Florida Pro Teams Must House Homeless

Friday, January 27, 2012

Two Republican state legislators in Florida have introduced bills that would require the state's pro sports franchises to house homeless people in their stadiums or give back the millions they've received from the state. "I want to make good citizens out of them," said state Sen. Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton), who authored the legislation with state Rep. Frank Artilles (R-Miami). A never-enforced 1988 law required teams that take state money to house the homeless when they're not playing. "The rule was you took the money you were supposed to use it for a program for homeless people and you didn't do it and therefore we want our money back."

Posted by ExpsRedemption at 08:33 AM | 36 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

ExpsRedemption

Matt

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2008/06/01
Visited 2012/02/23

Status: user

MORE STORIES

Glitch found in faster-than-light setup (2 comments) ...

Supremes Take Affirmative Action Case (30 comments) ...

Carney: Obama Didn't Turn Down The Keystone Pipeline (41 comments) ...

Obama: 'American Dream' Modest (29 comments) ...

Jobless disability claims soar to record $200B - January (7 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

If they owe money to the state, that state should be able to collect it in any way that they agree to. Otherwise... foreclosure time.

#1 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-26 07:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Another emotional issue that will go nowhere. The 1%ers that own sports teams will never allow this to pass.

Onto the next act in the political theatre.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2012-01-26 08:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Onto the next act in the political theatre.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2012-01-26 08:01 AM | Reply | Flag: Emotional Political Thespian

#3 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-26 08:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

If they owe money to the state, that state should be able to collect it in any way that they agree to. Otherwise... foreclosure time.

#1 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION AT 2012-01-26 07:54 AM

I am sure you thinks banks should have the same power too, right?

Typical lib, wants the government to have the power to do anything.

#4 | Posted by glasshouse at 2012-01-26 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

expscrement is a lib? Shit we dont want him.

#5 | Posted by truthhurts at 2012-01-26 10:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

#5 Tough shit. The AssMouth has spoken.

ExpsRedemption = flaming lib.

#6 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2012-01-26 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

#4 | Posted by glasshouse at 2012-01-26 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hilarious.

1. States and localities have no business paying tax payer money to help build a stadium.

2. If the money they gave for the stadium is not returned, they have the means to collect said money in any way feasible. Whether by housing homeless or foreclosing on the stadium.

What is your problem with this? If there is a contract to give the money back... there is no issue.

I think that if someone gets themselves in a home and cannot pay for it... they should do whatever they need to to in order to get the money they owe to the people they owe it. They signed a contract. If they do not have the money, they sell the house or get foreclosed on.

Home ownership is not a right, it is a responsibility. If you can't live up to your responsibility... you no longer own a home.

#7 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-26 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

#7. I agree with your post, except for #1. Given the attention, excitement and jobs that comes with stadiums and pro teams, it could be a real benefit to incentivize or even fund the building of a stadium.

#8 | Posted by somoco at 2012-01-26 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I actually like it! We gave you money to build it, so do something to help!

#9 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-01-26 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

If they owe money to the state, that state should be able to collect it in any way that they agree to. Otherwise... foreclosure time.
#1 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

It isn't exactly borrowed so they don't technically owe us.

en.wikipedia.org

#10 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2012-01-26 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Err.... Has it been that long since the LA Superdome was treated like Zuccotti Park?

#11 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2012-01-26 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a horrible idea. The homeless shouldn't have to wait in an obscene line to take a piss. Only those that spend $90 on a ticket and buy five beers at $11 each deserve that kind of cruel fate.

#12 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2012-01-26 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is typical. Only when we get in financial trouble do we start to think straight. I've said for years that tax money and public funds should have never been used to build these damn stadiums. Where were the politicians then? Let the sports teams build these things themselves. We do believe in "capitalism", don't we?

#13 | Posted by matsop at 2012-01-27 08:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sen. Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton),
State Rep. Frank Artilles (R-Miami).

Both liberals.

---teatards-----

#14 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2012-01-27 08:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Let the sports teams build these things themselves.

Why should we tap our trust funds when we can let the taxpayers pick up the tabs through extortion? Foolish boy.

Sincerely,

The Uber 1%

#15 | Posted by 726 at 2012-01-27 08:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

#14 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2012-01-27 08:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Funny thing is... no one has really said that here... besides you, the void one.

#16 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-27 08:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

"#7. I agree with your post, except for #1. Given the attention, excitement and jobs that comes with stadiums and pro teams, it could be a real benefit to incentivize or even fund the building of a stadium."

Study after study shows that is nonsense and that taxpayer funds used to build stadiums for professional sports teams are just welfare for rich folks who own the teams. The jobs created are temporary, low pay and part time, hardly worth the millions of dollars of investment.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-27 08:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

The law Bennett refers to is a provision of a 1988 statute requiring teams that take state money to convert to homeless shelters when the teams arenâ€™t playing. In the 23 years the law has been in existence; it has never been enforced.

Not to difficult enforce the statute.

What is your problem with this? If there is a contract to give the money back... there is no issue.
I think that if someone gets themselves in a home and cannot pay for it... they should do whatever they need to to in order to get the money they owe to the people they owe it. They signed a contract. If they do not have the money, they sell the house or get foreclosed on.
Home ownership is not a right, it is a responsibility. If you can't live up to your responsibility... you no longer own a home.

#7 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION AT 2012-01-26 10:46 AM

Nowhere in the article does it state that these teams have failed to pay back any monies they were contractually obligated to.

#18 | Posted by glasshouse at 2012-01-27 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you know what a dependent clause is? Obviously not.

Read the following sentence very carefully:

"If they owe money to the state, that state should be able to collect it in any way that they agree to. Otherwise... foreclosure time. "

Where was that posted? The very first comment in this thread. Why said it? Me.

What does "if" mean?

Now... hang your head in shame.

#19 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-27 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

#17 | Posted by danni at 2012-01-27 08:53 AM | Reply

You are absolutely correct.

#20 | Posted by matsop at 2012-01-27 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

If we can wage wars, if we can bailout criminal banksters, if we can subsidize big oil and agriculture, if we can send grain to Africa and Bangledesh we can afford to feed our homeless. No one should begrudge it. Neither should it provide unhealthy luxury foods.

I am dead set against using public funds for private professional sports arenas. But since they're already built, why should these facilities remain idle most of the time? Three cheers for these Republicans.

#21 | Posted by nutcase at 2012-01-27 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

#17 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2012-01-27 08:53 AM

I agree with Danni 100%, which just scares the hell out of me.

#22 | Posted by glasshouse at 2012-01-27 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

And there go Florida's professional teams. LA is looking for a new football team. The LA Dolphins?

#23 | Posted by Sycophant at 2012-01-27 10:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

1. States and localities have no business paying tax payer money to help build a stadium.

#7 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

That is a very debatable statement. And thick with irony being that you use the word "business" in your statement.

Local and state governments provide all manner of incentives for business to come to town. A stadium is a venue for conducting business, though the product of the business is entertainment.

Would you disagree with a city providing tax breaks/incentives and paying for the lion's of infrastructure to bring in an automobile manufacturing facility that will provide jobs directly for thousands of people, increase the tax base, bring in revenue, enable other people to start new businesses to feed, clothe, and provide whatever services to the workers at the plant?

When the Invesco, now Sports Authority, at Mile High stadium was being conceived, the state was looking to saddle the entire State of Colorado with a sales tax to help build the stadium complex. It was winnowed down to just the surrounding counties. Still, thousands of people were assessed a tax for which they will never receive any benefit, at least not directly. Though I guess the same could be said for my example above.

Is this just? Can levying the people for the greater good be justified? We pay all the time things that we participate in to varying degrees. And there are always inequalities.

#24 | Posted by ZOT at 2012-01-27 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, the jobs affected are not just the temporary low pay ones, which most of the workers depend on for additional income, but for entire cities.
www.inc.com

Taxpayers may also have a voice in the non-use of publicly funded stadiums.
profootballtalk.nbcsports.com

#25 | Posted by jogi at 2012-01-27 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nowhere in the article does it state that these teams have failed to pay back any monies they were contractually obligated to.

#18 | Posted by glasshouse

Gah! What a nit picker. No it doesn't say they didn't pay back monies they were contractually obligated to. What it does say is that as a condition of taking said monies, you are to set up a homeless program and house the homeless when you are not playing which they have failed to do since 1988; thus putting them in default.

Housing them at the stadiums seems like an awful idea, they accepted the condition. If they don't want to use the facility, they should have plenty of revenue to contribute significant amounts to local homeless programs or even build a separate facility to do so... I mean hundreds of millions were given to build stadiums.

#26 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2012-01-27 11:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

#24 | Posted by ZOT at 2012-01-27 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag:

Paying taxpayer money and giving tax breaks incentives are two very different things. They should not loan to the stadiums, or give grants to the stadiums... unless the stadium is willing to comply with whatever collection methods those who are owed the debt ask.

#27 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-01-27 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess if the government gave them the money they can pull the strings. BUT.............. The homeless will trash the place and the value of the state owned property wil decrease.

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2012-01-27 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

I guess if the government gave them the money they can pull the strings. BUT.............. The homeless will trash the place and the value of the state owned property wil decrease.

#28 | POSTED BY SNIPER

I don't know. Lambeau Field appears to be playable despite having all those smelly, unwashed, illiterate people there every Sunday or Monday evening.

#29 | Posted by Sycophant at 2012-01-27 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

I thought the Dolphins looked like the homeless this season.

#30 | Posted by Diablo at 2012-01-27 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

These republicans are simply socialists!! Nothing more!

.....and just you wait until the biggest display of Socialism takes place next Sunday! The NFL redistributes the wealth amongst it's teams! WTF!! Commies!

#31 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2012-01-27 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

#12 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2012-01-26 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

C'mon. Lighten up. At least the Marlins will have some fans in the seats!

#32 | Posted by hoser at 2012-01-27 09:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

It will known as misery in the pissary!

#33 | Posted by upyours7 at 2012-01-27 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Another emotional issue that will go nowhere. The 1%ers that own sports teams will never allow this to pass."

And goddamn those filthy republicans for attempting it in the first place...

"Study after study shows that is nonsense and that taxpayer funds used to build stadiums for professional sports teams are just welfare for rich folks who own the teams. The jobs created are temporary, low pay and part time, hardly worth the millions of dollars of investment."

Why the fuck would you pay for something when you can get the government to do it for you?

#34 | Posted by madbomber at 2012-01-28 01:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

It would be a good idea to frog march some of those million dollar players and billion dollar owners off to jail for breaking the law and seize their assets and give the money to the homeless.

#35 | Posted by fwthom at 2012-01-28 07:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

#7 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION
"Hilarious."

Yes, it is. But then Glasshouse has never been known for cleverness or insight.
Nonetheless, I'll take a second helping of that irony any day.

"1. States and localities have no business paying tax payer money to help build a stadium."

I think I get the principle of what you're saying, but look at it as an investment.
Professional sports can potentially bring a lot of money to a state.
Not sure about Danni's comment #17 about "Study after study", but if a profit is made, the state benefits.

Now, as far as settling the issue goes, it depends on how the agreement was structured, and also on how the team intends to "house the homeless".
The article seems to indicate that homeless would be housed IN the stadium itself, which seems fraught with pitfalls.
Makes more sense to me to have the team build shelters and halfway houses, sponsor back-to-work programs and educational programs, rather than just give someone a cot in the locker room or the 50-yard-line off-season.

But you're correct in saying that, given a contract, both ends must be held up, and the teams need to step up and fulfill their end in some tangible way.

#36 | Posted by TheTom at 2012-01-28 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag: