That would be awesome

Oh, yes please. I'm sure Mr Loria would welcome the chance of extending such charity.

Me loves this.

It states that any ballpark or stadium that receives taxpayer money shall serve as a homeless shelter on the dates that it is not in use.

So does that mean the A's could play at any Florida stadium?

Election-year political theater at its best! We should have linked to the Miami Herald story instead, which includes this exciting addition:

Bennett also slipped in a late amendment that would punish teams that black-out games played in taxpayer funded stadiums.

The proposal would fine the team $125,000 for each game that was blacked out, and use the money to purchase sports tickets for foster children, active military members on leave and the less fortunate. The amendment passed unanimously.

Let's put this up to a popular referendum.

Oh, yes please. I'm sure Mr Loria would welcome the chance of extending such charity.

He might if it means a pretty nice tax write-off.

The proposal would fine the team $125,000 for each game that was blacked out, and use the money to purchase sports tickets for foster children, active military members on leave and the less fortunate. The amendment passed unanimously.

The bill moved onto the Senate who amended the bill to apportion some of the funds for Hezbollah, tax credits for BP, and the Jerry Sandusky Legal Defense Fund. The bill was rejected unanimously.

I'd like to use these monies to support the perverted arts.

I think is a fabulous idea, with one tweak. Surely the lawmakers would not oppose opening the publicly-funded statehouse to the homeless when the legislature is out of session.

Is there a demonstrated current need for more homeless shelters in Miami? It wouldn't surprise me if there were but unless the current shelters are all packed to the gills, then there's no need for more. Second, how realistic is it to set up a homeless shelter for a week when the Marlins are out of town, then shut it down? Or are we talking about using it only during the offseason?

It's a grand idea but seems impractical and possibly unnecessary to me. Plus I'm guessing you could build a lot of homeless shelters and feed a lot more hungry people for what a stadium costs.

Walt Davis. Party-pooper.

It's a grand idea but seems impractical and possibly unnecessary to me. Plus I'm guessing you could build a lot of homeless shelters and feed a lot more hungry people for what a stadium costs.

Well, publicly funding ballparks for uber-rich folks like Loria seems impractical and unnecessary, too... so why start thinking things through now?

@12: Yeah! Thanks, for your "practical" ideas, Walt. The only thing missing was a link to your newsletter.

I love it. I think the Bog O in Montreal would make a fantastic homeless shelter.

Second, how realistic is it to set up a homeless shelter for a week when the Marlins are out of town, then shut it down?

They could just the homeless people tickets and count them for attendance purposes.

The Buccaneers would still be blacked out though.

Plus I'm guessing you could build a lot of homeless shelters and feed a lot more hungry people for what a stadium costs.

Without reading TFA (reading's hard), I'm guessing that's the logic behind the law - this is money we should have spent on better uses, but since you got it instead you have to pretend there's some public good.

They could just the homeless people tickets and count them for attendance purposes.

A year from now, when they trade Pujols and Reyes and Bell, they can just use the homeless people to play on the team.

Part of me would love to see the state try to enforce this. In the wink of an eye, Florida would be back to being a home for college football, the Daytona 500 and little else.

They got Pujols?

Heh, on the school bus in 7th grade, I used to argue with a girl on whom I would later have a crush about this very idea.

It didn't end up working out between us.

Walt Davis. Party-pooper.

Sorry. I will work on a David Samson joke by the end of the day to atone.

Without reading TFA (reading's hard), I'm guessing that's the logic behind the law - this is money we should have spent on better uses, but since you got it instead you have to pretend there's some public good.

Yep. It's the "pretend" part I was suggesting.

What I find weird is that, according to the article, that 1988 law _required_ them to provide this service. Not "these facilities shall be made available on off-days at the request of the department of social services" or whatever. It sounds like they have to provide a "haven for the homeless" whether such havens are needed or not.

Which isn't to say it wouldn't likely be easy enough to show they didn't comply even a little bit. I'm guessing that none of these teams ever inquired whether they might be able to help, much less offered up their facilities. On the other hand, they might be able to point to various charitable donations or "United Way" night at the ballpark or something. And if you wanted a compromise solution, having a game where x% of ticket sales (where x=100 is fine by me) went to homeless shelters would probably be a more effective approach.

Were any of these facilites used after Hurricane Andrew? That would seem an obvious time this provision should have been invoked.

Anyway, if there is need for more homeless shelters in Miami and Tampa (and does this include college stadia?) then by all means open these places up at least during the offseason (allowing a couple weeks either side for setting up and taking down), presumably especially the Marlins stadium which is empty during winter.

I think the Bog O in Montreal would make a fantastic homeless shelter.

I got a flu shot there a few years ago, I think.

Were any of these facilites used after Hurricane Andrew?

Football: Sun Life (Miami) was 90% privately financed; would it fall under the law? Tampa Stadium: Owned by the Tampa Sports Authority (is that a public, private, or combo group?)

Baseball: Tropicana: Opened in '90. City owned; does it count? Pro Player/Joe Robbie/Land Shark: Privately owned

Basketball: Miami Arena: City owned at the time. O-Rena: City owned.

So the questions are: (1) Does the state law cover facilites built with city money? (2) If it does, is it legal (can the state pass such a law covering local finances, or can the city void the language in a contract with a team)?

I hope a bum sleeps in Jose Reyes's locker.

I think the Bog O in Montreal would make a fantastic homeless shelter.

I got a flu shot there a few years ago, I think.

Most people used to get flu shots in the Big A.

iirc the Big Owe in Montreal was shown to be more profitable without baseball than with. Monster trucks, trade shows, and who knows what else seem to pay a lot more than Loria owned teams.

Part of me would love to see the state try to enforce this. In the wink of an eye, Florida would be back to being a home for college football, the Daytona 500 and little else.

Which is pretty much what Florida deserves to be, anyway---give it back to the alligators and palmetto bugs. How or why a state's that made up 99% of crackpot politicians, Morty Seinfelds and beach bums ever got two baseball franchises is something that only Bud Selig could possibly try to explain.

Which is pretty much what Florida deserves to be, anyway---give it back to the alligators and palmetto bugs. How or why a state's that made up 99% of crackpot politicians, Morty Seinfelds and beach bums ever got two baseball franchises is something that only Bud Selig could possibly try to explain.

Right, #### the state that has continuously hosted minor league and negro league baseball since the 1890's.

Right, #### the state that has continuously hosted minor league and negro league baseball since the 1890's.

Right, as if there aren't 49 other states that can't say the same thing.

So does that mean the A's could play at any Florida stadium?

Great thread, but the A's crack was the best (so far).

Which is pretty much what Florida deserves to be, anyway---give it back to the alligators and palmetto bugs. How or why a state's that made up 99% of crackpot politicians, Morty Seinfelds and beach bums ever got two baseball franchises is something that only Bud Selig could possibly try to explain.

Plus two hockey teams, three football teams and two basketball teams. Being the fourth most populous state might have something to do with it.

Right, as if there aren't 49 other states that can't say the same thing.

Considering that there were only 44 states in the US in 1890, I'd say no.

Football: Sun Life (Miami) was 90% privately financed; would it fall under the law? Tampa Stadium: Owned by the Tampa Sports Authority (is that a public, private, or combo group?)

Baseball: Tropicana: Opened in '90. City owned; does it count? Pro Player/Joe Robbie/Land Shark: Privately owned

Basketball: Miami Arena: City owned at the time. O-Rena: City owned.

So the questions are: (1) Does the state law cover facilites built with city money? (2) If it does, is it legal (can the state pass such a law covering local finances, or can the city void the language in a contract with a team)?

The law only says facilities constructed in part with state money. While those may have been primarily city-financed, the state subsidized it as well.

Here is the state analysis of which facilities would be affected by the new bill.

They got Pujols?

We all got Pujols, McCoy. And they all stink.

Worked in New Orleans.