The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem #04 - Discussion ItemD December 28, 1979 Mr. Victor Logan, President Miami's Summer Boat Show 7210 Red Road, Suite 202 South Miami, Florida 33143 • Dear Mr. Logan: Please be advised that you have been scheduled to appear before the City Commission on January 10, 1980, at 10:00 a.m.,regarding the Power and Sail Boat ShoW and the Summer Boat Show. As you know, since this issue involves two parties, the City Commission has previously requested that each party be represented at the scheduled meeting. However, this has resulted in several deferrals. The Commission, at its December 27, 1979 meeting, has advised me of its intention to resolve this issue regardless of complete repre- sentation on January 10th. I trust that you will be able to attend this meeting. cerely, aosejih R. Grassie City Manager December 28, 1979 Mr. Larry Perl, President Exposition Corporation of America 6913 Red Road, Suite 228 Coral Gables, Florida 33143 Dear t'lr. Perl : Please be advised that you have been scheduled to appear before the City Commission on January 10, 1980, at 10:00 a.m. regarding the Power and Sail Boat Show and the Summer Boat Show. As you know, since this issue involves two parties, the City Commission has previously .requested that each party be represented at the scheduled meeting. However, this has resulted in several deferrals. The Commission, at its. December 27, 1979 meeting, has advised me of its intention to resolve this issue regardless of complete representation on January loth. I trust that you will be able to attend this meeting. S i nce re,1y , cr 1 _ Joseph R. Grassie City/Manager cc: Mr. Dan Paul October 31, 1979 Mr. Joseph R. Grassie City Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Grassie: Executive Offices: 6915 Red Road, Suite 228 Coral Gables, Florida 33143 t: N Thank you for your cooperation in reserving dates for our Miami Power & Sail Boat Show at the Marine Stadium, subject to the City Commission's acceptance. My attorney°s schedule precludes our appearing before the Commission on either the 8th or the 20th of November. However, I would appreciate your advising me of the earliest scheduled Commission dates in December, so that we may plan to attend. Sincer„eiy, r 270:7 --Larry Peri President LP/ys c.c. Mr. Dan Paul FT. LAUDERDALE SPRING HOME SHOW MIAMI INTERNATIONAL CAMPING AND REC-V SHOW MIAMI HOME SHOW MIAMI FOREIGN & CUSTOM AUTO & CYCLE SHOW FT. LAUDERDALE FALL HUME SHOW MIAMI DINNER KEY BOAT SHOW NOVEMBER NOME SHOW t November 3, 1979 Angela Bellamy City Hall P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Ms. Bellamy: Per our discussion, and Mr. Grassie's recommendation,. for me to appear before the commission on November 8, 1979, I look forward to being placed on the Agenda. Thanking you in advance. Sincerely, c ,s.�.:s:e r=113tnYr •.. •'ti.'Mr/ 6.--241.: 7210 RED ROAD • SUITE 202 • SOUTH MIAMI • FL. 33143 VIC LOGAN President (305) 666-8515 fv MU1a92! October 26, 1979 Mr. Larry Perl President Exposition Corporation of America 6915 Red Road, Suite 228 Coral Gables, Florida 33143 Dear Mr. Perl: This is in response to your letter of September 27, 1979 requesting that the dates for your proposed Power and Sail Boat Show at the City of Miami Marine Stadium,, as proposed by you in your earlier letter of August 28, 1c be changed to those set forth in the new Septem- ber , , beg 27th letter, in view of the fact that the City had a previous booking for a date, which conflicted with your proposed 1980 dates. We have reviewed our bookings for the Marine Stadium and find there are no conflicting bookings with the dates proposed by you in the letter of September 27, 1979. Again, however, these dates have been only tentatively reserved for your use pending decision by the City Commission as to its policy regarding acceptance of yr booking in view of the already existing contract oftoe n the City and Miami's Summer Boat Show for a boat show at Coconut Grove Exhibition Center within a week or so of your proposed boat show at the Marine Stadium. Please advise this office when you find it convenient to appear before the City Commission to discuss this matter. F no r :Y_ Joy ph R. Grassie Ci ./ Manager ITO: MAYOR AND MEir F. C11; OF THE COMMISSION • • TRANSMITTAL DATE 10/3 0 hi :y J . IV47711'I Executive Of/ices: 6915 Red Road, Suite 228 r I 1 Coral Gables, Florida 33143 September 27, 1979 Mr. Joseph Grassie City Manager, City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Grassie: We are in receipt of your letter dated September 25, advising us that the dates requested for the Miami Power & Sail Boat Show at the Marine Stadium are not available, and are in conflict with an existing booking. We therefore would like to change our dates to avoid any conflict. The new dates we are request- ing are as follows: Move -in Dates Show Dates Move -Out Dates 1980 June 25,26 ..June 27,28,29 June 30,July 1 1981 June 15,16 June 17,18,19 June 20, 21 1982 July 14,15 July 16,17,18 July 19,20 1983 July 20, 21 July 22, 23, 24 July 25, 26 1984 July 18,19 July 20,21,22 July 23, 24 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter;•we look forward to receiving confirmation of these dates as soon as possible. S arry Purl President LP/ys c.c. The Honorable Maurice Ferre, Mayor of Miami c.c. Mr. Bob Jennings, Director of Public Facilities t T ' 0 e+ t South Lamest Producers cf Trade and C. ns•umer Show, ,nciur,;nq: • • FT. LAUCER'AALE SPRING HOME SHOW • NIAMI INTERNATIONAL CAMPING A .O REC-V SHOW MIAMI HOME SHOW • MIAMI FOREIGN i CUSTOM AUTO 6 CYCLE SHOW FT. LAUCthLALE FALL HOME SHOW • IMIAMI E)NNER r EY GOAT SHOW . NOVEM6ER HOME SHOW .r..r..•..f.,.+-n';,.,�-' c..�w+er..r,.....-•,_ ••• _• .•• r�5:'�'!�ww..r..tyf•rr, w•�•:T �'1r"'3 7 "�'f!"'"'-+v--�veY-w•�..a-r:..:tfett *:? .�.«nw-.�+�' •f :w�.r r,�—. Z' SIFOrt'�.yr" w i.t:Ai� 4ir'Li .,... • •.r'y.,yy�aa _. .� ._.___:w.r.aruC•f�`f. r.:,+..'w.raa L.. :...sira4.a,.r....iH..a`i�•i.�r:+.: , •"• t4 „ . VIC LOGAN October 25, 1979 it fir. , Joseph R. Grassie City Manager P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Grassie: I respectfully request permission to appear before the Commission, i on October 31, 1979, to discuss the previous All City Protection ii that I was given for my Boat Show, originally. I: I I At this time, my contract calls for a 60—Day, before'and after, N protection at the Coconut Grove Exhibition Center, only. I was told this could be extended by appearing before the Commission at 11 a later date. y' For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of a letter sent to i George Knox by my attorney, Ron Lieberman. As you will note, in the case of Jacksonville, the judges' decision was that cities may legitimately avail themselves of governmental anti—trust immunity, to the same extent that the State .of Florida would be included as a political sub division of the State. I The 1979 Miami Summer Boat Show was definitely hurt by having another boat show in the city within 3 weeks. The 1930 Miami Summer Boat Shows' dates are July 11 through July 14. I have been ti told the other boat show, again, wants to run in the summer, either the same week end as ours, or a week to ten days earlier. :`• I ask to appear for the.purpose of discussing the above, which ► would be detr. irnental 'to ours Show, and the Industry. i Thanking you in ad✓a.nce. Sincerely, t.t i J�''J i,,Vic LoLan r L, ��% ;`-�-// /A / q.VL/dc �'J f;r'_ ':�L-r:c. �. cc: Ionorable I+Iaurice Ferre Honorable J. .L. Plu mrn�er, Ionorable T. R. Gibson Ionorable Rose Gordon Ionorable Armando LaCasa L�IIi'P�i�I�e"C : 4a!, n�,�lOV�1 i IO FED ROAD • SUITE 202 • SOUTH MIAMI • FL. 331-33SDSi 6535 LAW L7 r�`Ir Lt UONALD S. tAPAIICUMAN REOI D GENERAL P/1 AC TICE CRIMINAL LAW TRIAL PRACTICE JA:+ItC1 I{UI'il�t oINEIAL PRACTICE 1 KNNI7TIt O0.7ANo GENERAL PRACTICE i.iONAI.I) S. }a:li:1;10:m.1N oUIre 2424 A4 Wt NT FLACit-1-..F1 1'41*R1MT 41i .111, P`t.onen♦ 3:11H11 TCLCI'NONtt 3C0.7o7L1 April 19, 1979 Mr. George Knox, Jr. City Attorney City of Miami 174 East F1agler Street Miami, Florida P:: Victor Logan, Positive Results, Inc., and Miami's Sumner Boat'Show Dear Mr, Knox: OF couNtILL KM:NNIrt.0 M. 1SLUU11 CORPORATION AND UURINEES LAW EYTATV PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION TAXATION I have recently received a copy of Dan Paul's letter to you, dated March 1, 1979, concerning the 'alleged violations of the Anti -Trust Laws inherent in a municipality placing limitrtions on the use of public facilities by competitive businesses. The cases cited by Mr. Paul notwithstanding, it is my considered opinion that a municipality does not violate the Anti -Trust Laws when it imposes reasonable restrictions on the use of public facilities, for the purpose of preventing disruptive competition. The proposed clause in the City's contract with Positive Results, Inc., which would prohibit the use of city facilities by similar events within sixty (60) days before and sixty (CO) days after the original event is somewhat'analogous to the granting, of a franchise. In Metro Cable Ccmnnnv v. CATV of Rockford, Inc., 375 F. Stipp. 350 (N.h. ill. 1974) , a Federal Court upheld a City':; action in granting a cable t.v. franchise to one company, and denying it to another, notwithstanding the creation of a "monopoly". It was held that this did not constitute "monopolization", as defined by Section 2 of. the Sherman Act. The Court also cited the time honored doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (19 i3) , holding "The Sherman Act makes no hint that it was intended to restrain State action for officialaction directed by a state". Thu court further: noted that:: "State action involving more anti -competitive restraint than necessary to effectuate governmental purposes must be viewed as inconsistant with the (Court's) approach." Furthermore, the Lousiana Pn1•ier decision dealt with a. matter of obvious national. interest. The Federal ' Government cannot impose Anti -Trust laws as a barrier to the exercise of local government function in areas that are peculiarly local, such as the proper use of publicly owned facilities. Cf. National League of 425 U.S. 333, ' where (1976), held that: "...the States as States (emphasis ours) stand on a suite different footing from an individual or a corporation when challenging the exercise ,of Congress power to regulate commerce... Congress may not exercise that power so as to force directly upon the States its choices as to how essential decisions reaardina the conduct of intearai go'.'urnmt,:lta1 functions are to be made." r . at 13D4, b5D. It has never been the intention of Victor Logan and Positive Results,Incorporated to gain an unreasonable monopoly on the right to conduct boat shows in 'this community. They seek only to prdt.'ent Such competition as would prevent any boat shew from gaining the confidence of the industry, which is obviously necessary to promote successful shows. The City's interest .in preventing disruptive competition, and thus ensuring] the success of events which lease city facilities, is obvious. I1, the City should allow t'1r. Paulin strained interpretation of the Anti -Trust Laws to govern its actions in thin matter, it will be doin,j a disservice t not only to my client, but to the beatin.j industry and the taxpayers of the City as well. I\.i.:sic cc: Joc,u[)h Cr:.sie, City f1anatjer Honorable Maurice rot -re Honorable J. L. 1' lur.•,r r r Honorable Armando L.1Casa Hence ably i?o ;e Gc rdon i'heouore sit son Victor I.o' :!: Sincerely ynu::s, Ronald S . Lieberman LAW torL'ICLU tt(1NALD N. LIt•a1ItI .tAN 11•01S 0 11&N•RAL Pf*CtICe CRIUIN•L LAW TI.IAL PRACTIC• JAM1:2-4 UU123:L•" OIN•RAL PRACTICE 1�LNN}•7TH 0FX.1ANO O•N[HAL PRACTIct C+ 1,01r:1.t1 S. i.4111:1i11,U,11:1N OUITt 24:14 44 WI IIT FLAGal-A:J..1 Nrl'ar'tT a1�al, r1.on11•. 3:11:to TGL1IP HONM (3;1t3) JL' 11-107L4 April 19, 1979 Mr. George Knox, Jr. City Attorney City of Miami 174 East Flan, ler Street Miami, Florida R:: Victor Logan, Positive Results, Inc., and Miami's Summer Boat Show Dear Mr. Knox: O F' COUNfLL Ith:NNt•:1'1I 1.1. Ilr.04.1\t CORPORATION AND IU$IN••• LAW ••TATS PLANNINCI AND ADMINISTRATION TAXATION I have recently received a copy of Dan Paul's letter to you, dated March 1, 1979, concerning the alleged violations of the Anti -Trust Laws inherent in a municipality placing.limit.-tions on the use of public facilities by competitive businesses. The cases cited by Mr. Paul notwithstanding, it is my considered opinion that a municipality, does not violate the Anti -Trust Laws when it imposes reasonable restrictions on the use of public facilities, for the purpose of preventing disruptive competition. The proposed clause in the City's contract with Positive Results, Inc., which would prohibit the use'of city facilities by similar events within sixty ((0) days before and sixty (60) days after the original event is somewhat analogous to the granting of. a franchise. In Metro Cable Company v. CATV of Rockford, Inc., 375 1'. Su:,p. 350 (N.D. L11. 1974) , a Federal Court upheld a Ci.ty':.. action in granting a cable t.v. franchise to one company, and denying it to another, notwithstanding the creation of a "monopoly". It was held that this did not constitute "monopolization", as defined by Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The Court also cited the time honored doctrine of Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) , holding thati "The Sherman Act makes no hint that it was intended to restrain State action for official action directed by a state". i i See also, Ladue Uc.171 LPICt;, 1 f1�_. �'. Ui-SLc t e �lc`V� loj)ment Agency, 433 P. 21�d 131 (13Lh C. r. 1970) , upholding the right of the State to grant a rotl(moiy for the operation of. a public transportation system. In a case more directly on point, it has been held that the exclusive use of a city coliseum for the presentation of wrestling matches by a private corporation did not violate the Sherman Act. Murdock v. City of Jacksonville, 361 F. Supp. 1083 (M.D. Fla. 1973) . There the City had granted an exclusive lease for the presentation of wrestling matches in the municipal coliseum, and had also adopted a resolution providing that during the term of the lease, no other lessee would be permitted to use the coliseum for wrestling matches. In granting the City's motion for Summary Final Judgment, Judge Scott held that: "The general rule is•that a restraint of trade or monopolization which is the result of valid governmental action, as opposed to private action,. does not violate the Sherman Act. Unites States v. Rock Ctoval Co -Go, 307 U.S. .533 (1939) ; Eastern R. Conf. . v. Noerr Motors, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) ; Alabama .Power Co. v. Alabama Elec. Co -Op, Inc:, 394 F. 2d 672 (5th Cir. 1968) ." The Court specifically addressed the question of whether governmental immunity applies to rnunicipalities thysly, "Since the State rarely acts except through one or more of its political subdivisions, if governmental immunity is to have any but the most limited efficacy it must ,be available to protect the political subdivisions of the State from Anti -Trust liability. Municipal government of Jacksonville, being a political subdivision of the State of Florida, may legitimately avail itself of governmental Anti -Trust immunity to the same extent that the State of Florida would be entitled to such immunity in this; case." The Louisiana Power decision, cited by Mr. Paul, does not in any wily, shape or form, overrule these well established precedents;. Louisiana Power deal:; with municipalities which commit AntL-'l'r.U:it ui£Cnses while engaged In comvetltl.on with .private enterprise. It does not deal with efforts by government to. impose reasonable regulation in order to prevent the damage to the public interest which would result from disruptive competition between private entities. The court furthtrr noted that: "State action involving more anti -competitive restraint than necessary to effectuate governmental purposes must be viewed as inconsistent with the (Court's) approach." Furthermore, the Lousi.ana Power decision dealt with a matter of obvious national interest. The Federal Government cannot impose Anti -Trust laws as a barrier to the exercise of local government function in areas that are peculiarly local, such as the proper use of publicly owned facilities. Cf. National League of Ci f ies '_r gcer_ 426 v.c . 333, (1976), where iz -� N1 U J held that: "...the States as States (emphasis ours) 'stand on a quite different footing from an individual•or a corporation_ when challenging the exercise of Congress power to regulate commerce... Congress may not exercise that power so as to force directly upon the States its choices as to how essential decisions regarding the conduct -of integral governmental functions are to be made.' iu. at , It has never been the intention of Victor Logan and Positive Results,Incorporated to gain an unreasonable monopoly on the right to conduct boat shows in this community. They see}: only to prevent such competition as would prevent - any boat show from gaining the confidence of the industry, which is obviously necessary to promote successfulshc'ws. The City's interest .in preventing disruptive competition, and thus ensuring the success of events 'which lease_ city facilities, is obvious. If: the City should allow Mr. Paul's strained interpretation of the Anti -Trust Laws to govern its actions in this matter, it will be clout,; tt disservice not only to my client:, but to the boating industry and the taxpayers of the City as well. i L: s lc CC: Joseph c;ii:ssie, City Manager Honorable tLturice i'nrre Honorable J. L. Plummer Honorable Armando LaCasa Honorable able Pose Gordon •.also: a ) e i'ht 'ere Giuson Victor LC•; in Sincerely yours, Ronald S . Lieiberman