They're still talking

So the City Council and something like 586 of their closest friends are still talking stadium at City Hall. I had to file my story for tomorrow's newspaper already, but it looks like opponents will significantly outnumber proponents tonight.

Earlier today, the City Council asked a lot of pointed questions to Rays' execs regarding the stadium plan. The Rays had some answers, but not nearly enough to satisfy the council -- which seems to be getting more frustrated.

The timeline was also a major topic of conversation. As you may recall, the council needs to vote three times before they can schedule a referendum in November. If they vote 'yes' all three times, you have a referendum. They have to vote 'no' only once to kill the proposal.

The Rays and city administration seemed to be operating under the notion that Aug. 7 vote (the last of the three) is the truly critical one; not the first vote on June 5th. If true, that would give the Rays and the city an additional 10 weeks to reach agreements on the finances and parking. Stay tuned if the City Council agrees to that line of thinking.

Now, we at Ballpark Frankness want to hear from you. What major questions must the Rays and city and county answer between now and a possible council referendum vote?

I'll start with one stolen from City Council member Karl Nurse (thanks Karl). Who will pay for the demolition of Tropicana Field, and how much will it cost?

Put your questions below. We'll make a list of the Top 20 or so and track when we get answers if we do.

Comments

[Aaron Sharockman]

Hello, everyone. I wanted to let you all know that I will be out of town Friday through Monday. I might be able to update the blog, or I might not. But I will be looking forward to some good questions when I get to work Tuesday a.m. Cheers!

[Kevin]

Thank you St. Petersburg homeowners who said NO in a RESOUNDING Rays loss tonight. The people opposed have no agenda other than quality of life, unlike the paid marketing team of the Rays. Ray F and company, I saw you tonight, your words in person read just like your blather on here. Cheers!

[Don Mott]

Hi Aaron, Who is going to pay for the Al Lang demo? Who will pay for the environmental cleanup, (if any) at the Trop and mitigation at Al Lang? Those costs are unknown. Where are the numbers and proof for $55 million in parking revenue and will the Rays pay that upfront? If so what will the city receive, other than an injection into the construction costs? The city owns the spaces so should they not reap some profits from the sales or rental of said spaces? Who will pay for all of the infrastructure involved at both sites? As the Rays are adding $150 million based on future rent payments what will the rent payments be and for how long? What, if any, escape clauses are available for the team and the developer? I know these are for the most part questions you cannot answer at this time but are concerns that should be addressed before this ever goes to a vote, and I'm sure there are more.

[Thomas]

Mr. Sharockman,

Thank you for your one-of-a-kind blog. I do not believe there has ever been a forum at a major media site that allowed such unbiased conversation.

Happy Memorial Day wkend - I hope you enjoy the time off...

My question(s) is:

Under the existing proposal, there is no consideration for the prime real estate that Al Lang Field currently resides on:

- What is the value of the Al Lang site?

- Why is there no compensation offered by the Rays for use of the site?

- As a publicly owned parcel, wouldn't it be prudent to examine multiple offers, public and private, for how best to "re-use" the Al Lang site?

[Don in St. Pete]

Aaron, We've seen and heard the mullarkey regarding the publics contibution to the new Stadium deal. Can you hash it our for us in dollars per year to repay the notes for both the city and county? As I recall I haven't seen that info anywhere.

[Ralph Lawson]

$14,000,000 is being cut from the City budget this year in basic services. Our firemen and policmen do not have current contracts - about 80 policemen have left and not been replaced. The arts in our city has been pared down to the bone. People are coming to the soup kitchens not because they are homeless but because they cannot afford food. he econimic crisis is huge for most of our fellow citizens. How can we, in good conscience, vote to spend public dollars on entertainment that a tiny percentage of our citizens even attend when we cannot take care of our own?

[Chip McMahan]

Sorry but my question is to the St. Petersburg Times. Why no poll? And if you have conducted one why haven't you published the results? Why no hard number on what the citizen's of St. Petersburg and Pinellas county think here?
You publish one of the best newspapers in the country. You always ask the tough questions. I have not seen a poll on this subject yet. You have the resources and I find it hard to believe that you would let this question go unanswered. And I'm sure you care about the outcome of this issue as much as everyone.
In summary this is information that should be available to us as well. Polls are used for many reasons and public opinion is very strong on both sides of the issue. Some people may be swayed by a poll but that's no reason to make a fact unavailable.

[Jon McPhee]

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

I’m glad there were so many articulate folks who did get to speak, on both sides of the subsidy question. My number was in the hundreds. Mr. Grooms’ was in the ‘teens, as I recall, or lower. While the subsidy question is very important to me, work and wife keep me from doing things like showing up early in the afternoon to get an early spot at the podium, and hanging around for hours to likely just repeat, however eloquently or haltingly, what should have been thought through by the Council (and explicated by the Rays owners, if they had any real respect for their neighbors) starting when they got that first inkling that the owners had designs on the public purse.

Speechifying won’t decide this issue anyway. What happens in the rooms off government halls, on the lawns of Pinellas County, and in the hopefully awakened awareness of the citizenry, is what counts.

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

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

[The Big Picture]

Aaron,
What was the final pro vs con tally at the public forum that ended this morning?

Do you think Council will take notice?

[Make A Deal]

Aaron, did you not think the council at yesterdays workshop did not have the information needed to get the detailed answers they want?

[Make A Deal]

Why didn't city council have their parking information ready?

Why did they not come to the workshop knowing what their bond debts were on the existing parking and exactly when the funds would be freed up for new investment?

Why does city council want the Rays organization to answer city issues?

City council:
"there are a lot of questions that we have"?

Michael Kalt:
"Just ask and we can start getting answers"!

City Council:
"Where do the city parking revenues go to now"?

Michael:
"I can't answer that for you because I don't work for the city. But as soon as you find out let me know. We can stay in a room for 72 hrs. to go over details. I am not playing mine and your hand of cards".

And it's like this on so many levels.
The redevelopment of Tropicana is between the developer and the city. Who pays for demolition has nothing to do with the Rays.

And how much time does one need to go over data to make a decision?

[Jon McPhee]

Deal-

Your last post has a great question: "how much time does one need to go over data to make a decision?"

So far, it does not appear that a whole lot of "data" have been asked for or presented for anyone to "go over."

As far as any argument that the Trop part of the package "has nothing to do with the the Rays," isn't it your Rays owners who tell us it's all one big happy package and that the "redevelopment" tax revenues, if they come, are what pays for the "no cost to the public" stadium?

And were your quotes above part of an actual exchange between Mr. Kalt and the City Council? If so, "very revealing."

[Make A Deal]

The quotes above are not actual. But a generalization of their conversation around 3:45pm yesterday.

The Trop development is what we could do if the Rays break lease to go to the waterfront.
The development details is between the developer and the city. I have not seen in one document that the Rays want to oversee the Trop site development as well.
They just suggest the taxes from the redevelopment could be used to pay for the new stadium as well as have a surplus for other city amenities.

[Ray F]

Kevin,

I was not at the meeting last night. Honestly, I knew it would be hours of the same 2 stories- 1 for and 1 against.

I did, however, watch the first 2 hours and the last 1 1/2 hours and it was the same stories.

Some 'fors' had valid points and some 'againsts' had valid points. Obviously I lean towards the 'fors' so excuse the biased opinion to follow:

The against side talked more about using the added tax towards other services which is noble enough, however, that means they are for the tax extension. That makes no sense to me. If something is too expensive, how can something that costs the same not be seen as just as expensive and pointless???

All the 'fors' spoke about a love for the city and showcasing the city to the world. It's obvious that the 'fors' care more for the future than the 'againsts'. The againsts care more about living in a sleepy town with nothing but museums for old people and school feildtrips that students want to go to just to get out of school.

[Commissioner Ken Welch]

Aaron - this is probably a good time for me to make a contribution, given that the Times didn't report on the Ray's meeting with the County Commission. Not that we're getting a Rodney Dangerfield complex. Yet.

Anyway, hello to everyone. I've been keeping up with your comments and emailing many of you. Justin, btw, you looked great on TV last night. I look forward to your next email(s). No, really I do. ;)

FYI, here is an email that I've sent out to literally hundreds of folks who have emailed the Commission on both sides of the issue. I think it has some relevant comments from the Commission's perspective vis-à-vis the requested bed tax extension. I'm always available for questions via my email address kwelch@pinellascounty.org. Just be aware that we have received several hundred emails (>1,000), and continue to do so daily, so it may take a while for me to get back to you.

************************

Thank you for your email regarding the Tampa Bay Rays' ballpark proposal. The County Commission officially received the Rays' proposal during our May 20th Commission meeting.

During that meeting, the Commission asked several questions concerning environmental issues, County bed tax contributions, the potential impact on the County's retail/residential project at Toytown, and other issues. You can access a streaming video of the meeting by clicking the following link rtsp://vstream1.co.pinellas.fl.us/052008bccmeeting.rm

(note - the item is the last item on the agenda).

Most importantly, any extension of the current bed tax requires a recommendation to the County Commission from the Tourist Development Council (TDC). Chairman Stewart has advised us that the TDC will receive a presentation from the Rays at their next scheduled meeting, which is June 11. The TDC would then make a recommendation to the County Commission - we anticipate that a final decision by the County Commission would occur sometime during July.

I appreciate your input and will give your comments full consideration as the Commission reviews this proposal from the Tampa Bay Rays and the City of St. Petersburg.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this issue.

Ken

Commissioner Kenneth T. Welch

Pinellas Board of County Commissioners
727.464.3614 voice
727.464.3022 fax
www.pinellascounty.org

[John McPhee]

Having trouble getting some much-needed sleep? Just log on to this blog and read my inane drivel -- you'll be sawin' logs in no time!

[Rick K]

It's good to see Commissioner Welch chiming in to let everyone know he has been keeping an eye on these discussions.

Mr. Commissioner, I was impressed by the professionalism of the Commission, and I found the Rays' presentation and the subsequent Q & A to be very informative.

Thank you for putting so much time into studying this issue.

[Bubba, Pinellas Park]

Thank You, Commissioner Welch for giving this much thought and not just jumping thoughtless on the bandwagon. I found the Rays presentation to be like a used car salesman, trying to make and twist every issue in favor of them and ignoring the truths and realities. When Stu bought the team he knew what he was getting. If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have bought it. And don't threaten with "the team will leave". Threats only make me resist more.

[since1962]

With traffic, parking and the proposed bus rapid transit such important elements of this proposal why not restore free flowing one way street grid as origonally designed? The half one-way byzantine untimed light system created at the behest of commercial concerns has created confusion and gridlock now BEFORE additional traffic.

[Rick K]

Piggybacking off since1962's contribution, I want to point out that while I love what I know (so far) about these paired redevelopment proposals, I am even more excited by the potential of what might happen AFTER these projectes are completed.

I envision a three or four street corridor runing from the old Trop Site to the waterfront, each street populated with retail shops, bars, cafes, restaurants, and touristy businesses. People will come downtown, not just for Rays games, but for all the other stuff... outdoor concerts (in the new stadium, or in the little ampitheater, or the common areas to the north of the new ballpark). They'll come early, park up by the Trop site, shop, eat, drink, and walk their way downtown.

(With trolleys that run every five minutes or so and are either free or very inexpensive to ride).

The new ballpark will provide a "signature" structure to the image of the city that is shown repeatedly on Television all over the world. People will come downtown, lured by that image of a neat "Florida" ballpark on the water.

Others will come downtown because they were enticed by the image of the sparkling new redevelopment of the Trop site, visible from the Interstate.

People who come downtown will not only find loads of businesses, but they will come face to face with vibrant city life in one of the most beautiful cities on the planet. They'll wonder around in our vast waterfront open spaces, from Vinoy Park, to Demers Landing, to USF's campus and beyond.

Kids from Cleveland, Chicago, and Canada will decide, on the spot, that they want to come to St. Pete to live. They'll seek to study at USF, where they will find that living in St Pete gets in their blood, permanately.

Generations of kids who would have never known of St. Pete will now see it as a desirable place to be. They'll come here seeking fortunes and happiness and contribute to our wonderfully dynamic population base.

It'll be great!

[Joe Redner]

I see more people attending my clubs in Tampa than I do going to the Rays game. A new stadium isn't going to put people in the stands. New entertainment will. Can I make a suggestion? Have some of my girls in each section entertain, I'm sure you'll see the seats full. Call me!

[Erick]

Why can't we have a Community Ballpark at Al Lang Field? We can have outdoor concerts, soccer games, tennis tournaments, volleyball tournaments and art shows: Here is a example

http://kc.wizards.mlsnet.com/t105/stadium/

[Don Mott]

Wow Rick can I have some of what you're drinking? Maybe then I will see why it is a good idea to spend 450+ million dollars on an unneeded project in a time of economic downturn. When budgets and services are being cut, when workers are being laid off. The income projections to date, just like your fantasy above cannot be verified or guaranteed. Would you invest 450+ million dollars based on "pure speculation"? And who knows what the (plus), meaning additional costs for infrastructure, mitigation etc., on both sites will be? That is what the Rays and proponents are asking the city and county to do. I will reiterate what I and others have been saying. Put away your rosy, pastel colored paint brush, give us total, confirmed, verifiable and guaranteed numbers then let us vote. Otherwise go back to the boardroom, drawing board or wherever else these fantasy numbers come from and try again.

[Rick K]

Don:

Of course you may have what I am drinking. It is City tap water. Help yourself.

Don, when you say "spend" $450 million dollars, I say "invest" a Billion dollars.

When you say this is an unneeded project, I say it isn't a question of needs, it's a question of wants.

When you say this is a moment of economic downturn, I say there is no better time to invest public and private monies that provide immediate influx of cash and are likely to lead to economic growth in the future.

When you talk about budgets and services being cut, I say that government was bloated and these cuts are healthy and have nothing to do with the questions of these twin redevelopment proposals. The City and the local economy are not on the brink of collapse. They are merely pruning after two decades of unrestrained growth.

You say that the income projections cannot be gauranteed. I tell you that this is true about everything, nearly. But our government operates under the reasonable, learned assumption that all who pay taxes today will also pay them tomorrow.

The income projections provided to date can be compared to what we know about similar properties, which is the only evidence we can ever use to determine the liklihood of success of development ventures. This is the very same approach that we used (effectively) with every property that was developed in St. Pete.

Don, I doubt that any person would invest 450 million dollars based on pure speculation. But this is very, very far from pure speculation. This is a reasoned analysis of development potential, which thousands upon thousands of developers have employed every single day for centuries, with terrific success. Our entire City was built based upon this same analysis. There are no gaurantees.

Even the things which are called "gaurantees" are not actually gauranteed.

It is not possible to get a guarantee. So to raise the impossibility of an impossibility as a disqualifying factor is absurd.

Don, if you would abandon your quest for the impossible (some sort of gaurantee that will never exist anywhere), you might be able to help the City answer some of the questions you have. Surely the costs of related infrastructure changes and all forms of necessary remediation can be reasonable estimated.

It's not that hard. Developers and government agencies do it every day.

Don, it is you who views these proposals through a prism of bias. You believe things that just aren't true. You believe that the amount invested in the Trop to date far exceeds the benefits from the Trop. There is no data that supports this view. There has been no credible peer reviewed economic study that even SUGGESTS such a view. On the other hand, there is ALL KINDS of evidence ALL AROUND us about the positive effects of the Trop development. The data is there. You refuse to consider it because you "believe" it isn't there.

That is fine, Don.

When I bought a house (each time I have bought a home), the analysis goes something like this.

"I like this house. I am pretty sure I would like living in this house. I am pretty sure I will be able to afford to maintain this house. I am pretty sure that this neighborhood and the social and economic climate which currently exist and are likely to persist will permit me to continue to enjoy this house and to get, over time, a financial return on my financial investment in this house."

I have never once had a guarantee.

And, so far, I have never been wrong in my assesment.

You see, Don, guesses about the future don't come with gaurantees. Instead, they come with the opportunity to impact what happens.

I look at the chance to invest more than a billion dollars into this beautiful city and I am convinced that it is highly likely that the investments will pay off.

That's not looking at this with rose-colored glasses. That's called being a sane, optimistic adult.

I understand that some who oppose these twin redevelopment proposals are sane, pessimistic adults. I understand that some who oppose these proposals are neither sane, nor terribly adult.

NONE of that bothers me.

Don, this is what I know about development and investment. The naysayers are against it. The optimists are for it. More often than not, the optimisits do it, and it works.

[Doctor Bones]

Don had nothing to say to this?