Final tally last night

The final tally from last night, according to City Council member Wengay Newton (as relayed to us by Lorraine Margeson): 200 people for, 397 people against, 3 people with no clear opinion. The meeting didn't end until after 12:30 a.m.

Have a great weekend.

Comments

[Ray F]

Using the simple fact that more people complain than leave their opinions to themselves, it's safe to say by those numbers this has a great chance of winning in November. I hope the Council allows us to make the final decision for the sake of the people who don't have time to go to City Hall and complain.

Personally, I thought the count was going to be a blowout but 2-1 isn't bad at all. I do have to say the guy who was 'for' that started banging on the podium and pointing at the blank screen screaming "this is your future" creeped me out a bit. So did the old woman with the "Save Tropicana Dome" hat on who talked about Richard Simmons.

It's obvious which side the educated people of St Petersburg are on. Build It!!!

[Rick K]

It was one of the funniest City Council meetings I have ever watched....

well, Okay, I have only watched a few City Council meetings in my life....

There were just enough nutjobs to make it entertaining....

[Jim Rome]

RRRRRRRack Him!!!!

[Leroy Jenkins]

Ray
Did the woman before that guy that was pointing at the blank screen say something about drinking PEE? I couldn't stop laughing about anti's and there rants.

[Ray F]

HAHAHAHA... Yeah she talked about astronauts on the space station converting urine to drinking water. The worst part about her speech was that she prefaced it with how she's from Manhattan and educated.

...I'm glad I graduated from St Pete High.

Did you see the lady talking about the solar power facility? She said, when she started talking, that she had 3 "ideas" for the Al Lang site and kept going on tangents and didn't make a single point. That was true comedy.

I can see it now... "tonight on FOX- the top rated new reality show... "The Council".

[Rick K]

I agree with Ray. The perfect prelude to the Council meeting was listening to the audio files from yesterday's Ron & Ian show. I was laughing pretty hard from that, then the Council meeting started.

Around 9:15 pm, there was this very bubbly cheerleader type woman who reminded me of a parody of the high school cheerleader. She was hilarious. In perfect "cheerleader" voice, she called out the Council members by name, then told them that they were her team!!!

It was great.

(She later said she was a teacher who quit her job because she had no health insurance ???)

Anyway, it was great fun. And it would make for a good reality show.

[Jim]

It was very entertaining listen to the angry old grumps and their far-fetched exaggerations. They complain about everything. Must be terrible to go through their lives being bitter all the time. In November, the residents of St Pete will overwhelmingly vote for this beautiful ballpark. St Pete will grow tremondously. This will be great! LET'S BUILD IT!

[Ray F]

Rick,

I remember that girl too. How about the guido that was sitting behind the podium scoffing at the 'fors' when they made their comments.

Wierdly enough, I think the deaf guy made a great speech.

[Leroy Jenkins]

I also enjoyed the guy that got up there looking like one of the guys from the Barber shop in the movie Coming to America.

[Make A Deal]

whereas....After watching the process of public input...whereas it's amazing we have what we have at all in this town...whereas we live rather comfortably...whereas etc...!!

[Ray F]

How about the guy in the tux with the glasses??? Or the lady that said "and if any of you yahoo Rays fans come in to my yard, I hope you know who you're dealing with"??? Great comedy.

[Make A Deal]

I know this is tough to hear, but if the validity of the points being expressed could count as a vote, those in favor came very close to outnumbering those against.

[Ray F]

We do outnumber them. Unfortunately, I don't feel sorry for the people who live in the Bayfront Tower. I would say 8 of 10 people there were from the tower.

They're not upset over St Pete's waterfront. They're upset over their view from their windows. Like the lady and her husband from the 18th floor who will be looking at a cement wall. Sorry, the drawings show the building facing left/center field.

The lady lives 17 floors higher than 90% of the residents of st pete. Who can she possibly be speaking for except herself?

[Brad]

St. Pete needs this!

[Kevin]

Ray F, have you completely lost yout mind? 8 of 10 were from Bayfront Tower? That's just laughable. You and your fellow sophmoric "supporters" lost, 2-1, those numbers do not lie, and the best you can do for spin is sit on your PC and make fun of those people who waited hours to speak? Very classy. Why don't you go to the next workshop and make fun of them to their faces next time? Scared? You bet you are. Typical coward with a big mouth and nothing to say.

Oh and "Make a deal", validity of points do NOT count as a vote, only voters cast votes, and should the council recklessly add this to the ballot this year, it will be SOUNDLY defeated by similar margins.

Perhaps you can do a better job promoting your cause by putting a "let's build it" bumper sticker next to your "Mike Gravel for President" sticker on your bitchin' Camaro. And yes, I just made fun of you and I'll be happy to do it in person as well.

[Bill]

Kevin - I want some of what you've been smoking. The little-thinking selfish naysayers will be SOUNDLY defeated by the majority of residents who want to see St Pete grow and not go back to the stone ages. Sorry, but your negative group represents an uneducated minority and uses fictitious scare tactics that are laughable. BUILD IT!

[Sean]

Wow kevin...just wow...

[Don in St. Pete]

The stadium proponents basically said nothing last night and clearly City Council was not impressed. You guys better start passing the hat around if you want a new stadium for the Rays.

[Thomas]

There is no point in even debating with the few people who support this plan.

You can visit the "I went for a walk today..." thread for a more extensive look at their faults.

I saw that Rome took the time to post a bit ago, which is pretty sweet. If this thread was the Jungle, Rick and Ray would get the "BOOM - Outta Here" and a manual buzzer.

[Kevin]

Bill, I don't smoke and I'm not part of any negative group or ANY group for that matter. Funny you don't see the opposition on here making fun of their fellow citizens who spoke up last night, only the rabid baseball fans and paid marketing shills who could care less about anything but themselves are doing that. Why is that? And what are you smoking?

[Ron]

I haven't made up my mind yet. Still waiting for the details. I do find it interesting that you put down the people who live in Bayfront Tower simply because they like the view they currently enjoy. (And no, I do not live in Bayfront Towers). These people purchased their homes because they wanted that view. While I would never pay a premium for a waterfront view, their concerns about losing that view (and the commensurate property value) is a completely valid and justifiable concern.

[Bayfront Tower Should be torn Down]

The Bayfront Tower should be torn down and made into a park. It blocks the view of the people that work in the Bank of America building. It blocks the wind that the sailing center disparately needs. The pollution from their toilets ends up in our bay, along with their depends. Then the aesthetics of that decrepit ancient structure is an eyesore to our beautiful waterfront.

The people that inhabit the building could then be transplanted to the redeveloped Trop site, renamed as POWW Centre. It's a win-win situation!

Leave, you blue-haired bitter people.

[Jason]

This is still the United States, right? Let the citizens vote on the stadium. This effects more than the 600 people that were at the council meeting. The opposition of the stadium actually doesn't even want to see this on a ballot? Sounds like fascist BS to me.

[Make A Deal]

Kevin ~
that's why I typed "if" the validity of the points being expressed could count as a vote.

Not all are suitable for public speaking because their point gets easily lost.

Mike Gravel is who??
Camaro...please, I am a Ferrari girl stuck in a kid transporting SUV.

The stadium plan and redevelopment of the Trop has positive potential for St. Pete. Believing St. Pete hasn't hit it's full glory. The investors who have some or all the money to invest see an opportunity.

Remeber the scale images of the waterfront stadium at ground level? It was shown with and without. Without the stadium our skyline looked overwhelmingly plain. But when showed with the stadium it was unforgettable.
I can't imagine St. Pete is finishing up the last high rises to ever be built. So the skyline will continue to change around the new stadium.

[lol]

Does the mayor oppose the stadium? Every morning I drive by his house and there it is, the bright red "no new stadium" sign. I laughed out loud the first time I saw it. I thought it was akin to getting your house toliet papered. But, it's been there all week. Is it there on purpose?

[I have the solution]

Let's keep the Rays where they are and build the world's largest Super-Walmart on the Al Lang site. Heck, that will bring thousands of people downtown every day, not just 81 times a year!! Isn't that what you proponents REALLY want?? Not a dime of taxpayer money either, Walmart will build it with their own money!! Parking? No problem, we'll just build a 14-story parking garage on the roof! Talk about adding to our skyline!! Just think of going downtown for lunch, maybe visit a museum, and get your grocery/christmas shopping done all in one spot!! The sales & new property tax revenues will cure all of our budget problems! And we won't have to deal with any of those pesky, obnoxious, drunken baseball fans because we all know they just go from their car, straight to the game and then back home!

I see it now, the worlds first downtown waterfront Walmart, with docks and everything for the boating-shopper too! We may even make the cover of Retail Insider Magazine!! WOW!!

Silly isn't it? Almost, and I repeat ALMOST as silly as what we are currently debating. No waterfront stadium!

[Kevin Makes Me Laugh]

I'm voting for the stadium because it will make Kevin angry.

I can't think of a better argument than that.

We can name it "troll park" in his honor.

[Rick from Largo]

Everybody's a comedian it seems. They must also be inflation proof and have a lot of money under their mattresses. Point is, there's still a lot to do in St.Pete...and money will be the need. More and more, I could care less about a stadium until until all the numbers come in; and that will be after our presidential election. Not to mention we are still sending troops to Iraq. I wonder? After having half your body blown away, before you passed out...would you thoughts be: Did the Rays win?

[Chester]

Wal-Mart in downtown? I know you are making light of the situation but you might actually get that Wal-Mart 16 blocks west if the stadium is voted down. What else can this city support without the Rays and the new development? The Rays are doing this city a favor in taking some interest in its future.

[Sean]

WRick, WHat does having half your body blown apart have to do with anything? I doubt the thought in there head is I shouldn't even be here right now either so what was the point of that comment?

The "view" will only be blocked from there condo when it is raining so I don't see the problem. The sail will be down if it possible.

[Ray F]

Kevin,

Would you agree that people who are against something are more vocal than people who are for something?

Simple yes or no?

[Fred]

The very grown up Adult anti-stadium POWW gang has stolen a half dozen blue signs from my yard....that's a great way to get your way....too bad I have about 100 more...and I have a camera now watching the signs and sooner or later I'll get a picture....unless you all have grown up.....naaa I'm thinking you haven't.

[this ain't mulberry]

As long as POWW doesn't scare off our children St. pete will continue to grow in size. Build the stadium,keep baseball here and keep it amazing!!

[Harold]

All would be Utopia if only the community (that is the middle class who work everyday to pay their own bills and taxes with the idea that they go back to help their own community) would only behave and remain silent and subservant to the self-serving poloticians, corporations, and many sport teams who fail to give back to their own communities. 12 billion in corporate tax breaks this year in Florida alone. How many cuts from the 12 billion to help our deficit in taxes? 0 is 0 %. Our communities have too many needs right now to worry about a new stadium.

[Jim Rome]

Thomas ... that was WEAK --- I'm looking for takes that are PHE-NOM-I-NAL .. not that bush league rubbish you and the other hippie-lettuce smokin', tree huggin' anti's are bringing to the table.
That sound was the BUZZER

you had a take ... and it SUCKED

you've just been RUN

OUT!

[Mitch]

I will vote yes and put up blue signs just to annoy Kevin. Soon enough poww will self-implode and this will be a landslide victory for the proponents.

I thought the lady that showed the image of the stadium from the water really helped the proponents. It looked great. Without the stadium, the "skyline" looked like a depressed town from 1973. This city will grow tremondously with the new stadium. I still don't understand why she penciled in the Trop though. As the council member said, the Rays are not moving the Trop to the water. She totally fell flat on her face.

BUILD IT!

[Thomas]

Dear Jim,

BOHICA buddy! Your post was like a boner in sweat pants.

My Rays jersey says "He Rack Me" on the back.

War Bad Stadium Financing Plans getting crushed.

[Bubba, Pinellas Park]

Well....there would have been more nays but, I and my friends had to work. Unlike some people here who just keep posting all day. You know who you are. NAY! NAY! NAY!

[julie]

the lady with the renderings was right on. the picture without the stadium showed a st pete skyline. the picture with the stadium showed no skyline, but this huge stadium. once the balance is gone...so is the skyline. totally absurd.

the trop outline was great. it showed us just how big this thing really would be. she gave something for scale and it worked!

she did an excellent job!

love the walmart comparison. we all want st pete to grow. it just needs to grow in the st pete way. and we're not boston. we have HOT summers.

find a better solution and leave our money out of it.

[pat]

agree.. the folks who want this on the waterfront obviously don't care about the waterfront. don't appreciate the waterfront. or they'd get it when that woman showed the skyline waterfront view. why do proponents want a ballpark on the waterfront? I DON'T GET IT!

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, Ray and Rick and youse udder guys, I hope you're being efficient here, and at least picking the lint out of each others' navels while you're gazing at them.

[Jon McPhee]

What a surprise, time for the Rays Lovers to try spinning the flavor of the Council session last night. Here's another long "boring" post, so tune out now if you care to.

I could only stay and listen through speaker number 31. But from that sample of the hundreds who signed up for their three minutes, BEEP! to try to explain their feelings about the Big Deal and their reasons for or against and their concerns about the complexities that the Council seems to be glossing over, the nays had it about 2 to 1. The final tally of little yellow cards seems to bear that out. “It is revealing,” of course, but not “compelling.”

It was impressive, the number of working men in work clothes and boots who showed up, to be told by some guy in expensive duds with a $200 haircut where to stand, where to walk and how to hold their “blue” signs. And the way the “blue” signs got posted all over the city’s property. It looks like this time, the Rays owners and their PR cadre were smart enough to at least round up some guys from this area. That guy was the only starched shirt-and-tie that I, at least, saw conversing with the workers.

I liked the three minutes of Mr. Grooms, who’s posted here occasionally. His pitch is that this is “our” chance to “brand” this city, presumably by building the Sail to swallow, if not overtop, what the City downtown already seems to have in the way of livability and attractiveness. I guess I’m incurably romantic, but I have this antiquated idea that not everything in the world is about marketing, and that maybe the complex goodness of a place like St. Pete does not need to be “branded.” He is sure that the Sail will “brand” the city to the point that all those people who buy Tommy Hilfiger and Coach and Ralph Lauren will be drawn ineluctably from around the planet to move into, or at least visit, what I am told is already the most densely populated county in Florida. Though maybe the already visible effects of the present economy and tax burdens will thin us out a lot. Trailer homes in Tennessee for all our teachers and nurses and maids and yard boys? Maybe low-cost “guest worker” housing on the Toytown site?

I must have wandered for a second while Mr. Grooms was speaking, because the image that popped up was of a St. Pete resident, roped like a steer, with the high-fivin’ white boys in the ten-gallon hats and thousand-dollar boots shoulder-punching and yukking it up while applying a red-hot “Rays” iron to the truss-ee’s flanks. Branded indeed, and for good.

I also liked what he did immediately after he performed. Mr. Grooms, who like the other upper-end project boosters is indeed impeccably groomed and coiffed and tailored, finished his speechifyin’ and immediately exited to the veranda of the Council building, whipped out his communicator, and started calling up his buddies to tell them how well he had done, that his was the best presentation, and that the Council members who had chatted and gazed into space while those dirty-toed, tree-hugging agin’ers were yakking, sat up and paid rapt attention, hanging on his every illuminated word.

But maybe I should apologize to Mr. Grooms for my observations. Properly, none of the debate over this subsidy ought to be about personalities, and I guess my remarks that named him were unlike the posts of the development and subsidy advocates here, which are always and of course uniformly polite, civil, respectful, on topic, honest and accurate. Did I miss anything?

From my spot in one of the overflow rooms, I only watched the proceedings on little TV sets, so maybe I missed the fine detail. I’m glad there were so many articulate folks who did get to speak, on all sides of the subsidy question. My card number was up in the hundreds, since I couldn’t take off work to get there for one of the 3:30 early spots. I only saw and heard the first couple of dozen before I had to leave. Maybe most council members started the evening just planning to endure, until the show was over and they could go wherever. One thinks that maybe they are starting to think twice. One hopes that the kind of self-aggrandizement and self-delusion typified by Mr. Grooms and shining out in this thread is typical of the Rays boys.

The big questions still remain: Why are we as a City giving a huge, publicly subsidized stadium to some guys who can afford to buy their own? Why does it seem that the Council has so far had limited interest in understanding just what all the pieces of this thing look like, before they buy into it? Maybe the Council will do something more than just eat up the stuff the Rays owners are dishing out as “financial plans,” and do better than to ignore the obvious flaws in how the owners want them to count things, like public assets sold and the proceeds added to the “deal” as a “private payment.”

If nothing else, this is one absolutely great exercise in practical civics. We should all take this opportunity to learn as much as we can about how our government and community are supposed to operate, and how they actually do operate. And where we should keep our attention, after this billion-dollar debate is over, so we don’t just trust the machinery of state not to grind us all down by inadvertence or bad will.

The price of keeping our republic is eternal vigilance against those who corrupt the exercise of the state’s power. Keep watching and speaking up, folks – it may not do any good at this stage of the proceedings, if past is prologue, but it’s a long way to Tipperary, and it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.

It bears repeating that this is a great lesson in civics, for all of us. Much like the one that’s going on, however interminably, in the presidential campaign. Where people are maybe starting to see that living in a lotus dream of consumption may not lead to sustainable life and culture, much less leadership that is competent, honest, or has the interests of anyone but a little privileged group at heart or in mind.

Some say, “A rising tide floats all boats,” as the reason to shell out maybe half a billion public dollars to oh-so-private sports team owners, on the oh-so-questionable assumption, nay, “promise,” that some fabric and some $200-600K townhomes and possible hotels and potential high-end retail will produce a massive flood of new tax revenues. But for them that has no boats, in part because they’re underwriting the yachts of the few, it’s just an invitation to drown.

Speechifying won’t decide this issue anyway. What happens behind the doors to the rooms off government halls, on the lawns and back yards and in the family rooms of Pinellas County, and in the hopefully awakened awareness of the citizenry, is what will ultimately count.

[Ryan]

Just let the city vote. Whats wrong with that? Why is POWW afraid of a vote?...

[Steve Lange]

All proponents of a waterfront stadium, please listen; the vote is what it is. Two to one against equals a 66% to 33% vote. Rather impressive. We increased our presence by 400% since the last public hearing. Quite effective.

Your adhominem attacks about the looks of others as they appeared last night when speaking or deriding their heartfelt comments tells much about you, not them.

The "FACT" that you stayed home to "watch" rather than participate when you have been running your mouths for months on these bloggs is telling.

Many of us read but do not post.

I generally try to spend my time on useful matters, but tonight, the shear magnitude of the vitriole from you stadium proponents is sufficient reason to write.

You are shallow and your words do not convince.

Just for a change, why not put your feet on the pavement as I and others are doing, why not trot down to a public hearing and make a rational statement, why not become positively productive in the cause, which ever side you choose.

Continueing to rant though, as you are doing, is not effective. Trust me.

You do more harm for your side than help.

This stadium, regardless of what you say, what you spin, is going to be voted down, and by a larger margin than 2 to 1.

Sorry to break the news to you.

No NEW Waterfront Stadium.

[Kyle]

I want to see liquor stores, metro pcs and check cashing places all over the Trop redev. site.

[gary grooms]

Unfortunately Steve is right about many things in his post. The nays outnumbering the yeas by two to one is not a good sign if you are in favor of the stadium. It doesn't mean the vote will mirror those numbers - but it's hard to find those type of numbers encouraging for the Rays chances.

Steve's comment about "ad hominem attacks about the looks of others as they appeared last night when speaking or deriding their heartfelt comments tells much about you, not them" is also a good observation. However, both sides are guilty of that.

I would look at POWW's position on this differently if they were consistent in their disapproval of "public money / private uses" The theory is simple - the City / County spends money to build a structure (in this case a stadium) they in turn lease this structure to a private enterprise with the idea being that the rent and the peripheral tax benefits are greater than their expenditure. This is not easy to quantify in most any case.

Currently the City leases space at the Pier, the airport, Vinoy Park, Straub Park, street corners for hot dog vendors, streets themselves for the Market etc. to private enterprises. The only difference is the Rays make more money - but they are willing to pay a third of the cost of the City owned structure in addition to annual rent. Are we asking the shops and restaurants at the Pier to pay 1/3 the estimated $50 million in renovations the Pier needs?

The "public" has owned the Al Lang site for decades and has been leasing it out to professional baseball. The new stadium would be owned by the public and leased out to major league baseball and possibly other ventures as we do at the Trop now.

If POWW had been strongly publicly opposing the use of the waterfront for a baseball stadium used by professional baseball for the last few years and had been consistent in their application of the "public money / private uses" towards the litany of other examples they would have some credibility in this area.

[Tony]

Gary,

You are correct about one thing, and it sure seems like POWW message changes, depending on the day. Some are valid points, some are not, but there is no consistency. (I will do anything to derail", "fight like dogs", We don't want a vote, we do want a vote, after the facts are in?)

Myself, I am not on either side as of yet, I'm still weighing all the facts. However, I have watched all three meetings on television. I see the same faces over and over, for both sides. We need to remember that 99% of the population won't even come to these types of hearings, but they will be at the ballot box in November. Who has time other than those that are VERY passionate on either side? I know I wouldn't.

The proponents declared victory last time, POWW declares victory this time. Declaring victory based off who shows up on at a City Hall meeting on a Thursday for either side is kind of silly.

Just my thoughts.

[Steve Lange]

Tony,

Correction of sorts: At the first public hearing POWW had 70 people. At the 2nd hearing we had, I believe, 93 and last Thursday's public hearing we had 397.

So, while you can say "many or some" of the folks were the same, they all weren't. By our changing and growing numbers we did it fact add new faces and thus new speeches and opinions.

And, need I say, not all of the folks who spoke in opposition to the stadium are POWW participants or even POWW followers. They were just part of the general public expressing themselves.

For myself, you are correct, I have been at all three public hearings and have given three different speeches because 3 minutes is not a lot of time to speak.

I will let the other side explain their attendance.

[Steve Lange]

Gary Grooms:

Your comments on the other hand are "earned". You use your feet, head and hands to promote your position which is more than many who blog here.

So, while I disagree with your overal position on the fate of the proposed waterfront stadium, I respect your right to go out and promote it in a reasonable way.

Good luck and I be seeing you at the next presentation that we both get booked into.

[lorenzo]

Ray F - you say 8 out of 10 were from the Bayfront Tower. Do some arithmetic, if you can and you will see the fallacy of your estimate (hint:consider the total number of residents in Bayfront Tower).

Did you say you are educated?

[Rick K]

POWW, take comfort in the number of kooks who appeared at the meeting and consider the battle won!

How absurd.

Look, this is, as Jon McPhee said (in the long post where he cut and pasted parts of stuff he has said in other posts in other threads, including that half-poetic stuff about "lotus dream of consumption") a great exercise in civic participation.

The thing, though, that makes me laugh the hardest is the people who assert that their opinions equate to facts, and contrary opinions are unreasonable.

Folks, this issue will be decided based upon people's opinions, not facts.

There are some who want the City to level Al Lang and make it into a Park. That is what they want. They will vote NO.

There are some who are afraid that these proposals will end up with costs that exceed the economic benefits. They won't KNOW that, but they will believe it, and they will vote NO.

On the other hand, there are some who want the ballpark, and do not care what it costs. They will vote YES.

This is how democracy is supposed to work. There is debate. In this case, there is loads of debate. But in the end, everyone is free to vote based on whatever criteria or emotions they want to rely upon in deciding how to vote.

This is EXACTLY what our founding fathers envisioned.

I say, let facts continue to come out. Let questions be raised. Let people support one side, or the other.

Then, I say, let's vote.

[gary grooms]

Thanks Steve,

I'll see you next time - wherever that may be.

Folks, it's okay to disagree - but not be impolite with each other. Steve and I are at opposite ends of this debate, but whether in public or sitting at a keyboard we can be polite and professional.

[Kyle]

He is afraid you will kick his buttocks. That is why he is nice.

[34 Years Since I've Worn Pampers]

And just think - probably more than half the voters who were for the stadium were asked to show up by an outside source! and it still went 397 to 200. I can assure you that there were no where near the amount of people there tha tnight who are opposed to this stadium. If it gets put on the ballot, it will be voted down. Of corse, as you are probably already aware, the people DO NOT always get what they want. Big Money talks, let's fact it.

When it does come time for a vote, I hope that each person who shows up to vote has to produce a valid I.D along with their voter I.D to prove that they're actually LEGIT. residents of St. Pete and not people who sleep at Williams Park or at Pinellas Hope! In other words - let's let the taxpayers VOTE on the issue.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that POWW is "afraid" of a vote, what I have heard them say is that they want more information in order to make an informed decision. But of course, it would probably be more beneficial, not to mention easier, to rush something through that isn't completely on the up and up, huh?

Not everyone who is against this stadium is old and crotchity. You all are so funny! More than half of the population of Old NE and of Brightwaters are against the stadium and there aren't a whole heck of alot of old, crotchity people living in either of those neighborhoods.

Also, I've noticed that on this page, you all are so abusive to the other posters on here who are opposed to the stadium and/or anyone who is against the new stadium. To me, that says that you're all desperate and afraid of the reality of this issue in that MOST people DO NOT want this new stadium to be built downtown. I guarantee that if it is put on a ballot, it will get voted down. You must remember that the majority of voters in this area are ralliers who actually show up at the polls. If this place wasn't full of ralliers, then hell, Charlie Crist may not be living in the governor's mansion right now. Think about it.

Here's my question - why is it that no one even wants to consider re-vamping the Tropicana site? It would be alot more cost effective than putting up a brand new structure downtown. I say, knock Tropicana Field to the ground and completely re-build it in the image of the new stadium. Why clear the entire waterfront to put up a brand new stadium. It really IS the best place for something that huge in as far as infrastructure and cost is concerned, and isn't that what concerns most voters here where this is concerned?

Until I have the answers to that question, I am voting no and I will continue to pose this question to everyone that I talk to as an alternative.

btw, I am 35 years old. Not old - Not crotchity, that is unless 30 has now become the new 80!!

[Bob]

I have a new campaign group..

MORONS FOR STADIUM coalition

Join the uninformed today, they need you, for more info...

Call 1-800-BUTTCHEEKS

[Kyle]

I'm with you Pampers. Why not try to build on the Trop site? I still enjoy A/C.

[Rick K]

Dear Pampers,

The answer to your question is simple, really.

The Rays want a new stadium.

Confronted with that reality, and interested in trying to figure out if that can be done in a way that works, the City finds itself staring at two realities:

1. The current Trop site is ridiculously underutilized.
2. The Al Lang site is even MORE underutilized.

The Rays have managed to come up with a bold, imaginative vision that not only attempts to "solve" the three realities noted above, but their plan does so much more:

A. The plans will provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to develop 86 acres downtown, with an inviting mix of new housing, new retail, new workspaces, new entertainment venues, and new recreation spaces, all in a more enviro-friendly, more astetically appealing, more economically advantageous package, which will grow our city's population base and add more than a billion dollars in taxes to the public coffers.

B. The plans will provide the City's downtown with a signature archictectural structure that will effectively brand the City as an inviting tourist destination to audiences all over the world. Anyone watching the games or events at the new stadium will see palm trees, water, boats, and people enjoying the beautiful climate (all the ingredients that make the Gulf Coast such an attractive tourist destination).

C. The plans will greatly improve the Region's most valuable property which currently is used by almost no one. The city's extensive waterfront park system will be enhanced with amenities which give more residents of the City and Region reasons to come downtown and enjoy the waterfront and participate in a vibrant combination of urban culture and commerce.

D. The plans offer the chance for the City of St Pete to be the proud owners of America's first LEED certified "green" stadium, earning our region a well deserved elite status in this important societal movement.

E. The plans offer the chance to further cement the City's historical relationship with the game of baseball, a century-long tradition that has been ineffectively trumpeted.

F. And, most importantly, without fully developing the OLD Trop Field site, the economics of the twin proposals no longer work, and the first three realities are not addressed in any meaningful way. So the Ray's don't get the new stadium they seek, and the City/Region are stuck with two collosal underutilized chunks of real estate downtown.

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, Rick, I thought you said elsewhere the "twin projects" were totally unrelated.

A. Oh, that's only as to who the City has to trust to do the job at each site.

B. I guess they're about as unrelated as the the three walnut shells and the pea, or the three (and three hidden) cards on the little table by the sidewalk, with the three guys standing by to shill for the quick-handed dealer. And ready to knock over anyone who figures out the scam or starts beating the house.

C. What's the pitch? "Hey mister, $20 will get you $40." but just try to collect. Didn't the Rays owners "promise" that they would keep on at the Trop for at least the lease period? And just who is bidding for the relocation of the Rays franchise?

D. One might ask whether there are not other people and businesses who might find good uses for both Al Lang and the area around the Trop, now that attention is focused on those two areas. And by the Gandy Bridge, with better access (but of course no possibly free downtown waterfront), and the Toytown site too. Of course, in a down economy with existing tax shortfalls, venture capital might understandably be shy if any project is not almost completely paid for by dipping into the public purse.

E. The underlying "reality" is that a set of deep-pockets guys who could build their own stadium and even finance it with some of their "securitized" products, like other stand-up owners have done elsewhere, want to be given a subsidy of public funds that ultimately involves tax revenues and a drain on the local economy and a commitment of public resources away from basic services, to a sports venue and very chancy high-end development, on the hopeful chance that some ineluctable force will build St. Pete Up, Up, Up until it's Just Like Tampa.

And last but not least,

F. The reality-show "promise" that somehow, unlike such ventures in the past, this all will be so visionarily productive that it all will pay for itself.

Still sounds like the perpetual motion machine and the 200-MPG carburetor and the seret-formula energy catalyst pill you drop in your gas tank and never have to buy gas again.

[Rick K]

Jon, I think you are mistaken. I have always seen these two projects as inexorbly connected.

The Rays want a new stadium. The City needs to find a better use for both the Trop Site and the Al Lang Site. These paired proposals provide solutions to both challenges.

Your (A). I have no idea what you mean.

Your (B). Interesting irrelevant imagery. A tangent.

Your (C). I don't think you understand what is going on here. The Rays WANT a new stadium and came up with these ideas as a way to EXTEND their stay in St Pete and also help with several other issues.

Your (D). I am not sure why you insist on discussing things that are not on the table. The beauty of these paired redevelopment proposals is that both properties are downtown, and they actually support each other and contribute to each other's likely success.

Those other sites are not downtown. Toytown is not even in the City. Those OTHER sites are better suited to OTHER developments. The Rays seek to build a modern urban stadium which leverages the beauty of St. Pete's downtown waterfront, at the same time the private sector converts the 86 acre underutilixed DOWNTOWN property currently housed by the Trop and several acres of bland surface parking lots which sit empty about 90% of the time.

Further, we are not suffering from a shortage of Taxes in St. Pete. Even if that were true, then these proposed projects would be EVEN BETTER, because they amount to signficant increases in tax collections as soon as next year, and more than a Billion dollars in increased tax collections in the next half century.

Your (E) cracks me up. Many of the anti's repeatedly lie about the new stadium proposal, claiming it is an effort to give public property (Al Lang) to a private enterprise. In actual fact (plainly obvious to anyone who can read), this proposal calls for public development of public land, ownership of which will be retained by the public. I happen to believe that capital markets would support the private purchase of the Al Lang site and private development on that property similar to what the Rays have proposed. However, that deal is not on the table, nor would it be as advantageous to the taxpayers and citizens of the City/Region.

Your baseless assertion that these proposals will lead to a "drain" on the local economy is silly and unsupported by any known economic theory. These development proposals are expected to result in more than a billion dollars in direct expenditures on these two projects. Further, the redeveloped Trop Site should produce upwards of $1,000,000,000 in increased tax revenues, in addition to having a (much harder to precisely measure) economic stimulus effect that is four to twelve times greater than that number.

There is also no evidence (whatsoever) to support your baseless claim that the governmental contributions to these projects will draw resources away from the provision of basic services. There is not even a reasonable economic theory that you could point to which suggests this. For that matter, there isn't even a good example in recent history in Florida where public investment of these types has led to REDUCTIONS in government services.

The high end development is not "very chancy". And you cannot point to a single credible economic study which indicates otherwise. On the other hand, we know that these developers have had success and are quite capable of successfully building projects like those proposed for the Trop Site.

You may fool yourself that these professional investors (both with the Rays and with the potential developers of the Trop Site) are merely "hoping" for some "ineluctable force", but your ignorant fantasy does not mean much to those of us who live in the real world where investors who risk capital are far, far, more likely to succeed than to fail.

As to your last remark in (E). The goal here is not to make St. Pete like Tampa. It is to make St. Pete unlike anywhere else.

Your (F). I have no idea what "reality show promise" means. I do not watch contrived "reality shows," and have no idea how they relate to this question about the future of our City. Your silly insistence that projects like this do not pay for themselves might make the clueless naysayers and the paranoid stand up and cheer, but it will not persaude anyone.

Jon, there can be no reasonable person who looks at the Trop field redevelopment proposals and disagrees that they will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes and other economic benefits.

There are some who admit this nearly impossible to deny truth, yet still oppose these deals. There are some who simply DO NOT WANT a ballpark built at the Al Lang site.

That is a legitimate position. That is what we will be voting on.

When you pretend to "discredit" the case for these paired redevelopment proposals, you convince no one worthy of convincing, and you undermine our willingness to take you serious.

You can PRETEND the Trop redevelopment is likely to fail, or that it will not provide taxes, homes, jobs, and increased shopping and entertainment opportunities in downtown. But the only people who believe that FANTASY weren't in need of persausion.

[John]

Rick K, or may I just refer to you as Mr. Kalt? Your argument is baseless by your own assertion that "The City NEEDS to find a better use for both the Trop Site and the Al Lang Site."

No. The city does not "need" to do anything. Do you understand what the word "need" means???

You even said it yourself, -"Further, we are not suffering from a shortage of Taxes in St. Pete". If we're not suffering from a shortage of taxes, then based on that fact, St. Pete doesn't "need" to do a damn thing with either parcel of land.

So which is it?? You make little sense but do make loud & clear that you are obviously a paid Rays/Hines contracter/employee that you and your fellow shills posting ad nauseum on here have been exposed as.

Furthermore, all this is for naught anyways, because the BOCC, by recommendation from the TDC is going to kill this in its tracks. The beach mayors are FURIOUS that their bed tax money, primarily intended to lure tourists to their beaches, is being considered to further placate a baseball team. You said it yourself Mr. Kalt, without the 100 million from the bed tax, the deal is dead. And you've ignored the TDC this whole time, and they haven't forgotten that fact. Sorry.

[Rick K]

John,

You may foolishly continue to delude yourself into thinking I am someone other than who I am. Matters little to me.

It's actually quite odd.

Last night, some friends and I took our kids to the Trop to watch the Rays play. We entered the City of St. Pete from the west, in three different vehicles. We each asked our kids to look out for Red, Blue, or White signs.

We drove through neighborhoods near Tyrone, then along Central Ave to about 20th Street. We didn't see a single sign.

This absence of signs tells us that most residents of this City don't yet feel strongly enough about these proposals to get very involved or give them much thought.

Most people think there is PLENTY of time to sort it all out.

I will admit, John, that I should not have used the word NEED in the context you describe. Because I agree with you that the City doesn't NEED to consider these proposals.

I think the City will be better off if it does, though.

[John]

Rick K, I'm glad you THINK they'll be better off, and from the glaring lack of debate from you about my last point, I think you'll agree that the St. Pete voters are only a small piece of a very large pie in how this gets done.

I get the impression the Rays sidestepped the TDC and BOCC knowing they'd get a very cold reception, in favor of FIRST trying to drum up a HUGE PR campaign within the city limits to rally the city council & voters (and chamber of commerce) into helping their cause with the TDC & BOCC, and it has backfired horribly. Call Mayor Mary Maloof or any of the other beach mayors and ask them what they think of a huge portion of the bed tax being taken away from their cities, for a generation or more to come, all for a "hope that the city of St. Pete will be better off". That's the most absurd and selfish argument I've ever heard of. The residents of the entire county have a huge say in this matter. And they see right through it.

Oh and one more point, I get the distinct impression that the BOCC is more than a little ticked off at St. Pete for issuing RFP's on land they do not even own, without even consulting them first!!! I'd be upset too if you started planning to build a McMansion on my house before you've even bought the property!

[Rick K]

I did not argue with your prediction, because I think you are way off base.

I have seen numbers that attempt to gage the impact the downtown stadium, complete with the new college football bowl game, will impact Tourism in the county (including on the beaches).

I cannot imagine the members of the TDC not supporting this proposal, if it shapes up the way I expect it to shape up.

I think you place far too much emphasis on raw emotion, instead of reasoned analysis.

The one cent bed tax, as currently enacted to help finance the debt on the existing Trop, results in a return of about $50 in increased tourism for each $1 in taxes. The TDC is privy to a study that judged that the one cent bed tax does not discourage tourism at all.

I believe, in the end, the TDC and the BOCC will be in favor of these proposals.

If you had been watching these meetings the way I have, you might see what I think I see. Which is these various government entities providing the Rays with a blueprint for making these proposals work.

It's fairly obvious to me. If the Rays can overcome these objections or challenges raised by these various government entities, the issue is likely to end up on the ballot.

That you think the Rays are already way behind in the count just means we have been seeing events unfold through different lenses.

In the end, it won't matter if the BOCC or the TDC or the SPCC were once ticked off. What will matter is if the Rays are able to provide satisfactory answers to the most important questions.

[get-smart]

Rick K - You don't need to keep saying how the Rays are going to explain everything. They are not. There is nothing to explain. The project will destroy downtown SP, period. It is 100% taxpayer funded, period.

Mikey's first hurdle is to get it on the Nov. ballot. BOCC are a bunch of government mooches. Mikey will pay them off. Just like they did with that criminal Smith.

See. All you have to say from now on is, "ah.. they'll just pay them off!"

[John]

I disagree on the "payoff", get-smart...Ken Welch & Co. are not going for that crap, nor are they going to ignore the mayors of St. Pete Beach, Treasure Island, Mad Beach, Redington Beach, Redington Shores, Indian Rocks Beach, Indian Shores, Bellaire Beach, Bellaire Shores, Sand Key, Clearwater Beach, Pinellas Park, Kenneth City, Seminole, Largo, Clearwater, Palm Harbor, East Lake, Tarpon Springs, Dunedin, and all of un-incorporated Pinellas County when it comes to their shared tax money being handed to the Rays for a stadium we do not NEEEEED.

[John]

Here's an easy solution to all this.The Rays should play at Al Lang.Then at least half of their home games would be sell outs.

[get-smart]

OK John. I hope you're right. I am a cynic when it comes to the motives of these council members. The way I see it; these guys are just abiding their time until something bigger and better comes along. We still don't know the full story of that land deal with Smith.

[Dick Ruzicka]

Hi Rick

Thank you for taking such time and effort to post here with the serious thoughts of so many St. Pete residents.

You have stood up to insults, slander, and vilification. The Rays have been diligent, polite, and thorough regarding the dual development. They are also slandered here.

The dual development is a sound one with an almost assured opportunity for increased tourism, one of our great industries. The financial, economic and civic benefits will be terrific.

Each of the objections presented by opponents are refutable and will be done over the next few months. I surely agree that full disclosure will occur between now and November and that our citizens will have a clear opportunity to ascertain the facts.

I have no connection with the Rays and have no more to gain from these two developments than anyone else. I guess opponents are in a win/win situation. If this is defeated they will have "won". If it goes forward they will participate in all the benefits just like supporters.

Thank you Rick for not engaging in personal slander even though you have been slandered. Please Rick, continue to speak up for all of us and do not grow weary.

I will probably not post here again.

[get-smart]

Little Dicky why would you apologize to Rick K? He is not from here. He claims he was driving on Central to 20th St and didn't see any red signs. If you live here you wouldn't expect to see any of these signs along Central. Plus there were other things he said that show he is not from the area. And as for you Dick, if you think there are "serious thoughts" coming from Rick K, you now become suspect. Rick seems to know more about the Rays plan than the Rays themselves. The Rays plan is to suck every last nickel out of St Pete and then sell the team off and walk away.

Dicky boy, the whole point of a Waterfront Stadium is pure GREED and EGO. Nothing More, Nothing Less. This is easy math. They are pumping up the value to dump it and then brag to their cohorts how smart they are. That is it! The owners don't care about America or St. Pete. They are cut from the same cloth as the criminal ex-governor of New York

[Carmen]

For all those that think weather isn't an issue. Maybe not to you. Remember, everyone is different. You may like 90 degrees with humidity to match. I know plenty of people who think differently and would not like to be outside for 3 hours in that.

[Rick K]

Dick, thanks.

GetSmart.

You crack me up.

I repeatedly report information gathered in the field, and you repeatedly use it, alternatively, to "prove" that I am not from here, or that I am a paid shill.

Good work.

I have pointed out that the red signs are placed in front of houses representing a very, very, very small portion of the electorate.

The red sign people don't want to hear this, because they see red signs everywhere ("I no longer see dead people, I see Red Signs!").

I point out that I drive through neighborhoods and actually count the signs. You say this proves I don't live here.

Good one.

Every jury in American will believe that "proof."

I tell a story about asking patrons at Ferg's their views on these proposals, and you use the story as "proof" that I didn't actually go to Fergs.

Um. Way to go, Marcia Clark.

You got me.

I am soooo busted.

GetSmart, it is easy to see why your side will prevail in the election.

You guys have all the facts on your side.

[Bruce]

"Rick K, smothering the debate since 2008"...I think I just found your campaign slogan! I read through all the comments on this blog and noticed this Rick K character bullying everyone, albeit in a civil tone, but bullying nonetheless. For that tells me he has an agenda. I did a little math and came up with 34% of the comments on this entire ballpark frankness blog are from one person, Rick K. In fairness, there are a few anti-stadium folks also bully-posting a lot, but nowhere near the frequency of Rick K. Look near the top right of this page where it lists recent comments and Rick K consistently has his name as the most recent commenter on every thread. With the Rays trying to bully and rush our City into this deal, I have decided, should we get to vote, that I am voting no. I don't want these types of people involved with my city. Oh and Rick K, I don't care about your opinion on my post, so save your energy.

[Chuck]

Bruce,

I'd like to say that your post matters in the grand scheme of things, however your side of the aisle has committed political suicide in nominating Hamilton Hansen as a public outreach.

Funny that I drew nothing but heat categorizing POWW members as nothing more than people who share a common goal in demolishing organized athletics in the city of St. Petersburg. I was told this was not the case and then Hamilton goes on a major radio station to declare just that.

Sorry POWW, you've been marginalized and written off as kooks in the minds of the general public. Maybe you'll have better luck sinking my plan to bulldoze Straub Park.

[Bruce]

Chuck, I don't know who Hamilton Hansen is. I do know that POWW is the anti-stadium group, just so you know I'm not ignorant. I would love to see the Rays continue to be a part of this community, but not with scare tactics and bullying from mouthpieces like Rick K. Whether he's just really really really really really passionate about his viewpoint, bordering on lunatic-fringe, or something more sinister, I simply don't think the city nor its citizens need to be bullied and threatened by people like this, regardless of their level of intelligence or civility. That is the reason I am voting no if we get the chance to have our say.

[TruthDetector]

I do not think "Bruce" is being truthful.

[Why is it?]

Why is it that Rick K is always accused of being paid to be here but all the others on here (that are against the stadium) that leave 73 posts a day are not? I went to Courigans this weekend and thought it was interesting that they are pro stadium when most people living directly above them are very much against.. The bartender told me they used to have their signs outside but now have them in the windows because people from upstairs would steal them! How funny that would be to watch!!

[Jason]

I sat next to the owner of Fergs at Friday's game. I was somewhat surprised that he was in full support for the stadium proposal even though it places the stadium farther from his business. He said that he thought the development would be better for downtown and his business.

I also ate at Tijuana Flats on forth street before the game and there were atleast 12 different fans with Ray gear eating on their way to the game. The economic value is spread much farther than just the stadium.

It's great to see residents wearing the hometown teams gear. I would truly hate to see this city spend so much time and money to get a team here and send them packing right when the tide is turning. We finally have a team to be proud of as St. Petersburg's only professional team.

Believe the radio hosts and analyst. If we don't figure out a way to make this work for the city and the Rays they will be playing for some other city in 5-10 years.

As of today we have the best record in baseball.

[jason]

Regarding public money for private use.

There were yellow signs instead of red signs at the same houses in the same neighborhoods supporting Albert Whitted. That is a much larger piece of polluted waterfront being used by a few priviledged people. It loses 300-500 thousand a year of taxpayer dollars and St. Pete just built them a new teminal with your money.

You could have had even more waterfront parks, a new stadium, plenty of parking and space to spare.

The argument just doesn't hold water especially since it's not consistent.

Someone please tell me why Save our waterfront and pocket books didn't even entertain the other possibilities on the Albert Whitted site.

Why is saving things like Al Lang and
Albert Whitted that are no longer efficient or viable better than economic development. Are we just concerned about how it will be difficult to get around during construction or how it may take a few extra minutes to get to you condo.

[Rick K]

Jason,

I suspect (but cannot know with certainty) that many in the ANTI movement take their position because it is contrary to the large majority.

Many of these people seem to enjoy being on the contrary side, no matter what the issue.

[Chuck]

Like I've said since the start....75/25 - the pros have it.