Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 03-20-2019, 02:22 PM   #16
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike View Post
The law was passed in 1987. I believe the bill was part of a package that expanded Maryland racing to include Sundays. Sunday racing was the consideration, so no takings?
Possibly. As I said, takings is the weaker of the two arguments. (Having said that, this wasn't a contract between Pimlico and the City of Baltimore. It's an ordinance. Absent an agreement between the track and the city, the track doesn't face a legal impediment to arguing the Sunday racing provision was legal and the prohibition on moving the Preakness isn't.)

The federal preemption argument is EXTREMELY strong. States simply do not have the power to tell businesses that they cannot use their federally recognized trademarks. For instance, the State of Georgia or City of Atlanta can't tell Coca-Cola that they can't sell their soft drinks in Los Angeles.

And Baltimore knows this. Otherwise, they would just seek to enforce their city law.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2019, 02:29 PM   #17
Saratoga_Mike
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
The federal preemption argument is EXTREMELY strong. States simply do not have the power to tell businesses that they cannot use their federally recognized trademarks. For instance, the State of Georgia or City of Atlanta can't tell Coca-Cola that they can't sell their soft drinks in Los Angeles.

And Baltimore knows this. Otherwise, they would just seek to enforce their city law.
I understand your point (it's interesting), but let's assume Georgia provided Coca-Cola with a $3 billion incentive package to build a new plant in 1987. As part of that deal, Coca-Cola agreed not to sell under their brand into Cali? Isn't that the legal parallel?
Saratoga_Mike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2019, 04:20 PM   #18
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike View Post
I understand your point (it's interesting), but let's assume Georgia provided Coca-Cola with a $3 billion incentive package to build a new plant in 1987. As part of that deal, Coca-Cola agreed not to sell under their brand into Cali? Isn't that the legal parallel?
Only if there is a signed agreement from Coca-Cola specifically limiting the right to exploit its trademark. Such an agreement would be enforceable but the statute wouldn't be.

And note, Baltimore is not alleging breach of contract here.

Last edited by dilanesp; 03-20-2019 at 04:22 PM.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2019, 04:30 PM   #19
Saratoga_Mike
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Only if there is a signed agreement from Coca-Cola specifically limiting the right to exploit its trademark. Such an agreement would be enforceable but the statute wouldn't be.

And note, Baltimore is not alleging breach of contract here.
Putting the legal issues aside, the race should be moved to LRL. Putting $400 mm into PIM would be as productive as burning the money.
Saratoga_Mike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-20-2019, 04:45 PM   #20
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike View Post
Putting the legal issues aside, the race should be moved to LRL. Putting $400 mm into PIM would be as productive as burning the money.
Absolutely. The economics of a renovation of Pimlico do not make sense, because the track only gets the huge crowds for two days a year. (On the other hand, I guess you can say that NFL teams get publicly financed palatial stadiums for 10 games a year, and LA built a theater for the Academy Awards, which is one night a year. Still, those are bad uses of public money too.)

So in the end, Baltimore has got to decide if they want to support the race going to Laurel, which at least allows the City to still claim some of the benefits of the race (the same way that NFL games in East Rutherford, NJ help New York City), or whether they fight Stronach, which effectively puts the issue in Stronach's hands. The latter is very dangerous because Stronach owns other tracks, including tracks in California, Texas, and Florida that could theoretically host the Preakness. He also could make bank by licensing the Preakness to someone else's track to put on (there would be several bidders I am sure).
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-22-2019, 11:06 AM   #21
ubercapper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
That "state law" is preempted by federal trademark law, which permits a trademark owner to use the mark in commerce anywhere in the geographic region of exclusive use. It also possibly violates the takings clause as well.

Indeed, if that law WERE enforceable, Baltimore wouldn't be trying to seize the track. They would just seek an injunction.

And it isn't the industry that matters here. It's the contracts with the other TC tracks and NBC. They define the TC. And the City of Baltimore cannot make itself a party to those agreements, and they can't seize the Preakness trademark either.

I read a really interesting article on this issue yesterday but it was more about use of Eminent Domain:


http://www.ownerscounsel.com/marylan...n-legislation/


It states the law may be constitutionally flawed. I also don't think the law was ever tested in court. It would seem this suit by Baltimore may result in the law being tested.
ubercapper is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-22-2019, 12:26 PM   #22
Thomas Roulston
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lakehurst, NJ
Posts: 1,035
With the Preakness at Laurel, its distance could be lengthened to 1 3/8 miles - creating a logical progression between the 1 1/4 miles of the Derby and the 1 1/2 miles of the Belmont (the second finish line would be used).
Thomas Roulston is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-22-2019, 12:57 PM   #23
AlsoEligible
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Absolutely. The economics of a renovation of Pimlico do not make sense, because the track only gets the huge crowds for two days a year. (On the other hand, I guess you can say that NFL teams get publicly financed palatial stadiums for 10 games a year, and LA built a theater for the Academy Awards, which is one night a year. Still, those are bad uses of public money too.)
To be fair, NFL stadiums get used throughout the off-season for concerts, festivals, job fairs, other sports (World Cup 2026 will utilize 16 different stadiums around the country). So there's a lot of ways for those cities to recoup their investment besides football.

To your point, Pimlico doesn't do any of that. There's Preakness weekend, and that's it. There used to be an annual concert festival in the infield (usually in Sep/Oct), but that stopped a few years ago. Truth is, no one wants to be caught dead in that part of town unless there's 100,000 people and a heavy police presence with them. Spending $400m to polish a turd that will still only see a big crowd two days a year is a ridiculous waste of money.
AlsoEligible is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-22-2019, 02:37 PM   #24
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlsoEligible View Post
To be fair, NFL stadiums get used throughout the off-season for concerts, festivals, job fairs, other sports (World Cup 2026 will utilize 16 different stadiums around the country). So there's a lot of ways for those cities to recoup their investment besides football.

To your point, Pimlico doesn't do any of that. There's Preakness weekend, and that's it. There used to be an annual concert festival in the infield (usually in Sep/Oct), but that stopped a few years ago. Truth is, no one wants to be caught dead in that part of town unless there's 100,000 people and a heavy police presence with them. Spending $400m to polish a turd that will still only see a big crowd two days a year is a ridiculous waste of money.
In theory your point about football stadiums is true, but in practice most of them sit empty for most of the year or just host one or two concerts.

But you are completely right that Pimlico gets little non-horse racing use.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-26-2019, 09:15 AM   #25
Saratoga_Mike
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,893
This is a great article on Baltimore's attempt to use eminent domain to keep the Preak in Baltimore. I'm not even sure Justice Souder would have sided with Baltimore, but maybe.

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/26...nent-domain-to
Saratoga_Mike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-26-2019, 11:36 AM   #26
rastajenk
Just Deplorable
 
rastajenk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lebanon, Ohio
Posts: 8,026
That was an interesting read. The idea of "condemning" something in order to appropriate (steal) its value is a twisty line of logic that us non-legal mortals would never suggest as good policy. I didn't realize the Raiders went through similar battles. And that is just one of several legal issues the city would have to overcome.
rastajenk is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-26-2019, 01:11 PM   #27
devilsbag
Prefer to be called Dinny
 
devilsbag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 221
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Have I missed something and is the case being brought in such a way so it's all (the track and the race) or nothing?

Otherwise, it seems there is some chance Baltimore could win half of the case and own Pimlico, but lose regarding intellectual property (the Preakness itself). For Stronach, wouldn't that outcome and "fair market value" from the city arguably be a win?

Stronach then unloads Pimlico and can concentrate on Laurel once and for all. Even if the city low balls the offer, on the open market, how much is Pimlico worth?

In the very unlikely scenario that Baltimore did become owner of the Preakness, my gut feeling is that racing fans (especially those who have visited Pimlico) would accept a Preakness substitute at Laurel. A drawn out court case may even generate more sympathy than if they simply planned the move.

If state law were enforced and Maryland really wanted to spite themselves, I think moving the race to Gulfstream is not a far fetched idea. Monmouth would be a popular choice, but I don't know why Stronach wouldn't keep it at one of their facilities. Also, NJ is so close to NY that you would be attracting a lot of the same attendees.

Neither facility is designed to handle 150,000 people, but I think that Stronach might figure out some sort of option for Gulfstream in the near future to accommodate that one day if the Preakness was going to be permanent fixture. Simultaneously, some kind of expansion may get them back in the running for a Breeders' Cup in the event that things don't go well at Santa Anita.

Last edited by devilsbag; 03-26-2019 at 01:12 PM.
devilsbag is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-26-2019, 01:28 PM   #28
Fager Fan
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
The idea of stealing someone's property through eminent domain has always been a sore spot with me. So you can guess whose side I'm on regarding this.
Fager Fan is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-26-2019, 05:46 PM   #29
dilanesp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsbag View Post
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Have I missed something and is the case being brought in such a way so it's all (the track and the race) or nothing?

Otherwise, it seems there is some chance Baltimore could win half of the case and own Pimlico, but lose regarding intellectual property (the Preakness itself). For Stronach, wouldn't that outcome and "fair market value" from the city arguably be a win?

Stronach then unloads Pimlico and can concentrate on Laurel once and for all. Even if the city low balls the offer, on the open market, how much is Pimlico worth?

In the very unlikely scenario that Baltimore did become owner of the Preakness, my gut feeling is that racing fans (especially those who have visited Pimlico) would accept a Preakness substitute at Laurel. A drawn out court case may even generate more sympathy than if they simply planned the move.

If state law were enforced and Maryland really wanted to spite themselves, I think moving the race to Gulfstream is not a far fetched idea. Monmouth would be a popular choice, but I don't know why Stronach wouldn't keep it at one of their facilities. Also, NJ is so close to NY that you would be attracting a lot of the same attendees.

Neither facility is designed to handle 150,000 people, but I think that Stronach might figure out some sort of option for Gulfstream in the near future to accommodate that one day if the Preakness was going to be permanent fixture. Simultaneously, some kind of expansion may get them back in the running for a Breeders' Cup in the event that things don't go well at Santa Anita.
Whatever the TC people and NBC call the second leg of the TC will be the race. It doesn't matter if the name changes.
dilanesp is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-26-2019, 06:01 PM   #30
Saratoga_Mike
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fager Fan View Post
The idea of stealing someone's property through eminent domain has always been a sore spot with me. So you can guess whose side I'm on regarding this.
It is outrageous.

Edit to my earlier post: Souter (just noticed I misspelled).
Saratoga_Mike is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.