Friday poll: Describe Tropicana Field

Okay, our second poll is now closed. And after 1,017 votes, here's what we can tell you:

• 42.1 percent of respondents said Tropicana Field was comfortable and functional, but not fancy.
• 30.9 percent said it was a dark dungeon that needs to go.
• 16.6 percent said it was a perfect place for baseball.
• 10.3 percent said it was a stadium that needs to be replaced, just not yet

The Rays actually might agree with these results, believe it or not. In a series of interviews over the past week, they have talked about the Trop as being both comfortable and functional.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Comments

[Tim]

I have noticed that the vocal minority that say the stadium is a dump usually only attend a game or two a year. If you have been to other "classic" stadiums like Fenway, Yankee Stadium and Wrigley Field you will truly know what old dumps really are. For God's sake, they had military style troughs in the men’s bathroom when I went to Fenway a few years back.

[trop haters in the minority]

So far over 57% of respondents don't think the Trop needs to be replaced any time soon...

Because it doesn't!

Just ask Rick Baker:

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/19/Opinion/Rays_play_in_a_great_.shtml

[Dan]

Tim. There is a big difference between those stadiums and the cement hell that is Tropicana Field. I go to games almost weekly as a matter of fact because of my company season tickets. It would be nice to take customers from other states and allow them to enjoy the scenery outside and inside the stadium. Find one person who wouldnt trade hanging out near that cesspool running near Tropicana for scenic views of Tampa Bay before and after the game.

[get-smart]

That's all you need Tim. You are only there to take a wizz. The stadiums today are more than just for baseball. They are restaurants and amusement centers. They will suck the life out of local establishments. The DC Nationals got the city council to ban all local vender's (hot dogs, etc)from ear shot of the stadium after the team owners promised that they would work with the local vender's.

[Dwayne]

Tropicana field is a wonderful place to watch a game. It is a Florida venue. Who are these people that what so badly to swelter in the heat and humidity, to have to sit around for hours due to rain, and miss the glare of the sun in their eyes? Besides catching several games a year, driving from New Port Richey, the bar I work at has an annual bus trip where we rent out the 2 private suites and enjoy the unlimited food and beer. This is our 7th year.

Tearing down this great stadium would be a waste of money and materials. Bottom line: When the Rays start winning consistantly, the Trop will be everyone's new favorite place.

[mrclean]

Dan, Dan you must be the man with the tickets and a plan. Try this dude, take you client downtown for dinner first. Walk around the waterfront. Listen to the stillness and quiet and relax. Go to the game. After the game go to Jannus Landing. St. Pete Rocks! You are just too negative. You must hate people. Wa Wa I want it my way.

[Dale]

In my opinion, Tropicana is a crappy place to watch a game. Baseball, like football, was meant to be played outdoors. Those of you who think nobody wants to "swelter in the heat and humidity", how do you explain 65,000 people cramming into RayJay for a 1pm September football game? Most games will be at night and should have a seabreeze anyway. I haven't heard many people complain about the heat at the beach. And for the love of God, rain will not be an issue w/ the sail. How many times do I have to hear about the heat and the rain? Are you people stupid or just stubborn? If you don't want the stadium due to fiscal reasons, fine, that is understandable. I happen to believe that a new stadium would benefit the area long term. If you don't agree with that, that is fine. Fortunately we are still entitled to our own opinions.

[Hoss]

Dwayne. How many day games have you been to at Tropicana? Is that sun going to bother you when it's down for the majority of the games that are played here? Even Sunday day games will have a majority of shade because of the new stadium layout. REAL baseball fans dont mind not sitting in those covered club seats and actually watch the game.

[mrclean]

Dale you must be a people hater, manatee hater and racist. The Bucs play 8 games that is it. On occasion they may go to 10.

[Jeff]

All I know is that I don't want to sit outside and watch baseball in June, July, August, or September. It is too hot and miserable here for that. No wonder no one goes to the Marlins games.

[Davis]

Nobody goes to Marlins games, because A. They dont want to get shot, and B. The stadium is layed out for football and has the worst sight lines in baseball.

[Dan]

mrclean. Since you dont know, games start at 7. The average person who actually has a job works until 5-5:30 during the week. It might be easy for you and your jobless friends to enjoy my government assisted money at McDonalds before you head off to a game you cant afford and ring you cowbell, but it would be nice to eat downtown at a nice restaurant and then walk across the street to a brand new stadium.

[Dale]

Typical MrClean. Resort to throwing dung at people whose opinion differs from yours. I can play that game as well.....So why do you hate America? You sound kind of like a tree-hugging hippie. Will this new stadium displace you from your cardboard box out by the water?

[mrclean]

Dan - I can read the hate,Dan. You are a businessman and your boss gives you free game tickets. You take your clients to the Trop and you apologize to your client about the deplorable conditions you are putting them through. It is a mind set Dan and your clients can feel it. I would suggest Ferg's to eat but you would need to shower after that. The food is good though. Why don't you ask your boss for a transfer to NY, DC or Miami. Those stadiums should make you feel better. Have a nice Day

[TechRider]

Be serious, the Trop is an embarrassment. How many ball parks have to have ground rules to determine what to count when the ball hits a certain catwalk. It's like playing stickball on the street. Remember when you were a kid, "if it hits the Buick, it's a double!"

[gary grooms]

It's hard to describe something as poorly done as the Trop. So, I thought I would post some comments from online polls taken before the waterfront proposal was announced. In one of the ratings the Trop did as well as only 5th worst - but I think the stadiums rated 1,2 3, and 4 have been or are being replaced. If anyone can find a posting that is a least 6 months old extolling the virtues of Tropicana Field please post it.

This was from a couple of years ago online poll where the Trop was rated as the worst stadium in baseball.

1. Tropicana Field It barely edges out the Metrodome for numero uno. What good can be said about a dome? Not much usually. When you enter the park, it feels more like you are entering a shopping mall. There are many games and amusements for the kids and numerous concession stands all with neon lighted signs. There is no way you'd know you were at a baseball park until you take your seat.

This from an ESPN poll - they rated the Trop as the 3rd worst stadium in baseball - I think one and two have since been replaced.

3. Tropicana Field: Nothing like being forced to go inside to watch baseball on a beautiful sunny day in St. Pete.

This is from a Yahoo poll about 9 months ago:

I've been to almost every MLB ball park here are my 5 ranked in order.

5. RFK - A converted football stadium need I say more?
4. Dolphin Stadium
3. Metrodome
2. Shea Stadium- It's a dump surrounded by chop shops.
1. Tropicana Field- It's like being in prison

[baker says]

"Tropicana Field provides a great home for Major League Baseball, today and into the future. It possesses functionality, comfort and good sight lines."

-Mayor Rick Baker

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/03/19/Opinion/Rays_play_in_a_great_.shtml

[Dale]

"Tropicana Field provides a great home for Major League Baseball, today and into the future. It possesses functionality, comfort and good sight lines."

My translation:

Functionality: There's something that can be mistaken as grass, dirt, bases, and chalk lines.

Comfort: There are 8 seats between you and the nearest person, and it's air-conditioned, much like an office building.

Good sight lines: Nobody sitting in front of you for 3 rows, and the seats that ARE blocked off by the catwalks are now covered with a tarp.

[Biff]

Hey losers, have you ever thought about wearing a tank top, shorts and flip flops when you are outside? You'll be more comfortable if you do this when watching a game outside. Also, why don't you get off your lazy a---- and put your bike on a car rack and drive to a neighborhood near the stadium. Then bike to the game. I do it all the time. Btw, the parking is free. To the people that complain about the heat, have you ever noticed the the theme parks in this state flourish during the summer? Did you know that people go to the beach to sit in the sun during the summer? Don't you find it ironic, that people do this? Did you know that the new stadium would be shaded? Did you know that Florida like all states, gets hot during the summer? Did you think about this before moving here?

[Bob]

It is basically an older/younger issue at work here.

Older people (most likely older than 50 and retired) want the stadium as it is. They want to site inside in the air conditioning. They don't understand what's wrong with the Trop at is only 15 years old when they're 50. And they don't want to waste their "hard earned" money on it.

Younger people tend to want the stadium. They're in the 18-39 demographic the team wants to attract because they actually spend money on things at the game. They are the ones who work all day and are mostly young professionals who find it hard to get to St. Pete in rush hour traffic for a 7pm game after working in Tampa all day (where, regardless of what you think, is where most of the high paying jobs are). For examples of young professional approach, look at the Lightning and Bucs. Lightning fans are usually people straight from work enjoying Channelside then stay for the game, and the Bucs are usually a younger crowd too. The Rays are mostly blue hairs with families mixed in (families who usually, at most, attended just 1 or 2 games a year). Any look around will tell you why the owners want a new stadium, or want to move the team. It's going to be one or the other.

If this stadium doesn't get built, the Rays are either moving to Tampa (which is where they should have been anyway, see above about demographics and high paying jobs) or to Orlando. Either way, the older crowd in St.Pete won't care.

[Mike]

No matter what you think about air conditioning and base functionality, Tropicana Field is viewed as a laughingstock throughout MLB. It has been lampooned repeatedly and it was rendered obsolete as soon as Camden Yards and its ilk came around. It's unfortunate. What really cracks me up are the people that complain about heat and humidity ... why do you live here? YOU LIVE IN FLORIDA. Go to Arizona. It's 110 degrees there. But it's a dry heat! Go watch the Diamondbacks in their open-air stadium. And please STFU!!!

[mrclean]

Gee nice try TechRider Check it out:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/ground_rules.jsp

With No insult.

[Von Hayes]

The stadium should not interfere with the game. That is the bare minimum requirement for a playing facility to be considered functional.

With its low-hanging catwalks that result in questionable home runs and foul balls several time each season, Tropicana Field does not meet that basic requirement. They aren't like Boston's Green Monster. It is a quaint part of the field of play. The catwalks, by contrast, are an abomination requiring a judgement call each time they are hit.

It would be nice if St. Petersburg and Pinellas County could sue the stadium architect, HOK, for the faulty design, and even get them to foot part of the bill for a redesign (if that were even possible).

Sadly, HOK saw that coming years ago, and persuaded the city to waive the right to a lawsuit at the time the team was awarded and HOK was asked to design the renovations to make the stadium playable.

So, as galling as it might be, the only way to get a stadium that no longer interferes with the game is to build a new one. And if you are building a new one, you might as well do it right this time and put it where it will get the most TV time, and put the city's greatest asset -- the waterfront -- on display.

But they should build it where the waterfront has already been disturbed, rather than destroying currently open space. Put the stadium on Albert Whitted. Put the small planes at St. Pete/CLW airport where they belong.

[jim]

biff,

I was BORN here, before central A/C (or "BAC"). Hated summer then; don't much like it now. Back then, Fla was maybe 25th most populous state in the nation. Central A/C made Fla Numero Quatro. Without A/C, this native (and his equally native wife) wouldda been outta here thirty years ago. And a likely ten or so million "snowbirds" would have never moved here.

It's cool comfort that makes our State palatable, and our funky non-traditional stadium a pleasure to view games at.

So if you like to bake in the sun, go to Miami. Or even Atlanta. Me, I'll take the Trop.

[Dale]

Agree with you 100% Von. BTW, you were a helluva ballplayer!

[mrclean]

As long as all players are playing under the same conditions and handicaps it is fair.

How often do they hit the dome anyway?

[Dale]

Just think about how many people will move down here when they start mass-producing personal air-conditioned suits that people can wear as they walk around? After all, nobody comes here to sit out on the beaches during the middle of summer. It's just too darned hot.

[mrclean]

Well Mr. Hayes, you made enough as a player. Pony up at the table, call Kalt and tell him you want in. Tell him ToyTown is the place to go and you will be putting up the land. I see a deal here! They can design it to your specs and final approval.

[Tad]

Isn't this stadium controversy a St. Pete problem?? Could the "Rays" drop Tampa Bay off there logo so when they loose another 90 games, it won't bring down the whole area. Just build them a new stadium in Las Vegas. Who cares?

[Kris]

I say we keep it. Structures like these are magnificent--and useful! Next time we have a hurricane we could all just huddle in there and be perfectly fine, or better yet it could be a great place to move tent city. We are going to need more occupancy with all the foreclosures that are looming!

[Fan]

The only thing that needs to be fixed at Trop is the seating, they are too close together, especially if you get stuck next to an obese person. Other than that, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this stadium!

[jtb]

the comments on these blogs are absolutely unbearable. can the times please institute a comment-by-registration-only policy? that might actually produce some dialogue..

[Garbanzo]

The people in St. Pete sure know how to screw things up! First they push through approval to build the Thunderdome, then it just sits there without a team for 10 years. They they get a "wonderful" team and enjoy that for a few years and now want to occupy good, beautiful, waterfront property for a STADIUM???? At least it's not as bad as the Tampa waterfront being eaten up by the Forum and the Convention Center. No wonder we need the Riverwalk just to be able to see the water. What a bunch of whackos that we have running our government.

[mrclean]

To Mike his pseudonyms, et al. Why would the new stadium design have a sail shade, forced air cooling throughout the stadium if cooling wasn't a concern. We already have a stadium that is very practical for many functions and cool.

[mrclean]

jtb - instead of complaining either add you 2 cents or go elsewhere. Why don't you start your own blog where we can register and carry on an intelligent conversation. OK! Now .. What DO YOU have to offer?

[K]

Geez, wonder who put the Times up to running this poll .... CONTACT YOUR LOCAL CITY COUNCILMAN AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO TO ADDING THIS TO THE REFERENDUM!!!

[Don Mott]

I'm not quite sure but I think there is maybe 1 or 2 percent of the population that attends a Rays game. But yet the entire population pays for the stadium and the recurring expenses such as security, traffic control, etc. Why should 98 percent of the population subsidize a for profit corporation when only 1 or 2 percent of the population enjoys it? I somehow have a hard time rationalizing that. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

[Don Mott]

I'm not quite sure but I think there is maybe 1 or 2 percent of the population that attends a Rays game. But yet the entire population pays for the stadium and the recurring expenses such as security, traffic control, etc. Why should 98 percent of the population subsidize a for profit corporation when only 1 or 2 percent of the population enjoys it? I somehow have a hard time rationalizing that. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

[Jon McPhee]

Mr. Mott has captured one of the most endearing features of the whole scam. A small fraction of the community has enough interest in Rays baseball to actually attend a game. But the Rays organization hopes to leverage that fractional interest into a "securitized" raid on the City and County treasury that reminds one more of "Diehard II." They expect everyone else to go ooh! and aah! over misty water colored visions of "revitalization" and (DRUM ROLL) OUTDOOR M...L...B!!!!

The Rays Boys are the ultimate in carpetbagging, and the folks who want the SailAway thing so bad, seeming by their own statements to be wealthy young folks from Tampa, want all the old and very young people to give up City services and property to give them a PlayStationXBoxMartiniCigarBar spot for them to sit out and sweat in.

Fine, but at least own up to the fact that what these folks propose is freeloading, on a scale that would make the down-at-the-heels guy with the cardboard sign at the 5th Street on-ramp underpass just blush.

If you want to keep your eye on all the balls that are flying around, you might want to take a look and refresh your memory on the genesis and antecedents of our dear Chicago-born Mayor Rick, whose antics of late should compel an effort to understand why "developers" can do no wrong in his book. Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Baker_(mayor)

And if the "business community" that claims to see such benefit in "The Two Towers" development wants this development so much, why don't they be mensches and put their own capital at risk, like a similar group did to build the San Francisco AT&T Stadium for the Giants? That project broke ground in 1997, opened in 2000, and reportedly cost these people of business a mere $319 million, not including about $80 million in public-transit infrastructure for light rail and surface transport to the rather rough neighborhood where it was built.

[Melissa]

Hey Dean here is one person that will gladly sit in the Dome and preserve our wonderful waterfront. You can impress you visiting people by going to one of the many FANTASTIC eating places around St. Pete and you don't even need to move your car!

[for the love of god!]

You know what is so crazy about this?

I am almost positive that if the Rays were to say, "Okay, okay, we're reasonable people. It's obvious St. Pete residents don't want the stadium right on the waterfront. Let's compromise and build the exact same stadium, just in a different spot, keeping all other aspects of the plan the same" the people of St. Pete would give in.

I'm just totally baffled that they haven't already said this, it would seem the reasonable, rational, logical, decent, respectful thing to do.

[gary grooms]

It's an interesting point Don makes regarding all of us paying for something not all of us use. Why do we feel so different about the waterfront being used for the Dali and the Mahaffey than we do for putting a baseball stadium on a the same site that has had a baseball stadium since before any of us were born? We have been playing spring training games on the exact site in question - by MLB teams - for profit operations.

If we apply the number of people who use a facility on the waterfront as a factor I would think many, many more people would walk into the new stadium each year than the Mahaffey and the Dali combined. The numbers I found by doing an online search showed the Mahaffey had 140,000 people come in, the Dali supposedly had about 250,000 and the Rays had about 1.3 million at the Trop. Yet we subsidize all these institutions. The Dali is paying I think $1 for a 99 year lease (or something like that)

Is the issue the non-profit vs. for profit nature of the enterprises? Something to consider, the people that run the Dali and the Mahaffey get a paycheck just like the people who run the Rays. The main reason many companies go the non-profit route is to be eligible for grants and subsidies. Many times these subsidies come from public funds.

So, if we built the new stadium we would have 3 buildings in a row - The Dali, The Mahaffey and the stadium sitting on the waterfront all receiving some sort of public funds. With the stadium being used by the largest percentage of people.

An interesting analysis to see would be trying to determine how many public dollars go to each institution per number of people that use the facility - we should throw Albert Whitted in that too.

[Raymond the mascot]

American way is let voters decide & they will say YES to this proposal because it's economic development and doing whats best for entire city & county and that is to continue growing to complete the city renaissance.
Mayor Baker was correct by saying the Trop is comfy, serviceable, functional, with great site lines, but it still needs to go to make way for new development, that will add $ to the city coffers and make it an even more alluring destination city. It's a win-win for St. Pete for many generation to come to be able to enjoy MLB on our beautiful waterfront. Otherwise, selfishness is coming to play. City this nice needs to share it's beauty by growing & continuing development
Times are changing & the new waterfront stadium will add so many more $ to the city, downtown, county, and entire bay area, not to mention it's 70% more eco friendly to the ozone. The new stadium will have a state-of-the-art storm water run-off system(another big addition to the city) & be LEED Certified.
The seats in new stadium will face the bay, with most all games starting after 7 pm, with the sunset being blocked at your back, you'll be shaded with a bay freeze. We shall not remain status-quo for a selfish few wealthy that would not be live downtown if it wasn't for grow & want to try and keep the city back from blossoming and fulfilling some of it's great potential. What "Another Great Day it will be in St. Petersburg"

St. Pete & Rays together forever!

Go Rays!

[Jon McPhee]

That's right, Mascot, let the voters decide -- ALL of them, not just the privileged few.

And let them decide not just on the basis of the kind of hard-to-support fluff and fuzz about "Times are changing & the new waterfront stadium will add so many more $ to the city, downtown, county, and entire bay area."

Let them decide, in these challenging economic times when fundamental public services are being cut way back and many folks are facing foreclosure and personal bankruptcy and tax sales of their homes as a result of the foam and fluff of promises that made the latest real estate bubble, when they are tightening their belts and shrinking their lives and foregoing medications and maybe healthy food, while the "masters of the Universe" who thought up other scams like "securitized derivative investments" based on doomed "sub-prime" loans still buy mega-yachts and ownMLB teams and try to scam the public yet again to transfer even more public wealth to them, risk-free.

Let them decide on the basis of a clear and honest picture of what this "great deal" will cost this area in taxes and debt and dislocation, and as much hard information as the proponents have about who will be earning all these new "$" and how many "$" and tourists and, forgive us, "Blue hairs" will actually be flooding into downtown and living and shopping where the Trop used to stand.

Let them decide, with a full recall of the many promises of "revitalization" that have flopped before.

Or maybe if the proponents can work it, just have the Mayor and City Council change the law so there is no vote and the deal slides through on a wink and a nod. Never happened before, did it?

[same old straw man old vs young, patriot vs. nimby hippy bs]

Funny how all these supporters are suddenly economists yet the vast majority of ACTUAL economists consistently refute the claim that professional sports facilities have any net economic benefit for the communities they are in.

That's why the Trop still hasn't.

If you guys want to put part of the Trop parking lot back on the tax rolls (a phrase you seem to love to use) it can be done WITHOUT spending millions of dollars on a new, totally superfluous stadium.

But one more thing...

NEWS FLASH: Just build the stadium somewhere else beside the waterfront and you'll likely have no problem pushing it through whatsoever. It's called compromise and the fact that none of you are willing to agree to it speaks volumes.

[Paul]

uhhh, I thought we already decided what 'we' wanted to do with Al Lang. Didn't 'we' ask the Council to designate the area as parkland? I believe the Council said something along the lines of 'sure we will, just not now'... and then they came up with a bunch of stall tactics. So, the citizens of the City have more or less voted on this... by having asked Council to designate Al Lang as parkland. Now they are considering a 2nd 'vote'. Sure, not a problem. I'm predicting 75% of the voters to say 'no way'... and by the way, make it a park forever. Speaking of which, isn't a portion of the considered site under some kind of deed restriction that mandates that piece of land (under deed restriction) never ever be used for commercial purposes? What's the point of donating land to the City if they don't follow the wishes of the land owner giving over their land? See... 'we' have voted on this, in a manner of speaking, by doing alllllll those things. Yet, our Mayor and Council can't seem to hear us. I certainly know they are seeing the 'no new stadium' signs, every day it seems like there are more of them, which kind of shows how we feel. Waste no more City dollars, kill this project now.

[let voters decide??]

Person 1: I propose we vote to elect good looking guy in picture.

Person 2: What's his name? What are his positions on the issues? What's he running for? We're not just going to vote to allow the city to enter into a contract with "some guy".

Person 1: I demand we be given the right to vote, you're just trying to stand in the way of democracy, the American way!

Person 2: But I don't know anything about him

Person 1: We can work out all the details later, but we need to have him on the ballot NO MATTER WHAT!!!

[resident]

A couple of points about two different posts above.

1. Re: "ACTUAL economists consistently refute the claim that professional sports facilities have any net economic benefit for the communities they are in."

This is true. Merchants inside stadiums are national chains (not local businesses); broadcast/advertising revenues are not shared with the City; "jobs created" are always low-paying; City and county tax incentives, lease deals, capital and infrastructure investment, building permits, ect are forms of support in the interests of private corporations rather than in the interest of the public; and finally, capital almost always leaves the community (most pro players live elsewhere than the in "home" city...they take their money with them and spend it elsewhere).

2. Re: "...if we built the new stadium we would have 3 buildings in a row - The Dali, The Mahaffey and the stadium sitting on the waterfront all receiving some sort of public funds. With the stadium being used by the largest percentage of people."

This is a useful image to understand the differences of these projects. The arts are merit goods (good for the culture) that the market alone cannot support. To survive the arts require government support. On the other hand, professional sports are entertainment goods that the market can support. Since most people patronize them, private corporations (major league sports franchises) do not need government subsidies (as do museums and theatre, which most people do not patronize).

The crux of the debate is therefore this: Government support of private interests/enterprises that the market itself can sustain.

[Rachel Sartain]

Why isn't parking being addressed? I work downtown and live close enough. We tried going to a Spring Training game and it was a nightmare. I think the study published in the Times regarding the parking research was bologna! It assumed that most cars would contain at least 3 people and a large portion would walk. No one walks to the stadium now and it is only 10 blocks from the proposed new location.

I would love to see the stadium but 2 things MUST be addressed:
1. Parking
2. Who is paying of it

[Mike]

BUILD THE NEW BALLPARK!

[Deanne Conti]

Tropicana Field is great because it is indoors and in Florida that is great during the summer heat, humidity and thunderstorms!!! I would never go to an outdoor baseball game in the summer in Florida. It is a waste of taxpayer money as usual for something that city doesn't need.

[ENough]

The poll does NOT reflect other choices. I.e. Never supported Tropicana Field when it was built. It has NEVER made money and cost taxpayers a bundle. So I didn't take the poll.

[Let's Do This!]

So, let us vote then! Now is the time. Lets see how many people want this new stadium and how many don't.

I guarantee that the people who don't want it will far outweigh the people who do. So let's do it! There are at least 20-1 red signs on lawns in St. Pete to the ones that say let's build it.

So let's do this thing!

Everyone I talk to is against it. The only way this new stadium will get voted in is if it's a crooked vote. And it's obvious because most comments on ALL the sites are against it. Explain that! Explain all the outcries against it.

[Slim Shady]

I heard that like 25% of the comments here are coming from the same ip address! Is that true? If so, then that means that the same person or maybe the same two or three people are posting these comments and signing lots of different names!

No wonder there are so many on here saying that they want to build the new stadium!

I guess we'll find out soon enough who wants what - for real!

[Bill]

The complete arrogance of professional sports knows no bounds. In light of the current economic crisis, that is being compounded daily by rising fuel and food costs, these bozos want a new ballfield.
People are losing homes over huge insurance and tax costs. This damn ballfield will just add to the taxpayers misery. How can the advocates of this fiasco sleep nights?

People WAKE UP. This is just a game. A very expensive game and you will pay for it. No matter what the slick promoters and politicos tell you. YOU will PAY, PAY, PAY. Tell them NO, NO, NO

[Camille Duquette]

I was not at the game..but my wife and i were at st pete pier..we were enjoying the wonderful breeze and the exceptiona view..we were looking at the area where the new stadium might be built...my god man what a spot for a ball park...what a beautiful view from there...icantnhelp but think of the business that this would bring to the surrounding businesses..i could visualize a ferry bringing people from the stadium to the pier after the game for lunch or dinner or a cocktail..now compare that to the current park location...no contest...i guarantee the attendance at ball games would increase if not just to sit there and enjoy tghe view...

[Marci]

Having attended events at the Trop for 20 years,
I think it serves the city well.We are not a major
metropolitan city. This is St.Pete. a great place to live and work.Our waterfront is beautiful and unique.Lets keep it that way.Maybe folks are staying home, rather than going to games because money is tight.Just maybe that is because our taxes have nearly doubled,
in the last four years.It may be the economy, remember
'we gotta eat'. heard that one from the 'Rays' over and over...
Marci

[T]

Obviously the people who say "you need to watch baseball outside on a sunny day" have never sat outside at 1 PM on a July or August day. Even with shade there will be more people passing out than watching the game.

And that doesn't include the times I have sat in the Trop while a tropical thunderstorm raged outside. Have any of these people sat at Al Lang during the summer for the old FSL games? They never started on time and you always had a wet seat, not to mention sweating so much you couldn't tell if your clothes were wet from sweat or rain. I think they should require everyone to sit at Al Lang this summer during game days and get a feel for what it will be like.

I am sure the "luxury suites" will be nice, but how many average fans will ever see the inside of those?

[Rick K]

First, it is not at all true, as has been asserted, that "the vast majority of ACTUAL economists consistently refute the claim that professional sports facilities have any net economic benefit for the communities they are in."

There is nothing even remotely close to that claim in economics journals. What is true is SOME economists dispute the specific amount of benefits claimed by advocates of some projects. It is also true that SOME studies have claimed that public subsidies of sports stadiums have no significant impact upon economic development in their communities.

These claims and studies by SOME economists (nowhere near a vast majority of regional economists) are akin to contrary studies that assert that an all chicken diet will prolong life and the competing studie that concludes that an all chicken diet will cause massive health problems.

If you look at the Blog post in this category titled "Original Tropicana Field" you will see a photo of what downtown looked like before the Trop was built. Today, St. Pete's downtown looks remarkably different. Before the Trop, downtown was dead. Now it is revitalized and vibrant.

Some are convinced that the presence of the stadium and the teams downtown have had nothing to do with this resurgence. Others are convinced that the stadium and teams have been a significant influence on the rebirth of downtown.

Economists disagree. City Planners disagree. Educated residents disagree. Unedudcated residents disagree.

My point to the anonymous "straw man" is this: Please don't try to cheat in this debate by lying. A vast majority of regional economists believe that public investments of the types proposed here -- both the conversion of an obsolete and greatly underutilized baseball stadium on the waterfront, and the redevelopment of multiple blocks downtown, which both will ultimately be supported by the marketplace -- represent the ideal leverage of public/private partnerships to improve community infrastructure, grow local economies, and improve quality of life.

If you review economics publications or talk with a reasonable sampling of regional economists, you will find that the "public investment in pro sports venues has no benefit" school of thought is roughly akin to the very small number of degreed astro physicists who are certain that alien spaceships are constantly in the earth's orbit.

Of course public investment in community amenities increase the attractiveness of the community to investors, residents, visitors and employers. For proof of this, one only need to talk to any dozen of the hundreds of locational decision makers at firms located downtown, who admit that the stadium and team are a draw for them. Look at the local Chamber of Commerce studies on the question. The Chamber has no interest in supporting things that are likely to HARM the economic climate downtown.

They support the Rays being downtown because the team is beneficial to the local economy and contributes to the diverse vibrancy of downtown.

The OTHER thing that is interesting in the ANTI's debate is that they seem to want to frame the argument using false alternatives. They see the choices as being tearing down Al Lang and making it an open space park, and "forcing" the Rays to stay at the Trop.

This is disingenuous and intentially deceptive. First, because that proposal is not on the table, and second, because that is not going to happen.

The Rays want a new, updated ball park. They have managed to come up with a two-pronged plan that calls for the conversion of an existing under-utilized property on the waterfront into a property that is likely to enhance the Rays organization and increase the economic impact of baseball in St Pete. To pull this off, the Rays' proposal has the very fortunate byproduct of also calling for a very exciting redevelopment of several (also very underutilized) acres of downtown real estate, a redevelopment that will add residences, shopping, dining, entertainment and recreation opportunities to what is now a neighborhood with very little or none of the above.

"Resident" also chimes in with this:

"The arts are merit goods (good for the culture) that the market alone cannot support. To survive the arts require government support."

That is a distortion, also.

The truth is that the arts are a community amenity which serve to attract tourism, employers, and residents. The same is true of professional sports (and also many of the other events that will take place in the new stadium, such as a Jimmy Buffett concert, happily relocated from the Fairgrounds over in Tampa). The activities that will take place in the stadium are also community amenities which attract tourism, employers and residents.

To claim that the market can fully support sports and not fully support the arts is just bunk. What is true is that governments/local citizens often choose to build arts facilities which are too expensive to be supported simply by the revenue from those who willingly pay money to "view" or experience the arts. In these cases, the citizenry chooses to subsidize the overly expensive facility for the arts because they believe that the net benefits to the community outweigh the costs of public subsidy.

(Incidentally, the argument among economists about the measurable economic impact upon communities from public investment in the arts is precisely the same as the arguments about public investment in pro sports - both are public goods that can either be subsidized or permitted to stand completely on their own).

"Resident's" claim is bogus. It is not true that pro sports can exist without subsidies and the arts cannot.

In truth, both can exist without subsidies. But communities everywhere choose to subsidize one or both. Virtually every public stadium in America is supported by public subsidies. (Truthfully, virtually every business and household benefits from public subsidies of nearly countless varieties and quantities, but that is another topic).

The arts, in general terms, tend to be much more narrowly "consumed" by residents of a region. Arts consumers also tend to be far more wealthy, as well. Pro baseball consumers, on the other hand, tend to more closely mirror the economic diversity of the community, and tend to greatly outnumber those who consume the arts (at least in the two venues downtown used in this comparison).

Two other examples of public subsidies downtown come to mind. The airport and the university campus. Both of these facilities are located on beautiful, prime properties. In both cases, the users of these facilities derive greater personal benefits from the properties than is derived by the public at large. Yet we subsidize these undertakings and enthusiastically embrace them (by 'we' here I am referring to a majority of the local citizenry) because their inclusion in our community makes our city BETTER than it would be without them.

Which is precisely why the citizens should vote on which future they prefer for Downtown.

On the other hand, professional sports are entertainment goods that the market can support. Since most people patronize them, private corporations (major league sports franchises) do not need government subsidies (as do museums and theatre, which most people do not patronize).

The crux of the debate is therefore this: Government support of private interests/enterprises that the market itself can sustain.

[Rick K]

Oops.

I apologize.

I accidentally cut and pasted from "resident" and failed to delete the passages that I decided not to use. The last two parargraphs of my post were lifted from "resident," and their inclusion in my post makes no sense.

[Native St. Pete]

Infrastructure - Downtown is a grid of small streets. There's a big difference in traffic flow just between the existing Trop and the Al Lang area. The streets won't be able to handle the traffic. I know, everone is counting on the shuttles to bring people in. Doesn't work! Shuttles go against human nature. People want to park next to the baseball park period!

Parking - If you're familiar with the downtown garages, like I am, that the Rays are counting on, Baywalk and Midtown are already full on Thurs, Fri and Saturday nights. There won't be any available parking in the garages there counting on.

Lightening - Putting the heat aside, we live in the lightening capitol, it will be a factor, period!

I like the design of the new park, but it just won't work here.

[Lorenzo]

I keep hearing about baseball was designed to be outside. Please tell me a sport that was made to be inhside.
Basketball? NO
Hockey? NO
Chess? Yes

[james]

The Bay Area shouldn't suffer because the idiot citizens of St. Pete built a trash stadium and are holding the Rays back because of thier own debt. Allow our MLB Franchise to grow!

The Trop is a flop that needs to be dropped!

[Make a Deal]

The Trop has made St. Pete money. When it was built it was built on the cheap. They did what they could because they believed it would grow St. Pete. We got baseball 10 years ago and St. Pete has not looked better.
We are now identified outside of Tampa. I love when ESPN mentions St. Pete. I'm really going to be proud when they show the panaramic view of the waterfront stadium. Something the viewers have never seen before.
Even the people who come to the Trop don't know about our waterfront. They never think to come here on non game days.
Why would they looking around from the Trop. They go to the beach instead.

[Make a Deal]

The Trop has made St. Pete money. When it was built it was built on the cheap. They did what they could because they believed it would grow St. Pete. We got baseball 10 years ago and St. Pete has not looked better.
We are now identified outside of Tampa. I love when ESPN mentions St. Pete. I'm really going to be proud when they show the panaramic view of the waterfront stadium. Something the viewers have never seen before.
Even the people who come to the Trop don't know about our waterfront. They never think to come here on non game days.
Why would they looking around from the Trop. They go to the beach instead.

[Make a Deal]

how did that happen?
God must want you all to read it!

[Don Mott]

Make a Deal, Can you explain how the Trop has made St. Pete money? As I understand it the Trop has cost the city money every year. Do you know something that I don't?

[Larry]

The accessibility to the new stadium will remain difficult and there remains little reason to come downtown. The Trop is still a pretty good place to watch a baseball game.

Why not spend the $450 million on new hotels, shopping, theaters, etc around the existing stadium? If you build a premier entertainment complex, with more than just baseball in mind, the people will have a real reason to come to St. Petersburg. Baywalk and Fergs ain't gonna do it. Then, in a few years, talk about a new stadium.

[gary grooms]

Hi Larry,

Where do you plan on getting the $450 million you are talking about? In your suggestion there is no cash from the sale of the current Tropicana Field site. The Rays would not be putting in the $150 million they have committed to. Do you mean you the parking lots at the Trop or land around those lots? If you mean the actual lots you have to start by replacing those spaces to the tune of about $100 million dollars. How would you propose handling parking and traffic for the 11,000 cars for baseball coming onto this "premier entertainment complex" at the same time people are going to the theater or shopping?

[Not a fan]

Gary answer this. Are you on the Ray's payroll? Have you been promised a job if the staduim were to be built as their parking guru. What other deals have they Rays offered you.

Come clean now.

[gary grooms]

Hi Not a Fan,

To answer your questions

1. I am not on the Rays payroll.

2. I have not been promised a job as the Rays parking guru.

3. The Rays have never offered me any type of deal.

I guess I could probably call the front office and get seats to any game if I wanted. I've never done it for a variety of reasons. The main reason being - like you - I'm not a baseball fan. If this was football.......

[Brian from Boston]

Hey, man, the urinal trough at Fenway is part of the charm! I bet the Tropicana would be a better place with a few.