79°
As part of the state legislation, the Dolphins were also seeking $90 million over 30 years from a Florida sales-tax subsidy.
In exchange for the funding, the club would have had to eventually repay some of the money to the state and county, to hold a certain number of sporting events at the stadium and to remain in South Florida for the next 30 years.
The Dolphins fought for a referendum before National Football League owners met last month to award the 50th and 51st Super Bowls. South Florida was bidding to host either championship but, without plans to make over the 1987 stadium, lost to the San Francisco area and Houston.
The first round of spending by Ross’ new super PAC targeted Bileca and Trujillo, perhaps the loudest local voices opposing the stadium plan, and Diaz, the vice chairman of the Miami-Dade delegation. The fliers against the three men are identical, except for the legislators’ names and photographs.
“More than 4,000 New Miami jobs ... gone,” reads the front of the glossy four-sided flier. “Republican Representative Jose Felix Diaz failed us.”
Diaz said he was surprised by the attack because he tried to keep a low profile on the legislation. His law firm, Akerman Senterfitt, has worked for the Dolphins, and he wanted to avoid creating a potential conflict of interest, he said.
“I never took a vote against it and I tried to stay out of it,” Diaz said, acknowledging that he “wasn’t excited” about the bill. “Mine just seems to be guilty by association.”
The inside pages of the flier accuse the lawmakers of blocking “big tourist events like the Super Bowl” from returning to the Miami Gardens stadium — and of halting the proposed May 14 referendum that was canceled after the Dolphins legislation failed to get a House vote.
Based on the partial tally of votes that had been cast early in person and by mail in the referendum before it was called off, the Dolphins’ campaign was foundering.
RSS
My Yahoo