Rays financing plan: Extend Tropicana Field payments

ST. PETERSBURG — The Tampa Bay Rays' plan to finance a $450-million waterfront ballpark will ask local taxpayers to extend the loan payments tied to Tropicana Field to construct a new stadium at Al Lang Field.

Click here to read today's story.

Comments

[Mark]

Could we please stop using the term contribution and call it what it is, a taxpayer subsidy. So, according to the Rays figures, they will receive $245 million taxpayer subsidy to build their place of business.

[Freeplug.com]

From Chris Jenkins website:
"Flying Leap Media Solutions provides creative methods for establishing a web presence and/or brand awareness for your product, organization, or idea. Our advanced guerilla marketing campaigns are ideally suited to high resistance demographics, and can be planned and executed with a high level of discretion for clients requiring a degree of separation."

So were you hired by POWW, or are you just plugging your business?"

Chris Jenkins, the POWW group in which you promote has accused the Rays of being deceptive and misleading. Your company markets itself as employing "guerilla marketing campaigns." I googled this term and found the following definition:

"Guerrilla Marketing, is an unconventional way of performing promotional activities on a very low budget. Such promotions are sometimes designed so that the target audience is left unaware they have been marketed to and may therefore be a form of undercover marketing (also called stealth marketing). The ethics of guerrilla marketing have often been called into question due to an alleged deceptive, misleading, or subtle nature of the campaigns."

Let's be upfront with your agenda, please.

[Lin]

This is like buying a pig in a poke. The Ray's say that although the city's contribution will rise from $11 million a year to $14.5 million a year that St. Petersburg will earn $22.5-million in new tax revenues. What are they basing those figures on? I haven't heard that anyone knows what businesses might go into the redeveloped Trop site, if indeed any do go in. Baywalk has trouble keeping storefronts rented. Retail businesses are closing across Pinellas County, Florida and the U.S. Until the Rays have firm commitments from businesses willing to locate here, how can they know anything about tax revenues? It's all speculation. Also, we are losing jobs and disposable income here, so retail sales might well continue decreasing here. In the Ray's formula they know how much the city's contribution will go up but they are speculating about what tax revenues might be. It isn't a complete picture. The reality could be that tax revenues dive here while what the city is committed to pay goes up. I don't want my city officials to sign off on this deal.

[Chris Jenkins]

Hahahaha! FreePlug, you most certainly are the best advertisement I've had. Thank you, dear.

Here's my upfront agenda, for the 1000th time, since you asked:

1. Ask the questions about my concerns.
2. See if the answers sound reasonable to me based on past performance and similar projects in other cities.
3. Vote yes or no based on how well the questions are answered.

For the record, I have no vested stake in the issue, and receive no money to be here. Additionally, as FreePlug was kind enough to point out, stealth marketing is just that...stealthy! Me using my full name and listing my business name here is the opposite of stealth.

Summary? No conflict of interest, no hidden agenda, just reasonable concern as a citizen of the city. But, thanks for the advertising, FreePlug/Thor/W.! I'll cut you a finder's fee if I get to build any new websites out of your referrals.

[Don Mott]

Not much if anything new was presented. Extending the loan payments sounds like new taxes to me. $55 million from parking but um... we haven't worked that out yet. Environmental issues at both sites? We're working on that too. Looks like they have a long way to go and a short time to get there. The only guarantee I have heard to date is they will cover construction cost overruns if they control the disbursement of funds. That's good, but there are still many more unanswered questions than there are answers

[John Jung]

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

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

LET'S BUILD A STADIUM!

[Don Mott]

Mr Jung, I guess you haven't been following the news. The Rays say they will not use "new taxes" to fund the project.

[Mike]

I did not see any mention about the interest that is also part of this deal since there must be a bond issue to find the actual construction. I have to believe that interest alone will be another $450,000,000 that could be spent on better things.

[Don Mott]

Umm...we're working on that Mike. We'll have it worked out next summer, after the referendum vote. Umm... we're only asking for some of your money not all of it.

[Jon McPhee]

What's with this charade? Business people in other cities have built "new wave" stadiums USING THEIR OWN MONEY (see, e.g., San Francisco, a bigger and richer market.) They apparently have even made money at it, albeit not as much as those who have gotten hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare.

There can be no question the Rays owners can buy their own stadium if they want to, whether by paying down a fraction of the plain old cash they've stashed away or by "securitizing" their new stadium's cash streams and selling all the other esoteric "investment" instruments they can think up. Other than a lot of unsupportable projections about "future taxes," what do the City and County and its citizens gain in exchange for debt and tax burdens? A nice place for a few people to watch young men getting paid from $500,000 to $10 million a year to play baseball, with a $10 million corporate office for their owners to look down on the hoi polloi from? The ego boost of having an ultimately portable Major League Baseball team quartered here for a while? Satisfaction, for our leaders, of some dark "edifice complex" that would let them screw a brass plaque with their names on it to a wall in this structure, a plaque as easily removed just down the road? Some BS about how all of this will make us "world class," whatever the heck that is supposed to mean?

What little can be seen of this first glimpse of the preliminary temporary interim tentative draft invitation to the City and County to pony up public land and wealth looks like more of the same.

I am not sure our leaders have a clear picture of the game they are being invited to play. It's a little like a bullfight, where the toreadors soften up the bull by spearing its major muscles from horseback, the picadors stab barbed hooks into its shoulders, the matador in his gilded suit of lights twirls his cape to befuddle the bull, and then, when the poor dumb animal is exhausted, shoves a sword through its heart. These guys in the $5,000 suits living in mansions out of town look on us like nothing more than hamburger on the hoof.

Why is the assumed opening position that a new stadium will be built, and all that remains is to "negotiate" the details of how, when, and how much the taxpayers will have to fork over? Have our leaders, with visions of shopping sugarplums dancing in their heads, blown right past the initial question of whether it makes any sense to even enter the corrida with these guys? This is not a negotiation, given the relative business smarts of the players. Our leaders have their heads filled, again, with visions of "grand new development" and "millions in tax revenues." They get to commit that community wealth without much regard to the rest of us, and can force us to pay more via the full crushing apparatus of the law. The Rays owners and their many extremely sharp advisers are simply angling, as they've done in all their business lives so far, to grab for every advantage, cagey maneuver, re-interpretable "guaranty clause" and dollar they can get their hands on.

There are at least 70 US cities as large or bigger than St. Pete. Only 28 have MLB teams headquartered there. Are the other 42 places just wasteland?

Studies done on the supposed economic advantages of having MLB in town show quite the opposite, just like we are experiencing with the Rays now. Pinellas County is the most densely populated in Florida, but its median family income is in maybe the lower 30 thousand bucks. The Rays Boys can buy and sell almost any of us. Building their own stadium at their own cost would pretty much be a chump-change expenditure for them. It will NOT be chump change for this area.

We can only hope that those of us who can see through to the REAL costs and risks, and any true benefits, will watch this whole process like a bunch of Internal Revenue accountants, and call BS and shine a bright light on the reality, not the "vision." We should be better than a bunch of kids watching "Peter Pan" and clapping and chanting "I believe! I believe" to bring Tinker Belle back to life. Remember all the times we've been hook-line-and-sinkered before -- when have our leaders actually cut an astute deal in exchange for promises of Great Things Tomorrow, promises that have always failed?

[yappi]

Know why I want this ballpark to happen? Back in 2003 St. Pete had an opportunity to convert that useless financial sinkhole of a downtown airport into something the community could actually use, like a park, only a bunch of Bayfront Towers residents who viewed (and still view) the waterfront as their own private playground spearheaded a drive to save the stupid thing, fueling their campaign with idiot nostalgia. And the same dopes are suddenly oh so concerned about how much money the city would have to pay for a new stadium? Gimme a break. They just don't want the riff-raff spilling out into their neighborhood on game nights. Screw 'em -- I'd vote for the stadium just to piss them off.

[Chris Jenkins]

Yappi, don't believe the hype. I AM the riff raff. Voting for the stadium concerns me because of the increased tax liability, and the unresolved total costs, more than anything else. As I stated earlier, if the Rays were willing to pay 100% of the costs, including over runs and unforeseen environmental mitigation costs, I would step right out the way with a Rays shirt on and an "I heart Sternberg" bumper sticker on my Sonoma.

[JS]

I doubt Stu and the gang are dumb enough to finance their own stadium and HOPE they can actually build a fan base with a winner. One who doesn't even show up to watch their 1ST PLACE team play the Yankees, who typically draw some of the largest home crowds of the year. Very disappointing.

[Brad]

Why not just keep using Tropicana Field just upgrade it and save the money for another,better time? The Stadium is not in terrible Shape,and its conviently located just off the I-275 Expressway.Lots of parking! Lots of space Stay what works and the lease is still owed for many more years anyway.Why destroy something that is not Bad? (Becouse its fun to spend the Governments or Someone elses Money,Thats why)

[Don Mott]

I'll repeat for those who have selective memory or no knowledge of the proceedings to date. The Rays want to extend tax payments, yet say no new taxes are involved. Maybe they use a different dictionary than me. The Rays have not provided a determination regarding the environmental impact on Al Lang or the Trop. The Rays are proposing $55 million dollars in parking receipts towards the new stadium with no guarantees, no verification, no nothing but their word. There has been no mention regarding the costs of realigning Bayshore, which discounting the environmental costs will add millions more to the deal. They still have not provided any evidence that they can provide the parking that they say will add $55 million to the deal. They are throwing facts and figures around without any proof or guarantees. The redevelopment figures for the Trop site are all assumptions and guesses. Just like we got before the Trop was built. Unless they can pull a rabbit out of their hat between now and June 5 I don't see how this can go to a referendum. Of course the way the City Council swooned and tip toed around today I may be wrong. That's the best thing, the voters get to decide if the city wanys to melt.

[Bradley M.]

I am just so glad were winning and no longer the laughing stock of the league and the community.

[Don Mott]

Right on Bradley M!

[Edward]

Three words. Or Lan Do. Please. Anytime (sooner the better, this is a bad bad bad idea).

[carl]

Why are the politicians considering building a new stadium at all? What is their obligation to the Rays? Did the Rays elect them or did the citizens of St Pete and Pinellas County elect them?

If Tropicana Field was such a detriment to the profitability of the team, why did the present ownership make the investment? It seems so much like the people who move into a neighborhood where the airplanes fly over just before landing, creating an ungodly amount of noise, and then try to force the airport to adjust the flight pattern because it's too loud. Didn't they hear the roar of the jets before they moved in? If the new ownership group didn't think Tropicana was viable, they should not have purchased the team.

I grew up in Chicago and there were plenty of crappy seats at Wrigley Field and old Comiskey Park (there were actually seats directly behind poles around which one would wrap their legs). In fact, pieces of concrete started falling out last year endangering fans. I don't hear any cry from Cub fans for a new stadium. I have never not enjoyed a game at Tropicana. There are few bad seats. AND THEY PLAY IN AIR CONDITIONING!!!!

I have supported every move this team has made in building their new successful team. I cannot support this move. Bite the bullet and stay in Tropicana.

[Bobby Fenton]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, although I'd love to see a new ballpark, I understand the people who are against when they make valid points about it. It's the naysayers who simply start scremaing their heads off at the very idea of this whole thing that make me sick.

And did the guy right above me really just compare the Trop to Wrigley Field? He said Wrigley "has a few seats behind poles" and some falling concrete, but you don't hear them complaining about a new stadium. Was that guys eriously presenting that as part of his argument? You know why you don't hear them complaining? BECAUSE WRIGLEY FIELD IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL, HISTORIC, AND CHARMING BALLPARK ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

For or against, just have the right reasons for whatever side you're on. "Because there's nothing wrong with the Trop" isn't a good enough reason. The Trop is not becoming of a major league franchise.

[Carl]

I am not screaming. I simply don't see the reasoning behind fixing something which is truly not broken. If there is nothing wrong with something it means there is no reason to replace it. This is a valid argument. Tell us why Tropicana Field is "not becoming of a major league franchise".

Also, when was the last time you visited Wrigley Field or Fenway Park? I was at both last year and they are both decrepit. They both smell like open air outhouses and the seating is terrible. Historic, yes. Beautiful, charming . . . no, at least not from my point of view. A good marketing plan has made Wrigley the beautiful and charming mirage that it is. When I spend over $200 for a seat, I want a clear view of the field. I get this at Tropicana and it's comfortable and clean.

And by the way, denigrating someone's viewpoint does not make a valid argument. It's a viewpoint and no more right or wrong than your own. This isn't sports radio where the loudest person is correct. Again, tell us what is wrong with Tropicana Field.

[matthew]

Anyone who was at Council today to see the whiz kid New Yorkers present their so called financial plan were in for a big disappointment. The Rays employees were the most unprepared, unprofessional and incompetent men I’ve ever seen do this sort of thing. They rehashed old propaganda, spun some sort of yard about magically pulling 55 million out of a parking hat that does not have any contracts for parking at all, and basically wasted Council’s time. And what was this about “no new taxes?” They are asked for plenty of new taxes – money that could better be spent on our schools, police protection, fireman, social services – not so that a for-profit corporation can make money off our waterfront, our land and our taxes. Their “big surprise” for today was that they are far less adept at finances than anyone ever dreamed.

[Jon McPhee]

Quoth the Rays: "Extend the hotel tax. Hmmm, let's see, can't be spent on regular municipal services, so it's not like we're asking for NEW taxes. Got to remember to keep them from recalling that these tax receipts were supposed to go to improving tourism along the beaches, and were sold as being finite. And that petroeum is up, so tourism based on travel is down, and the marginal effect of an increased cost of renting a room whether the hotel owner absorbs the tax or passes it along. Cool! We can sell it to the schmucks! It looks like Free Money, but it's still out of the community's pocket, with no cost to the Rays!"

There's all kinds of anecdotal evidence showing how public giveaways to business actually work. Here's just one: Back in the '80s, U.S. Steel was planning to get out of the steel business in Gary, Indiana. Their management told the city, the states of Indiana and Illinois, the EPA and the Steelworkers that if U.S. Steel could just get an agreement that labor would cut wages and the governments would give the company a pass on environmental liabilities, U.S. Steel would keep operating in Gary "forever." And what a surprise, when the company which had enough billions in cash to buy Marathon Oil Company and all its proven oil and gas reserves, reneged on all these ironclad promises and walked away.

So the Rays are "willing to cover any cost overruns" for actual stadium construction, as long as they control construction. Sounds so reasonable. But let's see -- if they control construction, they control the bidding and contracting and setting of costs. If the City and County are PAYING the costs, the Rays have no incentive to sharpen their pencils before the contracts are signed, so any bets on whether there would be lots of padding (payable by the citizens) in every contract, to protect against "overruns?"

And presumably as the contracting party, the Rays would also control how the inevitable construction litigation over whether the marble countertops in the executive bathrooms were a "change order," subject to City funding, or an overrun. And of course, since so much had been put into the deal at this point, what's a few hundred thousand more, which after all is coming out of the net general revenues from the 940,000 citizens of the Pinellas Peninsula, who are (trumpet flare!) gaining the immense intangible externality of having a Major League Baseball team here!

One poster here said the Rays presentation looked inept. I wasn't there, have to work for a living. But don't count on their being inept, folks, at keeping all their money in their own pockets and leading our elected leaders by the nose with a carrot dream of "world class" on the end of their pointed stick.

We're told that the city counsel was wowed, which argues once again for a fundamental question as to whether these folks are sharp enough and have enough of the deal-valuing skills that the Rays have in plenty, to "negotiate" something that fundamentally affects all citizens, would "enricher" the already loaded expatriate owners, and has more potholes than the streets in South St. Pete.

[Bobby Fenton]

Carl, I am not denigrating yours or anyone else's point of view who is against the stadium. But I stand behind my denigration of your parallel between EWrigley frekaing Field and the Trop. That is asinine.

To answer your question, I was at Wrigley Field for the second time last summer. I have never been to Fenway. Other ballparks I've visited are Camden Yards, Safeco Field in Seattle, and Turner Field in Atlanta. To go to a game at those places, where it's done right, and then to come back and act like the Trop fits right in there, is a joke.

The Trop is the worst stadium in major league baseball. I will admit that they have done as much with it as they possibly can as of now, but it is what it is, and that is a plastic, charmless, echoey place with turf that looks like a living room carpet that just got vacuumed with no regard to pattern. Oh, but it's climate controoled, I forgot as A/C worhsipping Floridians that we're supposed to genuflect to any building with almighty A/C, even if it is a dump. The new place is going to be comfortbale too, they've thought of that.

So I don't mean to sound like I'm denigrating your opinion, so much as I simply disagree with it, but I stand by what I said.

[Bobby Fenton]

The other thing to remember, and John Romano made this point in his column today, is that it no longer matters what anybody thinks of the Trop. The simple truth is that this team will not be playing there ten years from now much less through the end of the lease in 2027 - period. Where they go, whether it's this proposed new place, or at another location in St. Pete, or in Tampa, or out of the area entirely, we don't know. But we know they're not staying at the Trop much longer. It's naive to think otherwise. This ownership does not want to be there and knows it can get out. That lease isn't as prohibitive as people think.

[Chuck]

Bobby,

Your above point will fall on deaf ears here because a majority of the anti stadium class couldn't care less if the Rays left the area. Add in the fact that if they feel they're being held to an ultimatum, they'll begin an aggressive anti-baseball campaign in the city.

Anyone who fails to realize the Trop is a nation wide laughingstock is in Phase 4 Denial.

10 Reasons the Trop Sucks:

1. It feels like a Costco without all the cheap stuff.

2. The "TBT PARTY ZONE" is the lamest attempt at niche seating in the history of pro sports.

3. St. Petersburg is a tourist town with natural attractions but the Trop makes the city look like Pittsburgh 2.0 on television.

4. The bizarre odor that one cannot escape while at a ballgame.

5. The catwalks. No explanation needed.

6. Those "cute" little baseballs they put around the outside of the stadium.

7. The huge hollow space limits a relationship with the playing field in my opinion.

8. Fake Grass.

9. Fake Air.

10. The Roof.

Obviously I'm just some paid shill for the organization. I'm revising my prediction to 75-25 for this November's vote. Keep fighting weaklings.

[Citizens of St. Pete]

The citizens want it without doubts, let us vote, so we can buld it & move on.

Go Rays!

[JudyToo]

"But we know they're not staying at the Trop much longer. It's naive to think otherwise. This ownership does not want to be there and knows it can get out. That lease isn't as prohibitive as people think."

A. Why does Stu keep reiterating that he will not break his 20 year remaining lease obligation on the Trop? Is he actually lying to us. Surely not.

B. Who really cares? The 17,000 people who go to games? If they really care, they should pony up the money and buy themselves a new stadium somewhere. Oh, I see, they don't really care that much, do they? Certainly the Rays don't care that much - they are looking for 100% public financing of their new digs on OUR land. Again.

Now Aaron, here's your chance to write a story that reveals the Rays for what they really are - shell game experts extraordinaire. I'll make it easy for you to understand. It's long but it's real easy reading.

They say 61% of the money is private investment:

33% - $150 Million is OUR money, not "private" investment. The Rays are just paying the rent they owe us up front. 30 years rent to be exact.

Let's say you don't like your $323,000 house anymore and want the city to build a $500,000 house for you and by the way, you will pay 30 years rent up front for $150,000. Sounds like a deal I would like. That's $5,000 a year for a $500,000 house with no property tax and no insurance. And no rent at all for 30 years. I WANT THAT DEAL!!!

Oh, there's more to it. The city has to sell the $323,000 house for $70,000 to pay off the $102,000 mortgage. Uh, yeah, there's $32,000 missing, but that's OK, we'll figure that out later.

Yeah, I left off the 000's so it would be easier for you to understand, Aaron.

16% - $70 Million. The city gets the $70,000 from selling OUR $323,000 house so that is "private" investment? How does that work? Uh, by the way, the city (that's us) has to pay for any clean up of left over contamination. There probably isn't any, but just in case, uh, sure, we can pay for it.

12% - $55 Million parking revenue the city will get if enough people park in city owned garages over the next 35 years. Hmmm, that's our city property we are charging cars to park in, so how is that "private" investment? I see, the Rays pay us for the parking, maybe $1.02 per game like at the Trop? And then collect maybe $10.00 from the fan going to the game? Anyway you look at it this is another shell game rip-off just like before.

So the 61% "private" investment is ALL our money and they are just calling it "private" so we will think it is their money? How does that work, Aaron? Tell us please in next week's Financial Analysis Part II.

Now let's take a look at the other 39% - the "no new taxes" part.

22% - $100 Million is the tourist tax extended until, uh, 2042 or 2046, not sure, but, you know, as long as possible. That's not new taxes, just an extension of existing taxes and it doesn't really count anyway because it's coming out of someone else's pocket. Are the county commissioners going to roll over that quickly? Probably not, but surely the Rays can find another pocket to pick - after all, there's almost 250,000 of them here in St. Pete and another 700,00 out there in the county.

17% - $75 Million from the city. No big deal really, just extending what we are already paying for the Trop for ANOTHER 30 YEARS. No new taxes, just extended taxes?

Ever dream of getting your home or rent house paid for and having no payments? Well, we are almost there on the Trop but those Devil Rays want us to forget about that and go into debt (a lot more debt) for another 30 years - like starting your mortgage all over again.

Now they don't mention a couple of small items, like.....

- they want us to build a $450 Million stadium for them on OUR waterfront land and of course no charge for the land even though it's worth somewhere between $50 and $100 Million.

- we are still on the hook for traffic management which will be something with all those cars coming downtown. It cost us taxpayers $400,000 in 2007 to pay for traffic management at the Trop. That's for a few intersections out on the edgde of town. What's it gonna cost to manage 40 or 50 intersections all over downtown? Aaron, this is a story in itself. Are you still with me, buddy?

- what's it gonna cost to clean up the Trop site? (our cost)

- what's it gonna cost for all the stuff we gotta bring the developer of the Trop site ( you know, streets, water, lights, INFRASTRUCTURE). Where's the sewage going? Do we have capacity to treat it? Where's the water coming from? I think we have a water shortage now - my yard is burning up anyway and my water bill is way higher than it used to be.

- who can afford to go to a Rays game these days? Mortgage payments are going up, taxes and insurance are going up, rent is going up, gas is going way up, food is going up, so what's left for a baseball game that costs $100 for two and that's going way up!

- and, oh by the way, when you finance all this stuff over 30 years (assuming you can even get the financing and that's not exactly a done deal these days), you can add on about the same amount in unforeseen costs and interest on the money so all of a sudden that $450 Million just became $900 Million and that is real close to ONE BILLION DOLLARS.

- or maybe you don't think so? Remember the Trop! or Suncoast dome or whatever? $85 Million is now up to $323 Million - according to good ol' Aaron hisself.

Now the Rays would truly want you to believe that somehow some magical spell is going to be put on this Trop site by a magical developer from afar. And the big D is gonna turn all that asphalt into....GOLD!

Yep, it is going to magically turn into millions of square feet of retail space (assuming they can find someone who will sign a 30 year lease) and about 2,000 "housing units" (assuming we need more houses for sale in St. Pete). And all those stores and homeowners are gonna pay HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in property taxes that we can use to pay for that shiny new stadium. We hope.

Of course we happen to be in pretty bad times right now, so there's no guarantee the magic will work, in which case, guess who will be paying off all those bond payments for thirty yaers? You goy it, Aaron, you and me and our kids and maybe even their kids!

Really now, Aaron, there are a few little risky items here. Why don't you 'fess up and tell us what you really know about this potential sub-prime meltdown mess that our good mayor is trying to foist upon us?

And why this year? Is he crazy? The Rays told us they wouldn't know about the environmental stuff until summer 2009. Why do we have to vote now when we don't know how much it's really going to cost, we don't know how much traffic we have to manage (parking studies we have, but no traffic studies), we don't know how much the infrastructure for two sites will cost, we don't know if we can even borrow all that money, and we don't know if the county is going to fall for this again.

It's kind of a long explanation, but it's not 30 years long. Tell us the truth, Aaron. Don't hold back.

Thanks, buddy, know we can depend on you!

Oh gosh, am I stopping progress? keeping us from being on TV with an all star game? ruining all the new business that was going downtown? messing up Stu's plans to make a cool $100 Million profit? Gee, I hope not.

[Paul]

Once again the Rays have delivered on their promises. As the St. Pete Times stated in its editorial, "the team would not ask for a single dollar of property taxes to help build a downtown waterfront stadium". They have asked for a continuation of the taxes which are presently going to service the Tropicana Field obligations. But that debt would be paid off immediately with the purchase price of the land. It should also be noted that the very conservative projections, not the Rays' but the developers', would produce a SURPLUS which would be used to help finance our schools and other public purposes. It is clearly in the developer's interest to make the redevelopment successful so that the projections are realized -- why would anyone invest an immediate $75 million and then not develop it? And the argument that the Trop did n ot pan out is actually irrelevant as there are no dollars forecast as the result of the stadium (like the Trop) but the tax revenues flow from housing, offices, retail. It is also clear that without the development at the Trop site, there are no new tax revenues for anything and we will continue to have a barren 86 acres -- probably the best possible development site in the City. As to the question as to why not keep the Trop, I agree with those who view it as an ugly,uncomfortable, charmless place to watch a game with bad air, bad turf,catwalks,no natural light, and a generally depressing atmosphere. People also claim that the Trop offers parking and traffic nervana. If you've been there with even a small crowd, traffic is backed up for blocks trying to get into the very few access/egress points. Parking downtown is dispersed and as the City's review has said, can be managed. ( By the way, check out the Fans For Waterfront Stadium Parking slide show which can be accessed from this blog -- it shows ample parking available during the Grand Prix where attendance is at least double or triple the best Rays attendance.)And finally, I find the snide and often insulting references to the Rays owners and management to be beneath what I would hope would be the quality of debate on this most important issue. I give them enormous credit for how they have conducted themselves (in spite of the invective hurled their way) and for their forthright and consistent approach to what should be (and I believe will be) a win-win-win for the citizens of St. Petersburg and the rest of Tampa Bay,for the tax rolls of the City and County, and for the Rays. It appears to me as over the course of the last several months, one by one the hysterical opponents' claims are being demolished by the facts. That leads me to believe that they are so emotionally opposed to this (as it really can no longer be based on facts) that they are, as Hal Freedman from POWW was quoted as saying "...trying to derail it anyway we can". I was more or less neutral initially, sharing many of the legitimate concerns various residents have brought forward -- many have been answered. And if they aren't answered, guess what? The project won't go forward. But I object strenuously to the notion that any tactic is acceptable in this debate, that the end justifies the means, and that"fighting like dogs" has a place in this discussion.

Again, as the Times stated in their editorial: "The Tampa Bay Rays took a big step Thursday toward answering the $450 million question". I applaud that step and look forward to opening day 2012 on the waterfront -- the historic home of baseball in St. Pete.

[Pam Iorio]

Just like every other team that leaves St Pete, it's obviously time for the Rays to set their targets a tad higher: TAMPA

adios St Pete ... you're a bush league city that doesn't deserve pro sports

let the Tampa Serenade commence!

[Dorks who NEVER got picked in Sports]

We really should be "...trying to derail it anyway we can"!!!

Sports are silly

Build another museum or something

[Howie Toxicler]

"Dorks who NEVER got picked in Sports "

HEY, I resemble that remark!

[carl]

Again with the insults and the denigration . . . it's not "asinine" . . . it's an opinion. The entire tone of your message is condescending.

Funny you didn't mention how it was done "right" at Wrigley. The Trop is a baseball field just like Wrigley is a baseball field. I feel Tropicana is more comfortable and the amenities and experience work for me. Are there better places to watch a game? Without question, yes. Will my experience be enhanced in a new stadium? Probably but it is greatly enhanced by winning. Do I feel I should have to pay for a business's physical location? No. Especially a business which overstates the economic impact of their presence. I sincerely hope the Rays stay as I enjoy having the team here but my patronage is the only money I hope to give them.

But relax Bobby, in my view, the new stadium is a done deal. We will be bent over by the politicians, the rays will get a new stadium and we will get the bill. I appreciate the interaction here. Always fun to engage in debate.

[Don Mott]

Paul, You want facts? Here ya go. No developer has offered to pay $75 million for the site. The tax extensions are "new taxes" which they said they did not need. The projected revenue from the redeveloped Trop site are just pie in the sky guesses and not guarantees. Who pays the difference if those projections are not met? The $55 million for parking has not been verified. More pie in the sky numbers without guarantees. Who pays the difference if those projections are not met? The environmental issues and costs at both sites have not been reached. Who pays for that? I'm sure there are probably some things I have omitted but I think you get the point. We do have facts and they have certainly not been "demolished".

[Chuck]

To all the POWW apple juice drinkers out there -

Take five deep breaths, walk outside, uproot your sign, throw it in the trash and walk back inside.

The new stadium is going to get built. I don't really care who is impacted negatively - I want a new stadium and I deserve it.

That is all.

[JudyToo]

Hi Paul,

"They have asked for a (continuation) of the taxes which are presently going to service the Tropicana Field obligations."

Of course "continuation" is not "new" taxes, is it?

"But that debt would be paid off immediately with the purchase price of the land."

Well, sort of. We owe $102 Million, Hines bid phased payments of $50 Million and Archstone bid what? $61 Million? Phased also, I think. The Rays estimated $70 Million. Uh, these numbers don't add up.

"It should also be noted that the very conservative projections, not the Rays' but the developers', would produce a SURPLUS which would be used to help finance our schools and other public purposes."

Please talk to all those who have paid their taxes or bought their food and gas with "projections." I asked for some milk at Publix the other day, told them I would pay with my projected income next week. Uh, they said, "No, thanks."

"It is also clear that without the development at the Trop site, there are no new tax revenues for anything and we will continue to have a barren 86 acres -- probably the best possible development site in the City."

Definitely. Let's develop up to 75% of it and see if it pans out. If it does, then we might want to talk about letting them build a new stadium somewhere - like Toytown or Derby. This development would produce new taxes for city services (and schools, etc) and NONE would be used to pay for a new stadium (i.e. no corporate welfare).

"I give them enormous credit for how they have conducted themselves (in spite of the invective hurled their way) and for their forthright and consistent approach to what should be (and I believe will be) a win-win-win for the citizens of St. Petersburg and the rest of Tampa Bay, for the tax rolls of the City and County, and for the Rays."

Uh, OK. Would you care to help buy a stadium for these outstanding corpoate citizens? The city will sell you and your friends 86 acres in a perfect location and you will have a place to play ball while you build a new place. Then you can tear down the old place and you will have about 66 acres of prime land to develop.

You and a developer can probably make hundreds of millions profit. And ALL of the new taxes generated will help get the city out of this mess. No tax dollars for corporate welfare. Win-win-win.

"Again, as the Times stated in their editorial: "The Tampa Bay Rays took a big step Thursday toward answering the $450 million question.""

Uh, OK. Could you please state some FACTS to substantiate your beliefs and opinions. Heck yeah, I'm skeptical, but willing to listen to facts, not hopes and dreams and projections. How about some guarantees, some REAL private money on the line.

I took the time to analyze the "answer to the $450 Million question." There were a few holes in their answers which you don't seem to want to discuss.

You also did not seem to want to analyze anything other than projections and promises. And you seem to be very upset that others aren't drinking the same stuff. Is that true?

[Paul]

All money aside... we don't want a mega stadium f'ing up our beautiful, successful, vibrant (throw in whatever buzz terms are hot these days) waterfront. It is not all about money, although that is important, once you build a monster like the one they propose, it will be there for a good long time. Not on our gorgeous waterfront. Sorry NYC boys, you don't get to climb on the back on of our City's success with destroying the waterfront. Go home, wherever that may be and please don't come back. Many many people dislike you and your arrogance at putting our City through this crap. Leave now. Take your team. Many of us don't care. Save St Pete, ship a baseball team owner out of state.

[Paul]

There are obviously two Pauls here. I totally disavow the comments made above by the second Paul (posted at 4:41).

[Paul]

Yes, there are 2 Pauls, sorry Paul. I've been posting since November of 07. Perhaps one of use should clarify which Paul we are... haven't had this problem before and I am in no way trying to impersonate you. However, I'd like to be the 'first paul' if at all possible :)

[Don Mott]

One large item I did omit Paul. The Rays included $100 million from the counties hotel bed tax, which would require that it be extended something like 30 years. There are several problems with that. 1)They have not met with the County. 2) The County has not agreed to that proposal. 3) There are several County Commissioners who have expressed serious concerns with this plan. That's one third of the proposal right there that is not guaranteed. To date there is not very much of the $450 million guaranteed. Not a good sign.

[Kyle]

RAYS WIN AGAIN. The more they keep winning, the more difficult it will become to get a new stadium built.

[Kyle]

Chuck- The smell is coming from the cooler of beer and pickled eggs you had before the game.

[gary grooms]

The new financing plan is an interesting approach - but I would agree that you can't say it is primarily privately funded. Most stadiums are built with 60 - 70% public money. Occasionally you get some 90% public - or 90% private. The percentage isn't really the issue. What matters is does the public get a "return on our investment"

That is a hard thing to measure. From a pure dollars in vs. dollars out standpoint it's simpler (not easy) to determine the dollars spent than it is dollars collected. If you have ever done any marketing / advertising you know you can't always put a price tag on the value of certain marketing expenses - especially "brand" marketing.

If you run a restaurant and you send out a bunch of "Buy One Get One at Half Price" coupons you can calculate the costs associated with the coupon distribution and the impact to food costs versus the increased sales. At the end of the month you can pretty easily look and say "Last year for the month of May I made xx dollars. This year with my coupon deal my profit was xx+ dollars. Your hope is that you did a good job with these new customers and they come back again - without a coupon. The long term residual benefit of your coupons is essentially impossible to measure.

Yet, any large business you can name does a ton of "brand" marketing. Our City has to do the same thing. The entire waterfront is a City subsidized serious of venues that allow others to make money as part of our "brand"

Start at the airport - built on fill - supported by the City. Many more acres used than the stadium would require. The people running it get paid - you pay taxes to support it. - Don't know the number of people that use it -- do any of you keep your plane there?

Next you will soon have the Dali - built on fill - leased by the City for $1. The people running it get paid - you pay taxes to support it. Attendance 250,000 per year.

Next is the Mahaffey - built on fill - The people running it get paid - you pay taxes to support it. Attendance 140,000 per year.

Next take the City marina (don't know anything about the Yacht Clubs arrangements) The docks attach to Demen's Landing - built on fill. Don't know anything about usage numbers - but the people running the Marina get paid - you pay taxes to support it. How many of you have your yachts there?

Next in line is the Pier - built on fill- a group of private - for profit businesses are at the end. The people running it get paid - you pay taxes to support it. This quote is from a recent article on the Pier "Attendance estimates have dropped from nearly 2-million annual visitors in 2001 to less than 1.1-million in 2007. It has lost $1.5-million each year since at least 2005.

Let's take Vinoy Park. How many events per year are run there on our waterfront on public land? The people running the various events and the vendors whether they are selling snow cones or sculptures get paid - you pay taxes to support it. Is the Warped Tour really a better use of the waterfront than baseball.

How about the Saturday Morning Market? Takes place maybe 30 times a year on public streets. The people running it and the vendors get paid - you pay taxes to support it. Imagine if you are a jewelry store on Beach Drive. At least half the Saturday's per year (Saturday is usually the most profitable day for a jeweler) Your customers can't find a space to park near your store because of the Market. People can park in front of your place go over to the Market, buy some tomatoes and maybe shop for some jewelry. The person in the booth at the Market who is now your competition paid something like $50 (not paid to the City - but to the organizer) to be there for the day. The merchant on Beach Drive is paying all sorts of taxes and permit fees to the City and the City sets up competition for you at next to no expense to your competition and then allows all the parking that you subsidize to be used by your competition. Think about all the health code violations at every single booth that sells food. Every see a hand sink out there? The restaurants get the same issue with City subsidized competition and then have they joy of the Market patrons wanting to use their restrooms because inadequate facilities are set up at the Market.

Can't leave out Al Lang - the City spends about $1,000,000 per year to maintain it.

If we add up the annual attendance numbers for the Pier, the Dali and the Mahaffey combined it comes out to about 1.5 million people. The average in MLB is just shy of 2.5 million. Last year the Rays did about 1.3 million. If they keep winning they will probably get about 1.5 million this year. The hope for the waterfront stadium would be closer to 2 million.

Your tax dollars pay for the entire waterfront and people from Vinoy Park to the marina to the Pier to the Mahaffey to the airport all are making money by operating businesses there whether it's performing arts or a restaurant at the new terminal. The people running the venues are generating an income and you are subsidizing it.

[paul the second]

Sory about the Paul confusion. I subsequently posted under Paul the first in order to avoid confusion. (I am in favor of the projects -- redevelopment of the Trop site, new waterfront stadium and referendum. It appears as if the other Paul is not.) I will now adopt Paul the second in deference to your earlier postings.

[Jon McPhee]

In response to Mr. Grooms' post above:

Waterfront amenities? My taxes also pay for schools, the Health Department, the Streets Department, water, sewer, probably some hospital services, Code Enforcers who take down certain signs, the Mayor's salary, City Council, and even the tax collector and her staff. These are "burdens" that make a culture what it is, and even, God help us, relate to some silly "spiritual" values (possibly excepting the Mayor and City Council).

Most of what Gary Grooms enumerates in his list of publicly-underwritten amenities are "sunk costs," and many of them, for example (I am not entirely sure on these) the marina and possibly the airport are self-sustaining, from fees paid by users. The Trop is NOT sustained by user fees or owner payments, and the subsidy is orders of magnitude above what goes to the amenities you mention. Depending, of course, on which question you ask, of which economist or public accountant.

There is inarguably a values question in play here. One poster elsewhere in this blog apparently puts a huge value on the father-son-first-MLB-Game bonding experience. But that experience is only going to cost him the price of gas, parking, tickets and foodstuffs, maybe a souvenir program he can use to show Junior how to box-score. Other folks want the option of a "pleasant evening on the waterfront," where they can look at the scenery if the game gets uninteresting. Still others hope to profit from the flux of what on experience would likely run to a billion dollars when all is toted up. It's not even arguable where the Rays owners are in the values question -- this is all about making money by getting the largest possible subsidy from St. Pete and Pinellas. But all these folks want to freeload off the subsidy all the rest of us, with different values, and different personal economies, would be paying for.

As with the Trop, there would be regular public expenses for all kinds of services that add value to the Rays owners, at public expense. The ticket prices, parking and hot dog sales appear destined mostly to go to the Rays boys. Every nickel they can cadge out of the local yokels goes right into their own capacious pockets, and will come back to them several-fold when they eventually and inevitably sell the team after running up its apparent asset value.

All the examples given by Mr. Grooms either involve considerably less burdensome public costs, or choices that most of us are willing to support. Packing a large stadium onto public land, selling other public assets in a down market, burdening the economy of this area with more public debt (much of which would be "tax anticipation bonds," as I understand it, which are paid out of, I think, public taxes -- so much for the "no new taxes" line) are also values choices, that ought to be decided in a public way and not via handshakes, winks and nods between "civic boosters" and investment bankers.

As it looks at present, the Rays owners, who inarguably could afford to just buy themselves their own stadium, are taking on ZERO risk in this transaction. The business community in San Francisco did build an MLB stadium, largely without public contribution and risk other than infrastructure improvements that benefitted others besides the team owners. The fact that other political units have been snookered into dumping public money into sports franchises, in times when public money was easier to come by, is hardly dispositive on the question of whether, in this time and at this place, it makes any sense to give this set of wealthy owners, and maybe a few other folks who might profit from the billion-dollar flux, a huge subsidy to be paid off for decades to come by the rest of us who don’t place an infinite value on “the baseball experience.” What was it your mother said? If all the other kids were jumping off the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, would you jump too?

I once justified buying a boat to my significant other with a nice spreadsheet that showed all the various costs – purchase, taxes, registration, mooring, maintenance, improvements, operating expenses, haulouts, repairs, insurance and so forth. The final figures for a boat that would have a purchase price of $12,500 came out to something like $25,000 a year, amortizing the purchase price over 15 years. At the time, I could afford it; my spouse wanted no part of it. But I jiggered the balance sheet by adding an asset line showing a PFA (that’s “picked from the air”) value of $1 million for the “intangible extrinsic pleasure of boat ownership,” and bought the darn boat anyway. The actual costs were of course higher than I estimated (e.g., taxes and registration and mooring went up substantially,) including the purchase of new sails. I sold it with a net out-of-pocket over 6 years of about $180,000.

That all makes me imprudent – if I’d bought Microsoft or Starbucks stock instead, I’d be smokin’ stogies with Mike Kalt instead of looking at working at low wages in health care until I drop.

I can’t see a whole lot of difference between buying that sailboat and buying the SailAway Stadium. It was a values choice, with a negative-cash-flow outcome.

But I at least got to decide -- I didn’t have it decided for me by a bunch of cloakroom chatterers or yacht brokers filling my head with visions of tropical shores.

[Jon McPhee]

Oh, and if you are taking part in the "poll" Aaron is taking on the financing plan, please note that the Chicago rule of election victory apparently applies -- "Vote Early, And Vote Often." This poll, unlike the first two, apparently makes no effort to filter out multiple votes by interested parties. You may have to back out of the blog and drop back in to make it work. May the best organized small interest group win!

[gary grooms]

Hi Jon,

I've done that same "convince the spouse spreadsheet" for automobiles. Always looked good to me. My wife rolls her eyes, shakes her head and knows I'm heading down the road to ruin. I was actually right once. But in 30 years of marriage even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn.

No doubt you are correct about the "cultural community values" of museums, performing arts centers etc. I'm not a big fan of baseball, the orchestra or the Dali. However, when company comes to town I go buy a ticket to get into the Dali and I'm glad I can brag about my little City.

I'm not sure, but I don't think the airport sustains itself. It certainly couldn't come close if it had to pay rent on that piece of land at fair market value.

The tenants at the Pier obviously aren't paying enough in rent to the City to break even - much less build reserve funds for long term capital improvements.

As to the burdensome costs: What's the acceptable number? Many people are saying "not one penny" of public money to the stadium. If it's a value judgement of the merits of 1,500,000 people supporting baseball per year versus the "higher values" of 400,000 people supporting the Dali and the Mahaffey per year, isn't that just "one person's opinion?"

If it's about the dollars without placing a higher value on public money spent in one place versus another then we have a lot of waterfront business operations that need to raise their prices in accordance with their free market value. If we place the same standards to the rest of the waterfront businesses as many want to apply to the stadium proposal it would mean virtually everything along the waterfront going broke. The airport, the Mahaffey and the Pier for sure.

For something like 80 plus years professional baseball has been played on the exact spot on the waterfront in question. My guess is it has never been a profitable venture in the strict identifiable income versus expense outlook. For the last several years at least the City has had a net loss of about $1,000,000 per year at Al Lang. Yet no one was upset about the use of the waterfront for MLB or the City's net loss.

[Don Mott]

Hi Gary, I think what we are seeing here is that some taxpayers are adverse to the idea of using city and county funds to enrich multimillionaires. Whether it is taxes or funds it really equates to the same thing, the peoples money. I believe that is the difference between the Rays and the Dali, the Pier, the airport etc. Those enterprises are owned by the city not millionaires so the costs are expected, sorta like a park or boat ramp. The proceeds, even if they don't cover the costs go to the city. The proceeds from a MLB stadium don't cover the cities cost either but that is because the majority of those proceeds go into the pockets of a few millionaires. The other thing we are seeing is that this deal has been shady since it's inception behind closed doors. The proposed financing is shady at best, as confirmed by 3 out of 4 of the "experts" in today's paper. This all adds up to the feeling that we'd better keep our hands on our wallets.

[Jon McPhee]

Gary, on numbers: Let's do apples to apples, OK? You equate 1,500,000 ticket sales or 400,000 art-goer stops to 1,500,000 or 400,000 VOTERS, the people who pay the freight for both sides of the values street, plus the sewers and police and fire and schools. How many VOTERS and INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS are there in Pinellas? I think the people who foot the bill for all those expenses, which would be impacted by a big nut like the stadium subsidy, are the ones whose votes count. A lot of the talk here is about all the people from "away" who come to the Trop as it is, and might possibly "flock to the Sail" -- they don't deserve any voice in this at all, they don't have a dime at issue or a horse in the race. There simply is no validity to a statement that a million and a half "people" support MLB here -- a small fraction of that only.

[gary grooms]

Hi Jon,

Maybe I didn't explain my point well. I wasn't trying to say who got the most voice in the issue. We certainly get to vote at the ballot box and the tourists get to "vote" with their wallets. Simply put I'm saying MLB will sell about 3 times the number of tickets that the Dali and the Mahaffey combined will sell. It would seem to indicate that there is more "support" for baseball than for the arts, whether it is from residents of the City or not.

[gary grooms]

Hi Don,

Your right, the Pier is owned by the City and they lease it out to various private businesses. Those businesses don't pay enough in rent to come close to the actual costs associated with Pier.

The stadium would be owned by the City and they would lease it out to a private business. The lease payments won't be enough to cover the entire costs.

Besides the numbers being bigger - what's the difference?

It seems your objection is the wealth of the tenant.

If Apple wanted to take a bunch of square feet of space at the Pier should we demand they pay significantly more than the other tenants? Even though the "anchor" tenant generally pays less per foot than the smaller shops?

Or should we say you can't rent here because you are worth too much money?

Or should we demand that they pay the entire costs associated with running the Pier because they can afford it?

[Don Mott]

Well Gary, Let's put it this way. Those individual businesses at the Pier lease a storefront and hope that someone comes in and purchases their product. They don't receive any parking fees. If a hot dog vendor sets up shop on the Pier they don't receive those funds. When one of the other businesses on site makes a sale they don't receive any revenue. See where I'm going with this? The Rays receive most if not all of the monies from 'all' activities on the entire stadium site. Quite a difference. You are right about one thing, I do have a problem with taxpayer dollars going into the pockets of millionaires. I think that is a bad thing but maybe you and others do not. If Apple moved onto the Pier and collected 'all' of the fees related to parking and sales, yes, I would expect them to cover all of the costs. Nice spin BTW.

[gary grooms]

Hi Don,

The Rays lease is for the entire site - including parking and the various concessions inside the stadium. The guy at the Pier doesn't have a lease except for his square footage. He / She can have different revenue streams within his leased space. At an Apple Store they sell computers, software and technical services. KInd of like hot dogs, beer and T- Shirts. If Apple paid to lease the lots at the Pier then of course they would take the parking revenues.

[Don Mott]

My point exactly Gary. Your original argument was regarding the city subsidizing the Pier while private businesses operate there. Well there is city owned space that the business owners do not profit from so it would be rational that the city maintain those spaces. I'm not sure if you or the city could verify whether per square foot wise those businesses don't cover their percentage of the operating costs to the city. I might add the new parking plan, while totally incomplete, would give the Rays the opportunity to profit on city owned parking which would not be included in the lease. Of course they proposed paying up front for fees they will recoup by selling the parking spaces but their projected numbers are out in left field somewhere. $35 million for 2,500 parking spaces? Try to make those numbers work.

[gary grooms]

Hi Don,

Good point. I don't know all the numbers. Obviously, the tenants at the Pier aren't paying enough to cover even the operating costs - much less the "land" costs or they wouldn't have posted losses the last few years.

Your right, the Rays would have the opportunity to profit off City owned land. However, the City can't have it both ways. If they want a guaranteed income off their spaces they have to lease them out and the lessee takes the risk.

If the Rays say "We will give you $35 million for these 2,500 parking spaces over the next 35 years" it works out to $400 per year per space. Across 81 games the Rays need to generate a little less than $5 per space per game to break-even . Obviously the City can say "No thanks we will operate those space ourselves and deal with the risk / reward."

Of course, some people would say "Why should the Rays get "credit" for the parking income?" The quick answer is - would you want to lease a nearby parking lot to the current Al Lang site - with only rights to evening parking - committing $400 per year per space if there was no stadium and a MLB team at that site?

[get-smart]

People who drink and drive avoid parking garages. In addition, the Bayfront and all other private garages and lots would be nuts to lease out space. I can see it now! Some crazed Rays fan running down some sick guy in a wheelchair at the Bayfront. They don't need this kind of problem. In other words you are going to have Rays fans and/or victims making claims against the insurance of private parties who so happen own parking spaces. There is a ton of legalities here. My question is who gets sued? If the Bayfront buys extra insurance to cover this kind of accident the parking fee goes up. They and any other private parking garage or lot would be nuts to take on this type of risk.

Please show us a list of all the private parking facilities that signed on to this deal.

-

[gary grooms]

Can't give you a list of contracts that haven't been signed yet. I doubt anyone would do any more than a letter of intent when we are still 4 years away from the need.

This type of part-time rental of spaces to a third party is done all over the country - including here. An example of a lot that leases their spaces to a parking operator for events here is the South Trust Bank lot at 2nd Ave. and 3rd Street. The parking company that uses that lot at night to park cars for Push and DeSanto parked cars there on the day of the race (look at slide 15 on the parking slide show) Northern Trust Bank's lot was also used (slide 6) The lots next to Publix were also used - (slide 7).

Here is how it works for a private lot - let's say an office building has 400 spaces. The owner of the lot signs a contract with a parking operator - maybe someone like Lanier or Central (or the Rays could set up their own "Parking Division") The parking company has insurance of their own that at least matches what the land owner carries. The contract requires not only indemnification, but also that they leave the lot at least as clean as it was when they got there. The parking company shows up say at 5:00 pm to set up and start operating the lot. Their contract allows them to sell up to a certain number of spaces. So, maybe they can sell 300 spaces and they have to leave 100 spaces for the office tenants. The office tenants have a little free security in this deal because one or two people are stationed on the lot during the evening hours. If I'm working late until 7:30 instead of walking through a mostly empty lot alone I'm now walking through a lot with some activity and someone is around somewhere from the parking company

I don't know what the value of a particular lot would be. That would vary depending on proximity to the stadium or to a shuttle pick up point and what baseball attendance is like. The rent paid to the land owner by the parking company can either be a flat amount per game or month or baseball season. Or they can set up an amount per car. Let's say the land owner leases out his 300 available spaces for $5 per car parked because the market is good and the parking company charges $12 per space to cover their expenses and to make a profit. If the lot fills up for every game during the month of May and there are 12 home games that month - as the land owner I'm getting a check at month end for $18,000 - with no additional risk or expense.

If you sold every space avaialble for every game and this won't happen becasue we have an abundance of parking - but let's pretend you could actually sell all 300 spaces for all 81 games. At $12 per car the annual revenue would be $291,600 the land owner would have to do nothing but sign the contract and cash the checks totaling $121,500. The parking comapny would end up with $170,100 to cover operational, insurance costs and profit.

Does that still sound nuts?

Do you you think it will be hard to get private landowners to rent their spaces for baseball?

Bayfront Medical has signed a letter of interest for providing night time parking spaces for games.

Seeing your convinced that you understand the legalities better than the people in the parking business why don't you bring us a list of the horrible lawsuits filed (where the plaintiff won) against a private land owner for an event that occurred when his lot was being managed by a reputable parking operator. While you're at it dig up a list of private lots near a major sports venue that have capacity yet refuse to rent their spaces for games.

I'm not saying there are no lawsuits out there - or that no one has ever refused to lease their spaces (or operate the spaces themselves) -- it is just extremely rare.

[get-smart]

I thought the city gets the parking revenues? I thought $55M was what the city will make on parking?

[gary grooms]

That is off the spaces the City owns.

Private landowners will make whatever deal they want.