Published by: South Florida Business Journal
Written by: Paul Brinkmann
Posted: November 21, 2008

Auto dealer Norman Braman has lost all counts of his lawsuit challenging public funding for a new Florida Marlins stadium.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jeri Beth Cohen released her final written order on Friday, denying Braman's request to declare the stadium's funding plan unconstitutional. Most of the auto dealer's lawsuit was dismissed after a July trial, but the remaining question was whether a public vote should be required for portions of the mega plan funding that relied on taxincrement financing (TIF).

"The court declares that county's receipt and use of such revenue in absence of a voter referendum is constitutional," Cohen's final order states. Braman has promised to pursue appeals as far as possible. Cohen's ruling comes two days after the Florida Supreme Court denied a rehearing in a precedent-setting case from North Florida.

The high court said Wednesday it would not revisit Strand v. Escambia County, which means its September ruling stands as guiding case law for the use of TIF for public projects. The ruling said a public vote is not required for using TIF funds on a road project in Escambia County.

The Strand case holds far-reaching implications for other publicly financed projects such as the Marlins stadium. The stadium does not rely on TIF, but the project is part of a $3 billion "megaplan" that uses TIF to pay off bonds at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts.

Braman's lawsuit challenged the megaplan, partly because TIF financing was used. Braman's suit also targeted Miami-Dade County and the city of Miami.

Cohen had delayed her final order in the Braman case until the Strand ruling became final. North Florida veterinarian Gregory Strand in 2007 won a favorable ruling from the Florida Supreme Court, which said public votes should be required to commit future property taxes for bonds more than $1 million.

That initial ruling shocked the state's public sector because TIF had been used for decades - especially for community redevelopment agencies. But, under pressure, the court began backpedaling almost immediately, and issued a revised opinion exempting schools and existing bonds backed by TIF.

The court also agreed to reconsider its ruling, but waited 12 months to do so. In the interim, court cases about public financing for big projects that relied on TIF were left in a gray area. On Sept. 18, the high court backed away entirely from its 2007 Strand ruling. Public administrators expressed relief, but the new ruling spelled doom for the last count of Braman's lawsuit.

Back to top