Rays financing powerpoint

Thought many of you might like to see the Rays' powerpoint presentation that team officals made to the City Council on Thursday. Well, here it is, courtesy of the city. (The Rays gave members of the media a shortened version on Thursday).

A two-page explanation is available at the Rays' stadium site, www.majorleaguedowntown.com

Comments

[Ron]

This is what they agreed to share with the media? This implies that they are still dealing with the local government in private. If they are not willing to release everything to the people (us, the citizens of St Pete and Pinellas county), then our leaders have an obligation to NOT place this on the ballot, until all details are released.

[Rick K]

Ron, I don't get it. Why are you afraid of letting the citizens of St. Pete decide?

[Thomas]

This is not really a financing plan, it's a sales pitch. And it's a misleading sales pitch at that:

Counting the purchase of the public property at the Trop as "private contribution" is offensive.

Same with the revenues from public parking sites.

The public is paying $300M - the Rays are contributing only $150M and that "contribution" is actually just rent payments made in advance.

$102M in property taxes?
$104M in sales taxes?
Where do these estimates come from...

Most importantly, what are the lease terms? Is the team keeping all the revenues from the new stadium or is the public getting a return on the investment?

There is no logical way to support this plan - if you can even call it a plan. There are no details to even base a decision on included.

I would be offended if the city put this on the ballot without demanding that the Rays provide much more detail.

[get-smart]

Pleeze Just Fase The Facks - The Rayz Guyz R A Bunch Of Kon Artistz. They R Out To Scam The Burg.

[Paul]

Go to this page for the full 'financing plan' that the Times can't seem to find a link to:

http://www.stpete.org/raysproposal/pdf/051508FinancingPresentationFINAL.pdf

Why not just link to that? What's with this 'media version'?

This was a meeting given in public at a City Council session, televised and all. Why not give the full document? I believe its sitting right there on our tax paid for, City website.

[Ron]

Rick K,
I'm not afraid of letting the people decide. I just don't expect it to be rushed onto the ballot in order to fit the timeline for the Rays, when there are so many unknowns in the plan. Why should we vote for something when we don't have all of the facts?

Even the Rays admit that they've included $55 million from parking revenues in their proposal, even though they don't know where this is going to come from.

Give us all of the facts first, then put it on the ballot. Seems like simple common sense.

[Paul]

Rick K,

We've beat the 'let the people decide' issue beyond its death. The people did decide. In the 1920' a waterfront park system was established by the donation of land to the city for a long, connected park system. The purpose was to reclaim and protect the waterfront for all people to have access, not just the wealthy.

Several hundred people from all rank and file of St Pete participated in Vision 2020 which called for a waterfront park system.

The people asked Council to make Al Lang a park after its demise and Council agreed! Imagine that!

CONA, recommended that the stadium on the waterfront not be pursued.

Just where have the people been left out Rick? WE have decided. Al Lang is going to be a park, we'll just have to fight the Council and City for what was already agreed to and then renigged on.

[Rick K]

Paul, I "get" that you want us to think that we ought not be allowed to vote.

The current citizenry of St. Petersburg has not, as yet, been asked to vote on these proposals.

Any assertion that they have is ludicrous, dishonest, and revealing about the person who employs such assertions to divert attention from the truth.

The question before the City is simple: Do the people want these twin proposals to happen, or not?

Those questions have not been decided by the citizens of St. Pete.

Paul, I have no idea why you fear such a vote.

[Rick K]

Ron:

If you don't think you have enough facts to make up your mind, that is okay with me.

My life experience in the United States has taught me that most voters do not have a thorough grasp of the facts about most issues and candidates they are voting on.

I do not fear this.

I embrace it.

I have confidence in my own ability to sift through the information that has been made available, combined with my own research, and form my own opinion about what is best for the city.

I also have confidence in the citizens of St. Pete.

That you lack such confidence says much about you. But your irrational distrust of democracy ought not rule the day, I think.

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, Aaron -- Howard Troxler was asked where he came down, a couple of weeks ago, on the goodness of the Rays owners' Big Deal proposal. He at least answered the question directly then, and again in his column on Sunday.

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be an increasing flavor of a litle pro-"Build It" slant to the stuff you put in the Times, and the headline items and blog-owner-provided content here.

Would you maybe answer a direct question?

As a person granted a lot of access to the dealers, and details such as they are, on all sides, what is your current position on whether or not the deal is so good for the whole community that City Council and County should just go go ahead with this set of transactions?

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, Rick K -- We don't live in a democracy, you wouldn't like it if we did. It's a representative form of, maybe, a republic.

You know darn well that people can be moved by illusion and emotion. Maybe you are in favor of the war in Iraq, at going on $2 billion per day plus body bags, I don't know. The myths of "democracy" brought that demon to life.

There have been a few other folks historically who have embraced the ignorance of the electorate. This guy Hitler got himself elected Chancellor of All Germany via jiggling a lot of images and playing on a lot of fears and hatred and on hopes that national socialism, the archtypical welfare state for capitalism, would relieve the debt and the inflationary mess created by the Weimar Republic. Just give us power and money, he promised, and everything will be just great.

I'm sure that some folks in Louisiana still long for the days of Huey Long, who did a great job of taking in the voters. There's lots more examples.

So let's see, your life tells you that most voters vote in ignorance, and yet you trust the voters of St. Petersburg to vote in ignorance and produce a good result. Kind of like the voters who have kept the present government in power through several terms, even though the folks they have re-elected sneer at them and move money out of their emptying pockets and into the pockets of the already rich.

I actually, along with maybe a majority of this little self-selected sample of our polity, do actually trust people to vote their own interests, once they are given the facts and understand the real risks and actual in any proposition or contest.

I have to say, I think you more accurately trust the voters to be swayed by the Rays' light and music show, and to vote the way you happen to think they should if everything can just be hurried along in a grand rush to judgment. 9-11 to "Mission Accomplished."

And please, don't you dare take a shot at my patriotism. I love this nation and the foundation ideals and documents that it's grounded on, and most of its people, and I was even Boy Scout and sucker enough to volunteer for the Vietnam experience and the "opportunity to serve my country" in the Regular Army.

And I also think you believe, maybe even know for sure, that it may not make a whole hill of beans WHAT the voters think, or how they vote. Didn't you opine some time ago that every issue is always open for re-voting? So nothing is ever settled? So that the various comp plans and previous votes on the fate of Al Lang and all the other pieces of this puzzle palace are just "in the past?"

And of course the only "election" coming up is the possible referendum that the City Council may or may not decide on D-Day 2008 to set for November. Because the Council members and Mayor hid their dealings with the Rays Boys until after the last Council election.

That you place such confidence in the ability of the Rays' PR machine to blitz the Electors (as in Mayor, Council and Commission) into biting this particular apple with or without the blessings of the voters says much about you, and your "respect" for the voters.

So skip the hypocritical and sarcastic sanctimony -- it doesn't become a staunch advocate like you. You know that short of litigation, or a recall election (which would in any event be too late to stop the Juggernaut once the deals are inked), the Council can once again thumb its collective nose at the rest of us, and play the paternalism card, and be the deciders for what's best for the whole Pinellas Penisula, for decades to come. Like their predecessors in office did for the Trop and many other projects, hopefully just because they didn't do their due diligence rather than just from embracing venality and/or expediency and/or self-aggrandizement, or getting buzzed off the fumes from projectors' stogies.

[Jon McPhee]

And one more: the most telling slide in the full Powerpoint presentation to the Council is the bar graph (not part of the abbreviated link here) that shows private and public contributions to new stadiums. For the moment, even accepting the Rays' questionable claim of "60% private funding," there are at least four, count 'em, four, MLB stadiums that per the Rays themselves were built entirely with private money. As in NO PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION. And those deals were done in a much healthier economic climate, where taxes flowed like Evian water. Tigers, Giants, Yankees, Mets, all got a new stadium, according to the Rays, without "public capital," as in "subsidies."

Tell me once again why the starting position here is that the City and County "have to" pony up tax monies, debt burden and ongoing costs as a precondition to any negotiations with these people, who can buy their own stadium out of small change.

[Rick K]

John McPhee:

It's hard for me to imagine how you could cram more misinformed opinions, incorrect assumptions, paranoid delusions and just plain silliness into a single post.

1. You have no idea if I would like living in a more democratic society. You have offered a wild assumption as a truth.

2. In the case of a ballot question which asks the citizens of St. Pete to directly decide if a new stadium lease should be approved, that is as close to pure democracy as we can imagine.

3. I think that most people who read my comments understand the way in which I have used the term "democracy."

4. I think your interest in pretending that I either don't understand the words I use or I am trying to fool someone is revealing.

5. I am fully aware that people can be moved by emotion. Pretty much this entire debate is about emotion. We are dealing with unknowns. People either like these proposals, or they do not. This is how nearly all political debate takes place, and it is how every election is decided. People choose.

6. The War in Iraq has nothing to do with this, and I have not revealed my opinions about that matter which is not relevant to this discussion.

7. Your insistence on raising yet another diversion is revealing.

8. Your characterization of my position is ludicrous and inaccurate. I embrace democracy. I believe that the people should be trusted. That I am aware that virtually no voter makes decisions based on dispassionate consideration of all relevant facts does not represent support for Hitler.

9. Your suggestion that my true and accurate description of the realities of elections somehow equates to an endorsement or enthusiasm for Hitler is revealing.

10. Your concept of economics, as explained above, is very far removed from all known economic theories. You are either a one-of-a-kind super genius, or someone who does not understand ecomonics.

11. Your willingness to employ silly rhetoric ("move money out of their emptying pockets and into the pockets of the already rich") in place of reasoned discussion is revealing.

12. Your assumption that I think the Rays' proposals will prevail in the election is not true. I may have given that impression, and I wish to correct that. I do not know how the voters will come down on this question. But I am very much in favor of letting the voters decide.

13. Your reliance upon the spin-meister created myth surrounding "Mission Accomplished" is revealing.

14. I have no intention of taking a shot at your patriotism.

15. That you think I would take a shot at your patriotism is revealing.

16. I don't think I opined that nothing is ever settled by voting and that every issue is open for revoting. I have never thought such a thing. If I gave the impression that I did, than I failed. I believe I addressed a specific false argument that pretends that the people of St. Pete have had a city-wide election about these questions.

Someone argued that the "people" of St. Pete have ALREADY decided these questions. I said that they haven't. I pointed out that the citizenry can change their minds. I meant, of course, that they can usually do so, if the Constitution permits. We don't always spell out every word implicit in our assertions.

17. You say that the Council hid their involvement until after the election, implying that the reason for secrecy was to avoid political consequences. You are not the first person to imply this. There is, however, not a single shred of evidence to support your theory, which you offer as fact.

18. Your eagerness to "assume" ill motives upon others is revealing.

19. You assert that I "place such confidence in the ability of the Rays' PR machine to blitz the Electors." Your assertion is baseless and incorrect.

20. Your assertion that I believe these twin redevelopment proposals will happen without voter approval is also baseless and incorrect.

21. I have not really discussed my "respect" for the voters. I have said that I think the voters should decide.

22. Your last paragraph is entirely baseless. It is also silly.

23. Your willingness to employ so much diversion, distortion, obfuscation, and untrue claims is revealing.

[Don Mott]

Rick K@7:25, If what little information the Rays presented is enough for you to form an opinion you scare me. To think there is enough information there to agree to over $450 million in taxpayer subsidies is ludicrous. If there are voters out there that think this way I am no longer amazed at the shape this country is in. Yep, sounds good we don't need no stinkin proof.

[Jon McPhee]

Oh wow, Rick, I am crushed, shamed and abashed by the weight of your heavy words, and Enumerated Paragraphs.

What was it you said earlier?

"My life experience in the United States has taught me that most voters do not have a thorough grasp of the facts about most issues and candidates they are voting on....

"I also have confidence in the citizens of St. Pete."

Confidence that like "most voters," they will go to the polling place without "a thorough grasp of the facts about most issues"?

You say elsewhere that the Big Deal has been under discussion for a whole year, and that it's time to go to a vote. But even the experts assembled by the Times recently say that the detail needed to judge the Deal is just not available. Maybe the Rays have shared that detail with the Council. I doubt it, but that ain't quite the same as letting the electorate know just what it will cost them in terms of trade-offs -- the broader understanding of "opportunity costs," if you will. And other than "yea" or "nay" on the Rays owners' Powerpoint, which along with a deep scarcity of data has some patent misrepresentations in it, there's not much that the electorate has really had a chance to see and debate.

This set of questions is not a binary choice between "dead city" and "vibrant city" -- it's whether to gift half a billion dollars of scarce and shrinking public resources to a few people who, like real actual capitalists, in at least four other MLB markets according to one of the Rays owners' own slides, built their own bloody stadium without public financing.

As you like to say, your general denials and continued smoke-blowing "are revealing." Very revealing.

[Rick K]

Don Mott:

I respect your passion about this, and I think we probably agree more than we disagree. Most of our disagreements thus far seem to be related to my failure to adequately explain myself.

I think by the time November gets here, we will have enough information to make a decision. I further think that if this question makes it onto the ballot and the people of St. Pete have not had enough questions answered, the measure will be defeated.

I do not think, however, that 100 % of the answers to 100 % of the questions needed to be made available last October.

[Rick K]

Jon McPhee:

I bet anything you want that you have never voted in your life with a thourough grasp of all the relevant facts regarding each candidate and issue you voted on.

The "full year" time frame I am referring to is the period which started last November, continuing through this November's election.

The Times' opinion does not sway me in the least. I find the fact that the Times went out and asked four "experts" who the Times admits are generally negative/critical of public stadium deals as reasonable proof of the Times' genetic inability to be balanced.

While I do not read every word in the Times, and I allow for the possibility that I missed it, I have not seen where the Times consulted with any of the top 25 feasibility consultants in this area of specializations, some of whom have a nearly perfect track record.

Were the Times to do this, it would kill the notion that so many anti's cling to - that public investent in sports stadiums never achieve the expected results. The truth is, many, many public investments do pay off.

Again, Jon, you (and the Times) seem far too willing to repeatedly frame this discussion as being ONLY about a new ballpark for the Rays. I am MORE attracted to these proposals because of the redevelopment of the Trop Field site.

Jon, you can say there is not enough data all you want. (At this point, I would agree that I have some questions unanswered, by I expect I will be able to answer them in the next 6 months before we vote). Most who read your posts here suspect that no matter how much information is provided, you will still feel like it is not enough.

I also disagree with your very slanted and utnrue description that the question is "whether to gift half a billion dollars of scarce and shrinking public resources to a few people..."

The question before us is the consideration of twin redevelopment proposals which will result in $1.2 Billion of economic activity concentrated in downtown St. Pete, the addition of thousands of new downtown residents, employers, merchants, and visitors.

And as evidence of your own inability to sift through information that has been provided this far and find the relevant facts, none of those four stadiums were developed without public monies.

Practically every voter supports candidates without knowing everything about the candidate. Ditto for issues.

This is true of voters in general elections, and it is also true of voters within representative bodies of government.

Big deal. People will never know anything. Much of this is unknowable.

In the meantime, we have six months to get more information.

I say, bring it on!

[Jon McPhee]

HEY, I have to work VERY hard to cram all of my misinformed opinions, incorrect assumptions, paranoid delusions and just plain silliness into each and everyone of my circular, windbag posts!

[paul]

As I've stated before, all financing aside for a moment... do we really want to add something so incredibly large, and in my opinion, completely out of character with our waterfront, as the proposed stadium?

I keep asking myself, why doesn't the mock up drawing look like a real stadium with the flashing lights, signs, and advertisements on it? Stadiums are trade shows on steroids.
I understand if they wanted to use genuine corporate logo's on the mockup drawing, that they may need to get permission from the various logo owners. But my gut tells me a mockup with advertising in place, would look butt ugly and no one would like the pretty drawing if it had advertisements all over it.

Here's the only single mockup I've seen that provides a 'what if' on the naming rights:

http://www.stpetepoww.com/long-john-stadium.jpg

There should be at least a handful of 'what if' pictures of what the stadium may look like with corporate sponsorship attached to it. I cringe at the thought of our waterfront becoming a giant billboard for corporations.

That is not what our waterfront should be. Because, the next project to use waterfront for commercial purposes will always have 'well, don't worry its not as ugly as that stadium thing you already have, so what's just one more little commercial project? as part of its proposed justification.

Save our waterfront from this madness.

[Rick K]

Paul:

With all due respect, I do not think your false scenarios and silly mock-ups add much to this discussion.

First, your negative scenario hypothetical. Second, it is unlikely. Third, if you support the stadium but want to make sure the "brand" signage is not very visible, then you should be advocating for that to be included in the negotiations, instead of pretending that this is the key aspect of the proposal that disturbs you.

Truth is, you don't support the stadium, and you are grabbing at straws, instead of sticking to the reasons you don't like these projects. I am not sure why you are employing this diversionary tactic.

If you prefer having a ridiculously under utilized block of land adjacent to the waterfront, and having 80 acres of ridiculously underutilized land at the current Trop site, to the vibrant growth these twin redevelopment projects will bring to downtown, then you should just say so.

But please stop asking us to consider ridiculous unlikely scenarios that really have nothing whatever to do with whether or not our city and region will be better off with a redeveloped Trop field site and a conversion (of the ugly Parking Lot and Minor League baseball offices across the street from tall skyscrapers) of the existing Progress Energy Park site, just say so.

Because of this debate, I spent all day Thursday downtown. I drove and I walked quite a bit. I walked all over the USF campus. I visited the airport. I went to the Coast Guard station. I hung out at the Poynter property and the Dali, and the Hilton.

I approached the Al Lang site from every direction, including looking at it from Demens landing, Vinoy Park, USF's campus, and all the homes along 1st Street that will have a direct view of the stadium.

This tour convinced me that no one will have a disturbing view from their residence. Compared to the structures on the West side of 1st Street, the stadium will not seem huge or out of scale. Instead, it will present an attractive gradual down scale from the high rises to the water.

The truth is, I was attracted to these proposals first because of the potential to develop the Trop site. While I admired the design of the new stadium and thought it would be an improvement for the Rays, that wasn't the most appealing part of the plan to me. Now that I have put my boots on the pavement and looked at the various footprints and shadows the stadium will present downtown, I find the new proposal to be far, far better than what is currently on those properties.

I still have questions about financing and environmental clean up and the actual mixed use at the Trop site.

Which is why I say let's keep getting information, and let's put this thing to a vote in November.

I find the suggestion that this new stadium will destroy the "waterfront" nature of downtown to be extremely removed from reality.

[Chuck]

Jon McPhee -

Tell me right now you're not a Socialist. Be sure to tell the truth.

Trying to deny people the right to vote. What a joke.

[Chuck]

Last night I had a dream about the parking issues surrounding the development of a new stadium on the waterfront.

How much do you think it would cost to pave over Straub park? You know, build a Disney World style parking lot complete with RV parking and concrete campsites. I can't think of a single negative.

[Paul]

Interesting comments, Rick.

I'm delusional? You don't agree that stadiums have lots and lots and lots of advertisements all over them? Hmmm, ok.

You don't think we should see a couple of images that show what a stadium in full operational mode could look like? hmmm, ok.

I have many, many reasons for opposing this stadium, this is just one, the potential for downtown becoming a bastardized blinking zombie.

Here's a few people who will be impacted, that you may or may not have considered in your walk around: the future tenants of Signature Place, which is by the way, a gorgeous building that will have its views obstructed with corporate excess. The people who reside at Demen's Landing and the people who visit that park. The hundreds of people who peacefully live and enjoy their live aboard sailboat lives at the Marina. I am so jealous of those folks, but that would turn to sorrow if this boom box stadium goes in.

Anyone who lives in a high rise condo facing the stadium is going to be out of luck on keeping their windows open or shades open during the steroid enhanced trade show planned for our waterfront (all pun intended on that one).

You are aware that the waterfront was once cluttered with buildings, shacks, and even a pumping station back in the 1920's, right? Well, that was all cleared out, by some private people I believe, and given to the City so all people could enjoy the waterfront.

Yeah, yeah, I know, there's a ballpark there now... and the key words are 'ball park'... what is being proposed is 'mega uber massive trade show MLB stadium'. There is a difference.

Your turn.

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, Aaron -- I thought you were going to monitor and eliminate false posts like the one at 10:18.

Hey, Chuck and Rick, if you don't like my posts, you can do the First Amendment democratic thing and just ignore them. Now we have Chuck calling me a "Socialist." Other than a convenient label to try to generate some hate, what does that mean to you? The Rays deal is one form of socialism, corporate-welfare socialism, using taxpayer money to subisidize already profitable private industry.

As to the stadiums built or not built with public funds, I just reported what's in one of the slides the Rays are using to Powerpoint their way to their expected payday. There are lots of distortions and misrepresentations coming from the Rays owners -- but do stadium proponents get to pick and choose which ones they want to call?

And once again, we do have the example of that other City By The Bay where it appears that only private funds went into the stadium where the Giants now play (once again, except for some transportation infrastructure.)

Chuck, I don't "deny people the right to vote." Can we remember that the only vote that's coming up soon is the possible referendum on Al Lang, which the Council may or may not schedule for November? Or that the Council hid the ball like a kid in a sandlot pickup game, dealing with the Rays but not letting on until after the Council elections? Or that they reneged on a promise to park-erize Al Lang, apparently knowing that the Big Sail was in the wind?

Hey, dudes, the voters deserve a right to vote, but other than maybe getting to voice up or down on Al Lang, this deal is being done behind the curtains, with just little whiffs of cigar smoke curling out every so often to let us know things are still moving and shaking.

Come on, Chuck and Rick, you guys should be able to throw with a little more stuff behind the ball. There's a whole book of epithets out there -- Commie Pinko Hippie Traitor Liberal Humanist Leftist Anti-Family-Values Elitist, there's just a few -- go look up Newt Gingrich's list if you haven't done so already. The cite was in one of my earlier posts.

Once again, like the lawyers say, "Facts against you? Argue the law. Law against you? Argue the facts. Both against you? Attack the family values of the opposition."

This debate should not be about personalities, other than maybe recognizing the personalities and predilections of the Dealers, private and public. There is no tidal force of history that compels all of us in Pinellas to mortgage ourselves to subsidize the Rays (on the very off chance that "the deal might pay for itself." That's just another version of the scams that pop up trying to sell perpetual motion machines and 300-mile-per-gallon carburetors. Private business has built stadiums elsewhere without sucking off the public teat, even when the general economy was a lot more go-go than it is now and tax monies were just sloshing around, and bond borrowing was cheaper.

[Chuck]

"There's a whole book of epithets out there -- Commie Pinko Hippie Traitor Liberal Humanist Leftist Anti-Family-Values Elitist, there's just a few "

Those all fit you just fine.

Sit in your tower and continue to write novels about the injustices of man in this city.

Who cares if things were done behind closed doors? If the doors were permanently open all of the jobless loons (Jon McPhee, Omali) would be pissing all over any discussion before rational people could sit down and examine proposals.

I know that the supposed "Good Ol' Boy" network is your blood letting antithesis but maybe you should recognize what kind of condition the city would be in if the hemp weavers made all of the decisions.

[K]

Lots of frightening comments, particularly those that say they recognized voters are wooed and then in the next breath, claim that most voters are educated enough on this subject to make the right decision in the Fall. If you think that the Rays have provided enough information about the financing, you are a fool. Look at the link provided by a non-Times employed person in these comments and print it out. Read it. Point out to me where there will be "no new taxes" as claimed by the Rays but yet they propose extending a tax that will sunset. Is that not in reality a "new tax" as it is already set to go away? Also, upon what do they base their estimates for contributions to the economy of St Pete if this thing goes through? The full presentation is just a glossy, slick sales pitch with no specific details and a lot of claims/promises that cannot be guaranteed nor will they be guaranteed by the Rays. The jobs they claim will materialize ... most of them are temporary construction for the stadium and potentially the trop property, which will dry up as soon as those things are done. If the economic stimulus does not happen as magically predicted by the Rays, are they going to live up to the promise by offering jobs at the stadium or spending money in our community?

What is going to happen if the new stadium is built and they aren't generating the revenue they say they will with parking? What is going to happen when their attendance remains the same as it is now? Will they then ask to renegotiate the deal so they can afford it, while any regular citizen in St Pete does not have the ability nor the leverage to get assistance with their property taxes, insurance payments or mortgage payments? Of course they will ... this is big business and these guys are a bunch out of towners!

While the presidential election scares the living **** out of me, this proposed referendum scares me even more, particularly with bone-headed sports fanatics lining up to blindly support this crazy plan.

[K]

P.S. - my hubby is one of those bone-headed sports fanatics, darn it!

[Ray F]

Of course it's a sales presentation. Everything in life comes to a sales presentation-

Trying to sell your home? -add a roof or new paint

Want to get a job? -make yourself seem better than the other applicants

Want your girlfriend to marry you? -sell her on why she should stop playing the field

Want to sell your widget? -prepare a sales presentation that keeps people from buying someone else's widget

Wake up people. You're getting sold something everytime you make a decision. Sales is older than the bible. Deal with it. They sold me. I will vote yes when given the chance.

[Ray F]

Oh and by the way...I have a bridge to sell you.

[Lamont]

Ray F and Rick K must work for the Rays.

[Ray F]

I'm sorry Lamont; I don't work for the Rays. I just support my team and my City. As a matter of fact, I'm wearing a Rays polo shirt to work today to support the fact that I stayed up till 2:08am watching my team win. Why make pointless jabs like that?

I think this deal is great for St Pete and the Rays. My only opposition to it, would be for the Rays to agree to change their name to the St Petersburg Rays. Tampa wants nothing to do with the Rays. They're too busy bottom feeding off the Steinbrenners leftovers.

[Thomas]

In my opinion, these items should be addressed completely prior to including this proposal on any ballot:

=====================================

1- FINANCING PLAN

- Correct the public/private contributions to accurately reflect that the Rays commit $150M to the project and the other $300M comes from public, either via taxes or the proceeds of selling public property.

- Clarify if the Rays $150M is a contribution to construction or just an upfront lump sum rent payment.

- Clarify the Parking Revenue contribution.

- Validate the claims of public benefit. Start with the Sales Tax estimate of $104M over the next 35 years.

That would require $3M per year in sales taxes to meet that estimate.

Are they basing their estimate off of the full sales tax rate - including the state portion - or are they estimating based on only the city sales tax amount?

Assuming they erroneously estimated off the full sales tax rate and not just the city sales tax, it would still require over $42M in sales per year.

Of that $42M in sales activity, how much is actually new money as opposed to displaced sales taxes that would have been collect from other local retail outlets anyway (substitution effect).

- Will the Rays or the developers guarantee these estimates or are they just fabricated for PR purposes.

======================================

2- LEASE TERM SHEET

- What will the rent amount be? (Assuming the Rays "contribution" is not just the sum of their rent)

- How will naming rights and advertising revenues be distributed?

- Will suite sales and premium seating revenues be shared with the city?

- Are revenues from non-baseball events still collected by the team?

=======================================

3- OMISSIONS

- The Al Lang site is also a publicly owned parcel. It is a premium waterfront location. Why is it just being given away for free?

- If the Al Lang site is redeveloped for a Rays stadium, will the Rays pay property taxes - or will it be a "city/county owned facility" to avoid them?

- What are the public costs associated with servicing a redevelopment of the Trop (new obligations for Police, Fire, Schools, et al.)?

=====================================

These are the types of hard questions that the Rays should be required to answer if they are to get this "plan" onto the ballot.

They certainly are not addressed in that PowerPoint presentation the team tried to play off as the "finance details"

I think you can support your team without pledging your allegiance to a bad financial plan

[Thousands of little RED Signs]

What will the Rays ask for next should be on everyone's mind?

Another new stadium in twenty years?

Knock down the PIER and build a new island baseball stadium?

Maybe a new high rise office tower for the TEAM offices and PLAYERS hotel?

What next?

I am sure the citizens won't mind paying for Sternburg and Silverman to have all of the best in this world.

[Rick K]

To Thousands (representing roughly 2% of the electorate):

Your attempt to spread fear about a possible boogie man coming to visit horror upon the city 20 years from now will not persaude many sane adults considering these paired redevelopment proposals in 2008.