Shelton on the Rays: Lead in standings, trail in attendance

ST. PETERSBURG — School isn’t out in Milwaukee, either.

Gas prices are up in Kansas City, too.

Also, there are a lot of other things to do in San Diego.

Things are tough all over. The economy is rotten in Minnesota, and the sun is hot in Texas and the ballpark in Denver is a long way from a lot of people’s homes.

Still, customers seem to find their way to the baseball park.

Just not here.

At the ghost town known as Tropicana Field, the Rays won another baseball game Wednesday afternoon. As you might have heard, they have turned into quite the national story by now. Once again, there weren’t a lot of fans there (10,927) to witness it. That, too, has garnered the nation’s attention.

No one is laughing at the Rays anymore. Just at their market. More and more, that is the new impression of Tampa Bay baseball. It is a place where the team is playing out of sight, largely because no one is in the stadium to see it. Baseball hasn’t seen a team this interesting in years, and around here, no one seems interested.

And by now, the most important question of all seems fairly obvious.

Is this market ever going to be interested?

For a decade, it has been hard to blame someone for not following this team. There were too many last-place finishes, too many bad athletes, too much lost hope. For most of their intertwined history, the fans and the franchise seemed to take turns letting each other down.

At 32-21, however, shouldn’t there be a bandwagon?

And if so, shouldn’t a few more seats be occupied?

The Rays are in first place for the 16th day this season, more than in all such days of their history combined, and few people seem to care. They have won nine of their last 11 series, and no one seems to have noticed. They have young, likable players, none of them named Ben Grieve or Wilson Alvarez, and still, no one is scalping tickets.

And if not now, then when?

Privately, when they are deep in their offices and no one is listening, the Rays’ front office has to be troubled by the bad crowds. So far, they have operated with the belief that if the team got better, the crowd would follow along. But what if it doesn’t?

Does the question change from “How do we get a new stadium?” to “Why do we want a new stadium?”

And by the way, how does Stuart Sternberg get his hands on one of those red signs?

Let’s agree on this: A new stadium wouldn’t be a cure-all for the Rays. If the 30 home dates of this season tell you nothing else, it is that the franchise is taking a risk, too. If first place won’t guarantee fans, a new place won’t, either.

Consider this: The Rays have begun each of their last three games in first place. They are fresh off the cover of Sports Illustrated. ESPN cannot get enough. From a distance, even Cubs manager Lou Piniella is urging his old neighbors to get to the park.

And, still, they drew 33,612 fans for their three-game series against the Rangers. By comparison, five teams drew more than that on Tuesday night alone.

On Sunday, the Rays had the second smallest gate in baseball. On Monday, they had the smallest. On Tuesday, they had the smallest. You could put a ballpark in Chernobyl, and it would draw more fans.

Except for the Marlins and Pirates, everyone does.

So far, the Rays are averaging 2,782 more fans per game than after 30 home dates last year. However, they are still more than 10,000 fans below the league average.

There are those who would argue that the fans need more time, that attendance is a lagging trend when it comes to victories. And there may be something to that. Two months isn’t a lot of time to erase 10 years worth of scars.

Go back to 1991, when the Atlanta Braves had seven straight losing seasons. Despite a surprisingly good start, the  Braves averaged only 19,580 fans through June 16. Out of their first 25 home dates, 15 of them drew fewer than 15,000 fans. (The Rays, who average 17,938 fans, have had 13 dates with 15,000 or fewer, three of them in Orlando.)

After that, however, Atlanta’s fans became wrapped up in the success, too. They averaged 29,477 fans the rest of the season and finished with more than 2.1-million.

Want another example? In 2006, Detroit had had 12 straight losing seasons. It had crowds of fewer than 20,000 in nine of its first 15 dates. After the fans became interested, they finished with 2.5-million.
When Rays’ manager Joe Maddon was a bench coach with the Angels, he and manager Mike Scioscia used to gaze at the empty seats and wonder why the team didn’t sell them cheap, just to get people in the stadium. Eventually, the crowds came. Eventually, he says, they will come here, too.

At this point, however, believing in the market is about hope and faith. There isn’t enough evidence to be sure. Remember, after 20 seasons of waiting for baseball, this franchise didn’t sell out the second game of its history.

Meanwhile the team is playing well. And therein lies a lesson.

Turns out, it is lonely at the top.

At the Trop, too.

Comments

[Ron]

So let's spend a half-billion dollars on a ballpark that's less accessible, with no protection from lightning, and with little to no on-site parking. I predict the attendence will actually decline, once the novelty wears off, which will be after the 1st few games. If the Rays want people in the seats, then they need to cater to all the residents of the combined Tampa Bay market by building a similar, spectacular ballpark somewhere people will actually get off their lazy butts and drive to, since we have no mass-transit. It's quite obvious people from Tampa and beyond are not coming to St. Pete for Rays games, with the exception of a few die-hards. That's not going to change by making the fans and potential new fans work even harder to see a game.

[Rick K]

Ron, you really aren't paying attention. You are wrong in your assertions about lightning protection. You are wrong about parking.

Your baseless prediction about attendance declines, notwithstanding, we do have some recent local history to examine as we seek to find clues as to what is likely to happen with Rays attendance. And what we can see from this history tells us that the Rays, like the Bucs and Lightning before them, have already done the things that will lead to greatly increased attendance in the coming years. In all probability, They have already turned that corner.

It will not be harder "work" to see a game. There is not a single person who would come to Rays games who would be more likely to stay home if the games are a few blocks away in a better, more exciting stadium, in which a better, more exciting team plays games.

In short, sir, your contention is absurd.

[Ron]

Rick K, contrary to your ego, I could care less about your opinion on my posting. The remaining 30,000 fans that are not at the Trop watching their first place team proves my point is true. You see a "destination", I get it. The rest of us see a "hassle".

And calling my opinion absurd only proves the lack of dignity and character you posess.

[Lakeland Guy]

This was posted by RATW on draysbay.com

Average attendance for midweek games vs. Rangers:

2005: 8,807 (April)
2006: 7,221 (May)
2006 (Part 2): 8,750 (August)
2007: (moved to Orlando – May): 8,972
2008: 11,204 (May)

By my calculations, the Rays averaged over 25% better average attendance against the Rangers than in any other home Rangers series in the last three years.

*attendance numbers obtained from retrosheet.org

[Ray F]

Ron,

Clear this up for me- Are you for a new stadium in the Toytown/Gandy area? Just not on the waterfront?

And do you like baseball?

[NO NEW STADIUM]

"Rick K, smothering the the debate since 2008"!!!

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/details.aspx?MemberId=4393

[Chuck]

Ron wants to abolish all organized athletics. The only thing that Ron "likes" is being president of his condo association.

[Ray F]

ha.

No chuck, I just want to know those answers because it seems he is a baseball fan and would go to more games if there was a new stadium, but just not a new stadium on the waterfront. Which would make him, in my opinion, about 75% an ally.

[Ron]

To Ray F

Yes I like baseball. I go to a few games a year. I buy my kids Rays jerseys, and we have a blast when we go to games.

I think the Trop is not the place for baseball. I like outdoor ballparks, but I think if the Rays want to sell out games, they need a location that's more central for everyone to get to. I live in Crystal Beach, and driving to St. Pete in rush hour to make a 7pm game can be brutal. I'd go to a lot more games if the park was a little easier to get to. As for Toytown, that's worth looking into, it sure is easier to reach for me. I'm not dead-set on any paticular location though.

[Ray F]

OK Ron,

That's fair. Crystal Beach isn't too far, but I see your point. Alt19 at 5:30 is no picnic. Maybe a trolley system (paid for by the Rays) to reach satellite areas running every 15 minutes on game days free to season ticket holders and 3 dollars per person otherwise would solve that.

I'm for the new park. I think it would be great to have it downtown (being a St Pete resident), but if we have to comprimise, Toytown is acceptable because the team belongs in St Pete or not in Florida at all.

Tampa didn't fight for a team, they're happy with having the Stankees for 8 weeks a year that's fine and the Tampa Rays' fans should understand that Steinbrenner would never allow MLB to put a team in Tampa and ruin his cash cow.

[Ron]

I agree with you Ray. Tampa is not the answer. Steinbrenner will have none of that. The trolley is a thought, but I also know most people in this market are married to their cars. And it's going to be very hard to change that mindset. If people around here aren't even for building some sort of mass-transit as an alternative for their commute to work, I doubt they'll utilize it for baseball.

I also know St. Pete residents are very passionate about wanting this on the water. I only speak for myself, but more people live outside of St. Pete in this county than do within the city limits. If even half of them are as lazy as me, you're never going to get the attendence they need to make this a success, again, in my opinion.

[Marty]

Hey Aaron, you can tell Gary Shelton for me that before he writes an article he should try to be a little un-biased and do his homework, read his own papers' business section, and financial news in USA Today. He suggests that all of the countries MLB cities have bad economy. This is not true. Unemployment rates is not the only indicator of such. Unemployment rate is only the rate that the government knows of people out of work. There could be many others who's unemployment checks ran out or other. And to compare other MLB cities, I would think you should check out the average disposable income per household of that area. You might be surprised that, Pinellas County is one of the lowest if not thee lowest average pay per household of all MLB. Then figure in all the retirees in the County, how much disposable income do you think they have? All I'm saying is you can't compare apples to apples, like Texas Rangers(Dallas) to Rays(Pinellas County). There is a big difference in the economies and disposable incomes. Thus, this could be why we don't see and shouldn't expect to see a big increase in attendance.

[Thomas]

The regular boosters that post here favoring the stadium have officially gone off the deep end...

"Maybe a trolley system (paid for by the Rays)"

The Rays aren't willing to pony up anything other than some lump sum rent payments but you think they're going to foot the bill for an entire trolly system.

Ok, I've seen it all know.

[Ray F]

Hey Thomas,

It's called a suggestion to help fans who don't want to drive themselves to the stadium. I'm not suggesting this will actually happen. It's called deducing where a problem is and offering solutions to eliminate all the variables keeping someone from doing something.

If you come in to my widget store to browse, but you know you want a widget, I will be glad to sell you one.

If you have objections (lets say 3 of them), I will try and over come them.

Objection 1- You say- I can't get it now because I don't have enough money.
I say, OK sir, how about our laywaway program and you can lock in today's price and pay for it when you get the chance.

You Say- I can't buy your product because I need to talk to my wife first. I say- OK sir, here's my phone, let me get you a cold bottle of water.

You say- I don't know if the widget will fit in my space. I say- That's fine, we'll set you up with the largest one you can afford and we'll be happy to exchange it with a full refund of the difference and even pick it up from your house for the inconvenience.

It's simple. I could care less if they went to each person's house and gave them a piggy back ride to the game. If someone's problem is not feeling like driving to a game, I will offer a suggestion on a solution to that problem. I don't work for the Rays, but I'm sure they have a person dedicated to figuring out solutions to people's problems with getting to the park.

[Rick K]

Thomas is masquerading as an idiot.

This is the most ludicrous statement made so far in these spaces
"The Rays aren't willing to pony up anything other than some lump sum rent payments"

That claim, made by Thomas, proves how far removed from reality and fact this dude is.

No intelligent person looks at the economics of this proposal and comes to that conclusion.

[David]

Rick K you are the idiot, and everyone knows it. You prove it every time you bash someone's view.

[Ray F]

so David...

For or against?

[Rick K]

David:

Keep saying that.

Someone says, "The sky is filled with cats and dogs."

I tell them their claim is baseless and not supported by any facts whatsover. I challenge the claimaint to prove their assertion.

You say that makes me an idiot.

That's fine David. I am not intimidated or scared by your tactics.

Neither is anyone else, really.

[Freedom Man]

Those who call Rick K an idiot are, as he said over reaching. Rick K knows that Thomas is not an idiot. He knows that it is not idiotic to present false propaganda disguised as truth. I wonder what these blogs would look like without Leroy, Ray, Gary, and Rick. 1979 Moscow, perhaps.

[Thomas]

"I'm sure they have a person dedicated to figuring out solutions to people's problems with getting to the park"

If they can get attendance over 10,000 - maybe they'll dedicate another person!

There's no use in debating with Rick. He's already been exposed anyway. Everything we needed to know about him was displayed on the "I went for a walk..." thread.

[(A Different) Ron]

Rick K, Please explain how the lump sum rent payment statement is incorrect. They have pledged $150 million towards construction. It was the Rays that said this represented 15 years rent @ $10 million per year. Since there is no lease agreement yet to verify this, we have to take them at their word. So all they are really pledging is their $150 million in rent payments up front, plus a verbal committment to pay for cost overruns if they manage the construction.

[Ray F]

Thomas,

I miss that thread. anyway...

In any business an 18% increase in business from a year ago, is good. That is what is being reported as the jump in the Rays' case if I recall last year was a 20% jump.

The fans are coming around, see it or not. It takes some time for the wounds caused by Vince Naimoli to heel. Even with the worst record in baseball last year, the Rays jumped 20%.

Some times, it's more than w's that are needed to boost attendance and a new ballpark would spark that while ensuring St Pete's enshrinement in MLB for decades to come. It's worth the tourist tax to be able to be on vacation in a town and say "yeah I live there; in the town with the stadium with the sail."

[Thomas]

Ray, relax.

I was just having some fun. It was a cheap shot on the Rays attendance.

I can respect your opinion, but answer this:

How would building a new stadium "ensure St Pete's enshrinement in MLB for decades"?

I'm very curious to know what you're basing that on.

Because I'm looking at a Trop lease that is just 10 years old and is valid through 2027. Didn't that already "ensure enshrinement in MLB for decades to come"?

Are you saying that THIS time the team would be committed to the entire lease term? Are you saying that the team is not committed to the lease they already signed?

Please clarify what you mean by that...

--------------------------------------

I wont even bother to ask you to verify your notion that "new ballparks would spark attendance". I'll just let the numbers in Washington DC, Pittsburugh, Cincinnati, or Detroit disprove that idea.

[Ray F]

Y'all ought to hurry on over to Myspace and add Rick as a friend!

http://www.myspace.com/StorageGump

[What are you smoking]

Um. Excuse me.

An important question.

Thomas, is your position that there are no facts at all that would support this proposal?

[Ray F]

I didn't post that.

[Ray F]

No, I did.

[Ray F]

Thomas,

I said "spark" attendance and, and honestly being 27/28 out of 30- the only way is up so I'm going on the law of probability.

And i heard from someone or another that they would sign a lease through 2047 on a new ballpark.

I've said before that if this ownership group had any say in how Tropicana field was built, they would be out of line in requesting a new field. However, this ownership group has done nothing but show, in my opinion, a genuine commitment to providing the best fan experience possible with the hand they were dealt. and I know it's a business and it's about making as much money while spending as little as possible, but I believe that St Pete would not be as good a place without baseball and I believe that the Rays would use the negativity towards the team as leverage to move and not necessarily a denial for a new stadium.

That's how I based my opinion.

[Ray F]

hahahaha mature. probably some largo resident.

[Thomas]

"Thomas, is your position that there are no facts at all that would support this proposal?"

Support is kind of a relative term. There are people that support/oppose this proposal that haven't even looked at it - But I think I understand what you're trying to ask.

My position is: The details of the plan that have been published make it impossible for any objective person to support it.

The public contribution ratio/risk/return are completely absurd.

[Thomas]

Ray:

"I believe that St Pete would not be as good a place without baseball "

I agree completely.

" with the hand they were dealt"

This I would have issues with. They weren't "dealt" anything. They purchased the team knowing the exact condition of the Trop and the conditions of the lease.

And that takes me back to the beginning.

The team already has a lease through 2027, yet you're speculating (and you're not alone) that the team will break that lease and leave if they don't get a new stadium.

Then you turn around and promote a lease through "2047" as a positive. How can you trust or promote a new longer lease in the face of saying that the existing lease won't be honored?

[Still Laughing]

Before the dump,thunderdome,tropicana field was built the citizens did not want it or baseball. Shady politicians and local big business including the times shoved it down the throats of the tax payers. Investigate the history of it. There was illegality right through the locking up of recall petitions of the then city council and mayor. Baseball is a dying sport notice all the smaller stadiums? So what has changed? Crooked politicians and local big business and tne "Non profit" (wink wink) Major league baseball are doing a redux on the tax payers of Piinellas County. Baseball was a great sport in the 1920's. Now it is crybaby millionairs stiffing one city after another.

[Still Laughing at Still Laughing]

Still Laughing, I like how you lump all local big business with Shady politicians, forcing baseball on St. Petersburg.

The only reason Big Business supports anything is because they think there will be a benefit to them financially and will help them with recruiting new employees.

Downtown could use a lot more "big business" and the jobs it brings. One good idea for you, maybe we should kick every company over 20 people out of town because they must have a conspiracy with someone.

OOOH NOOO watch out for Progress energy and Raymond James they are coming for you.

[Ray F]

Thomas,

I think the team will move if they don't get a new stadium. That's the bottom line.

If you signed a lease on a 3 bedroom apartment and your kids moved off to college during your lease term and stated to your complex that you loved the area, but you need to find a 1 bedroom and they wouldn't accomodate, you would move to a different complex.

Now, I feel, St Pete has bargaining power and those that are opposed should not be as willing to condemn the team for asking for something that they feel they want. Those that are opposed should at least be open to discussion. I believe it belongs on this years ballot because voter turnout would be 10 times higher because of the presidential election and it would fairly represent a larger percentage of the city.

The council needs to approve it on June 5th and already be preparing a counter offer. After that, the ball goes back to the Rays court where they offer something in the middle and a compromise is reached.

[Thomas]

So you're saying the Trop lease that runs through 2027 is not worth the paper it's printed on.

But then you say that a new stadium and a new lease would be honored by the team, even though the last one wasn't.

You do see the failure in logic there right?

(Also that was a pretty terrible 'apartment' analogy. The Rays situation is nothing like that)

----------------------------

I don't believe this proposal belongs on the ballot until the Rays provide all the details.

As of now, we're missing an explanation of the "parking contribution" and we're missing the lease term sheet for the new stadium.

If the Rays cannot deliver these simple components, then the city council should reject their proposal.

The Rays have a civic responsibility to disclose this information. If they are unwilling or unable to provide the details, the city council should tell them to come back when they have the info ... THEN we can all vote, with all the information available.

You don't put half baked plans on the ballot and say "oh, well, don't worry - they're going to fill in the details between now and the election".

You act like a leader and say "if the Rays want this plan on the ballot, then they need to come to the table with all the information up front and in the open."

Until they do, there should be no consideration of making this a referendum.

[Ray F]

You see where I was going with that analogy. Regardless...

I think with regards to the current lease, the Rays are getting a lot of heat from the wrong direction because people who live in the city they play in are telling them to pack sand for asking for a new stadium. I would leave town as fast as I could if I was treated like that publicly even by a select few (they dropped the 'Devil' from the name because of a handful of bible nuts). It would tell me to keep the seats clean and keep the doors open for those who want to come in and stop giving to community charities, stop any type of free parking, stop allowing people to bring in their own food and drinks and pack my bags. Once I found a suiter, I would use the $150 million I was willing to pay up front towards buying out the lease and skip town.

Anybody would. That's why I say we give the Rays the benefit of the doubt and give them up until the Aug. 7th deadline to present the completed plan. They need 3 yes' to get on the ballot and only one no to stay off. I think it would be unfair by the council to not give them until Aug 7th. Then council says... "ok people, here's what we got; you vote".

You can't blame the team for wanting a state of the art facility. And if they don't win a popularity of the vote for it, you can't blame them for feeling that they have overstayed their welcome and want to leave.

This is the only professional sports team that St Pete will ever be able to call their own and we are going to allow it to leave??? Sad. We will remain the little sister to Tampa. Play second fiddle again. Become an answer to a trivia question. And then we will still have to tackle the Trop cleanup. We'll look like a bunch of mobile home park residents cleaning up after a tornado. But at least we'll have the Pier dropping $1.5 million a year and a defunct airport on our 'untouchable' waterfront.

[Thomas]

Ray,

Once again, you are putting a direct contradiction into your support:

"And then we will still have to tackle the Trop cleanup. We'll look like a bunch of mobile home park residents cleaning up after a tornado"

So, if we tackle the Trop cleanup/redevelopment without the benefits going to the Rays, then we look like a bunch of mobile home park residents.

But, if we tackle the Trop cleanup/redevelopment and then use the benefits to build a stadium for the Rays, then we look brilliant?

In your estimation, the Trop clean-up/redevelopment is a variable that depends on if the outcome benefits the Rays?

--------------------

"I would leave town as fast as I could if I was treated like that publicly"

Except you have this binding lease that doesn't expire until 2027.

I'll be watching the outcome of the Seattle SuperSonics v City of Seattle case very closely. Could be a good precedent for "specific performance" of sports leases.

----------------------

"That's why I say we give the Rays the benefit of the doubt and give them up until the Aug. 7th deadline to present the completed plan."

That's fair. I agree with that.

---------------------

"And if they don't win a popularity of the vote for it, you can't blame them for feeling that they have overstayed their welcome and want to leave."

Actually I can blame them. I can blame them for offering a lopsided financing plan with no real risk abatement or meaningful return on the investment. And if this is the only plan they offer and then say "well you had you're chance" than you should blame them too.

----------------------------------

" We will remain the little sister to Tampa. "

I do not have an inferiority complex and therefore, I completely disagree.

[T]

If we can't fill ANY stadium with the best team in baseball, we don't deserve to keep it. We as in ALL of Tampa Bay. I drive over and sit in 1 hour of traffic to see the Bucs, so it seems logical that Tampa residents would drive less (since the Trop is easier to access than Dale Mabry). If they aren't coming, and we aren't coming, then the team will end up in Charlotte. Given the recent success, it will be packed every night there. Sad, but true

[Ted]

I like the idea of the Carolina Rays!

[gary grooms]

Saying the Ray's don't want to honor their lease is not really accurate.

Like any lease, there is an early termination clause. They can buy out the lease at any time. It gets less expensive every year to do so.

If I lease a car for 36 months I can turn the car in any time as long as I make the remaining payments.

The Rays have never indicated they would leave town at all much less try and shirk their financial commitment to the Trop.

They don't own the Trop - they are just renters. They won't own the waterfront stadium either. They will just be renters who paid a third of the construction costs upfront. Additionally, they have said they would be paying annual rent to the City. I think they pay $1 million a year at the Trop. It has not been negotiated yet but I would think they would be paying at least that much at the new stadium.

I'm not sure if everyone has had a chance to look at the waterfront area where they are proposing to extend the seawall to accommodate the rerouting of Bayshore. I just took some photos - like an hour ago and posted them here:

http://s281.photobucket.com/albums/kk204/garygrooms/

[Ted]

Thanks gary for marking out to corporate america. Instead of using our tax dollars to assist a baseball business, why don't people just write a check and send it to to the Rays. Then city and county governments can lower taxes since there will be no need to supplement building cost. Problem solved! Go Carolina Rays!!!

[Ray F]

So Gary,

Where are the manatees that are supposed to be devastated?

I didn't see any frollicking dolphins either. All I saw was water that I would get a tetanus shot after I swam in it.

This can't be the pristine natural estuary that POWW is shoving down our throats.

[Sean]

You have binding lease that you can buy out of for a little more than half of what you are willing to pay right now for a stadium. Then some other city will pay for a stadium with all of public funds. So tell me how that benifits the city of St. Petersburg?

The rays are money grubbing carpet baggers. The give us free parking and allow us to bring our own food into the stadium just so they can make that bread.

[mrclean]

I was walking by the Trop this afternoon to pace the distance to the new stadium when I ran into Michael and Stu who were walking across the street to Fergs. So I yelled out "Hey! Stu! ... How's it hangin'?" He waved me over and said, "How does the 'Carolina Trojans' sound?" and I said "Groovy Dude!" So there you have it.

[Leroy Jenkins]

Gary-
I didn't see anyone hanging out by the water. Where were all the people looking at the beautiful waterfront? I didn't see hamilton hansen!

[Thomas]

Not to burst your instigating bubble, but Charlotte is maxed out on funds thanks to the Bobcats arena and their wonderful owner Bob Johnson.

So unless Stu is going to pay for the stadium himself, he wont be moving to Carolina. They don't have any money to give him.

Nice try though - keep trollin'

[gary grooms]

That particular piece of the waterfront is about a 2 minute walk from my front door. Sometimes I go over to Albert Whitted Park to do my workout - I have never once had to share one square foot of the grass at that park with another human being.

It seems that some people would be happy to wave goodbye to the Rays. At least they are consistent in their beliefs that MLB doesn't do anything positive for the local economy.

What I don't understand is how some people want us to do nothing for our MLB team - but are outraged that they might find greener pastures somewhere else.

I think Hamilton may have jumped into that perfect pristine waterfront and was eaten by a mutant manatee :)

[gary grooms]

In case anyone on this thread missed it I'm still interested in seeing if anyone has some type of intelligent response to my questions.

How is it possible that the stadium opposition knows more about everything than the people who actually work in these various fields of expertise? (i.e. parking, economics, climate conditions, restaurants etc.)

For those of you that believe you know better than all these experts – Does the same thing happen to you in your own field of expertise on a regular basis? As an example, if you’re a lawyer do you routinely lose cases in open court to people who choose to represent themselves?

[Chris Jenkins]

Gary, sometimes, you are remarkably even minded. Other times, you border on the ludicrous.

Experts on municipal economics have written over and over that local sports teams represent a zero net sum contribution to the local economy. This is completely denied by the pro stadium contingent here. Experts have written articles cited here about environmental impact, which are completely denied here. Laymen such as myself have mentioned that environmental considerations could cause a substantial impact to the bottom line, which was completely denied here, until an article in THIS VERY PAPER confirmed it, and then it was still denied by local economist wannabe and lonely father of two wonderful teen sons, Rickster K. (P.S. Ladies, The Rickster's single and lookin for love! If you seek a poorly aging, pompous, self righteous, snide, obnoxious gas bag with a misplaced superiority complex and a receding hairline, apply in person via MySpace!).

[Chris Jenkins]

P.S. Yep, that was all ad hominems. But after listening to the crappy attitude over and over, sans substance, after hearing the blanket denials, after serious points are blown away, and after he called me a liar and worse on the Going for a Walk thread, I figure turn about is fair play. Especially after seeing his awesome "Fake Smile" pic.

You may not want to hang out with me, Rickster, but I'll have my eye out for you...you play in my neck of the woods. We'll have that beer yet, whether you know it or not.

[Thomas]

Mr. Jenkins sums it up perfectly.

We're quoting from experts; not insinuating we know more than them.

The pro-stadium message board three man mob just ignores it, denies it, or changes the subject.

[Steve Lange]

To all and in general:

Subject -- Ray's $150,000,000 payment.

If the Rays were to pay rent of $10,000,000 per year for 30 years St. Petersburg would receive $300,000,000 into the "General Fund" which would be used to pay the new stadium insurance, stadium management fees or long term capital improvements for such things as painting the building, replacing the roof, etc. OR actually some of it could go into the general fund to pay for City services, police, fire, etc.

But the City will not receive $300,000,000 in rent over the next thirty years.

By the Rays giving us $150,000,000 in one lump sum payment instead of stadium rent for thirty years "AND" by dictating that it be spent on one third of the cost of the new stadium construction it "DICTATES" to the city how this money (originally intended as rent) is to be spent. It must be spent on the stadium construction for the Rays. It can not go to pay for insurance, building management, building maintenance, general fund, etc.

In other words, not only are the Rays telling the City how this $150,000,000 is to be spent, it is also leaving the City "on the hook" on how to pay for the stadium insurance, building maintenance and building management, etc., for thirty years.

In other words the Rays "NOT" our City is in control of how this money is to be spent and used.

In other words the Rays are dictating to the City that the City will have to come up with the funds "FROM SOMEWHERE" to pay for insurance, maintenance and building management, etc.

In other words the City Budget is going to be shorted millions of dollars. (About $8,000,000 a year by my guess.)

In other words, just with this one divisive dictation of the use of these funds the Rays will wreak havoc for over thirty years on our City budget to the tune of millions of dollars a year.

And just where is the source of City funding for this monetary shortfall?

Only one place to find it.

Your pocket and mine.

And, it will be in the form of either more budget cuts (like the $14,000,000 being cut this year alone) or in the form of new local taxes.

But, but, but: The Rays said there would be no new taxes.

I will repeat this statement.

And the Rays said there would be no new taxes.

This whole stadium deal is a scam.

This whole stadium deal is going to bankrupt this city.

This whole stadium deal is going to enrich the Rays. How?

Three ways.

First, on paper, the Rays franchise will go up in value, 17% on average, once they have been given a new state of the art baseball stadium. But more than likely, it will go up much, much more.

The Rays are currently worth around $270,000,000 as a franchise. 17% of this is approximately $46,000,000.

So the first way the Rays will be enriched is to the tune of $46,000,000 in franchise valuation increase in the very least once they have their new stadium.

Keep track of the dollars as I add them up.

The second way the Rays will be enriched is in the new naming rights.

They stand to make a couple of hundred million dollars in new naming rights.

The third way the Rays will become further enriched will be when they sell the team.

If they get a new stadium and new naming rights then the selling price for the team will go up lending to further enrichment.

By my figures, after building a new stadium, negociating new naming rights and the selling the team they Rays could realize $400-$600,000,000 on top of the current starting franchise value of $270,000,000.

So the grand total is somewhere around $670 to $870,000,000 for the Rays franchise value.

Not bad since they came here with a franchise value of approximately $250,000,000.

And all this in just a few short years.

Quite a profit wouldn't you say?

And it all starts with them giving us half of our rent instead of all of it and then telling us how it is going to be spent.

Pretty slick!

What a scam.

[Don Mott]

You are right Thomas. I have posted 8 to 10 links here to articles written by college economic professors, PhDs and seasoned and experienced economists with case studies dating back 20 years or more. But it was either ignored or called nothing but opinions. Well I have yet to see anything to refute those studies other than opinions from anonymous people behind keyboards who pretend to know all. While they also try to attack me because I own property in Largo let me assure you the sleuth who discovered that didn't discover the property I also own in St. Pete, they didn't discover that my fiancee lives in St. Pete and they didn't discover that my son lives in St. Pete. So to head things off at the pass so to speak I do have an interest in this, thank you.

[Rick K]

OK, so now I know why my MySpace page got a few hundred hits today. What have y'all been doing while I was at the cinema?

Saw then Indiana Jones movie, there is an undercurrent theme about non private investments in infrastructure that the ANTI's will find goes right over their heads.

I came to this thread a few minutes ago, and I learned some things which amused me. Some that surprised me.

First, to Gary. GREAT pics. Seriously. Those pics deflate many of the ANTI arguments (especially about the pristine baywater and manatees). And good job of shooting the ugly surface parking lot (much of which will be replaced with parklands, yielding a net increase in usuable parklands on the waterfront) and the hideously ugly offices of minor league baseball.
Gary, you have asked the single best question in any of these threads. The reason the ANTI's (Like Chris and Thomas) won't give you a reasonable straight answer is because there is no conceiveable way that they are right about everything and the experts in each of those specific fields is wrong. Based on their writings here, I would be willing to bet that these people aren't even right very often in their own particular fields of expertise.

Chris tells you that "Experts on municipal economics have written over and over that local sports teams represent a zero net sum contribution to the local economy"

What he doesn't tell you is that experts have also written the opposite, and both sets of experts cannot be right all the time. What he does not tell you is that the "experts" who claim this often are not experts at all. And all these studies do is parrot the claims made in the other studies. None of them actually present the original research, the allude to it, or mention the conclusions.

(If these ANTI's weren't just interested in cheating this debate, they would try to find the actual studies which make these conclusions, along with the many criticisms of these studies which point out that the studies were fundamentally flawed and cannot be relied upon, such is the fault of the use of scientific analysis to prove causation.)

But we don't get that from Chris and his ilk. Instead we get the same parroted claim that public investment in sports stadia yield net negative economic returns to their communities. They can't point to factual support for this untrue (disproven) claim, so they point us to opinions and tell us the opinions represent the "nearly universal agreement of economists."

The other reason this charade is disingenuous is because it ignores the other (larger) component of these paired redevelopment proposals. If the ANTI's assertion were true, and public investment in a home for the Rays yielded negative economic benefits, then it just might be that these paired redevelopment proposals offer a way out of that hopeless hole.

That particular flaw is fairly obvious.

The ANTI's also ignore two important realities about the existing Trop develpment. First, that it's location was selected largely to remove a large patch of urban blight (what the city and HUD regarded as slums), and that this effort must be separated out from the development costs which are simply related to stadium construction and operation.

The second thing the ANTI's fail to concede is that most of the pro crowd GRANT the point that the promise of development around the Trop never happened as promised, because the TROP's site and design are flawed. These paired redevelopment proposals offer the chance to get it right.

Chris also takes the existence that some have expressed concern that we might encounter insurmountable environmental obstacles and holds that up as a reason, by itself to kill the deal. Most everyone on the PRO side grants the proposition that if environmental problems are identified that are too expensive to repair, we would not be in favor of moving forward.

That is the position all reasonable people share.

But that is very different from killing the deal because we're afraid that there MIGHT be insurmountable environmental problems.

Chris tries to get personal. And comes up short. Like everything I have read here that he says about these paired redevelopment proposals, his reporting of facts about me (gleaned from my MySpace page, apparently) misses the mark.

I am not, as Chris incorrectly reports, "looking for love." I am also not a wannabe as he describes. That I haven't mentioned the specifics of my credentials here should tell observers something. That Chris (who is a young kid who hasn't been involved in billions of dollars of urban developments and who is alledgedly dating a girl in college, you go playboy!) will hold up opinions he does not understand as the final word on this topic while failing to seek out more information is fairly revealing.

Perhaps the funniest part of Chris' attempt at insult is when he refers to me as "poorly aging."

I am confident, that even in my advanced years, I could wipe the floor with Chris anytime, anywhere, probably while agreeing to handicap myself. I can tell much about how a man fights by how he expresses himself. And Chris is no able specimen, I assure you.

Chris will keep trying his false arguments, his gurilla marketing, his silly, obvious lies. (Such as saying he opposes these proposals because Mayor Baker gave a speech praising the Trop, as if Chris would change his mind if the Mayor came out in favor of these new proposed developments).

Chris will keep trying. He will be joined by Thomas and Jon and some others who wish to fool people.

And we who argue with them will continue to be entertained!

[Chris Jenkins]

It's typical, Don. Populist concerns are often met by a bully with a bullhorn...or in this case, a three headed bully with a full time blogging gig (and part time PhD studies!).

[Don Mott]

Thanks Mr. Lange I tried to iterate the same pre-paid rent scenario going towards construction some time ago in another thread here and it got spun around by the resident spin master. While many here keep pretending that this is a donation or gift from the Rays. You are right it is a scam, and it is a scam intended to make the Rays owners many millions of dollars on the taxpayers back.

[Chris Jenkins]

Mmmmm...more spin sandwich! Love it, Rick! (p.s. "now taking applications" pretty much sounds like "looking for love"...maybe you just mean applications for a girl to stand next to you in a picture). And threatening to fight me? Delicious. I'll be around, and I'll come up to you, shake your hand, look you in the eye, and give you the opportunity to be as glib when you're talking. Most people I know who are brave online get remarkably polite face to face.

Here's a picture of me:
http://b2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00917/20/90/917410902_l.jpg

That's my buddy Mark on the right in the red. We're hanging out at Don Leoncio's. You know, downtown. Now you know who to look for when you're coming to mop up the floor with me. Feeling Napoleonic much? I told you I'd come find you for a drink, and you tell me you'll beat me up. This is me quivering in fear. I think the look on my face says it all.

P.S. Yeah, poorly aging. Cuz you were a pretty athletic guy in your day...your history pics compared to now show a sad decline.

Righto, enough with the fun stuff, back to the topic at hand.

First, nope, I never said kill the deal. But of course, as I mentioned in the other thread, straw man arguments are all you've got. I've said repeatedly let's take it to a vote. I've also said this deal smells dirty top to bottom, and that we have yet to see what the true cost will be, and that should be concerning. But, you didn't bother reading my posts to actually glean my position. You just looked for bits you might be able to pull out of context in order to support your false argument. Nice try again, but fail.

Second, if I came up short in the admitted personal ad hominem, you wouldn't have felt the need to defend yourself. I'm pretty confident that I kicked you right in the pelotas with that one, given the way you puff out your chest and come out like an old grizzly wildly swinging. The fact is, I hate ad hominem, and think it's a horribly weak way to argue. However, you've sat up there just denying everything said, refusing to offer any graciousness whatsoever in your position, acting pompous, and just basically being a jackhole, as opposed to people like Gary Grooms, who for the most part, maintain a civil tone, and present reasoned, well thought out arguments for their position. In fact, it was due to Gary that I learned that despite the clogged portions I was exposed to during the IRL race days, there was a substantial amount of parking that went unused. That substantially modified my view of the overall parking situation. Now he's brought some pictures which I am looking at showing the sea wall. I appreciate this sort of dialogue. It's educational, and helps me make an informed decision, and in some cases, allays my concerns. You take the exact opposite tact, and because of this, you've earned yourself one hell of an ad hominem bubble burster. Start playing nice, and argue your position on merit. You've been to school enough times to know what a logical fallacy is. Make you a deal. You avoid logical fallacies talking to me (straw man, argument absurdum, appeal to ignorance, appeal to the masses), and I'll do the same (ad hominem).

Third, in your last barrage of straw men in your post, you make the utterly baseless statement:

"Chris will keep trying his false arguments, his gurilla marketing, his silly, obvious lies. (Such as saying he opposes these proposals because Mayor Baker gave a speech praising the Trop, as if Chris would change his mind if the Mayor came out in favor of these new proposed developments)."

You have not proven false anything I've said. In fact, you haven't even quoted or discussed any of my positions. All you've done is thrown out straw men. I countered the view that the Trop was a crappy venue with Rick Baker's own words. That's not my position on why the deal stinks. That's a rebuttal to a point, from a citable source. Did you not take ethics in debate in any of those universities?

Argue the merits, Rickster. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke, one more obnoxious boor in a bar full of them.

[Rick K]

Don and Steve:

Your analysis misses a few important and relevant points.

First, Steve, the reason the Rays are using the figure $150 Million in place of the $300,000,000 you calculated, is because they are using the present value of the $300,000,000. (I think you asked about this in another thread). All of the numbers in the Ray's financing presentation use 2007 dollars.

Second, you guys are acting as though the Rays are obligated to pay ANYTHING, either as construction costs or as rent.

Are either of you familiar with the Deals the Bucs and Lightning have for their home stadia? (You might want to check out who owns the St. Pete Times Forum, to get a better grip on this).

What I am telling you is that the Rays could have designed a stadium redevelopment proposal which will cost about $450 Million (in 2007 dollars, but more, in dollars not adjusted for inflation) and asked the citizens to pay for ALL OF IT.

They also could have agreed to pay for ALL OF IT themselves.

But that isn't what the Rays did. Instead, they came up with a very bold, imaginative vision (admiteddly, those adjectives are my opinion, there is no study yet that proves them).

What the Rays imagined and have presented to us is a proposal that will cost the City and County less in net invested tax revenues in the first year of construction than is currently being spent.

Further, they have managed to come up with contributions that can be used to reduce the amount of construction costs that need to be covered by new taxes or increased debt. $150,000,000 is a voluntary contribution from the Rays (money they are not obligated to pay us and could very easily have asked us to pay).

Additionally, the Rays' proposal offers us the chance to move the existing debt service obligations from the Trop Site to the new stadium. Tax accountants would argue about whether this is a cost of the new stadium or not, but it isn't important.

What is important is that annual debt service on the existing remaining debt on the Trop will not be increased until either 2013 or 2017, depending on a few factors that are beyond this simple explanation.

It is also NOT at all true, as has been claimed repeatedly, that the Rays have proposed paying NO RENT (beyond the one time up front contribution). IN fact, the Times has reported, and Mr Kalt has confirmed that the Rays would probably be okay with a lease arrangement requiring the team make contributions to offset annual operating costs, similar to the current lease arrangement (which is based on so much per ticket).

The Rays plan also calls for a major improvement in the City's collections for parking on game day. Whereas the team currently pays a very small amount per car that parks at the Trop, instead the Rays propose to PURCHASE parking rights from the various owners of parking lots and garages downtown, then resell the right to park in those spots on gamedays, and give that money to help defray development costs.

It is also not true that the Rays have sworn to keep all the income from naming rights (or from seat licenses, and suite sales, which is likely to be much, much more money). The actual lease term negotiations are (or will be) proceeding in private, until a lease is worked out that the City, County and team find agreeable.

The bottom line is this: As stadium proposals go, this one from the Rays requires a smaller increase in public debt or near term taxes than about 98% of all proposals for public stadia in the US made since 1980.

Them's the facts, jack.

[Rick K]

CORRECTION:

I should have said that, according to media reports, the Rays have indicated they would be okay with making annual contributions to offset SOME operating/ownership costs.

[Chris Jenkins]

Rick, this is an interesting point:

"The bottom line is this: As stadium proposals go, this one from the Rays requires a smaller increase in public debt or near term taxes than about 98% of all proposals for public stadia in the US made since 1980."

Can you pull ten recent examples together which show this to be true? If so, it will be another one of those "Hmmm..." moments. Doesn't mean the deal's not stinky, but I've heard the opposite is true from multiple sources, and I'm curious what you've got to back that up.

[Chris Jenkins]

"The actual lease term negotiations are (or will be) proceeding in private, until a lease is worked out that the City, County and team find agreeable."

This is part of the problem as well. Private dealings on something which could be a mitigating factor to the financial impact of the deal? If it's on the up and up, why not bring those negotiations out into the light, especially when it could serve to allay concerns about taxpayer liability?

[Chris Jenkins]

Hmmm...no response yet. Gonna keep it on topic, or work up a flaming response?

:D

My money's on the latter...

[NO NEW STADIUM]

LMFAO @ Chris, I really think you rattled the premature-balding spinster who's probably making this blog the basis of his thesis. Good luck with that! Rrrrrrick, your future in economics is bleak, with the views you espouse.

Steve Lange, thank you. Although our own city council members are acting like a bunch of star-struck country bumpkins, the TDC and BOCC are not playin' that game. I don't think the opposition has a thing to worry about, there's just way too many arrows being shot in their direction for this nonsense to survive much longer. And the Rays are quite aware of this fact.

[Don Mott]

" Rays propose to PURCHASE parking rights from the various owners of parking lots and garages downtown, then resell the right to park in those spots on gamedays, and give that money to help defray development costs." WRONG!

[Don Mott]

"As stadium proposals go, this one from the Rays requires a smaller increase in public debt or near term taxes than about 98% of all proposals for public stadia in the US made since 1980". So does that mean we are smarter for not buying it or the others are total saps?

[Dave in St Pete]

Rick,

Re: the parking situation. I have a girlfriend who used to work down town at the B of A building. B of A leased the parking lot for games. So every time there was a game she would end up taking a taxi home and back to work the next day as her car would inevitably be blocked in. This was one of the reasons B of A moved.

What do you propose for the people that work late or have a later shift, etc.? Where are they to park? Where are the people that now go down town to eat and shop, park on game days? You will be running these people off and many will find new places to go. They are the bread and butter of the city and its businesses.

[Rick K]

Chris:

Chris, it is pretty simple for you to duplicate the work I summarize yourself. Count up the number of new stadia proposed since 1980, and look to see how much of the cost of the proposed development was coming from near term tax increases and increased long term public debt. (For example, look at the Ice Palace, Raymond James, The O Rena, and so on You wil find several proposals just in Florida that closely mirror what you will find nationally). Just keep right on going, state by state, until you've added them all up.

Then come back here and tell us what you learned.

As a final personal aside. I find it quite funny that you take a picture of my sister and me at a Bucs game that I posted to as a humorous way to help me find someone to share my block of season tickets that she shared before she moved away, and from this you make incorrect, sadly pathetic attempts to make conclusions about my love life, as if that has anything to do with anything.

As a baseball announcer might say, "SWING, and a miss!"

I will say this though, you have spunk. And now that I have seen your pic I might just take you up on the beer. I still will be happy to mop the floor with you anytime you feel froggy.

:)

I freely admit that I am not willing to post links to some of the studies that I cite. I also was not keen on waving my professional credentials around, or sharing pictures of my kids. (The later concern went away when I realized they no longer look like they did in those photos).

There is a good reason for this.

If you're actually curious about civil discourse, and want to know more about that tiny sliver of trivia, send me a note and I will tell you why.

But in argument, it seems that you are confusing two concepts.

Don, JudyToo, and others have provided links to studies and held them up as representing factual support for various assertions of facts.

I do not need to hold up a competing study that shows exactly the opposite (even though these studies exist and can easily be found by Don, Judy or you) conclusions in order to prove that these "studies" do not "prove" what those who post them here what them to prove.

There have been articles written in peer reviewed journals that trace the connectivity of all these so called "studies" which merely parrot the stated (but not factually supported) claims of other studies.

No one can point to the original definitive Peer Reviewed article in an economics journal that proves that public investment in sports stadia always (or nearly always) produce negative net economic benefits. Because there isn't one.

There are many studies that CLAIM it. But none that come anywhere near to proving it or even reasonably supporting the hypothesis.

Your side likes these "studies" because you like their conclusions. Anyone here can read the studies and see that they do not prove their contentions, they merely offer them as fact, without proof.

Well, let me be a little more precise. There have been some peer reviewed studies that have asserted that various SPECIFIC stadium deals produced net negative economic benefits to their regions. But, for each of those, there have been peer reveiwed criticisms which argued with support that the studies failed to reliably prove causation. Which makes them worthless for the purposes they are being used here.

Now your team can do the research to figure out if my summative claim is accurate or not. The raw facts are available and require no spin at all.

[Rick K]

Dave:

I haven't given that much thought to the specifics of the parking situation, for this reason:

I am confident that something workable can be hammered out. It works in many, many other urban settings.

Obviously, some people who currently park in some spaces will be displaced during games. But I've been to Fenway and Wrigley and a dozen other true urban stadia where it all works out, so I don't sweat the details yet, other than crunching a few numbers to see if the Rays projections of $54 Million (or whatever) seems reasonable.

I think the specifics are important enough, I just haven't yet devoted that much attention to it, and won't until a detailed plan is released.

[Rick K]

Don:

Good to have you back.

I am being serious here. If I am wrong about what I have presented as a recap of the Rays' proposed use of parking fees to offset development costs, please explain how.

I just looked at the Power Point presentation and the description in this blog, and they both SEEM to square with what I said.

I am happy to be schooled on where I erred (for real).

[Dave in St Pete]

There are many studies that prove otherwise,,,,there are peer reviews,,,there is data..but I won't provide links.

So we should believe you, why? Don't tell us to 'go find it'. This is not a school assignment. If you have facts (studies, peer reviews, raw data) then present it. If you do not then we can only surmise that they do not exist.

[Rick K]

Dave.

Surmise what you want.

Or go online and look at the deal for Raymond James, the Ice Palace, various spring training stadia, and the pro stadia in Orlando, Miami, and Jacksonville.

It's not up to me to assign work.

Nor is it up to me to do the work for you.

Won't take more than about an hour online.

To "prove" my summative claim is factually correct, I would have to spend that hour doing the work for you. I don't care about it that much.

This reminds me of blogs on politics or current affairs when someone asks another post to provide a link proving something like that Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency or that Reagan won 49 states.

I don't need a link. I know.

I don't really care if you do or not.

The difference between the sides here is that the facts that you can go get on your own PROVE my contention. The facts that are out there do not prove very many contentions of the ANTI's, with the exceptions of the one's most all of us (pro and anti) agree upon.

There is no study that proves "there is universal agreement among economists that public investment in pro sports stadia produce net negative benefits to their regions."

I don't need to prove that, either. There isn't one.

On the other hand, the development costs and the ratio of increased taxes and public debt is available with a few clicks.

[Chris Jenkins]

So now, Rick, you are making a substantive statement, one that has been countered here with links you disclaim, and you do not bother to provide any citation whatsoever, under the guise that you are not motivated to do so.

Smells like BS to me. Fail!

You also posted a second round defending your personal life, as though I really care! That (to quote you in a previous thread) still has me laughing! Man, I must have really got your goat.

Is there anything gained by that? Does it progress this conversation? Does it prove any points? That, your blowhard gorilla chest beating, fist swinging posturing, and 1.99 will buy one of us a coffee at Dunkin Donuts. I'll take mine with cream and sugar.

I'm still cracking up. Wagers and floor mopping. Good christ, you may have graduated from university, but your brain is obviously still in the frat. Beer bong much?

We made points of concern in concise and well articulated posts. We provided link citation to underscore those concerns. You respond (with fingers in your ears) "Nuh-uh! I'm smarter than you and I know more, and I don't have to prove it!"

If your position is so sound, and so well supported, why don't you do so? If there is a substantive body of work in peer reviewed journals, point me to it! I have a subscription to Blackwell-Synergy, point me where to go, I'll even use my credits for the PDF downloads. We can at least view the abstract for free.

You argue from an Ivory Towers of Academia position, not deigning to explain yourself to the riff-raff, then in the same post, display Bonobo traits. Do you propose to solve our conflict the way Bonobos do? (Look it up, for those of you not into primate biology...it ain't fighting, and I don't think the spam filter will let me be specific.) ;)

Gary emailed me this evening about trying to get this whole thing back on track. I'm getting ready to go call him in a couple of minutes and see about setting up that round table that we have tried to get together a few times now. Then, everyone can get together around the beers I've been offering, and actually talk like people, face to face, without all the chest beating that comes out when people are posting from behind the anonymity (however temporary that may be) wall of internet forums.

P.S. You almost stayed entirely on point there. Good on you.

[Thomas]

Hey Big Top Rick:
"There is no study that proves "there is universal agreement among economists that public investment in pro sports stadia produce net negative benefits to their regions.""

----------------------
David Carter of the USC Marshall School was quoted about public debate over sports stadiums. Among economists, there is almost universal agreement that arenas produce practically no benefits to taxpayers. Carter is executive director of USC's Sports Business Institute
--------------------------------
Sports economists agree that cities--and taxpayers--get close to nothing from spending public money on sports teams. What they haven't figured out is why we're still doing it.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/03/19/ballpark_figures/

[Don Mott]

Rick, I won't dance with you. You do the two step much better than me. Look back at your statement and then look again at the Rays proposal. If you still don't see where you're wrong then call me a liar.

[Chris Jenkins]

Excellent link, Thomas. Spot on.

[Paul]

Well the article Thomas links to wraps with fans having an intangible value of having someone to root for. True, you can't measure that... but we have a team right now, with rather pathetic attendance, and we have a stadium today... so not sure that applies to our 'new stadium' dilemma, because the fans have their intangible. However, we are in somewhat of a 'if you don't build the Rays a new stadium, they will move' threat. So then there would be no more team to have intangible value for. I don't know what kind of number that intangible is worth... but I think it could be more, in a more populous city and more wealthy city.

I am not a fan, and I really really like our waterfront, so I find little value and will cast my vote as a 'no' if it makes it to ballot.

[Chris Jenkins]

Additionally, the article asserts, with several University economists giving supportive statements, that economists are overwhelmingly in agreement that Stadiums are of no net value. Guess Thomas didn't just make it up, huh? Obviously, our soon to be economist here disagrees, but let's look at some of the quotes:

"''Generally speaking," says Andrew Zimbalist, a professor at Smith College and a leading sports economist, ''the independent research suggests that we can't anticipate any economic impact" from sports teams and stadiums. Still, despite wide unanimity on this point among economists, not even the harshest critics of sports team subsidies believe the practice is in danger of extinction."

Wide unanimity...hmmm...

"A similar study by the consulting firm Economics Research Associates, ERA, calculated that the new Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington, Texas, due to open in 2009, will add between $12.48 billion and $27.65 billion to the county economy over an estimated 30-year lifespan.

Independent economists dismiss these numbers. Much of the envisioned economic impact, they argue, comes from the money spent by fans, either on tickets or concessions or in nearby restaurants, hotels, souvenir shops, and the like. The problem with this argument, economists say, is that most families, whether they keep a budget or not, spend a finite amount of money on entertainment. As Vanderbilt University economist John Siegfried puts it, ''What are people going to with their money if they don't spend it on the Red Sox, flush it down the toilet? No, they'll spend it on something else: books, maybe, or bowling, things that Boston would benefit just as much from."

As for new jobs, sports teams and their stadiums do create them, but remarkably inefficiently, according to Roger Noll, an economics professor at Stanford University and co-editor, with Zimbalist, of ''Sports, Jobs, and Taxes" (1997), one of the most comprehensive works on the public funding of sports. In Baltimore, he says, the cost per job created by Camden Yards was $125,000, whereas for the city's other urban redevelopment programs it was $6,000 per job. And $125,000, according to Noll, is actually pretty efficient for a sports stadium.

PHOTO GALLERY: If you build it, who will pay?
YOUR VIEW: Should cities spend taxpayer dollars on sports teams?

University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson puts it another way. ''Cities would be better off," he says, ''if the mayor were to go up in a helicopter and dump out $100,000."

The jobs stadiums do create are mostly part time-baseball stadiums tend to be used only 81 times a year, football stadiums eight times a year (a few more if they host concerts and conventions)-and low wage: parking lot attendants, security guards, ticket-takers, and vendors."

Why...that almost sounds like exactly the concerns we've discussed here!

But wait, there's more...

"ACCORDING TO Siegfried, there's a remarkable agreement on these points. In economics, he says, ''with most empirical issues there's lots of debate. Does the minimum wage cause unemployment? There's lots of debate about that issue. Here there's no debate." Even the consulting firm ERA put out an issue paper, back in 1995, cautioning against ''overblown claims of the economic value of major league sports teams" and concluding that, ''Compared with more traditional public investments of scarce economic development dollars. . .sports facilities are a rather poor investment."

Hmmm...the very same firm broadcasting billions in "new revenues" calls sports stadiums a "poor investment"? Why would they, unless of course...oh wait, it can't be that they KNOW their numbers are sleight of hand generated for their clients, the sports teams, who pay handsomely for numbers to support public subsidy? And when given the scrutiny it deserves, these fine men and women have the integrity to come out and admit the truth. Good on them.

Oh, what's this? The prices given the team are about appeasance to a supply and demand market, based on the perceived value of a sports franchise? Say it ain't so!

"Major league sports, they argue, are essentially monopolies: They can ensure that the number of teams always stays below the number of cities that can support one. In economic terms, this creates a scarcity of supply and thereby drives up the ''price"-in subsidies, favorable land terms, or stadium lease deals-that a team can demand. Chicago built the White Sox a new stadium to keep them from moving to St. Petersburg, Fla., in the late '80s, for example. More recently, Nashville had to agree to build a new stadium to lure the former Houston Oilers to town."

What does explain the blind support we see around here then?

"Gamely, a few economists have decided that if they can't persuade fans, they'll at least try to understand them, and have set out to quantify how much, exactly, having a sports team is worth to people. In a 2002 paper written for the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, for instance, economists Gerald Carlino and N. Edward Coulson found that people are willing to accept a 2 percent decrease in wages-and an 8 percent increase in rents-to have a National Football League team in their city.

Those gaps, if they're correct, represent the market price of fandom, the little bit extra we're willing to pay to have someone to root for."

Ah, team spirit. Well, that's an honest answer. Too bad you won't hear it from the proponents of this deal.

[Frank La Chat]

I can't buy that Rick K is the person Chris claims he is. An elected official has way too much to do on behalf of his constituency to spend the amount of time Rick K does blogging.

[Chris Jenkins]

I didn't claim he was an elected official, Frank. Read again.

You've been studying the straw man route, apparently...

[Ralph Lawson]

This thread started out with some quotes from the article wondering why attendance at the Rays games is so low. Has anyone considered that the citizens are already voting with their feet and not coming to games because they resent the Rays owners asking them to give up public land and public money to a bunch of New York millionaires?

People are losing homes left and right, the soup kitchens are turning people away, our government wants to cut millions from our schools and libraries, police and fire departments, parks and health clinics. And we are seriously entertaining the idea of spending 450 million on a center of entertainment that less than 7% of the citizens even go to? You've got to be kidding.

[Don Mott]

Interesting, all of the academic references have disappeared from Ricks MySpace page. Along with his business name. Wonder why?

[Tess F]

Yes I know RRRRick K. personally. He's a good guy. He is doing the best he can with his handicaps or should I say his challenged abilities. He is task capable. Some of you bloggers may not realize the hurt and shame you have showered on him. I know you think it's tit-for-tat as my husband would say, but it isn't. The uncalled for attack on his demeanor was a real set back. He will need to be spoon feed for the next two weeks by guess who? that's right me! Then there's the Pamper's. Please lighten up. He thinks he's a doctor.

[Will Ferrell]

This thread needs more cowbell.

[Jesse]

Chris Jenkins, before you quote Andrew Zimbalist, you should know he is actually a supporter of the Rays plan becuase it generates new revenue that otherwise would not be created if the team stays at the Trop. The main opposition to stadiums comes from the opportunity cost of what could be done with the subsidy (i.e. - schools, publi cservices, etc). In this case, the opportunity cost argument is eliminated becuase the Trop generates more than twice the amount of the subsidy.

Its really not that complicated.

[Jesse]

Quote from Zimbalist:

"This is capitalism and any project carries risks.

However, smaller markets usually pick up a higher share of financing costs and the average public financing share for sports facilities is around 67 percent.

The public share in the Rays' proposal appears to be under 40 percent. Further, while again there are uncertainties, the release of some 85 acres for alternative development suggests a much more positive economic impact outlook than the conventional stadium project.

The point about the 85 acres is that without this proposal, the land is tied up for a long time. By the team reducing its footprint, they enable the city to generate revenue not currently generated.

I think this is a creative and balanced proposal (with some questions still to be answered, to be sure) from the Rays that stands a far better chance for actually having a pro-development impact than the vast majority of stadium proposals of the past."

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020423&docId=l:793108433&start=8

[Jon McPhee]

So, Jesse, one of four Times-invoked "experts" parrots the Rays owners lines about how much the "public share" is, while the other three have at least certain doubts and say the information provided is lacking, and we are to buy Mr. Zimbalist's conclusion?

I especially like his first line about "This is capitalism and any project carries risks." This kind of subsidy may be how the Rays owners want to "do business," but this is not any kind of capitalism I ever learned about in economics, except maybe for those places where corporate welfare is institutionalized and to cover the grand theft of pubic resources, the powers that be call it "capitalism."

The Rays owners are not taking any risk here, except maybe the bucks they are spending to sucker the people of Pinellas into this Big Deal. The risk and cost are assigned to the residents of Pinellas and St. Pete.

It's been observed even by the wider business and banking community that the Rays owners and other "investment bankers," peddled voodoo economics like what's being presented here. The costs and effects of the gaming of the last few years are now being salvaged by public bailouts of business entities that took profits without risks. In retrospect, these look a lot like Ponzi swindles, based on expert-generated "value" of "securitized bundles" of derivative deals based on sub-prime loans and such-like, so complicated that even the deal-sellers and auditors and risk managers in the banks and even the Fed didn't understand them.

Smoke and mirrors, that's what's being offered here, with the little bait on the hook being "pays for itself" and the potential for a pleasant, if expensive, evening of baseball for a few.

[Jon McPhee]

To Mr. Grooms, who should be applauded for staying relentlessly on message:

You demand yes or no answers to questions that patently cannot be answered with a binary response. Reminds me of the classic lawyer's question, which maybe you would answer the way you want others to:

"Come now, Mr. Witness, you're udner oath and I have posed a simple question that you have to answer with a yes or no, just like the judge told you. Sir, have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no? We're waiting for your response."

[Chrissie Jenkins and Dan BFF]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

http://b2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00917/20/90/917410902_l.jpg

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

I just saw this link and can't stop laughing. Chrissie, did you ride on the back of the Vespa on your way to take this picture?

[Chris Jenkins]

An Open Round Table Discussion on the Proposed Waterfront Stadium
Hosted by Chris Jenkins and Gary Grooms

Where: The Globe Coffee Lounge
501 1st Ave N
St. Pete, Fl. 33701

When: Saturday, 05/31/08
7:00PM

What: It's time for the residents of St. Pete to get out from behind their computers and get together in person to talk about the future of our city. We've decided there's too much animosity in the conversations online, and it's time to act like civilized human beings, and have a real conversation about the issue, over snacks and drinks. Munchies will be provided, and there will be no formal structure. This isn't a televised debate; it's a casual evening of conversation and exploration among fellow citizens. The evening will begin at the Globe Coffee Lounge in St. Petersburg, and will include a walking tour similar to what might be expected on actual game days if the proposed stadium is built. This will allow us to meet the people behind the ideas, see the areas we are talking about in person, and get a feel for the businesses and spaces that would be affected by the proposal. Appetizers will be provided at The Globe, and beer, wine, sangria, and various non-alcoholic coffee type drinks will be available at the bar. Please come out and join your fellow city residents in a real conversation about this very important matter.

[Steve Lange]

Rick K.:

I have to agree with Chris Jenkins and Don Mott.

You are trying to swim in a dry lake.

Your rhetoric is unsupported by facts.

You are talking but not saying anything.

You do not convince.

Sorry.

[fiction before facts]

Steve's mind was made up five months ago with very little information known. Not even 450 mil from Stu's own pocket would sway him. Fiction before facts.

Whats your ambition here. Northshore isn't going to take you back because you helped kill baseball in St. Pete.

Now you want to cut off the process before the public can vote. Way to give power to the people. No wonder they kicked you out.

[Rick K]

Steve Lang:

I do not really rely upon you (who cannot be convinced) to tell me whether I am persauding anyone or not.

But thanks for trying to help.

Mabye you should stick to jumping up and down screaming that these timetables (that you have not seen) cannot work!

[Thomas]

Rick,

You must have forgot to acknowledge that you were completely wrong about economists universal agreement about publicly funded stadiums.

Did you want to step up and post a retraction/correction - or are you going to continue to be an inaccurate, unaccountable hypocrite?

I "wager" that I already know the answer to that question.

PS- you could also include that overdue accountability/apology for misreading the sales tax figures and county wide sales receipts I posted.

Rick you are the ultimate "ANTI" -
Anti-fact
Anti-accountability
Anti-accuracy
Anti-integrity
Anti-credibility

[Don Mott]

Grabbing for straws to hang on. Becoming an antagonistic troll. Yep it fits. What happened to all of those academic credentials? Were you ashamed of them or afraid of what some research might turn up?

[J]

Don,
You never answered why as a Largo citizen you feel obligated to take up arms against baseball in St. Pete. How can you know what it's like everyday in St. Pete. Your not vested in our community yet you want to direct our future for us. If you choose to live mile away from any sense of a downtown than you don't know how a true quality urban fabric works or see the benefits and possibilities. In St. Pete's Vision 2020 plan they projected downtown St. Pete could and will grow to sustain more than 30,000 residents. Currently closer to 6 thousand. If it can sustain the infrastructure for that many full time residents it can sure handle baseball crowds. Heck a couple hundred thousand come for fireworks and I still find a parking spot.

Back to the question, why are you in this discussion. Do you just like to debate and chose the more agitated side?

[Don Mott]

I did answer that obviously you weren't paying attention.