|
|
03-20-2019, 02:22 PM
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,788
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike
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.
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 02:29 PM
|
#17
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,893
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
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?
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 04:20 PM
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,788
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike
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.
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 04:30 PM
|
#19
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,893
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
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.
|
|
|
03-20-2019, 04:45 PM
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,788
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike
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).
|
|
|
03-22-2019, 11:06 AM
|
#21
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,225
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
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.
|
|
|
03-22-2019, 12:26 PM
|
#22
|
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).
|
|
|
03-22-2019, 12:57 PM
|
#23
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 234
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
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.
|
|
|
03-22-2019, 02:37 PM
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,788
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlsoEligible
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.
|
|
|
03-26-2019, 09:15 AM
|
#25
|
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
|
|
|
03-26-2019, 11:36 AM
|
#26
|
Just Deplorable
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.
|
|
|
03-26-2019, 01:11 PM
|
#27
|
Prefer to be called Dinny
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.
|
|
|
03-26-2019, 01:28 PM
|
#28
|
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.
|
|
|
03-26-2019, 05:46 PM
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,788
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsbag
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.
|
|
|
03-26-2019, 06:01 PM
|
#30
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,893
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fager Fan
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).
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
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
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|