to no avail. Ms. Healy even has the audacity to take the dog and pony show on the road to News 13.

Most recently in the editorial cited above, the Editorial Board has reverted to emotional appeals and browbeating. Frankly, the cognitive rigidity and inflexibility to acknowledge academic, peer-reviewed information contrary to the Board's stance is simply astonishing.

It’s your paper. Your Editorial Board is swimming against a rip-current of negative voter sentiment in a sea of conflicts of interest and in spite of empirical evidence challenging the veracity of its position. It is a wholesale sacrifice of years spent building reader trust in the Board’s honesty, integrity and leadership role in the community.

When newspapers are in trouble everywhere is this worth the political capital being expended? Only you can decide.

Mr. Pynn kindly responded. Please see his response in the comments.

rk

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Tax breaks for pro teams

2007-04-12T16:40:00.000-04:00

This email is public record.
====================
To: mailto:trey.traviesa ; mike.web@flsenate.gov
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 4:36 PM
Subject: HB 1079 & SB 2168

RE: Tax Breaks Pushed For Pro Teams, by Josh Poltilove in The Tampa Tribune, published: Apr 5, 2007.
http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGB8HQ1M40F.html

Honorable Gentlemen:

Per Mr. Potilove's report,

Traviesa said sports teams generate substantial sums for the state and the bill would encourage them to stay in Florida. He said people who think the bill misuses money are wrong. "I think it reflects a real lack of understanding," Traviesa said.

Frankly, Representative Traviesa, I must respectfully disagree. You are the person who is ill informed and has a lack of understanding. Representative Bucher is closer to the truth.

1) The issue whether pro sports provide economic benefits has been settled for years. THEY DON’T. Sports subsidies hurt local businesses competing for entertainment dollars. Those businesses also pay property taxes and contribute to the local economy. See: Coats, D. & Humphries, B. “The Stadium Gambit and Local Economic Development.” http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf.

2) See a review of the Noll & Zimbilist book: Sports, Jobs, & Taxes Are New Stadiums Worth the Cost? Roger G. Noll is a professor of economics at Stanford University. Andrew Zimbalist is a professor of economics at Smith College. This book pretty much ended any debate as to whether pro sports facilities were good economic investments. http://www.brook.edu/press/review/summer97/noll.htm

3) By three to one Florida voters do not want subsidies for professional sports. See: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=655. Even Magic fans were opposed 75 - 25 percent.

4) A study by Coates and Humphries analyzing data on 53,052 persons, involving 37 metro areas and spanning a 22 year time horizon found real wages were LESS for persons employed in the food service and hotel industry who worked in communities with pro sports teams. People in these occupations working in communities without pro sports made MORE money! See: http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_03_103.pdf

5) Read a Heritage Foundation Urban Issues report by Dr. Utt: Cities in Denial: The False Promise of Subsidized Tourist and Entertainment Complexes for some background of interest on outcomes in Baltimore. From that study, "Good schools and low crime, not proximity to professional sports venues, determine where businesses locate and expand and where prosperous families choose to live." An economic outcome comparison between Virginia and Prince George's County, Maryland is also included, therein (http://www.heritage.org/Research/UrbanIssues/BG1223.cfm).

6) In 2001, the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) reported that ten years of professional sports stadium construction has left federal, state, and local taxpayers $7.5 billion poorer. At that time it was projected that the amount could double if 15 additional projects on the drawing board are built. See: Public Funding of Sports Stadiums: Ballpark Boondoggle NTUF Policy Paper 133, by Paul Gessing, Feb 28, 2001.
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=345&org_name=NTUF#_ednref7.

7) National Taxpayers Union Foundation report: Taxpayer-Financed Baseball in Our Nation’s Capital: A Steal for Baseball, Reverse Commuter Tax for DC NTU Foundation Issue Brief 148 November 8, 2004, By Paul J. Gessing. Adobe Reader required: http://www.ntu.org/pdf/ib_ntuf_148.pdf

8) Statement of Paul J. Gessing, Director of Government Affairs, National Taxpayers Union before the New York City Council Economic Development Committee on the Proposed New Jersey Nets Arena, May 24, 2005. Adobe Reader required: http://www.ntu.org/pdf/T050524Gessingnets.pdf

9) Congressional testimony of Brad R. Humphreys, Associate Professor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, on Public Financing for Construction and Operation of Sports Stadiums and Economic Revitalization and Development in Urban America before the House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Thursday, March 29th 2007.
Adobe Reader required: http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070329144816-86227.pdf

10) Testimony prepared for hearings on March 29, 2007 before Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Committee on Oversight and Government Reform House of Representatives by Dennis Zimmerman of the American Tax Policy Institute. (Adobe required.) Tax–exempt Bonds, Professional Sports Stadiums, and Economic Policy.
Adobe Reader required: http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070329145247-13538.pdf

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Additional information and links can be found here:
http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/community-venues-links.html

Every business generates substantial sums for the State. However, pro sports leaches money from the economy. This should not continue.

Thank you for your time and attention to my concern. If you have peer-reviewed, academic evidence to support your statements, I would love to see it.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Forecast stirs up storm...

2007-04-12T15:09:00.000-04:00

RE: Forecast stirs up storm -- Rosen is ready to sue, by Mike Thomas (04.12.07):
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-miket1207apr12,0,3844934.column

Mr. Thomas:

I read you column on Harris Rosen’s concerns that Dr. Grey’s forecasts are hurting tourism. Since I have not seen the data on which Mr. Rosen bases his opinion I will keep an open mind.

However, there are very significant storm clouds on the horizon other than Dr. Grey’s predictions. An April 10, 2007, New York Times article by Susan Stellin entitled, "Tax Bites on Travelers Go Deeper" merits serious attention (http://tinyurl.com/3cs3gm).

In a recent email to elected officials I expressed deep concern over the sales tax property tax swap and the potential to tax visitors out of the State. It is also of interest that the purported downturn of which Mr. Rosen speaks coincides with the increase in the hotel bed tax. However, correlation never implies causation.

In addition:

Mortgage defaults are on the rise.
http://tinyurl.com/2f3su6
http://tinyurl.com/2jht6b

Mortgage default problems are moving into the A- categories:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18043828/

Housing prices are falling: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2007/04/next_shoe_to_dr.html
http://tinyurl.com/yq7nl6
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2007/04/something_fishy.html
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2007/04/march_home_sale.html
http://tinyurl.com/yofn5g
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/business/17063020.htm
http://tinyurl.com/2c8crn
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20070412/NEWS/70412007

New home sales down:
http://tinyurl.com/yomwt8
http://tinyurl.com/2yszx3

Fewer people are moving to Florida:
http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_081154128.html

Schools have fewer students:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-decline0707apr07,0,6756739.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

Doomsday, Chicken Little stuff? Perhaps. But those in the know realize that consumers have been using the equity in their homes as a credit card. The savings rate is virtually “0” if not negative. Tapped-out consumers drowning in home equity debt may mean far fewer visitors coming to Florida.

I am certain that many will vilify Mr. Rosen insinuating that he is only concerned about his own wallet. However, I suggest that there is considerable evidence to the contrary. For example, Mr. Rosen:

Donated the land and provided the funding for the building of the University of Central Florida’s Rosen College of Hospitality Management.
Donated a $2 ½ million dollar scholarship endowment for UCF
Has invested $7 million in the Parramore neighborhood (correction posted 4/17/07: this should be the Tangelo Park neighborhood not Parramore. rk). -- giving free preschool education for every two, three, and four year old followed by full scholarships to college; including 350 college scholarships for Tangelo Park youth.
Has consistently advocated for low room rates when coastal residents need to evacuate in advance of hurricanes.
To the best of my knowledge, has foregone opportunities to feed at the public trough even when offered.

This isn’t behavior by someone only concerned about his wallet. This is someone who cares about our community, too.

While remaining unsure as to Dr. Grey’s influence, I suggest that it would be foolhardy to dismiss Mr. Rosen’s concerns out of hand. There are significant storm clouds forming on the economic horizon. Whether they come together as a major storm, no one knows.

Yet, I suggest that someone has moved/ is moving Florida’s cheese (http://www.whomovedmycheese.com/). Rampant growth fueled by an influx of residents may be on the wane.

From that perspective, perhaps Mr. Rosen is best characterized as “Sniff” surrounded by “Haws.” Time will surely tell.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Orlando/ Orange County Convention Bureau

2007-04-12T13:01:00.000-04:00

This email was sent to elected officials. It is public record.
=============
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:39 AM
Subject: Orlando/ Orange County Convention Bureau

RE: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/orl-maxwell1207apr12,0,4024371.column

Commissioner Stewart:

I was very pleased to read that you and Commissioner Jacobs are advocating for more transparency at the Orlando/ Orange County Convention Bureau (OOCCB). As a community resident I am indebted to Mr. Maxwell and his persistence concerning this issue.

In my opinion, any nonprofit agency that receives significant funding raised via the government's power of taxation should be required to fully open its operations to public scrutiny. Either you play with public finds in the sunshine or look elsewhere for funding. This is not the NSA or the CIA.

As a lay person unaware of the details and intricacies, I suggest that something needs to be enacted either contractually or via ordinance; Charter revision; or State Law. Moreover, if such could be accomplished contractually by the Comptroller's Office it would seem to me to be mandated under one's duty to protect public funds. From: http://www.occompt.com/duties.html:

The County Comptroller, an elected official answering directly to the citizens of Orange County, acts as watchdog for the public in the use of County resources. This function serves as a check and balance, and results in the greatest accounting integrity and safeguarding of public assets.

Retorting that the State has to fix this problem when it could be done locally is a flimsy excuse. I know that ethics reform is a salient issue, at present. Thus, as an elected official is it ethical to allow enormous sums of public funds disappear behind a veil of secrecy?

What about ethics at OOCCB? From page 8 item #2 of Destination Marketing Association International's Code of Ethics (which OOCCB is a member) http://www.iacvb.org/images/pdf/DMAP_Application.pdf:

Treat all stakeholders, including members of DMAI, courteously, ethically, and professionally.

I suggest that perhaps the largest stakeholder, residents and taxpayers are not being treated per that standard. The OOCCB is also a member of The Society of American Travel Writers. Their Code of Ethics was updated in November, 2006. See: http://www.satw.org/satw/index.asp?SId=81.

From my perspective the OOCCB is essentially a PR firm for the region. From Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) Member Code of Ethics 2000 PRSA Code Provisions (http://ethics.iit.edu/codes/coe/public.relations.soc.america.html):

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION
Core Principle
Protecting and advancing the free flow of accurate and truthful information is essential to serving the public interest and contributing to informed decision making in a democratic society.
Intent
To maintain the integrity of relationships with the media, government officials, and the public.
To aid informed decision making.

To me, it appears that the OOCCB is minimally not living up to the spirit of the codes of ethics to which it is a member and to its role as a PR firm for the region. I urge you to take prompt action to correct this situation. If Las Vegas can be transparent then so can OOCCB.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my opinions. I know that you will act responsibility to protect the public's interests. I further urge other elected officials to uphold their duty to the pubic that elected them.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Support HB 687 & SB 1008...

2007-04-10T16:56:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on April 10, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
===================
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 3:48 PM

RE: Support HB 687 & SB 1008
Stop: CS/SB 544 - Professional Sports Franchises and related bills CS/SB 528 & HB 323

Honorable Gentlemen:

It has recently come to my attention that on March 29, 2007, The US House of Representatives' Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Domestic Policy Subcommittee held a hearing on Taxpayer Financed Stadiums, Convention Centers, and Hotels. I believe that much of the testimony before that Congressional Committee is germane to Florida's discussion concerning sports subsidies.

As your constituent I am requesting your assistance in getting this testimony incorporated into all public records and Legislative hearings concerning subsidies for professional sports. By copy I am asking that Committee Chairs and other responsible elected officials do the same. Since lying to Congress is against the law, I am hoping that the testimony can be stipulated.

Specific testimony I would like to include:

The Congressional testimony of Brad R. Humphreys, Associate Professor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, on Public Financing for Construction and Operation of Sports Stadiums and Economic Revitalization and Development in Urban America before the House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Thursday, March 29th 2007.
http://reform.democrats.house.gov/documents/20070329144816-86227.pdf (Adobe Reader required).

Testimony prepared for hearings on March 29, 2007 before Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Committee on Oversight and Government Reform House of Representatives by Dennis Zimmerman of the American Tax Policy Institute.
http://reform.democrats.house.gov/documents/20070329145247-13538.pdf (Adobe Reader required).

Written Testimony of Donald L. Korb, Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service, before House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform -- Subcommittee On Domestic Policy Hearing On The State Of Urban America And The Use Of Tax-Exempt Bonds March 29, 2007. http://reform.democrats.house.gov/documents/20070329145821-03643.pdf (Adobe Reader required).

Congressional Testimony of Neil Demause, author of Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit (Adobe Required).
http://reform.democrats.house.gov/documents/20070329144749-35526.pdf. (Adobe Reader required).

Testimony of Nick Licata, Seattle City Council president, before House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform Subcommittee On Domestic Policy Hearing On The State Of Urban America And The Use Of Tax- Exempt Bonds March 29, 2007.
http://reform.democrats.house.gov/documents/20070329144725-38118.pdf (Adobe Reader required).

Joyce Hogi, is a 63-year-old widow who has lived in the South Bronx area surrounding Yankee Stadium for the past 30 years. From the testimony, “Economic Development for the community will occur as a consequence of this new stadium, we are told by the supporters." Economic development will occur as a result of our changing times, not a stadium. The New York Yankees have been our neighbors for over 80 years. Given the poverty and unemployment rates in the South Bronx, it would seem that no economic benefits have been realized as a result of having the legendary Yankee Stadium in our community….
http://reform.democrats.house.gov/documents/20070329144609-73451.pdf (Adobe Reader required).

Congressional Testimony of Frank D. Rashid, who waged an unsuccessful 10-year campaign to save Tigers’ Stadium in Detroit, before the House Subcommittee On Domestic Policy, Committee On Oversight And Government Reform March 29, 2007 (Adobe Required).
http://reform.democrats.house.gov/documents/20070329144701-85817.pdf (Adobe Reader required).

I have omitted some in this list that others may wish to include. A full listing of all testimony before the House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform Subcommittee, Domestic Policy Subcommittee Hearing on Taxpayer Financed Stadiums, Convention Centers, and Hotels March 29, 2007, (including ones above) is here: http://reform.democrats.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1228

Next, I would like included:

Testimony by Donald B. Marron, Congressional Budget Office Acting Director Economic Issues in the Use of Tax-Preferred Bond Financing before the House Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures Committee on Ways and Means on March 16, 2006 http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7080&sequence=0

Subsidies for professional sports are NOT economic development tools. That has been well established in the academic literature for years. During the current session, I have sent numerous links to research proving the same. Please ensure that the public Legislative record reflects the facts.

No one can claim ignorance anymore. These subsidies are transfer payments to wealthy special interests. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise with peer reviewed economic analysis. Smoke and mirrors, shell games and bird in the bush justifications can no longer be tolerated.

Florida can no longer afford to continue this practice. Transferring money to special interests while bemoaning the cost of educational reforms mandated by the voters is devious and deceitful. These are general revenue funds!

Moreover, the public is overwhelmingly against these subsidies. Why are you swimming against a rip current? In the most recent poll available, by three to one voters do not want subsidies for professional sports. Marlins fans oppose it 68 - 29 percent; Magic fans were opposed 75 - 25 percent.
(http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=655).

Why is political capital being expended on these projects? Cynics will assume that it is to curry favor with campaign contributors. Faith in public servants is at abysmal levels. Again, why are you doing this? It feeds the cynics and undermines democracy. Frankly, I am befuddled by these actions!

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. In the interest of time, I suggest that this maybe the most efficient means to include this information into the public record. Elected officials voting “yes” to transfer tax funds to line the pockets of special interests and later claiming ignorance can no longer continue. This public policy stance is detrimental to the economic health of our Great State.

Community Venue Links (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Jacobs: Town Hall Meeting

2007-04-09T17:36:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on April 9, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
==========
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Commissioner Jacobs Calls Town Hall Meeting Regarding Proposed Community Venues

Commissioner Jacobs:

Thank you for informing me concerning the public hearings on the Community Venues. I look forward to the presentations. However, it appears that two very crucial elements are missing.

First, a supporting rationale/ purpose/ goal of these projects. How was this decided?

Was there an independent, non-partisan evaluation of the rationale/ purpose? Is there a master plan?
Or was a course of action perhaps decided then followed by a consultant's report and PR plan to sell and market the projects to decision makers and the public?
If a study was not conducted by an independent, non partisan urban planning/ economists why not?
If the intent/ co-benefit of the projects is claimed to re-vitalize Parramore, what independent, empirical evidence substantiates such a claim? Using academic peer, review studies, not consultant reports, can Ms. Haynie's office compare and contrast several cities where this strategy has been tried and evaluate the outcomes. I suggest:
Gateway Project in Cleveland
Harbor Place in Baltimore
St. Louis
Detroit
Cincinnati

Next, is there any creditable economic analysis report? I believe that I have clearly established that the Metro Orlando Economic Development study is critically flawed. All academic literature and recent Congressional testimony clearly indicate that the purported economic benefit espoused by the MOEDC is not believable. Moreover, the August 15, 2006, cover letter accompanying the report to Mr. Charlie Sloan, Executive Vice President Business Development, Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission from CSL International, states:

...All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose....

(On page 2 in paragraph 2 from: http://www.projecthometown.com/pdf/MOEDC_Economic_Impact_Study.pdf).

That statement alone should be sufficient to dismiss the report. Moreover, the MOEDC has contributed $5,000 to promote it's own project, deeply miring itself in conflicts of interest. Thus, how can the MOEDC study's conclusions and scenarios be used as supporting evidence for the project rationale?

Hopefully, an independent analysis of the project will be forthcoming from Ms. Haynie's office. As an example I offer the City of New York Independent Budget Office's report, entitled, Double Play: The Economics And Financing Of Stadiums For The Yankees And Mets.

The report was produced to, "foster public understanding of the economic and budgetary effects of the Yankees and the Mets on the city and estimates the likely fiscal impact of building or completely refurbishing a stadium for each team." A copy is here: http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/doubleplay.html.

However, even better would be a report by independent urban planning economists. This is after all over $1 billion dollars. The economic health of our community is being put at risk.

Frankly, I do not understand how these projects can proceeded based on a PR campaign. Perhaps I am naïve.

Don't Commissioners and the Mayors have a fiduciary responsibility concerning expenditure of taxpayer funds? If so, I do not believe that the MOEDC study can indemnify them; is there something that the public has not seen that will do so?

Again, thank you for holding hearings. Hopefully some of these issues I have presented will be addressed and satisfactorily addressed.

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Congressional testimony on public subsides for sports

2007-04-09T13:01:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on April 9, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
==========
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 1:01 PM
Subject: Congressional testimony on public subsides for sports

Commissioner Stewart:

It has recently come to my attention that on March 29, 2007, The US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform’s Domestic Policy Subcommittee held a hearing on Taxpayer Financed Stadiums, Convention Centers, and Hotels. I believe that much of the testimony before Congress is germane to the Community Venues – specifically, the Events Center and Citrus Bowl Renovation components.

As your constituent I am requesting your assistance in getting this testimony incorporated into all public records for Orange County concerning the Community Venues. Since lying to Congress is against the law, I am hoping that the testimony can be stipulated. Public records include, but are not limited to, the upcoming hearings by Commissioners Fernandez and Jacobs.

Specific testimony to include:

The Congressional testimony of Brad R. Humphreys, Associate Professor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, on Public Financing for Construction and Operation of Sports Stadiums and Economic Revitalization and Development in Urban America before the House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Thursday, March 29th 2007. (Adobe required). Congressional Testimony

Testimony prepared for hearings on March 29, 2007 before Subcommittee on Domestic Policy Committee on Oversight and Government Reform House of Representatives by Dennis Zimmerman of the American Tax Policy Institute. (Adobe required.) Tax–exempt Bonds, Professional Sports Stadiums, and Economic Policy

Written Testimony of Donald L. Korb, Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service, before House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform -- Subcommittee On Domestic Policy Hearing On The State Of Urban America And The Use Of Tax-Exempt Bonds March 29, 2007. http://reform.democrats.house.gov/documents/20070329145821-03643.pdf

Congressional Testimony of Neil Demause, author of Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit (Adobe Required). Neil Demause’s Congressional Testimony

Testimony of Nick Licata, Seattle City Council president, before House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform Subcommittee On Domestic Policy Hearing On The State Of Urban America And The Use Of Tax- Exempt Bonds March 29, 2007. http://reform.democrats.house.gov/documents/20070329144725-38118.pdf

Joyce Hogi, is a 63-year-old widow who has lived in the South Bronx area surrounding Yankee Stadium for the past 30 years. Her testimony is required reading for anyone concerned about Parrramore. Testimony of Joyce Hogi before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, March 29, 2007 From the testimony, “Economic Development for the community will occur as a consequence of this new stadium, we are told by the supporters." Economic development will occur as a result of our changing times, not a stadium. The New York Yankees have been our neighbors for over 80 years. Given the poverty and unemployment rates in the South Bronx, it would seem that no economic benefits have been realized as a result of having the legendary Yankee Stadium in our community….

Congressional Testimony of Frank D. Rashid, who waged an unsuccessful 10-year campaign to save Tigers’ Stadium in Detroit, before the House Subcommittee On Domestic Policy, Committee On Oversight And Government Reform March 29, 2007 (Adobe Required). Frank D. Rashid’s Congressional Testimony

I have omitted some in this list that others may wish to include. A full listing of all testimony before the House Committee On Oversight And Government Reform Subcommittee, Domestic Policy Subcommittee Hearing on Taxpayer Financed Stadiums, Convention Centers, and Hotels March 29, 2007, (including ones above) is here. Listing of all testimony

Next, I would like included:
Testimony by Donald B. Marron, Congressional Budget Office Acting Director Economic Issues in the Use of Tax-Preferred Bond Financing before the House Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures Committee on Ways and Means on March 16, 2006 http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7080&sequence=0

Finally, I have created a Blog with numerous links concerning the Community Venues. It is continually being updated. Persons interested are directed to:
http://orlandovanitypress.blogspot.com/2007/04/community-venues-links.html

Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. In the interest of time, I suggest that this maybe the most efficient means to include this information into the public record.

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Home (New Window)

Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Community Venues Links

2007-04-05T10:23:00.000-04:00

Orlando elected officials are proposing over $1 billion in public works projects. Despite considerable public concern Mayor Crotty does not believe that the public needs to vote on this issue.

This page contains links to information about public subsidies for pro sports and the Orlando Community Venues projects. On May 15, 07, I reorganized the page. Links on this page will take readers to studies/ information on another page. It was getting too unwieldy. I hope this helps navigation. See notes at the end for more information.

Academic Research/ Significant Articles: Economic Benefits of Public Financing of Pro Sports ( new window )
There are two types of research reports. One is a sales and marketing report, “birds in the bush” the other is outcome research by economists, “birds in the hand.”

On this page you will find outcome research papers, publications, analysis and Congressional testimony in the public domain concerning public financing of pro sports. There is consensus here. Independent economists as well as CATO, Heritage and Brookings all agree there are no economic benefits to communities in subsidizing pro sports teams.

Academic Research/ Significant Articles: Economic Benefits of Post Season and Mega Events
( new window )
This page has links to academic research concerning the economic impact of pros sports post season play, championships, etc. This information is not what is usually reported by the stenographers too often populating the mainstream media.

Academic Research/ Significant Articles: Intangible Benefits of Pro Sports ( new window )
Most researchers agree that there are “intangible” benefits to hosting a pro sports team. Civic pride, entertainment options, etc. However, none that I have found to date suggest these intangible benefits are worth the price paid.

This page has a few studies that attempt to estimate these benefits. This research area needs more effort. If anyone finds more, please let me know.

Academic Research/ Significant Articles: Arts ( new window )

Blogs/ Newspaper Articles/ Other ( new window )
On this page one will find links to:
The Sentinel Series
Mike Thomas and Scott Maxwell’s (Sentinel columnists) blogs
A Sentinel Editorial thread
Two blogs The Sports Economist and Sports Swindle Ticker
Assorted newspaper articles
Team valuation by Forbes
Citizens For More Important Things – a Seattle Washington group that successfully passed a local ordinance limiting the use of public funds for private profit.

City/ County Information ( new window )
This page has links to City and County Information concerning the venues and downtown redevelopment. Also included are:
County Commissioner Meeting Reports
Links to Contact Local Elected Officials
September 29, 2006 press conference with Mayors Dyer and Crotty unveiling a "Triple Crown for Downtown."

My Perspective / Bias ( new window )
Some info on me and links to my emails on the Community Venues

Pro Venue Sites ( new window )
Included here are links to Project Hometown – a must see for supporters – and links to Orlando Performing Arts Center. I did not link the Citrus Bowl as I did not see anything on its site that is not at Project Hometown.

A MUST SEE is the infamous Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission’s Economic Impact report. On page two paragraph two:

...All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose....

Public Opinion polls ( new window )
This page contains information on a Quinnipiac University Poll and a Mason Dixon Poll commissioned by the Sentinel.

The Magic also commissioned a poll that is at best questionable. Info on that poll is here, too.

Quality of Life Indicators ( new window )
Some claim “quality of life” as the reason communities need to subsidize pro sports. This page contains a few links to Quality of Life metrics but needs much more work.

Urban Planning/ Urban Renewal ( new window )
This page has a few studies and links concerning projects like the Community Venues and urban revitalization. The best I can tell so far this is a crap shoot. It appears that many fail to achieve the revitalization promised. I have asked City and County elected officials and managers including Byron Brooks and Frank Billingsley to inform the community how this plan is different. I think the community is entitled to know why they believe it will work. If I get an answerer I will post a link here.

There is a link to the Creative Class website, too.

I wish I could boil this down better for you. I know you are busy and have other important concerns. Yet, this will affect our community for a generation. Please, spend a little time and read-up.

Journalists covering this story may find an article at BusinessJournalism.org of interest. BusinessJournalism.org is affiliated with the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism at Arizona State University and The Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University. "Finding the Bottom Line for Sports: Observations from an Academic," by Brad Humphreys and posted on June 6, 2005 08:11 AM ( new window ) Lay persons will find this an easy read and an aid to better understanding the difference between sales and marketing economic development reports and outcome research.

If you can only read one thing other than what has been in the paper, please read Professor Humphrey's testimony ( new window ) before Congress on 3/29/07. Also look at Professor Brad Humphreys’ Bio ( new window ) Note that he sits on the editoral boards of three sports related journals: Sport Management Review, the International Journal of Sport Finance and the International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing.

This six page report gets to the meat of the issue. (Adobe required). Coats & Humphreys: The Stadium Gambit and Local Economic Development ( new window )

Again, note: I am not an expert or anyone who has standing in this debate other than as a citizen and taxpayer.

Thank you for reading. Thank you for being concerned about our community.
--rk

Current Posts (New Window)

Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

The $1 billion question

2007-04-03T16:37:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on April 3, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
==============
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: The $1 billion question

RE $1 billion question: Will votes add up for venue supporters?
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-venuevote0207apr02,0,1247260.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

I read in the above referenced Sentinel article that several Commissioners are concerned about the Community Venues. There is good reason for such concern.

Anyone who has seen the Metro Orlando Economic Development Study and Project Hometown knows that slick marketing is at work. A high pressure sales campaign is on to sell a project that has overwhelming negative voter sentiment attached to it. In the most recent poll available even Magic fans are opposed 75 - 25 percent. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=655.

Yet, what should be of paramount concern to Commissioners is the likelihood of negative impact on real wages for many community residents by one of the projects. A study by Coates and Humphries analyzed data on 53,052 persons, involved 37 metro areas and spanned a 22 year time horizon. The researchers found real wages were LESS for persons employed in the food service and hotel industries who were living in communities with professional sports teams. See: http://www.umbc.edu/economics/wpapers/wp_03_103.pdf.

Hopefully, I need not remind Commissioners of the number of such workers in our community. With any luck, Commissioners also know that since the 1980’s median income in America rose a mere 17 percent, while the income of Mr. DeVos and his cohorts quadrupled. (http://tinyurl.com/2dy4q6).

A Labor Day, 2006 Pew Research Report merits review, too. Per the report, “Americans believe that workers in this country are worse off now than a generation ago….” http://pewresearch.org/assets/social/pdf/Jobs.pdf. Set the cheerleading, rah-rah and high pressure sales pitch aside. Your actions will affect type and quality of jobs coming to our community and ultimately the amount of bread of some resident’s table for a generation.

Removing the smoke and mirrors reveals that professional sports franchises do not provide positive economic impact to host communities. That question has been settled for many, many years. The academic literature is virtually unanimous in stating the same. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf, http://www.brook.edu/press/review/summer97/noll.htm , et. al.)

Reading these academic studies one learns that economic growth is best fueled by adding new dollars to the regional economy. If the pattern in those studies holds locally, only a tiny portion from the Magic is new money – visitors from elsewhere coming to Magic home games. Yet, any new money contribution must be off-set when local Magic fans leave the area to see away games and take their entertainment money elsewhere. The result is “net” new money from the Magic’s community presence.

The most recent numbers I could find state there were over 49 million visitors who came to Orlando in 2005. I suggest that very few came only to see the Magic. Some may do so, however.

Yet, if the Magic were not here, those visitors will find a host of other entertainment venues available. Notably, virtually all of those alternate entertainment venues pay property taxes and are not subsidized with tax dollars.

The important bottom line to understand from this is that if the Magic leave, the lion’s share of the dollars do not. The money is already here in local resident fans’ pockets.

In contrast, the tourist tax to fund the venues is taking “new” money out of the economy. Money is being taken from the region’s economic engine via an increase in the tourist tax. Those funds are being transferred to subsidize and enrich the Magic. Hopefully, one can understand that this can hurt regional economic growth.

Optimal use of public revenue dictates that publicly funded projects provide the highest possible return. Prudent public investment requires comparing the return on the investment in the Community Venues with the return on the same dollar investment in any alternative, appropriate public use, including tax reduction – giving the money back to the tourists!

Per the Sentinel that extra penny brought in $2.5 million in February. That was $2.5 million of fuel siphoned out of the local economic engine. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-resort0307apr03,0,6506412.story

Again, any intellectually honest analysis of the projects must factor the economic benefit of simply returning the taxes to the tourists so that those funds could be spent in our local economy. That is a very real cost – it is an opportunity cost.

I suggest that the negative economic impact / opportunity cost is the increased tourist tax $ amount multiplied by an appropriate multiplier. Pick one: either sum for the project life and net present value it or factor the lost growth as an annual operating expense. It must be included.

Next, that opportunity cost plus all the others must be fully covered for the deal to be economically viable. Other costs include, but are not limited to:

Construction costs and debt service
Lost property tax revenue
Infrastructure improvements, roads, utilities, etc.
Public service costs including EMS, police, etc.
Opportunity costs for funds
Opportunity costs for the land
Demolition costs and other project work site costs
Management, operational and maintenance costs

There are also some indirect costs/ concerns associated with the project, too. To name a few:

Potential impact in the community’s credit rating and finances if there are revenue shortfalls. Include a worse case scenario such as a cataclysmic event like terrorism or a flu pandemic.
Social, cultural and economic impact to residents and businesses in the vicinity.
Political capital and personal credibility sacrificed pushing projects shrouded in overwhelming negative public opinion.

This information is needed to make an informed decision. Hopefully, the hard numbers will be available well in advance of the community hearings.

Next, whether these venues will revitalize Parramore is at best a crap shoot. (See: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6044.html and 1 below). Perhaps such big ticket re-development efforts are best described as last century’s failed solutions http://www.heritage.org/Research/UrbanIssues/BG1223.cfm).

Promoters bandy about the sound bites “world class city” and “quality of life.” Are there intrinsic, non-economic benefits to hosting a pro sports team? Some studies have stated they exist but are difficult to quantify.

Any value of increased community visibility from pro sports in the literature that I have perused is not quantifiably stated. However, seeing “Orlando Magic” on TV by a viewing audience does have some advertising value to the community. While it cannot be dismissed out of hand, the price appears exorbitant.

Research into business and household relocation decisions (sources of new monies for regional economic growth) find the presence of sports teams not relevant in the decision matrix. Scripps’ choice of Palm Beach alone should have ended any such magical thinking in local leader’s heads concerning that fallacy. Business decisions seem to be made based upon low taxes and a positive business climate. Households factor low taxes, good schools and good medical facilities in their decision matrix. As to be expected low crime rates play a vital role in many relocation decisions. (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6044.html & http://www.heritage.org/Research/UrbanIssues/BG1223.cfm).

Regardless, a nebulous “quality of life” benefit is often touted by local advocates and it does exist. Yet, one person’s concept of “quality of life” and “world class city” may be far different from another’s.

Professor Richard Florida, who has many informed critics, found no relationship between hosting a professional sports team and attracting the creative class. See: http://www.creativeclass.org/index.shtml and http://www.creativeclass.org/denverpost110203.shtml. Thus, any quality of life benefits from pro sports are not universal to all members of a community as are low taxes, good schools, low crime, etc.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please do not succumb to a slick, high pressure sales pitch. Dig and question until your concerns are fully allayed.

Thank you for your time and consideration of my opinions and concerns. Hopefully, hard numbers for the costs I outlined herein will be available in advance of the public hearings.

Sincerely yours,

Ray Kockentiet

bcc
--------------------------------------------------
1 Chapin, T. (1999). Urban Revitalization Tools: An Assessment of Impacts of Sports Stadia at the Microarea Level. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington Department of Urban Design and Planning.

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Introduction

2007-04-02T13:54:00.000-04:00

Stadiums, Professional Sports, and
Economic Development: Assessing the Reality

by Robert A. Baade

About one century ago, professional sports became prominent in American public life. During its early years, the business of sports was primarily a private undertaking, financed with private money and played in private stadiums and arenas.

But state and local government subsidies of professional sports businesses have proliferated over the past few decades, and economic arguments have been crafted to justify the subsidies, These arguments typically rest on the assertion that professional sports is a significant, even unique, catalyst for economic growth. By this reckoning, stadiums and teams are “cash cows” that expand the economy and enable further public investment in other critical areas.

Public funds are increasingly scarce. We must test the argument that professional sports offer an important return on government subsidies. The purpose of this paper is to use economic theory and empirical techniques to assess the contribution of professional sports to metropolitan area economic development in the United States.

The study consists of five parts. Part 1 briefly reviews the economic literature on professional sports and urban development. Part 2 discusses the ways professional sports can have an economic impact on an area and explores the challenges inherent in measuring this effect through “expenditure” and “multiplier” analysis.

Part 3 briefly introduces the empirical approach the author has adopted in this study. In Part 4, the author presents a new statistical analysis of the relationship between sports and municipal economic activity. His analysis involves 48 cities and the metropolitan areas around them over a 30-year period. Included in his analysis is every U.S. city that had either a new professional sports stadium or arena, or a professional baseball, football, basketball, or hockey team during this period.

After a thorough examination of an unprecedented quantity of data related to professional sports and host area per capita personal income, the author finds no factual basis for the conventional argument that professional sports stadiums and teams have a significant impact on a region’s economic growth. Part 5 is comprised of the author’s summary and concluding remarks. A more detailed technical discussion of the methodology and results employed in the study appears in Appendices A and B.

From: Stadiums, Professional Sports, and
Economic Development: Assessing the Reality, by Robert Baade
(Adobe Reader required)

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Abstract

2007-04-02T11:11:00.000-04:00

The Growth Effects of Sport Franchises, Stadia and Arenas

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between professional sports franchises and venues and real per capita personal income in 37 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States over the period 1969 - 1994. Our empirical framework accounts for the entry and departure of professional football, basketball and baseball franchises, the construction of arenas and stadia, and other sports related factors over this time period. In contrast to other existing studies, we find evidence that some professional sports franchises reduce the level of per capita personal income in metropolitan areas and have no effect on the growth in per capita income, casting doubt on the ability of a new sports franchise or facility to spur economic growth. We also find evidence that results obtained from stimating reduced form relationships, a common practice in the literature, are not robust to alternative reduced form specifications.

From: Coates, Dennis, and Brad R. Humphreys. The Growth Effects of Sports Franchises, Stadia and Arenas. Working Paper No. 97-02 (Newer Version) (Adobe required)

Community Venue Links (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

When good intentions go bad

2007-03-28T17:28:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on March 28, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
==============
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:52 PM
Subject: When good intentions go bad
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

In a September 29, 2006 press conference Mayors Dyer and Crotty unveiled a "Triple Crown for Downtown." (See:
http://www.orangecountyfl.net/cms/ORANGEMEDIA/countynews/stories/Downtown+Venues.htm).

Some quotes from Mayor Dyer include:
"...Triple Crown for downtown...."
"...Renaissance - new residential and office structures...."
"...Vibrant downtown for years to come...."
"...Strong urban core...."
"...Benefits entire region...."

From Mayor Crotty:
"...local citizens should enjoy the benefits of the tourist development tax...." "...we are going to benefit a lot...."
"...a vital downtown district for economic vitality...."
"...world class urban center...."

Hopefully, our leaders have good, solid, reliable information to substantiate their good intentions and claims. Yet, there is no known academic research that will do so. Moreover, if these statements are based upon information in the Metropolitan Orlando Economic Development Commission (MOEDC) study then I suggest they have a most significant credibility problem.

Please see the August 15, 2006, cover letter to Mr. Charlie Sloan, Executive Vice President Business Development, Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission from CSL International. On page 2 in paragraph 2 one will find (http://www.projecthometown.com/pdf/MOEDC_Economic_Impact_Study.pdf):

"The information contained in this report is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from research of the market, knowledge of the public assembly facility industry and other factors, including certain information you have provided. All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose. Furthermore, there will be differences between projected and actual results. This is because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. We have no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report."

Just in case one missed it, let me repeat:

"...including certain information you have provided."
"All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct."
"Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose."
"Furthermore, there will be differences between projected and actual results"
"This is because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material."
"We have no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report."

Hopefully, our Mayors did not have occluded vision for this disclaimer paragraph and have substantial empirical evidence to support their 9/29/06 public proclamations. If so, I suggest lots of ears would like to hear it and lots of eyes want to see it. Not an unreasonable request considering that this is over a billion dollars in public spending.

Interested persons are invited to review a 1998 Heritage Foundation study: http://www.heritage.org/Research/UrbanIssues/BG1223.cfm for some background of interest on outcomes in Baltimore. From that study, "Good schools and low crime, not proximity to professional sports venues, determine where businesses locate and expand and where prosperous families choose to live." An economic outcome comparison between Virginia and Prince George's County, Maryland is also included, therein.

Americans have begun to understand that saying something often enough doesn't make it true. The Mayors need to produce the hard evidence for their 9/29/06 claims. If they cannot, the Mayors must let the community vote. Without objective evidence of claimed benefits, I believe that retorting that one was elected to decide when mortgaging the community's children and grandchildren's future is unconscionable.

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Ethics in government: Prudent person rule

2007-03-26T17:24:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on March 26, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
===============
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:57 PM
Subject: Ethics in government: Prudent person rule
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

Faith and trust in government and elected officials is waning. I urge you to take steps to restore public trust.

Article 1 Section 1 of the Florida Constitution states:

Political power.--All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.[1]

Florida like most democracies operates as a representative democracy. The people select leaders to represent them in government. These leaders operate on the good faith and trust of the people.

Thus, can it be reasonably inferred that the people in entrusting elected officials would expect that those leaders are bound by the prudent person rule? Is expecting elected officials to act like a prudent person concerning public funds, although unwritten, intuitively obvious as a right retained by the people? Is acting like a prudent person not an ethical cornerstone ensuring the peoples’ good faith and trust in government and their elected leaders? I do not remember giving up that right to such a fundamental expectation, so I assert that it is retained.

Investopedia defines the Prudent-Person Rule as[2]:
A legal maxim restricting the discretion in a client's account to investments that a prudent person seeking reasonable income and preservation of capital might buy for his or her own portfolio. Also called the Prudent Man Rule.

The prudent person rule is commonly applied to investment counselors. Therefore, as applied to elected officials it protects citizens from elected officials investing public funds in shady, risky or otherwise poor investments.

Locally, I suggest that the Events Center and the Citrus Bowl renovation investments cannot pass the prudent person rule. I believe that the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (MOEDC) study[3] concerning the economic development value of venues is smoke and mirrors. No academic research that is known to me has proven the validity of such studies.[4] I find it most disturbing that the MOEDC study makes no mention of the academic research on this subject. Frankly, the MOEDC study cannot pass a sniff test even if one ignores the fact that the MOEDC donated $5,000 to a Magic backed group to promote the projects[5].

Perhaps one believes that such research/ information is obscure or hard to find. However a simple Google query consisting of economic benefits + professional sports yields nearly 1.9 million hits[6]. When many, many, employers Google prospective hires, is it unreasonable to expect such behavior by MOEDC and local elected officials when a billion dollars of public funds is at stake?

Obviously, I have not reviewed most of the nearly 1.9 million links. Yet, browsing the links on the first couple of pages should easily convince doubters that these are very bad deals in which to invest public funds. Professional sports stadiums are not deals in which a prudent person would invest since economic development claims are unfounded. Moreover, I suggest that the lack of private investment in professional sports facilities is prima facie evidence of fiscal folly since prudent business persons routinely invest billions in theme parks, amusement centers and sundry entertainment venues but not professional sports facilities.

This folly is not limited to Orange County. The State Legislature is considering granting additional tax subsidies to professional sports. Personally I find such behavior a wanton abandonment of public trust.

Does this mean that communities cannot make bad investment decisions? I suggest that it does not. However, I believe that elected officials are obligated under the prudent person rule to obtain approval of voters in a public referendum for any such projects. That approval is even more important when polls have found that by 3 to 1 Florida voters do not want tax subsidies for professional sports.[7] Appallingly, HB 687 & SB 1008, efforts to end special interest professional sports subsidies without explicit voter approval by Rep. Scott Randolph and Sen. Mike Bennett, languish in committee.

This situation has gone on far too long. It undermines our democracy. I cannot be tolerated by honest, ethical leaders. I trust that you will govern yourselves accordingly.

Respectfully yours,

Ray Kockentiet
Orlando, FL

bcc
[1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes#A01S01
[2] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prudentmanrule.asp
[3] http://www.projecthometown.com/pdf/MOEDC_Economic_Impact_Study.pdf
[4] http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf , http://research.umbc.edu/~coates/work/v698.pdf , http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/sports.asp & http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/stadiums.html
[5] http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/news/apopka/orl-orjustin2507mar25,0,7178221.story
[6] http://tinyurl.com/32xkdu
[7] http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=655

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Protestors: Safety effort needs cash

2007-03-21T17:17:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on March 21, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
=====================
RE: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/news/doctorphillips/orl-vvenueprotest2107mar21,0,7568042.story

Mr. Damron:

I read your piece on the protests yesterday. Good round-up. Tangentially, I am certain that a poll of Sentinel subscriber/ readers would certainly determine that pictures of children and cattle are significantly more important for front page Local and State news than photos of upset first responders protesting spending $1 billion dollars on the Community Venues.

That said, I respectfully disagree with Mayor Crotty. The Mayor is correct in stating that the venues are funded with tourist dollars. Yet, I do not see the issue as apples and oranges. Perhaps, Red Delicious versus Granny Smith would be more accurate. I would guess that the Mayor did not dare to venture into the economic argument deep enough.

When a dollar is taken from a tourist's wallet that is one less dollar available to be spent in the local economy.
If that dollar was instead spent in the local economy (versus transferring it to support the venues) then that dollar would percolate through the economy and generate monies to pay for police, firefighters, law enforcement, schools, roads, etc.
Professional sports teams like the Magic compete against other entertainment venues for fans and fans' disposable income. Other businesses also want those dollars. However, most competitors do not receive tax subsidies. Most competitors pay property taxes.
Thus, competitors are placed at an unfair economic disadvantage because of the subsidies.
How Mom and Pop members of the Chamber of Commerce got duped into supporting the Events Center and the Citrus Bowl renovations I will never know.
Dollars spent by fans to see professional sports are discretionary dollars. For the sake of argument let's call them entertainment dollars. If professional sports teams leave an area the entertainment dollars generally do not.
Many studies assume the dollars do and thus attempt to claim a "paper" economic loss if the team leaves. In fact, it is most probable that those dollars will instead spent at other competing venues.

So when economic studies claim that fans spend $X and that is multiplied through the economy to produce $Y impact, with several caveats, that is correct. However, if there were no professional sports then the same entertainment dollars would be spent at other venues or the free market unhampered by subsidies would compete and produce new venues to attract those dollars.

Some studies have found that the Federal government is deprived of potential revenue of up to 38% of the construction budget for such facilities. These facilities are constructed using tax free, municipal bonds. Thus, the Federal government cannot collect income taxes on the interest paid on those bonds. Ask the Mayor how important Federal dollars are to the State and Local governments when he talks apples and oranges to constituents.

Again, interested persons are directed to: Minnesota Legislative Reference Library: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/sports.asp for more information. I believe that the academic studies cited therein will fully substantiate my claims.

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

CS/SB 544 - Professional Sports Franchises

2007-03-18T17:03:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on March 18, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. Its focus is on subsidies at the State level. It is public record.
================
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 2:11 PM
Subject: CS/SB 544 - Professional Sports Franchises

Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am writing to express grave concerns about what I fear may be a potential lack of due diligence. I further fear that this lack of due diligence may lead to additional acts of fiscal imprudence.

Over the years subsidies to professional sports have been required from a pragmatic standpoint. Yet, no evidence that I have found to date indicates such policy is fiscally sound. Moreover, research indicates that claimed benefits are often unattained. Thus, I am urging that the underlying economic analysis provided to support these public policy initiatives be reviewed to ensure that it is objective and thorough. I fully trust that Governor Crist will look deeply into this matter.

All academic research overwhelming states that these subsidies are very bad deals for taxpayers. I refer all readers to the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library for substantiation of that claim (See: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/sports.asp). Some additional resource listings may be found here: http://www.swcollege.com/bef/policy_debates/stadiums.html.

Nearly eight years ago Raymond J. Keating, chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council and a columnist with Newsday wrote, Sports Pork: The Costly Relationship between Major League Sports and Government. See: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-339es.html. The Florida Marlin’s saga contained therein is sufficiently compelling to assert that this is required reading for elected officials voting on this bill.

By three to one, voters do not want these subsidies. A February 28, 2005, Quinnipiac University poll reported:

By a 76 - 22 percent margin, Florida voters oppose in general spending tax dollars on sports facilities such as stadiums or indoor arenas, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today (See: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=655 .).

A three to one margin would seem to indicate presence of clear support to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning such subsidies if elected officials continue to turn a deaf ear to the public.

There is a sea change throughout the nation concerning this issue. Voters everywhere do not want these special interest subsidies to continue.

Florida is a great State. It is the fourth largest State in the nation. Professional sports teams need access to our great State to survive. Responsible elected leaders can no longer allow the tail to wag the dog. It’s time to call the bluff.

I know that visionary leaders are at times required to do things that are unpopular with the public. However, doing something that is not only unpopular but fiscally imprudent betrays the publics’ trust. Perhaps even worse, it fuels conspiracy buffs insinuating public corruption.

Thus, I urge you to kill this Bill. Furthermore, I urge you to take the next step and begin the process of Sun Setting/ repealing the legislation that has authorized these ill-conceived, special interest subsidies.

Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns. I feel that staff and precious personal time will be much better spent reading credible sources on this issue than replying to this email.

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Public Hearings Needed

2007-03-17T16:56:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on March 17, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
==========
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:57 AM
Subject: Public hearings needed

I will attempt to encourage readers to compare and contrast two major events that occur within our community. I believe that their economic impacts may be similar yet the return on taxpayer investment is perhaps significantly different. In doing so, I would also hope to continue to build a case on the need for public hearings.

In the 3/16/07 edition of the Orlando Sentinel Mr. David Whitley presents an inside glimpse behind the scenes of a local professional golf tournament (See: http://tinyurl.com/2s4b65). The Arnold Palmer Invitational boasts an army of 1,200 volunteers dedicating themselves to ensure the success of this event.

This is remarkable community support. How does that volunteer list compare to events held at the Citrus Bowl?

How does the community’s cost to provide additional public services, police, EMT, etc. compare between the two venues? Who foots the bill?

How much in taxes is spent to pay for the building/ renovation and maintenance of the Bay Hill golf course? My uneducated guess is none. In contrast, how much is/ will be spent for the Citrus Bowl?

How much in property taxes is collected from the Bay Hill course and surrounding development? All know that the Citrus Bowl is exempt and provides no property tax revenue to the community. Just for fun, if the stadium was privately owned how much revenue would it generate in property taxes?

What is the economic impact from having the golf tournament in the area? How does that compare to the Capitol One Bowl? Please, bottom line both of these events, subtracting all community costs to see which has a more positive net economic impact and return on community dollar invested. One may be surprised.

Like post-season college football, PGA Tour stops are limited. There are only a certain number on the calendar. However, the business models are very different. Fortunately, at least until special interests rush in to exploit it, the business model for the PGA Tour does not rely on taxpayer wallets.

Both can go elsewhere to greener pastures. However the economic repercussions of losing the golf tournament does not saddle the community with bond payments. Therefore, since bonds will be floated, the Citrus Bowl renovations need public hearings and measurement of public sentiment.

Notably, public opinion when taken has a long history of overwhelming opposition to professional sports subsidy deals. On Page 20 of Sports Stadium Madness Why It Started How To Stop It (http://www.heartland.org/pdf/madness.pdf), Mr. Bast provides this reference: Scott W. Rasmussen, “Americans Want State and Local Governments to Sell Sports Stadiums, Not Buy Them,” News Release, Rasmussen Research (Waxhaw, North Carolina), November 11, 1997. In referencing that news release Mr. Bast states:

Responding to a national survey of one thousand adults conducted on November 11, 1997, by Rasmussen Research 64 percent said tax dollars should never be used to build a professional sports facility, while 13 percent were not sure. Some 56 percent said government agencies should sell their existing arenas to the highest bidder. Even 39 percent of respondents who said they attend professional sports events regularly said the arenas should be sold.

Polls in New York and elsewhere have found similar significant public opposition. See:
http://www.empirepage.com/releases/041105.html & http://www.empirepage.com/polls/aprilpoll.html
http://tinyurl.com/27ytuj
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/por/10_97/por1097.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p03s01-usgn.html
and as much as 70% opposition was found within the last few weeks in Washington: http://tinyurl.com/2kldez
There is no known opinion data for our community (See: http://tinyurl.com/yracqc). Some I consider well-informed have opined that backers know better than to ask. They assert that there is no reason for them to believe that local voter’s opinion would produce significantly different results. Thus, not asking ensures deniability/ ignorance which are needed by elected officials to proceed with these projects. Cynical? Perhaps it is. But often cynicism contains a grain of truth.

I found the March 11, 2007, For The Record Show featuring Orlando Magic COO Alex Martins basically admitting that money was paid to Advantage Consultants in order to mute public opposition most disturbing. That alone would seem to scream the need for public hearings. Have elected officials and community leaders become desensitized to the point that paying $200,000 in hush money to ensure gorging on public pork is only intriguing when such behavior is part of a Sopranos episode? I sincerely hope not.

I agree that elected officials cannot govern the community by referendum. Yet, blithely ignoring overwhelming negative public sentiment especially when empirical evidence clearly indicates a lack of economic benefit beyond direct construction expenditures for such projects merely fuels voter cynicism. Worse, it undermines citizens’ trust in government.

Citizens’ trust is a cornerstone of our representative democracy. Public hearings and citizen input help build it. If readers need some additional convincing please see items numbered seven and ten on page seven of: http://tinyurl.com/2x98do.

Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns. Again, I urge you to support Commissioner Jacobs in her effort to hold public hearings on the Community Venues issue.

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Pardon me; I believe your slip is showing

2007-03-12T16:52:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on March 12, 2007 to The Sentinel Editorial Board, elected officials, additional members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
=====
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:09 PM
Subject: Pardon me; I believe your slip is showing
Pardon me; I believe your slip is showing

Like most Floridians I appreciate Sunshine State Week. However, as we acknowledge the importance of operating in the Sunshine this week I fear one of our most venerable fighter's slip is showing.

Roughly seven years ago Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute (http://www.heartland.org/), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Chicago, Illinois wrote, “Sports Stadium Madness Why It Started How To Stop It.” (See: http://www.heartland.org/pdf/madness.pdf).

Heartland is a very conservative think tank. To the best of my understanding Heartland was a member organization within the Cooler Heads Coalition. The Cooler Heads Coalition, which apparently went defunct in 2006, asserted that global warming is a myth.

This is a group from which conservative politicians, which are abundant in our State, often seek public policy information. Readers are given this background information concerning Heartland in an attempt to be as transparent as is humanly possible during this debate.

In the current Community Venues debate I believe that there is some very insightful, but not publicly discussed information In “Sports Stadium Madness Why It Started How To Stop It.” On page 23, Mr. Blast states:

“Most local media outlets weigh in strongly on the side of the stadium subsidies, since their circulation or ratings will be improved by the presence of a professional sports team. Misinformation regarding job creation and economic development is usually reported uncritically, persuading people who would otherwise be skeptical or indifferent to the plan to become passive supporters.

Perhaps more troubling within Mr. Blast’s report are allegations found on page 17 of “Sports Stadium Madness…:”

…Another possible indirect benefit of having a professional sports team is that it sells newspapers, which helps to explain why daily newspapers are invariably big boosters of sports stadium subsidies….. It may even have happened in some city, somewhere, that the presence of a professional sports team kept alive a newspaper that otherwise would have gone under…

Only an ostrich could assert that newspapers across the country are not in deep financial trouble. I am certain that Sentinel staff can look across the room and see many empty desks.

Moreover, I believe that sports coverage sells newspapers and help media outlets in general. However, no one to date to the best of my knowledge has proven collusion or any ulterior motive.

It is mere speculation. In my opinion such speculation belongs in the realm of rumor mongering and innuendo. I find that most often in heated debates, motives are best left to the DA and to novelists.

I sincerely appreciate the contribution from the news side of the Sentinel. I have not found any reason to believe that the news side of the Sentinel has been anything but helpful and forthright in this debate. In my opinion, the reporters involved have remained most true to professional journalism practices. I am indebted to them and any such accusations to the contrary by anyone must be taken with a large grain/ perhaps a block of salt.

However, I believe that the Sentinel could do more – much more. I believe the community deserves a full investigation/ disclosure concerning the Community Venues backer’s potential gains, including but not limited to bond underwriters, construction companies, vendors, etc. This must include media interests such as the Tribune’s.

Mark Shlueb and David Damron’s report today (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/specials/orl-venuesmoney1207mar12,0,1071855.story?coll=orl-special-headlines-news = http://tinyurl.com/yntbtr) is a tantamount to looking at a snowflake on the tip of an iceberg. This is over a billion dollars of government pork. Full disclosure is sorely needed to ensure that everyone involved is operating in the Sunshine.

Yet, the Sentinel is a business. The business must decide where its scare resources must be spent. Just because I and others want more does not allow one to claim that the paper is “underreporting” to protect its bottom line. My guess is trying to squeeze my size 12 feet into Ms. Waltz’s or Ms. Hall’s pumps would be the least painful part of a stroll in their shoes. I must have faith that they will do the best they can.

On the other side of the house, yes, the Sentinel Editorial Board has taken a pro-venue stance. That can be easily confirmed. Is there a hidden agenda on the editorial side of the house by Ms. Healy, et. al, to push the venues because it helps the corporate bottom line?

Readers can read and judge the editorials in number and content. Viewers can judge the March 11, 2007, For The Record show interviewing Orlando Magic COO Alex Martins. Was this a hard-nosed interview with tough probing questions? Or was this a promotional PR spin, seeking to elicit public support? Was Ms. Healy seeking truth to help inform the public? Or was she soft balling, shaping the discussion and thus coincidently protecting the bottom line? Again, motives must be left to the DA and novelists but viewers are entitled to opinions.

Fully ignoring motives still allows me to assert that the editorial position clearly indicates that the Sentinel’s corporate slip is showing. How? This is Sunshine State Week. In the spirit of Sunshine State Week I see an embarrassing problem at the Sentinel – lack of transparency!

Unless I have missed it, the Sentinel has been less than forthcoming concerning its corporate conflicts of interest in this debate. True, the information is “out there” if one has the time and resources to dig for it. An older list is here: http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/tribune.asp.

Personal past experience tells me that any complaints concerning this issue will fall on deaf ears. The Sentinel’s Reader’s Representative has no/ limited authority concerning editorial content or ethics concerning the editorial department.

A Sentinel stance to remain translucent should raise paramount concerns if one reflects upon the observable organizational behavioral inconsistency surrounding it. It is obvious to the most casual observer that Ms. Healy, et. al., are frequent champions and advocates for Sunshine. Getting the facts and telling the truth permeate its editorial content. The paper’s editorials often proclaim the need for transparency and disclosure to ensure the survival of our democratic form of government.

The Sentinel Editorial board often demands that others be fully transparent on a host of issues. Yet, the organization is apparently incapable of being fully transparent concerning Tribune Media’s conflicts concerning public funding of professional sports facilities. How will these venues affect the Sentinel’s bottom line? If the Magic left, what does that mean to the Sentinel’s bottom line and its award winning sports section?

Thus, I assert that the current lack of transparency by the Sentinel Editorial Board appears behaviorally inconsistent if the norms are truly ingrained within the institution. Their slip is showing.

Personally, unless full disclosure is forthcoming, I find the Board to be open to allegations of hypocrisy and insincerity. Some may even assert it to be disingenuous.

As all journalists know, Sunshine is a great disinfectant. Transparency also takes the teeth from attack dogs. Full disclosure serves the public interest and in my opinion increases integrity and reliability.

Prominent members of the Sentinel and the Sentinel Editorial Board are community leaders and good shepherds. In my opinion, good leaders lead by example – “do as I do” not “do as I say” sort of folks.

It’s Sunshine Week. Will the Sentinel set an example?

Community Venue Links (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Rich DeVos can't afford to build a new arena

2007-03-11T16:43:00.000-04:00

This email was sent by me on March 11, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
========
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:35 PM
Subject: Rich DeVoss can't afford to build an arena
Mr. Maxwell:

I always enjoy your column. Today's jab at billionaire DeVos concerning a new area for the Magic is most timely. However, his statement has some merit.

If you have had the time to read copies of my emails, you are well aware that I am no fan of these projects. Moreover, I believe that I have provided links to academic research that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how bad building professional sports facilities are for taxpayers.

Regardless, as you know for some politicians the ability to hang a billion dollar pork chop around one's neck is too tempting to resist. It draws lots of people with fat wallets. Until political campaigns are 100% publicly funded, Federal Legislation bars these corporate welfare projects or a savvy, Elliot Spitzer caliber prosecutor directing a Federal Grand Jury intervenes and finds wrongdoing, public financing of professional sports facilities will unfortunately remain the norm.

Hopefully, you are sitting down. I'm going to shock you.

The statement by DeVoss that he can't afford to build his own stadium can be defended. While he could certainly build the stadium out of his own private resources, he has much better places to put his money to work. He knows all too well that these facilities are poor investments. If they were good investments they would be built by the private sector like shopping malls, office towers and theme parks. If I read correctly, the Forbes group of which he is a member increased their wealth by roughly 35% over the last several years. One doesn't do that investing in professional sports facilities -- teams yes; facilities no.

Yet, his assertion contains a grain of truth. The truth lies in the fact that if the Magic built their own stadium they would be at a competitive disadvantage with other teams who benefit from these government pork barrel freebies. However, if one buys this argument, then I believe that it must go hand-in-hand with performance accountability.

Accountably is big in politics. Benchmarks, FCAT, outcomes, performance -- such buzz words drip from politicians' lips. However, these same words are lacking surrounding the deal to build a new arena for the Magic. If we ultimately are saddled with this boondoggle, then elected officials need to ensure that there are some performance benchmarks and few golden parachutes inserted to protect the taxpayers.

Mr. Alex Martins, COO of the Orlando Magic and community supporters now often cite community/ spirit/ pride/ quality of life as rationales for subsidizing professional sports. This argument is not without credible support (See: Rappaport, Jordan, and Chad Wilkerson. "What Are the Benefits of Hosting a Major League Sports Franchise?" Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City), First Quarter 2001, p. 55-86: http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/1q01rapp.pdf).

However, proponents using such a pro-facility argument seem to overwhelmingly agree that there is more community/ spirit/ pride/ quality of life benefit from a team that makes the playoffs consistently versus one that dwells in the cellar. I doubt if we need a big study to prove that. Thus, if taxpayers are cajoled into building an arena to improve community/ spirit/ pride/ quality of life then there needs to be monetary penalties imposed if the Magic do not perform/ make the play-offs.

Below the play-off level of performance, there needs to be very, very substantial economic penalties, tens of millions, if the team falls below the top 50% in the league. There needs to be mega penalties, perhaps a $100 million a year minimum, for ending up in the bottom 25%. All penalties are indexed with an inflation escalator. The index could be tied to changes in league player/ coaches’ salaries and increases in average franchise market value.

Benchmarks, performance and accountability must be included in any negotiation. If community funding is provided because it improves community/ spirit/ pride/ quality of life, then the Magic has to deliver it or suffer significant economic penalties. If it's fair for the schools and others, then it's fair for the Magic.

No skimming money into the pockets of owners via fielding mediocrity. It will not be tolerated. Doing so will be prohibitively expensive. Persons needing a history lesson on this potentially painful outcome can read the saga of the 1997 World Series Champions, the Florida Marlins at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-339es.html.

Next, professional sports franchises and communities are often best categorized as very abusive relationships. Every few years Team X threatens to leave Community Y if the latest demands are not met. As all landlords know there is little one can do other than withhold a security deposit if the tenant leaves for greener pastures.

Thus, it would appear financially prudent to have Mr. DeVos pledge his personal assets/ post a performance bond / annuity guaranteeing full payment to retire bonds floated for the project if the team leaves the area before the bonds are paid in full. A buy-out/ transfer of venue and/or ownership clause if you will. Boy, I bet buy-out clauses are completely foreign in the professional sports industry :-).

I am sure that this email will generate a few chuckles from some and unvoiced trepidation in others. However, these concepts are not unique to me. Take a look at: http://urban.csuohio.edu/news/opeds/rosentrauboped72503.shtml.

Again, thanks for a great column. Like many in the community, I remain hopeful that Commissioner Jacobs' call for more public hearings on these projects will prevail.

Community Venue Links (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Mayors Crotty and Dyer ignore caution lights

2007-03-06T15:21:00.000-05:00

This email was sent by me on March 6, 2007 to elected officials, members of the media and other interested parties. It is public record.
===================
Not knowing the public’s opinion on an issue is generally a caution light for elected officials. Yet, our Mayors and most of the areas’ elected officials appear determined to speed through a very, very dangerous intersection blatantly ignoring such an obvious warning.

If the folly of selling long-term bonds to fund a facility that will certainly be called “obsolete” in roughly 10 years is not enough, there is much, much more. That is, the economic benefit assertions consistently repeated concerning public financed sports facilities are NOT supported in the academic literature. The public is clearly not being told the whole truth!

In the best light it appears that many community leaders have become the victim of belief by repetition making the truth irrelevant. The PR campaign is well funded and well-focused to stay on message.

In the worst case, a grand jury investigation will at some point reveal a scandal. A scandal that may make the current expressway authority mess pale in comparison.

Unfortunately for our community in this saga is the apparent loss of another traditional leadership body. That is, it appears that the Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board either has failed to have adequately done its homework or was spoon-fed information from the EDC it readily swallowed without question.

Fortunately, several reporters on the news side of the Sentinel have been diligently following this story. The saga can be found here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/community/news/downtown/orl-venuesg,0,3404911.storygallery?coll=orl-comm-downtown-utility. Hopefully, these intrepid reporters will contact some of the academic researchers on this topic. Their email addresses are available via a minimal search effort on the web. In fact, several received blind copies of this email as an FYI.

Proponents routinely cite the Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (MOEDC) study concerning the venues (http://www.projecthometown.com/pdf/MOEDC_Economic_Impact_Study.pdf). However, the About the EDC webpage (http://www.orlandoedc.com/About%20the%20EDC/index.shtml) contains a clear red flag. See if you can find it:

“The Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission (EDC) is an organization that helps business. We are dedicated to meeting the needs of today's industries and creating a competitive economic climate where businesses can thrive.”

Did you find it? Did you notice that there is NO mention concerning the interests of taxpayers?

A brief look at the EDC impact study reveals that the bulk of the paper is dedicated to comparing Orlando to other cities. The case for the venues is made via showing that the city does not measure up in a competitive climate for venues. It panders to base emotions. Fear – falling behind losing suitors, greed – stealing events from other cities and inferiority/ inadequacy – an inability to be as “good” as other cities. This is clearly not an objective, unbiased report that could stand-up under academic peer review.

The EDC report conveniently overlooks the fact that the Magic, like all professional sports teams are tightly controlled in number. This means that supply is restricted, thus manipulating demand. In addition, there are only so many concerts, bowl games and other events available throughout the Nation. Limiting supply allows promoters to extort concessions resulting in maximized profit.

Moreover, one can be 100% certain that if local leaders succumb to the rationale in this EDC study the next “sucker city” on the list will be presented in the very near future with a “study” showing how it is falling behind and needs to expand/ re-model/ rebuild its facilities. Working the list ensures that rebuilt sports complexes in Orlando will again become outclassed and need refurbishment to remain competitive well before the bonds are fully paid.

Alarmingly, I find a very clear lack of due diligence within a report that is being used to support the expenditure of a billion dollars. On page 20 one finds, “In recent years, a number of communities have recognized the benefits of public investment in facilities similar to the proposed Community Venues in Orlando.” There is NO mention or review of the academic literature concerning the economic impact of publicly financed sports facilities. There are no disclaimers -- no caveats. How could that be? Who paid for this study?

I believe that healthy skepticism is often needed to ensure fiduciary responsibility in public servants. Such skepticism would seem to require that elected leaders ensure that the EDC report is not window dressing designed by vested interests intending to disguise pigs gorging tax dollars at the public trough. The intent of the EDC study appears to be an effort to ensure that the public will not see a $637 million barrel of pork in the Events Center and renovated Citrus Bowl. Moreover, only a fool would assume that these ventures will not be plagued by cost overruns.

Nearly eight years ago Raymond J. Keating, chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council and a columnist with Newsday wrote, Sports Pork: The Costly Relationship between Major League Sports and Government. See: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-339es.html. The Florida Marlin’s saga contained therein is sufficiently compelling to assert that this is required reading for local elected officials.

Mr. Keating states:

“The lone beneficiaries of sports subsidies are team owners and players. The existence of what economists call the "substitution effect" (in terms of the stadium game, leisure dollars will be spent one way or another whether a stadium exists or not), the dubiousness of the Keynesian multiplier, the offsetting impact of a negative multiplier, the inefficiency of government, and the negatives of higher taxes all argue against government sports subsidies. Indeed, the results of studies on changes in the economy resulting from the presence of stadiums, arenas, and sports teams show no positive economic impact from professional sports or a possible negative effect.”

This is clearly ignored in the EDC study. Discretionary, leisure dollars will be spent in other venues if the Magic are not here! If the Magic leave, people will go see a movie, dine out, go to the theatre/ concert (yes, I do support the Performing Arts Center), visit theme parks, take in Cirque du Soleil, etc.

Coats and Humphries (see: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf and http://research.umbc.edu/~coates/work/v698.pdf) also point out the flaws in “advocacy” studies. The authors assert:

“…in stark contrast to the results claimed by most prospective economic impact studies commissioned by teams or stadium advocates, the consensus in the academic literature has been that the overall sports environment has no measurable effect on the level of real income in metropolitan areas. Our own research suggests that professional sports may be a drain on local economies rather than an engine of economic growth.”

Yes, you read it right, a drain! Locally, the two stadium projects are touted to be funded by tourist dollars. This is apparently an effort to diminish local taxpayer opposition. Yet, the cost of that capital is not free. Every dollar pilfered from a tourist’s wallet by government engages what is known as the negative multiplier effect. That is, one dollar taken by taxation is one less available to be spent in the local economy. The losers are local businesses. The winners are the Magic owners and players.

Published by the Brookings Institute Press, the Noll and Zimbalist’s book, Sports, Jobs, and Taxes (see: http://www.brookings.edu/press/books/sports.htm) should in itself be sufficient for our elected leaders to conclude that the debate about sports facilities as wise economic investments is long over. This is a game that taxpayers clearly lose.

Finally, Mr. Keating concludes the Executive Summary of Sports Pork: The Costly Relationship between Major League Sports and Government stating:

“A step in the right direction would be a measure requiring voters to approve any government subsidy for professional sports.”

Unfortunately, to date Commissioner Fred Brummer is apparently the only elected leader able to clearly hear that message. Only Commissioner Brummer has the vision to see a very obvious caution light. Hopefully, that will soon change.

This is a very, complex issue that needs more than PR spin. The links contained herein offer a treasure trail of published research on this topic in their reference lists.

Yes, delays will increase costs. I lament that a sorely needed Performing Arts Center will perhaps face delay.

However, when the future of the community’s fiscal health is in the balance, voters deserve truth. They also deserve an opportunity to decide the issue.

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Links to Community Venue Emails

2007-03-02T12:34:00.000-05:00

Below are links to emails I have written and that are posted on this site concerning the Community Venues and subsidies to professional sports. This listing is intended to prevent intersted readers from paging through other issues on this Blog.

03.06.07:
Mayors Crotty and Dyer ignore caution lights
( new window )

03.11.07:
Rich DeVos can't afford to build a new arena
( new window )

03.12.07:
Pardon me; I believe your slip is showing
( new window )

03.17.07:
Public Hearings Needed
( new window )

03.18.07:
CS/SB 544 - Professional Sports Franchises
( new window )

03.21.07:
Protestors: Safety effort needs cash
( new window )

03.26.07:
Ethics in government: Prudent person rule
( new window )

03.28.07:
When good intentions go bad
( new window )

04.03.07:
The $1 billion question
( new window )

04.09.07:
Congressional testimony on public subsides for sports
( new window )

04.09.07:
Jacobs: Town Hall Meeting
( new window )

04.10.07:
Support HB 687 & SB 1008...
( new window )

04.13.07:
Sentinel editorial: A little backbone please
( new window )

04.15.07:
Quality of life and other birds in the bush ( new window )

04.20.07:
Commissioner Moore’s Town Hall Meeting ( new window )This is a report on the meeting. It was emailed to public officials and other interested parties.

04.23.07:
Email from Commissioner Brummer ( new window )

04.23.07
What’s not to like? ( new window )

04.27.07
Commissioner Fernandez's Meeting ( new window )

04.27.07
My comments at Commissioner Fernandez's public hearing ( new window )

04.27.07
Questions for Commissioner Fernandez ( new window )

04.28.07
Email from Dr. Sutton ( new window )

05.01.07
Community Venue links to public information ( new window )

05.02.07
Parrramore land is polluted ( new window )

05.03.07
The price of a trophy spouse ( new window )

05.04.07
05.04.07 Sentinel editorial ( new window )

05.08.07
Commissioner Jacobs' post-meeting email ( new window )

05.08.07
Use of tourist taxes ( new window )

05.09.07
Community Venues & the Sentinel ( new window )

05.17.07
Exhaustive review of Downtown? ( new window )

05.18.07
Case of the missing cavaet ( new window )

07.23.07
Making the toughest decision ( new window )

07.24.07
TDC meeting ( new window )

07.30.07
Congratulations to Venues supporters ( new window )

NOTE: The 07.30.07 email above is the last one that will be linked on this page. After this date if I write about the Venues it will be found in the Current Posts.
rk

Community Venue Links (New Window)

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Academic Research: Arts

2007-03-01T14:44:00.000-05:00

Academic Research/ Significant Articles: Public Financing of Arts
Lasting Effects: Assessing the Future of Economic Impact Analysis of the Arts. Organized by the Cultural Policy Center, The University of Chicago on May 12-14, 2004.
From the site:

In the rush to attract and retain tourists and residents, cities across the nation have been implementing large public arts and culture projects. In Chicago alone, the last few years have seen the development of such major public arts projects as Millennium Park, The Harris Theatre of Music and Dance, and the renovation of Solider Field. It is taken as an article of faith among many that these projects are worth their cost. But are they? How do these developments and other, similar projects across the country contribute to their host communities? Does a state of the art theatre center add vitality to a community’s economy? Does the development of cultural amenities attract the “creative class,” or does the presence of this class spark the development of cultural amenities? If it’s true that the arts and culture have a discernable impact on economies, what is the best method for obtaining a realistic measurement of this impact? Moreover, can the importance of arts and culture be reduced to economic considerations?

To address these questions and others, the Cultural Policy Center (CPC) at The University of Chicago convened Lasting Effects: Assessing the Future of Economic Impact Analysis of the Arts, a three day conference that examined benefits and pitfalls of using economic impact analysis (EIA) as a tool for arts advocacy.

Other Significant Sources on the Arts

From the “about us” page: “Americans for the Arts is the nation's leading nonprofit organization for advancing the arts in America. With 45 years of service, we are dedicated to representing and serving local communities and creating opportunities for every American to participate in and appreciate all forms of the arts.” Americans for the Arts ( new window )

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Quality of Life Indicators

2007-03-01T12:45:00.000-05:00

Many proponent claim increases in “quality of life” from pro sports. I have been led to believe that from an economic perspective that means the number and variety of entertainment choices.

Yet, I suggest that a definition of quality of life depends on whom one asks. For some it demands having numerous choices as to where to spend excess disposable income in an effort to be amused and/or entertained. For others it is being fortunate enough to have a roof overhead, a steady job, food in one’s stomach and the hope that the gun fire was not intentionally aimed at you.

This is from the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies ( new window ) and is a "proposed definition."

Quality of life usually refers to the degree to which a person’s life is desirable versus undesirable, often with an emphasis on external components, such as environmental factors and income. In contrast to subjective well-being, which is based on subjective experience, quality of life is often expressed as more “objective” and describes the circumstances of a person’s life rather than his or her reaction to those circumstances.
However, some scholars define quality of life more broadly, to include not only the quality of life circumstances, but also the person’s perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and reactions to those circumstances. Indexes that combine objective and subjective measures, such as happy life years and healthy life expectancy, have also been proposed.
“Guidelines for National Indicators of Subjective Well-Being and Ill-Being,” by Ed Diener, University of Illinois (2005)( new window ) Adobe Reader required. It appears on page 4. It is signed by 52 academic researchers

Also Quality of Life in the Nation's 100 Largest Cities ( new window ) and Their Suburbs: New and Continuing Challenges for Improving Health and Well-Being finds no reference to pro sports.

Finally, a fast search of CALVERT-HENDERSON QUALITY OF LIFE INDICATORS: A NEW TOOL FOR ASSESSING NATIONAL TRENDS. By Hazel Henderson, Jon Lickerman, and Patrice Flynn, Editors (2000) ( new window ) found physical sports (assuming participant not spectator) as the only mention of the word “sport(s).” If someone finds it please let me know.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Public Opinion Polls

2007-03-01T12:44:00.001-05:00

What do people think? A Quinnipiac University Poll found that by three to one voters do not want subsidies for professional sports. Even Magic fans were opposed 75 - 25 percent.

The Sentinel commissioned a poll from Mason-Dixon. The results are in David Damron and Mark Schlueb’s 4/22/07 report, Support? Oppose? A new arts center is the star attraction in the venue package, a poll reveals. ( new window ) I do not know how long the Sentinel will leave this in the public domain.

I was disappointed that the term tax dollars or government spending was not used. While perhaps defensible by Sentinel management, not asking directly about using “tax dollars” may exploit the public’s ignorance concerning funding sources. Unfortunately, too many people think this is "free money."

My guess is that it mutes considerable opposition. If the question had been phrased tax dollars or government spending versus hotel tax dollars, I would be willing to bet that the results would be in line with previous polls – 3 to 1 against. Polls can be very tricky stuff. There doesn't have to be any sinister stuff involved. If one has the time, compare the questions asked in this poll with the ones asked by Quinnipiac University above.

Note that the Quinnipiac University poll has a margin of error +/- 3.1 percentage points. While the Sentinel's Mason-Dixon poll has a margin of error at +/- 4.5 percentage points.

For a good primer on what to watch-out for in polls see Evaluating Public Opinion Polls ( new window ) The content page is not marked but based on the web address I assume that it is from Stephen F. Austin State University. It's worth a look.

The Sentinel report on Commissioner Jacobs' meeting Magic poll: Most think team's arena offer is fair ( new window ) by Mark Schlueb is here. Frankly, I was flabbergasted that a Magic commissioned poll dominated the story.

I suggest readers take a look at Sentinel columinist Mike Thomas’ blog ( new window ) concerning the polling outfit. Per Mr. Thomas, OnMessage, Inc. specializes in message management. From my perspective I am concerned that the local paper of record would allow a perhaps questionable piece of information to clearly dominate and overshadow a local news story.

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.

Pro Venue Sites

2007-03-01T12:44:00.000-05:00

Project Hometown Pro venue site. There is sales and marketing promotional information on all the venues here. The site has been reportedly funded with a minimum of $250,000. This is THE place to go if you want to hear the proponents’ position.

Purportedly the domain name is owned by the Orlando Magic. However, on the 4/1/07 For The Record Show Jacob Stuart, President of the Local Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber was behind this effort. Mr. Stuart also added that only a few voices in the wilderness were against these projects. His email address is: jacob.stuart@orlando.org.

Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission Study
(Opens a PDF file -- Adobe Reader Required)

Red Flag:
Please see the August 15, 2006, cover letter to Mr. Charlie Sloan, Executive Vice President Business Development, Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission from CSL International. On page 2 in paragraph 2 from the above:

...All information provided to us by others was not audited or verified and was assumed to be correct. Because procedures were limited, we express no opinion or assurances of any kind on the achievability of any projected information contained herein and this report should not be relied upon for that purpose....

September 29, 2006 press conference with Mayors Dyer and Crotty unveiling a "Triple Crown for Downtown."

Orlando Performing Arts Center (OPAC) information:
OPAC Home
OPAC Executive Summary (Adobe required)
Orlando Performing Arts Center presentation to the City of Orlando and Orange County (Power Point required)
OPAC Facts and FAQs (Adobe required)

Current Posts (New Window)
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Kockentiet. All rights are reserved. If used under Fair Use Doctrine, please credit the source. Any copyright material used herein is reproduced under the assumption of Fair Use. Please respect the copyright's of others.