Five-day financing crash course. Day 1: Tropicana Field debt

Introduction: Over the next five days, we'll analyze the known details surrounding the Tampa Bay Rays'  plan to build a $450-million waterfront stadium. The analysis is not intended to be all-inclusive. In fact, it cannot be. The Rays have not released a detailed financing plan. So our work is based on the history of the Tropicana Field site, and the public statement so far made by the Rays.

Day 1: Existing Tropicana Field debt
The first in a five-day examination of the finances surrounding a new stadium, this section addresses the debt remaining on Tropicana Field.

Background: Tropicana Field is a multi-purpose dome built by the city of St. Petersburg that opened in 1990. Since 1998, the Tampa Bay Rays Major League Baseball franchise has made the facility their home. The Rays have a lease to play in the facility until 2027.

Though the construction of the dome was originally pegged at $85-million, the actual cost to the city of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County to build and operate the dome so far has been $233.4-million. Additionally, the state has contributed $2-million a year since 1995.

Potential Problem: Why would you build a new stadium, if you are still paying for the old one?

Analysis: There are currently four loans, or bonds, still outstanding related to Tropicana Field.

1. Professional sports facility sales tax refunding revenue bond. Issued in 1995, this $27.185-million bond is covered by a $2-million-a-year, 30-year state subsidy. The debt is scheduled to be paid off in October 2025. State payments are expected to continue whether or not Tropicana Field is torn down.
2. First Florida Tropicana renovation bonds. Issued in 1996, this $22.81-million bond helped pay for renovations to Tropicana Field for baseball. It is covered by the city using funds other than property taxes. The city owes $1.1-million, which is scheduled to be paid off in 2009 - three years before a new stadium would open.
3. First Florida Governmental refinancing bonds. A 2001 refinancing of several bonds issued in 1996 and 1997. The city pays off these bonds through non-property tax dollars. The city currently owes $20.572-million. The last payment is scheduled for 2016.
4. Excise tax secured revenue bonds. The largest amount of debt remaining on Tropicana Field, which is paid off through the city's portion of the state sales tax, state money redirected to the city and a 1 percent Pinellas County hotel bed tax. Currently, the city and the county still owe $67.95-million. The last payment is scheduled for 2015.

Of the four bonds, two are less relevant to the Rays' discussion. The "professional sports facility" bond (1) is a pass-thru from the state. No local money is required, and city and team officials say the debt will continue to be paid regardless of what happens to Tropicana Field. And the "first Florida Tropicana renovation" bond (2) will be fully repaid before the Tropicana Field is demolished, according to the Rays plan.

What's also of note is that the situation in 2012 - when the Rays plan to close Tropicana Field - will be different than the situation in 2008.  In 2012, more of the city and county portion of the debt will be repaid.

Depending on how you count the debt payments, the city and county will still owe $35.8-million-to-$46.70-million on Tropicana Field when play would begin in a new stadium.

Rays' Response: The Rays say their financing plan will the remaining Tropicana Field debt, which in 2009 would stand at around $69-million. One option may be to use the money created by the sale of Tropicana Field. Currently Archstone-Madison is bidding $65-million for the site. Depending on how their payments are scheduled (if they are selected) the city likely will be able to use that money, plus interest, to pay off the Tropicana debt.

For discussion: Would a plan that addresses the outstanding debt make you more likely to support a new stadium? Or, is the cost too great in any scenario?

Coming tomorrow: What the team says its paying for.

Comments

[Chuck]

I'll go ahead and get this out of the way beofre all of the kooks decide to spit their bile.

Bias. In bed with Rays. Republican. Unfounded claims. Mythical accounting. Manatees. Pork. Figure Manipulation. Speculation. Sea Grasses. Site clean-up. Irresponsible reporting. Times conspiracy to get naming rights to new field. Oysters. Parking Crisis. Secret meetings. Public in the dark. South St. Pete. Artesian Wells. Homeless. Scholarly Articles pointing to the myth of sports stadiums providing revitalization. Noise Pollution. Seat choice at council meetins. Kalt = Devil. Carpetbaggers. Boys from New York exploiting dumb Southerners. Waterfront ultimate frisbee park.

Let me know if I missed anything.

Anxiously awaiting Jon McPhee's next irrelevant soliloquy...

[Thor]

Chuck, Thor knows it will take a while before you see something from poop and the group. Yes you have covered the one liners they will use. Thor knows it will take a while because now they will need to change their numbers, you know change the truth again. Hey Puff Daddy Hal, got the calculator out, hey Justin, better not light up while you try to figure this one out. hey Stomp my feet Kathy, don't stomp too hard, you my put a hole in the ground. Wow these numbers look good, what will your story now be poop, Thor wonders. At every turn, Thor watches your arguments crushed. Thor laughs at her former pals as they scheme the next line. Hey puffy daddy, why not try "Sails are bad". Or "cow hide baseballs are bad for water", or "no one wants to shop in St Pete at the Trop site", or how about this one, "people don't need houses". Thor is amused, she laughs and laughs. Thor has spoken, Thor is wise, Thor is brave, Thor is thinking about that purse she'll buy at what once was home plate.

[Bland]

Addressing the outstanding debt before building a new facility was always a given.

My concern is that we have just about paid for the existing facility. It seems silly to knock it down, it is not that old.

Chuck, I like Jon McPhee's eloquent comments and analogies.

[Chuck]

Then I suppose your name speaks to your taste.

[Jay]

Are there any penalties for early termination of the bonds?

Also, what portion of the operating costs (such as water, sewage, security, etc) does the City / County pay?

[Aaron Sharockman]

Jay, good questions.

On early termination, I'm going to focus on the two bonds really in play here (bonds three and four on my list). Both bonds are described as non-callable. My understanding is that means the city has guaranteed all principal and interest payments. Put another way, even if the city could write a check for all of the principal today, they still would have to pay the interest in the years to come. This arrangement helped the city get a better interest rate. So there is no penalty for early termination, because their cannot be.

As for operating costs, the city ONLY pays for property insurance (about $2-million a year) and the police presence outside of the dome (about $400k a year). The Rays pay for everything else.

[Ken]

The Trop has NOT cost $233 million. Sharockman doesn't seemt to understand the time-value of money. I'll explain it in a way that everyone can understand. If you go out and buy a new car with a price of $20,000, but you finance your purchase over 5 years, you'll wind up paying alot more than $20,000 for the car because you're paying interest on the loan so that you can pay it off over time rather than have to come up with the money all at once. The car still only "cost" $20,000 to purchase; you just had to pay the bank interest for the privilege of paying it off over time. That is where Sharockman gets his $233 million figure; that's the amount of payments that have been made on the Trop to date, which includes mostly interest on the bonds that were issued to pay for it. Oh, and just to remind everyone -- the Trop was built long before the Rays even existed as a franchise, and had no tenant paying the rent for several years before the Rays came along. The Rays didn't convince St. Pete to build the Trop, the Rays had no control over how it was built or how much it cost, and had no say in its design, which is not very good for baseball and is somewhat of a laughingstock across the country. If St. Pete got stuck with a bad investment that has cost more than anticipated (neither Sharockman nor the SPT have actually offered any evidence that it did, but I honestly don't know), it wasn't the Rays' fault, and it surely is not a reason to saddle the city and the Rays with a poor venue for another 20 years. Wait, let me correct that: the Rays will certainly NOT be saddled with the Trop for another 20 years, because if St. Pete decides it doesn't want a new stadium, some other city will pay enough for the team to move away (and it won't be Tampa or Orlando).

[Ken]

The Trop has NOT cost $233 million. Sharockman doesn't seemt to understand the time-value of money. I'll explain it in a way that everyone can understand. If you go out and buy a new car with a price of $20,000, but you finance your purchase over 5 years, you'll wind up paying alot more than $20,000 for the car because you're paying interest on the loan so that you can pay it off over time rather than have to come up with the money all at once. The car still only "cost" $20,000 to purchase; you just had to pay the bank interest for the privilege of paying it off over time. That is where Sharockman gets his $233 million figure; that's the amount of payments that have been made on the Trop to date, which includes mostly interest on the bonds that were issued to pay for it. Oh, and just to remind everyone -- the Trop was built long before the Rays even existed as a franchise, and had no tenant paying the rent for several years before the Rays came along. The Rays didn't convince St. Pete to build the Trop, the Rays had no control over how it was built or how much it cost, and had no say in its design, which is not very good for baseball and is somewhat of a laughingstock across the country. If St. Pete got stuck with a bad investment that has cost more than anticipated (neither Sharockman nor the SPT have actually offered any evidence that it did, but I honestly don't know), it wasn't the Rays' fault, and it surely is not a reason to saddle the city and the Rays with a poor venue for another 20 years. Wait, let me correct that: the Rays will certainly NOT be saddled with the Trop for another 20 years, because if St. Pete decides it doesn't want a new stadium, some other city will pay enough for the team to move away (and it won't be Tampa or Orlando).

[Ron]

Ken,

your post makes no sense. The cost is the total cost, including interest, whether you're buying a car or a stadium.
As far as the Rays not being at "fault" for the Trop, that is only technically correct. They were not forced at gunpoint to sign their lease, but they did sign a lease knowing exactly what condition the Trop is in.

[Bob]

I hope they do leave. I never wanted them here in the first place.

[Ken]

Ron-- yes, it has cost the city $233 million, but it did not cost $233 million to BUILD the Trop or operate it as Mr. Sharockman says at the top of this blog and has said in prior reports in this newspaper. It cost $85 million to build, period. Costs include about $2.4 million a year for insurance and police. Interest has cost $150 million. I know the city still paid for it, but it's an important distinction when SPT or others are comparing how much it will cost to BUILD something, as opposed to what borrowing costs will be. To use true numbers, you need to be consistent; the best thing to do would reduce all numbers to NPV, but I'm sure that's a little too sophisticated for news reporting (that's not a dig, it's just the truth -- newspapers have to be written at like an 8th grade level so that most readers understand it)

[Bob]

By the way, Ron's right. The Rays knew what they were getting into. It's like renting a house and then a couple year later demanding your landlord build a new house to rent out to you because the current one is a joke.

1. Build your own frickin' house
2. You shouldn't have signed the lease in the first place

If I said that to my landlord he'd say exactly what the city should have said all along: NOT MY PROBLEM!

[Taylor]

The Rays have demanded a new stadium? Really? Please show me where they have demanded a new stadium. Thanks.

[Bob]

Taylor, that kind of semantics is just ridiculous.

But to be fair, I should have said, if I put a lot of pressure on my landlord to build a new house for me to rent and insisted that he do so according to MY schedule.

[Ken]

Bob: that's your perogative. Vote your conscience. I just don't understand the shortsightedness of it. How will you feel 6 or 7 years from now when the Trop sits there empty 350 days a year, trash and debris accumulating on its empty, unused lots, and Al Lang deteriorating on your downtown waterfront? It would cost tens and tens of millions of dollars to demo the Trop and Al Lang, which would all come out of taxpayers' pockets with no hope of turning those sites into useful, tax-generating assets. In the meantime, there is nobody (other than the taxpayers again) around to pay for environmental remediation on either site. Does this seem like a good outcome for the city?

[Strudwick]

If the money isn't coming from local property taxes, where IS it coming from ??

[Bob]

So one of the developers has agreed to pay environmental remediation at the Trop? News to me.

And thanks for having so much faith in the good people of St. Pete to think that its either the stadium deal or the scenario you described.

Maybe you didn't mean to be insulting, but as a native I find that to be so.

[Ken]

Bob at 1:18 -- sure, it's just like leasing a house, except it's a stadium, and a MLB franchise. Cities don't attract and retrain pro sports franchises without undertaking to at least share a major portion of the cost of building stadiums. It's a fact of life. If you want to keep the Rays, we need to find a reasonable way to build a new stadium. If you don't want to keep the Rays, then just vote against the proposal. But don't compare the economics of pro sports to the economics of renting or buying a home. They're not the same.

[Don Mott]

Ken, your argument would be much more valid if you provided proof of the truthfulness of your statements instead of just throwing out wild numbers and insinuations.

[Bob]

Ken, you didn't address what I just said. I realize they are different, I was making an analogy. There is a basic concept, however, which holds true. You can't go into a situation knowing full well what you're getting into and then complain because you don't like it.

But again, what about what I just said? Are one of the developers willing to cover whatever remediation there might be? Are you aware that its insulting to insinuate its either a new stadium or the gloomy scenario you described?

[Ken]

Bob at 1:28 -- it's pretty doubtful that environmental remediation is necessary at the Trop, but that's one of the things opponents have suggested as a concern. The city seems interested in negotiating with the developers, and one of the items on the table is who will pay for potential remediation. Whether or not the developers ultimately agree to pay directly for remediation, a new development would clearly provide tax revenues that would help pay for it if the city had to undertake it. And at the Al Lang site, there is currently no storm water runoff management in place -- this causes continual pollution of the bay. The Rays' plan includes a sophisticated water runoff management plan as part of the cutting-edge environmentally-friendly design for the proposed ballpark. Without it, either the site remains as it is or the city has to pay out of pocket to demolish the stadium and fix the runoff issue.

[Bob]

So none of the developers has agreed to pay for remediation, in other words.

Gee, if its doubtful that remediation is necessary why have none of the developers just said: "Uh..sure we'll pay for whatever it costs to clean up that site. Probably won't cost a thing anyway. Why not? No big deal."

[Bob]

But hey, you know what Ken? You may be right, and I hope you are. In fact, I hope one of the developers does agree to cover remediation and that there's really nothing to clean up. Seriously.

But look what happened with Raytheon and that toxic plume ( http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/article473880.ece ), which by the way supposedly wasn't that big of a deal before the project started.

[ken]

Bob at 1:39 -- I don't think it's insulting to suggest that a future with no team and no plan for what to do with either site is a bleak one. It's not meant to suggest anything about the people of St. Pete. It's just the reality of the situation, in my eyes, if the Rays leave. Since you've kind of asked me, I will say that I have no faith in the city leaders to come up with and carry out an alternative plan. That's not a comment on the voters or the people of St. Pete in general, but rather on the amatuerish and, at times I fear, utterly inept elected officials and city planners. I mean you look at some of their behavior to date on the stadium issue, and it's clear that many of them are out of their depth (For example, some on city council seek guaranteed money from the developers while still retaining the right to change and restrict what the developers can do on the site -- they basically want the developers to buy a pig in a poke. No developer would ever do that. To return to the car analogy, it would be like a dealer telling you you need to agree up front to pay a certain price before you even get to look at the cars or decide what options you want. Who would do that? Nobody. Then, there's the mayor ignoring his own hired parking and traffic expert who concluded that the Rays' expert was correct in his assessment that there is already plenty of parking downtown; the mayor cut his own expert a multi-thousand dollar check for those services, and then turned around and ignored the expert's study and demanded that another 3000 car garage be built downtown as part of any ballpark design. It's nonsensical and just appears to me as imcompetence. I would have zero faith in these jokers being able to pull off some alternative plan without the pros the Rays have in the front office around to hold their hands through the process.

[Ken]

Strudwick at 1:26 -- most of the money to pay the bonds on the Trop come from a hotel tax (not sure if it's a county-wide or city-wide tax), so most of those dollars come from tourists.

[Bob]

Ken, I respect your opinions and no doubt share your disdain for our "leadership."

However, St. Pete is what it is IN SPITE OF inept politicians and greedy developers. And that's because the people who have lived here for the past 100 years have fought tooth and nail to preserve the good things.

On that note, they developed something called Vision 20/20, which determined that things like a huge stadium have NO PLACE on our waterfront.

This is a slap in the face to all those many, many people who developed Vision 20/20 over the years and years it took to put it together.

I want you to know I am NOT against a new stadium. Just not on our waterfront and not on my dime. That's all.

[Ken]

Bob-- for the final time (I need to get back to work) I'll respond to your 1:50 post. Let's get one thing clear -- there is absolutely no evidence that there is a major environmental issue on the Trop site. That's just something the stadium opponents have thrown out there to scare people. Is it possible? Sure. It's also possible I could start digging a post-hole in my back yard and come across something totally unexpected like the Raytheon plume to which you refer. Is it likely? No at all. Still, a business like the developers involved does not ordinarily agree to take on unnecessary risks, even remote ones. So they may not agree now to be responsible for some as-yet-undiscovered environmental problem. Then again, maybe they will. Either way, it would be better to turn the land into something that generates value for the city and resources to pay for any cleanup.

[Ken]

Bob at 2:02 -- okay, I couldn't resist, THIS will be my final post of the day. I love St. Pete and applaud the people of the city for making it what it is IN SPITE OF inept politicians (as you say). Now I'm one of those people (I'm proud to say), and I want St. Pete to keep moving forward, not backward, which I believe the loss of the Rays would be. I like the idea of a waterfront ballpark. But if you don't, then come up with another plan. The only ones I've heard suggest putting a new stadium far from our downtown. I don't think that makes any sense. One of the biggest problems with the Trop from an economic development standpoint is that it is completely divorced from the urban fabric by its sea of parking lots and remote location. As a result, it doesn't drive the kind of spin-off economic development that well-planned stadiums have (see Camden Yards, San Diego, Denver, etc.). A stadium downtown would bring lots of foot traffic, more tourist dollars, etc. to downtown businesses. That's where our stadium dollars would bring the most return in terms of overall economic development and tax revenues.

[Bob]

Ken, there indeed is evidence that there are environmental issues or the city would not have absorbent socks in place to monitor the AMOUNT of contamination (and make sure too much of it isn't seeping out into adjacent areas), nor would they have been fined thousands and thousands of dollars for failing to test and fix the KNOWN problems underneath where the Trop is now before going ahead with construction way back when.

Please tell me I'm lying. Please.

I will be happy to send you all relevant documents proving that what I'm saying is true.

Nice of you to be so flippant with real, serious issues just because someone you don't agree with brought them to the public's attention. Real classy.

Sounds like you want a stadium no matter what.

Tell you what, I imagine you have one of those "Lets build the stadium signs" in your yard. Well fine, go ahead and build the stadium either next to the Trop or on another SUITABLE location and add a 5-10% ticket tax on all tickets to pay for it.

That way you get a new stadium and all is well. We keep Al Lang and let the community use it, and the parking lot to the north gets converted to parkland.

End of story.

[Bob]

Okay, the "real classy" comment wasn't nice. I apologize. It's just that this whole thing really chaps my hide.

[Chuck]

Bob -

You rent. Please tell me why your opinion matters?

[Bob]

Wow, Chuck, way to show your true colors! So I guess only property owners matter?

Classic.

[Brad]

To answer Aaron's question, if there's a plan in place to alleviate the debt still owed on the Trop then by all means that would make me more likely to vote in favor of the new stadium. What I find interesting is that based on the poll from Friday about what concerns voters most about the new stadium - 40+ percent say they oppose the waterfront location. I don't get this logic - there's already a baseball stadium there. So what's the harm in putting a new stadium there? I don't get it.

[Chuck]

My true colors have been out there since day one. Perhaps I should put it another way.

You rent. Why are you concerned about property taxes?

[Bob]

Well, first of all I only rent my office space, but that's neither here nor there.

Second, property taxes are often passed on to renters in the form of...you guessed it, higher rent.

And third, perhaps renters will one day want to buy a house. Don't you think how expensive it will be is important to them?

[Bob]

"There's already a baseball stadium there. So what's the harm in putting a new stadium there? I don't get it."

Al Lang Field (which is indeed a large structure) pales in comparison to the gigantic 34,000-seat stadium the Rays want to build. With the cover raised, the new ballpark would be nearly as tall as the 28-story Bank of America Tower, the tallest building in St. Pete.

Furthermore, the new stadium wouldn't even fit on the footprint of the Al Lang site. Instead it would extend past Bayshore Drive and into the Bay, requiring a disruptive dredge and fill process.

The City and its citizens have spent years discussing what is appropriate for the downtown area in general and the waterfront in particular. A building of the height and overall bulk of the proposed stadium is not at all consistent with Vision 20/20 (the masterplan for our downtown waterfront, developed with extensive community input over many years).

In fact, the City Council was ready to vote to protect the Al Lang site as parkland, per the results of an involved community feedback process, when City Development Administrator Rick Mussett sent them an urgent memo, urging them to delay the designation until a future date. City Council was unaware that the Mayor and Mr. Mussett had been meeting in secret with the Rays about plans to build a new stadium on the Al Lang site.

[Jay]

Aaron,

I'm curious how the development of a new stadium would impact Albert Whitted Airport.

Is it currently being used in any capacity for the Trop (such as charter planes for opposing teams)? What about the local hotels? Do teams stay there?

The reason I ask, and it's a bit of a tinfoil question, is that is the development of the new stadium, on a smaller parcel of land than currently being used, a push to subversively annex the airport to support the new stadium and it's influx of new business?

[Brad]

Thanks Bob. That's fair, but wouldn't it be a bit odd if St. Pete, with the picturesque waterfront that it certainly has, didn't have a pro baseball stadium on its waterfront? It's at least as perfect an area for a baseball stadium as the ball park in San Francisco if not better. Baseball and St. Pete are entrenched in history together and it should be celebrated in the downtown area, not ignored. I have a hard time figuring out what the downside would be to the stadium being built in the new location. So maybe it doesn't fit in with the 20/20 vision but maybe the 20/20 vision is simply outdated at this point. Explain to me the negatives other than change to the area? I agree most of the time that if things arent' broke, no need to fix them. The fact is the Trop and its location are no good - Bud Selig a few years ago said he won't ever allow the MLB All-Star game to be played at the Trop. How sad is that? Obviously an upgrade is needed!

[Jon McPhee]

At the risk of suffering another yawn from Ken, here's another soliloquy. You of course can flip channels at this point if you want.

A basic issue is that there's no reason why ALL the residents of St. Pete and Pinellas County should be taxed or incur debt to give a virtual freebie to a FEW who just proselytize about "moving forward" and "revitalizing" and all that other hopeful stuff. If the economy generally is down and likely to stay so for some time, if prices for real necessities are up and likely to keep rising, if average people (natives, Chuck) have to move away because they can't keep up with increased taxes and other burdens, from a burst bubble driven largely by speculators driven by greed and wishful thinking, why are we ALL supposed to take a flyer on the off chance that a Lotto bet by a bunch of, yes, carpetbaggers and flailing optimists will end up making all of us better off? You can't eat "excitement."

And all that seems apparent of the "cutting-edge environmentally-friendly design" we hear so much about is that the community is likely to bleed out from that massive plastic surgery. These days, user fees are all the rage. We're expected to pay for public services we actually use. So why not let the businesses, including the Rays and other projectors and developers, and the downtown businesses that supposedly will surge from all the "revitalization," and maybe the $10 million-a-pop players, and ticket buyers who would actually use the stadium (which because it's open-air can't be used for much else) pay the freight?

Lots of little and big questions and nagging issues remain, and I hope open and informed public discourse will not be buried by a bunch of shouting.

It is not unfair, when the city and county are financially strapped and forcing all kinds of belt-tightening, to let the folks whose middles are being pinched see what they are being asked to buy. "Moving forward" in the dark is what you're doing just before you smash your nose on the edge of the door.

There seems to be precious little of the cautious and informed fatal-flaw analysis and due diligence on the part of our government that would accompany an arm's length transaction of this size between, say, Donald Trump and Warren Buffet. I would bet that the Rays dudes, including Mr. Kalt, are sort of counting on that.

Those who question the wisdom of this potential major course change tend to spend a little more time on the nitty-gritty of facts and show a lot more civility than the irrepressible boosters. But maybe that's just the reason why the social fabric is increasingly strained.

Or maybe we need to change the city motto to the unoffical motto of Chicago, capitol of political chicanery and plain envelopes stuffed with cash: "Ubi Est Meam?" -- which is fractured Latin for "Where's mine?"

[Aaron Sharockman]

Teams do not fly into Albert Whitted for games. They fly on big commercial planes --- planes that are too big for Albert Whitted.

As far as Albert Whitted folks are concerned, I get the sense many are skeptical of the Rays moving to Al Lang. (Though I would guess a downtown stadium would help the restaurant coming online at the new terminal). I was going to actually even write about this if I get a chance. I've seen at least three houses in St. Pete with POWW no-stadium yard signs next to save Albert Whitted yard signs. A couple of folks I've talked to find the stance ironic. On one hand, airport folks fought tooth and nail to essentially keep a piece of government owned land private (how much of the public actually uses Albert Whitted) --- while they oppose the Rays asking for about the same treatment.

I've been told also the "turn the airport into parkland" folks have kind of teamed up with "keep the airport" people in opposing the Rays' plan. Who would have thought that five years ago?

[Don Mott]

The payoff of the Trop debt has been a minor matter since day one since we all know that if done right the redevelopment would pay for the debt. And it could be done without the Rays since they have no ownership in the property. The issue is the new debt incurred by building a new stadium. BTW, for those who opine about the Ray's $150 million contribution, it is in fact just prepaying the rent, not actually a contribution. The parking issues which have yet to be worked out to the city's nor the neighbors satisfaction. The costs and environmental problems associated with moving Bayshore. The street and sidewalk widths which have not yet satisfied the city. The street closings that were in the first proposal that don't satisfy the city or neighbors. The County has not yet agreed to continue the one percent hotel tax which they currently contribute and the Rays are now counting on. There are many more issues than the payoff of the Trop debt and there will be no answers until the Ray's submit their final plans. There are many obstacles for the Rays to overcome and only time will tell if it can be done.

[Thor]

Bob, or should Thor say Justin, how's it going. Looks like Thor has caused you to change names, very amusing, scared of Thor? Mmm, puny little Justin, sucking his thumb in the corner and suddenly he says, "I know I can be Bob and get back on the blog and fight the evil Thor and her minions." Thor has discovered you and you know how Thor knows? Easy, mindless writing, like the Rays demand a new stadium. Suggesting an idea is not a demand. Do you suggest a place to eat and it really means a demand. Do you suggest a place for vacation and call it a demand. Did you suggest a double wide but it meant a demand, Thor wonders if you know the meaning. The lovely Rays have suggested that over 100 acres in downtown St Pete all devoted to baseball is probably a bad idea. The Rays have kindly offered to give up 85% of that land in return for a wonderful new stadium built on a nice site on the water. Thor knows the 85 acres can then be used for wonderful things like shopping, homes and parks. Maybe even Justin Bob's double wide with room for growing stuff. Thor will continue to help you understand the folly of your thought process. Thor has spoken, Thor is brave, Thor is wise, Thor is very cute.

[Bob]

What the heck are you talking about?

[Bob]

Brad, it already has a stadium, which is a perfect fit. I think having that be a community stadium would be really cool. Plus making all or part of the parking lot north of the stadium parkland would rock.

I think the Negro Baseball League has expressed some interest at using Al Lang Field, which would also be a good way to bring people together.

[Chuck]

I know I may be alone here but I have to say that Thor's posts are some of the funniest things I've read in recent memory. Even if I were anti-stadium I'd get a good chuckle out of his musings.

[Bob]

Thor, if you're so cute, perhaps you'd like to meet for drinks? Then you can see that I'm all Bob. ;)

[Who cares?]

Jon McPhee ... I cringe at your mention that the people who oppose the stadium are the more civil of the two sides. An attack machine exists online of a very small group of people that questions the sanity and humanity of anybody who supports the stadium. YOU HATE THE ENVIRONMENT! WHERE ARE YOU GONNA PARK ON GAMEDAY? FORGET ABOUT SHOPPING OR EATING ON GAMEDAY! WHY DO YOU HATE ST. PETE?

Relax. Let's let this thing play out. Much has yet to come, and me thinks that this vocal few is a very small minority. Joe Average is waiting to hear all the facts. I suggest you do to, because the bile of these posts will certainly begin to accrue. I have yet to meet any of you attackers in town. I have had dozens and dozens of conversations about this issue and yet to hear one person who is vehemently against it.

Me thinks that thou dost protest too much. It's nauseating.

[That's because of who you are]

Ha! Who cares is county commissioner Ken Welch. Who'd have thunk it!

What about all the email you've been getting, Ken?

[Those arent for sale signs]

By the way, Ken, what about the thousands of people all over town who are "vehemently against it" enough to put one of those handy dandy red signs in their yards?

Your blindness to the will of the public, sir, is the only nauseating thing I'm aware of.

[Who cares?]

Case in point. This machine is laughable. You can choose to believe what you would like, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people are waiting to hear this thing out. And with the county getting involved, the NIMBYism that the opposition depends on will be diluted. Good luck! I would just suggest chilling out. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

Cheers,

Just a mid-20's ham-and-egger born-and-raised local waiting to hear all the facts.

[Kyle]

Can anyone tell me if beer will be cheaper in the new stadium? I get angry paying $8 for that 22oz. cup? Will I get a St. Pete resident discount card if I vote yes?

[Yeah right!]

You're a tool, Ken.

[Don Mott]

Who cares?, The County Commission is only involved to the point that the Rays have just now mentioned the need for County money. The Commissioners as far as I know are not involved with any discussions at this time and have not voiced their approval. In fact some have expressed reservations. I personally have not witnessed any "bile" from opponents. But I have witnessed a lot from proponents as can be seen on this blog alone. I agree that a lot of people are waiting to hear the final proposals but the overwhelming majority of opponents have been quite civil. We only point out issues that need to be addressed and do not call people names or state false or misleading facts. Quite the contrary of the proponents.

[Um....]

Who in their mid-twenties uses the phrase "ham-and-egger"?

[Don Mott]

I might add that I have seen very few few if any constructive and meaningful rebuttals to our opposition. What I consistently hear is, it's good for the city, it will add jobs, it will rejuvenate downtown, (which by the way is quite active), it will be great for business and homeowners. These are generalizations not borne by proof or facts. The last time we heard these promises the Trop was born. Where is the revitalization and prosperity from that deal?

[Kyle]

Show me how much beer will cost. that will make my decision.

[Chuck]

I think I might be with Kyle on this one. I never considered an increase in beer prices. I suppose $1 hot dog night will be a thing of the past as well.

Gotta keep out the riff raff somehow.

[St Pete Renters]

We should not have any more say on the matter than Willie the Williams Park Wino ... we pay the same amount of property taxes

[Kyle]

What you don't pay today, you pay tomorrow. Only one side can change the $$$ coming in and going out. Anyone guess what side that is?

[John]

I'll support building a new stadium on the site of Al Lang stadium if the money does not come from our property taxes.

The new taxes generated by the redevelopment of the Trop would more than offset the new stadium debt owed by the city-county. We get more jobs, one brand new modern stadium and much needed redevelopment near the Trop.

LET'S BUILD A STADIUM!

[Rick K]

I am at work today, but there is absolutely nothing going on....

It's been interesting looking back through the threads that predated my discovery of this blog....

Interesting how the ANTI's keep saying the exact same thing, in exactly the same words, over and over.

Jon McPhee, Don Mott, Bland, if it weren't so sad, it would be funnier. Don keeps saying that the "let's vote" side have not provided factual refutation of the Anti side.

Which is a bit like saying the GOP has not provided factual proof that Bill Clinton lied.

Much of what Don asserts in these threads is not provable. Nor is it disprovable. But much of it is wrong. Still, he clings to the glimmer that because no one has disproven his claims (which are not disprovable) he has won some sort of victory.

Folks, there will be plenty of facts available. The Don Motts of the world won't believe the facts that support these proposals. The anti's will embrace the facts that don't support these proposals (if there are any).

Most voters won't be swayed just by facts, anyway. Most who vote for these proposals will do so because they like them and believe that when all is said and done, the City/County will be better off WITH these deals than without them.

The ANTI's will vote no, because they don't like these proposals and are convinced that there are facts that prove the stadium is unreliable.

That none of their arguments could pass muster in a basic college logic course does not matter. Everyone is free to vote however they want.

We've heard from the ANTI's that these paired redevelopment proposals should not be pursued because the Mayor gave a speech a few years ago trumpeting the Trop as a great community asset!

This is a disingenuine argument, because the people offering would not let the entire question hinge on the opinion of the Mayor. Were the Mayor to come out and say, "I meant what I said back then, but these two redevelopment projects offer us a chance to get something so superior to what we have now, that I cannot justify NOT taking advantage of these opportunities," the ANTI's wouldn't suddenly capitulate and become proponents of these deals.

We've heard from the ANTI's that we cannot pursue these deals because there are no guarantees.

We've heard all kinds of arguments against. The arguments used on this blog are the same ones used on the POWW website.

Not a single one of their arguments are going to matter to most people in this community. Neither, really, are the pro arguments.

People will make up their own minds.