Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bunghole

JETS GAME--BOOYAH

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, SF2 said:

It would never stand up in court. Seizing a sports team for public use?  What public use? It is already accessible to the public. The public can go to games or watch on other media outlets. The State would have no justification  and the NFL could simply revoke the team’s charter and tell the State of Ohio to go blow itself. 

 

Of course it would stand up in court. The US Supreme court has said a public use is basically whatever a public body says it is. So we have publicly owned sports teams in Ohio already. Cities can spend money in other cities to promote tourism, etc. The leading case on this is called Kelo where a city in CT seized a little old lady's house so it could turn it over to a real estate developer whose project would pay more taxes. SCOTUS said as long as Ms Kelo was paid fair value, that was ok. That provoked something of a backlash across the country and some states including Ohio tightened their laws a bit. But there's no question that spending money to buy a football team is similar in principle to spending money to support the zoo or museums or public parks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Le Tigre said:

However, the Crew are not publicly owned--not even Mapre is majority financed with public funds. I didn't read the Decision as an eminent domain ruling. As this was the closest case to involving the Modell Rule, on what would the basis for eminent domain rely? 

 

Going to review Westlaw on this, but would appreciate your thoughts. 

 

 The Crew case was mainly about the Modell law. Eminent domain would have been a fallback if the Modell law had been overturned. The main argument against Modell was that it violated the dormant commerce clause by favoring local buyers over out of towners. ED need not do that.  In prior attempts by cities to seize sports teams, there have been arguments that the state's ED laws didn't allow the taking of intangible property such as brand names, licenses, etc. That only real estate could be seized.

 

I'm a Crew fan and pointed out that when OSU decided to gentrify the south campus area, they not only seized the real estate housing the dive bars, they seized the businesses themselves. That was to prevent them from just moving a block east and reopening there. So the names, liquor licenses, beer taps, furniture, etc was all taken. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sparky151 said:

 

Of course it would stand up in court. The US Supreme court has said a public use is basically whatever a public body says it is. So we have publicly owned sports teams in Ohio already. Cities can spend money in other cities to promote tourism, etc. The leading case on this is called Kelo where a city in CT seized a little old lady's house so it could turn it over to a real estate developer whose project would pay more taxes. SCOTUS said as long as Ms Kelo was paid fair value, that was ok. That provoked something of a backlash across the country and some states including Ohio tightened their laws a bit. But there's no question that spending money to buy a football team is similar in principle to spending money to support the zoo or museums or public parks.

They can’t take over the Bengals in order to provide the public the Bengals. It would be like the State taking over a Speedway Gas station in order to put in a Shell Station. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state (or city or county in this case) certainly has the legal authority to replace one gas station with another as long as fair value is paid to the owner whose property is taken.  ED is specifically authorized by the US constitution. In Columbus when Campus Partners (OSU's development arm) used the city's ED powers to seize the dive bars, they didn't return the liquor licenses to the state, they issued them to more upscale places like Eddie George's grill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

Employee 96 has been named AFC Defensive player of the week.

 

Congrats Carlos

Nice, but this type of performance would have been better served in the first few games when there still a fleeting glimpse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sparky151 said:

The state (or city or county in this case) certainly has the legal authority to replace one gas station with another as long as fair value is paid to the owner whose property is taken.  ED is specifically authorized by the US constitution. In Columbus when Campus Partners (OSU's development arm) used the city's ED powers to seize the dive bars, they didn't return the liquor licenses to the state, they issued them to more upscale places like Eddie George's grill.

ED is used to convert private property to public use.  To build a road (I-75), lake (Norris), airport, etc.  In the case of the dive bars the city could have easily shut them down using public nuisance laws so the bars were wise to take the buyouts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SF2 said:

ED is used to convert private property to public use.  To build a road (I-75), lake (Norris), airport, etc.  In the case of the dive bars the city could have easily shut them down using public nuisance laws so the bars were wise to take the buyouts. 

 

Agree the bars were wise to take the buyouts, they were fairly generous. But that has nothing to do with the city's power to take the tangible and intangible property. There's really no question that Ohio law allows publicly owned sports teams and allows the taking of privately owned ones by local governments. Thus my question as to why local politicians in Cincinnati aren't proposing something along those lines. The NFL is basically a partnership of 32 independent businesses, unlike MLS. There is a league rule prohibiting public ownership (with a grandfather exemption for Green Bay). But that league rule doesn't trump sovereign powers. If the city council seized the team, paid the Browns fair value, then tried to sell it to Jeff Bezos or whomever, the league could approve or disapprove of his candidacy. But the league isn't free to dissolve the Bengals team or eject them from the partnership. Indeed, the league's response would likely be to ask the city to sell the team to a rich individual (not named Mike Brown).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

 

Agree the bars were wise to take the buyouts, they were fairly generous. But that has nothing to do with the city's power to take the tangible and intangible property. There's really no question that Ohio law allows publicly owned sports teams and allows the taking of privately owned ones by local governments. Thus my question as to why local politicians in Cincinnati aren't proposing something along those lines. The NFL is basically a partnership of 32 independent businesses, unlike MLS. There is a league rule prohibiting public ownership (with a grandfather exemption for Green Bay). But that league rule doesn't trump sovereign powers. If the city council seized the team, paid the Browns fair value, then tried to sell it to Jeff Bezos or whomever, the league could approve or disapprove of his candidacy. But the league isn't free to dissolve the Bengals team or eject them from the partnership. Indeed, the league's response would likely be to ask the city to sell the team to a rich individual (not named Mike Brown).

You actually think the city can take over a perfectly legitimate, legally run, fully up to date on taxes business over and resell it to somebody they like?   The US District Court would bend Cincinnati over and stick a dick in its ass.  Utter Fascism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this snippet. Had completely forgotten this historical footnote:

 

The city of Baltimore, Maryland, tried to keep its NFL team, the Colts, through the exercise of EMINENT DOMAIN. Eminent domain is the power of a government to take private property for public use, with compensation to the party deprived of the property. In early 1984 the Baltimore Colts were having difficulty obtaining a satisfactory lease for Baltimore's Memorial Stadium. Owner Robert Irsay began to receive solicitations from the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, for the Colts to play in the city's Hoosier Dome. In February 1984 the Maryland Senate entertained a bill that would give the city of Baltimore the authority to condemn and take over professional sports franchises, but it postponed a vote on the bill.

On February 28, 1984, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit announced its decision in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum case, which affirmed the right of Oakland Raiders' owner Al Davis to move the team to Los Angeles. The NFL told Irsay in a private meeting that, in light of the decision in the Raiders' case, it would not oppose any move by the Colts. Irsay continued to negotiate for a financial package that would keep the Colts in Baltimore until he learned that the Maryland Senate had passed the eminent domain legislation.

Irsay decided to move the Colts to Indianapolis immediately. That day, vice president and general manager Michael Chernoff arranged for a moving company to come to the Colts' training facility and load the team equipment into vans. The Colts left Baltimore, their home city for thirty years, during the night of March 28–29, 1984.

On March 30, 1984, the Maryland Senate passed an emergency bill that gave the city of Baltimore the power of eminent domain over the team. The city immediately passed an ordinance that authorized the condemnation and then filed a petition in court, seeking to acquire the Colts by eminent domain and to prevent the team from doing anything to further the movement of the franchise, but it was too late. A federal court eventually held in December 1985 that Baltimore did not have the power of eminent domain over the Colts because it had not attempted to compensate the franchise and because the franchise had relocated to another state (Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor of Baltimore, 741 F.2d 954 [7th Cir. 1984], cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052, 105 S. Ct. 1753, 84 L. Ed. 2d 817 [1985]).

 

https://law.jrank.org/pages/10434/Sports-Law-COME-BACK-SHANE-MOVEMENT-PROFESSIONAL-SPORTS-TEAMS.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SF2 said:

You actually think the city can take over a perfectly legitimate, legally run, fully up to date on taxes business over and resell it to somebody they like?   The US District Court would bend Cincinnati over and stick a dick in its ass.  Utter Fascism.  

 

Yes, certainly they can. More than 200 years of history and lots of court decisions support the power of local governments to take property provided fair compensation is paid. 

 

What provision of law do you think would prevent it? There are practical obstacles such as arranging financing but no serious legal impediments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Le Tigre said:

Found this snippet. Had completely forgotten this historical footnote:

 

The city of Baltimore, Maryland, tried to keep its NFL team, the Colts, through the exercise of EMINENT DOMAIN. Eminent domain is the power of a government to take private property for public use, with compensation to the party deprived of the property. In early 1984 the Baltimore Colts were having difficulty obtaining a satisfactory lease for Baltimore's Memorial Stadium. Owner Robert Irsay began to receive solicitations from the city of Indianapolis, Indiana, for the Colts to play in the city's Hoosier Dome. In February 1984 the Maryland Senate entertained a bill that would give the city of Baltimore the authority to condemn and take over professional sports franchises, but it postponed a vote on the bill.

On February 28, 1984, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit announced its decision in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum case, which affirmed the right of Oakland Raiders' owner Al Davis to move the team to Los Angeles. The NFL told Irsay in a private meeting that, in light of the decision in the Raiders' case, it would not oppose any move by the Colts. Irsay continued to negotiate for a financial package that would keep the Colts in Baltimore until he learned that the Maryland Senate had passed the eminent domain legislation.

Irsay decided to move the Colts to Indianapolis immediately. That day, vice president and general manager Michael Chernoff arranged for a moving company to come to the Colts' training facility and load the team equipment into vans. The Colts left Baltimore, their home city for thirty years, during the night of March 28–29, 1984.

On March 30, 1984, the Maryland Senate passed an emergency bill that gave the city of Baltimore the power of eminent domain over the team. The city immediately passed an ordinance that authorized the condemnation and then filed a petition in court, seeking to acquire the Colts by eminent domain and to prevent the team from doing anything to further the movement of the franchise, but it was too late. A federal court eventually held in December 1985 that Baltimore did not have the power of eminent domain over the Colts because it had not attempted to compensate the franchise and because the franchise had relocated to another state (Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor of Baltimore, 741 F.2d 954 [7th Cir. 1984], cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052, 105 S. Ct. 1753, 84 L. Ed. 2d 817 [1985]).

 

https://law.jrank.org/pages/10434/Sports-Law-COME-BACK-SHANE-MOVEMENT-PROFESSIONAL-SPORTS-TEAMS.html

 

 

Yes, in the Colts case, they got out of the jurisdiction before they could be served. In the Raiders case, the California Supreme court eventually ruled they could be taken but again they had already moved by then. Likewise with the former Seattle Supersonics moving to Oklahoma City.

 

When Ohio passed the Modell law in 1996, those events were recent history. Thus the prohibition on moving until local residents or governments had a chance to buy a team. 

 

If Cincinnati city council proposed a buyout of the Brown family, it would have to pass an ordinance, have multiple readings, line up financing, etc. It wouldn't be a surprise move but if the Bengals suddenly declared they had moved to somewhere else, it wouldn't prevent the application of the Modell law and the sale of the team. The team's lease with Hamilton county would prevent a lack of jurisdiction 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

 

Yes, in the Colts case, they got out of the jurisdiction before they could be served. In the Raiders case, the California Supreme court eventually ruled they could be taken but again they had already moved by then. Likewise with the former Seattle Supersonics moving to Oklahoma City.

 

When Ohio passed the Modell law in 1996, those events were recent history. Thus the prohibition on moving until local residents or governments had a chance to buy a team. 

 

If Cincinnati city council proposed a buyout of the Brown family, it would have to pass an ordinance, have multiple readings, line up financing, etc. It wouldn't be a surprise move but if the Bengals suddenly declared they had moved to somewhere else, it wouldn't prevent the application of the Modell law and the sale of the team. The team's lease with Hamilton county would prevent a lack of jurisdiction 

LOL, California and Washington State Supreme Court?? US District Court would laugh at those silly decisions.  The Modell Law has to do with publicly funded facilities and existing contracts, NOT simply taking a privately held company away for no reason other than they city doesn’t like the owners and wants to give it to someone else.   I seriously doubt the Modell Law would ever survive an appeal to the US court. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sparky151 said:

 

Yes, certainly they can. More than 200 years of history and lots of court decisions support the power of local governments to take property provided fair compensation is paid. 

 

What provision of law do you think would prevent it? There are practical obstacles such as arranging financing but no serious legal impediments. 

There is little to no decision you will find in which a perfectly viable privately owned company is taken from its current owners and given to someone else cooler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SF2 said:

There is little to no decision you will find in which a perfectly viable privately owned company is taken from its current owners and given to someone else cooler. 

 

You seem to be overlooking the leading case on the limits of eminent domain. Kelo said a city could take a woman's house and resell it to a real estate developer who would pay more in property taxes. If people had some right to refuse fair payment for their property, we'd never be able to build an electric grid, national pipeline network, etc. But the power to take property isn't limited to real estate. In the case of the dive bars, they didn't own any real estate (deliberately so for liability reasons). So while the properties were taken, so were the businesses which operated in them. Their trademarks, liquor licenses, and what little tangible property they had in glassware etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, SF2 said:

LOL, California and Washington State Supreme Court?? US District Court would laugh at those silly decisions.  The Modell Law has to do with publicly funded facilities and existing contracts, NOT simply taking a privately held company away for no reason other than they city doesn’t like the owners and wants to give it to someone else.   I seriously doubt the Modell Law would ever survive an appeal to the US court. 

 

If the city tried to seize the Bengals, it would be an Ohio case, not Federal. There simply isn't a right to refuse seizure, which is why the right to fair compensation is important and guaranteed by the US Constitution. If the Bengals don't want to be subject to the Modell law, they shouldn't have accepted the various public subsidies they've received. It's too late now to give the money back to avoid the law. 

 

In the Columbus Crew case, MLS used the same law firm (Proskauer) used by the NFL, NBA, and MLB. They lost every ruling and didn't try to move the case to Federal court though they argued and lost their claim that the Modell law violated the US Constitution's interstate commerce clause. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...