Why MLB says a new stadium matters

Food for thought: The Florida Marlins signed the cornerstone of their organization, shortstop Hanley Ramirez, to a new long term deal Saturday. The site for the announcement, the future location of the Marlins new ballpark.

You can read the full article here, but here's a couple of paragraphs I thought might apply to the Rays' stadium debate here in St. Petersburg:

• "Today we're taking not one, but two giant steps forward," Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria said. "The first is that by standing here on this very site we reaffirmed the vision of our city and county leaders to guarantee Major League Baseball stays here in South Florida ... and we have one of the greatest young players ever to wear a Marlins uniform."
• "I think [the stadium] is definitely a big part of it," Marlins general manager Larry Beinfest said. "We've had a lot of good young players here. Whether it's Derrek Lee or Dontrelle Willis, several players were probably worthy of multiyear consideration. But there wasn't a stadium on the horizon. Now there is."
• The ballpark, plans for which are still being finalized, is expected to substantially increase revenue for a franchise with a history of poor attendance and tight budgets.

So you know, there was no referendum on the Marlins stadium deal. It is, however, being challenged in court.

Comments

[Jon McPhee]

New stadiums matter, publicly funded new stadiums that is, so the team owners can pay tens of millions to ONE PLAYER without having anything come out of their own deep pockets, since they are sucking economic blood out of the communities they prey on. But Thank God, MLB Will Stay In Town! "We believe, Tinker Belle, listen to us clapping -- We Believe, please don't go away!"

Last time I checked, the Giants are still playing, in AT&T Park, which was bought and built from 1997 to 2000, with (gasp!) PRIVATE CAPITAL.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Is there any sense of fairness at all.
ABC/ESPN Polls show that less than half the populace..approximately 47% call themselves baseball fans. Economic data show no benefit from MLB stadiums. We are permitted to develope the Trop site without moving the Rays. If they leave we get to keep all the money instead of splitting any profit. How in the name of anything reasonable is it FAIR to have 50% of our society subsidize these greedy idiots for the entertainment value of the other 50%.
We're supposed to spend our tax dollars so the Rays can pay Scott Kazmir 10 Million a year for 4 years? Pena 8 million for 4 years..Carl Crawford for who knows how much when his contract comes up next year. Ohhh wait...at least those wonderful New York Investment Bankers will sell us a tub of beer for $8!!!! Actually that's a tub of Kool aid free for anyone stupid enough to go for this swindle.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Is there any sense of fairness at all.
ABC/ESPN Polls show that less than half the populace..approximately 47% call themselves baseball fans. Economic data show no benefit from MLB stadiums. We are permitted to develope the Trop site without moving the Rays. If they leave we get to keep all the money instead of splitting any profit. How in the name of anything reasonable is it FAIR to have 50% of our society subsidize these greedy idiots for the entertainment value of the other 50%.
We're supposed to spend our tax dollars so the Rays can pay Scott Kazmir 10 Million a year for 4 years? Pena 8 million for 4 years..Carl Crawford for who knows how much when his contract comes up next year. Ohhh wait...at least those wonderful New York Investment Bankers will sell us a tub of beer for $8!!!! Actually that's a tub of Kool aid free for anyone stupid enough to go for this swindle.

[Don Mott]

I'm not sure what the posting of this article was intended for. Ever heard a pro baller from any sport turn down a multi million dollar contract because the stadium or arena wasn't acceptable? Puhleeze! The Marlins have the same rep that Naomli had, cheap. To insinuate that a new stadium is the cure to all ills is just that, an insinuation and not necessarily a fact. What does this have to do with the fact that taxpayers here are being asked to risk tens of millions of dollars for a few millionaires anyway?

[Don Mott]

For your perusal;http://www.reason.com/news/show/28992.html

[Chris Jenkins]

Awesome find, Don. Thanks. It definitely covers a lot of the money game concerns I have, and reiterates the need for real scrutiny on these deals.

[Don Mott]

Hi Chris, actually I lifted this from get-smart over on Howards blog so the thanks should go to him. My bad for not mentioning that. It is an eye opener huh?

[bill]

Don Mott,

You are an idiot. The more you talk the more credibility you lose. You clearly have an agenda and will do anything to achieve that agenda. Enjoy your Sunday on your Green Bench.

[JudyToo]

Aaron, you are so lame. Didn't you read that stuff you printed after interviewing the financing experts?

Why are you feeding us the kool aid quotes from the Marlins' owner and the general manager? Of course they are happy about their new taxpayer-funded stadium - fleeced again!

The best line is..."there was no referendum on the Marlins stadium deal. It is, however, being challenged in court."

Don't you realize this stadium will NEVER be built? There are lots and lots of viable grounds for not one but many challenges. There won't be a 2008 referendum - mainly because there are ZERO answers to legitimate questions and...no answers = no referendum.

All you have to do is look at the financing joke proposed by the Bobsy Twins - 61% private financing? Your experts saw right through that one! Why didn't you tell them about the upfront rent payment so they would really understand the deal?

Looking forward to "Financing Stadiums Part II" next week. Bet you can't come up with ANY private financing and make it stick.

I love the Rays and want them to be the stand up guys many seem to believe they are. Stand up guys that have 20 years remaining on their lease that has provisions for a buyout when they leave. Unfortunately there is no provision for a new stadium. Sorry.

[Jon McPhee]

Most of Pinellas will buy the misleading material published in the Times today, supposedly a set of disinterested reports actually breathing life into the Big Deal by, like the polls offered in these blogs, slanting the question asked, limiting the data to be considered, and cutting the text the "experts" had to speak from to a few hundred words.

These "analyses" were just to "double check theRays' math," based on "the same detais the rays released Thursday at a meeting with the City Council, along with a story published by the Times about the plan. If you parse through all the "analyses," two of them just parrot the Rays numbers.

I especially like the remark by Andrew Zimbalist that "This is capitalism and any project carries risks." Not any capitalism that I ever read about, Andrew, except the type practiced in the Third Reich, where you had a welfare state for business so complete that the usual welfare recipients were forced to work to death in the German war machine's factories. This is pure and simple a subsidy to greedy men who have the wherewithal to buy their own d--n stadium but want to leverage a liking for baseball into a mandate to gift them hundreds of millions of dollars of public wealth. At least a couple of these folks pointed out that what the City and County are supposed to do is sell large public assets and simply give the proceeds to the sports team owners. That's just plain wrong.

I read that the San Francisco stadium that is used to argue that it's ok to use public waterfront (and was built in a run-down port and dock part of the City) was in fact built with PRIVATE money, and somehow is doing at or near the top of its class in terms of returns to its owners. What was that remark about truth, posted by one of the stadium proponents I think? "Truth is not just the facts, but an absence of deceit."

Too bad the Times' analysts were not tasked to do a really full analysis of the credits and debits in this accounting legerdemain. But then all we are all supposed to focus on is the Rays' statements of who pays what and gets what. Details at eleven, right?

It's likely another waste of time and electrons, but not everyone will take the time to go to the link above and read the article. So here's a smidgen of it - the rest is equally interesting.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28992.html

"On the same day the Florida Marlins paraded through Miami to celebrate their second World Series championship in six years, politicians from Miami-Dade County swallowed the young baseball team's corporate welfare bait.

"County Mayor Alex Penelas and Manager George Burgess announced they were offering a whopping $73 million in bed tax revenue, plus a parcel of free land, to help build a new $325 million baseball-only retractable-roof stadium that the lucrative franchise desperately wants. (The Marlins' owners are unwilling to shell out more than $137 million for the venue.)

"Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, who as owner of the wretched Milwaukee Brewers wheedled more than $600 million from Wisconsin taxpayers to build the two-year-old Miller Park, immediately issued a statement that he was "extremely pleased and excited that the Florida Marlins have been able to transform their success, both on and off the field, to...significant movement toward the possibility of building a new ballpark in South Florida."

"Selig has ample reason to be extremely pleased. He has made an art form out of fleecing taxpayers for billions of dollars. Like any successful con, the commish has learned the power of looking straight into the cameras and repeating, over and over again, the same easily disproved lie: that the baseball industry is suffering terribly and needs public handouts just to stay afloat.

"Every year, Forbes publishes new estimates of baseball revenue that make a mockery out of Selig's claims of poverty. The magazine's valuations, on average, are $50 million higher than what the teams themselves report. The teams increased in value, on average, by 171 percent from 1992 to 2002, according to calculations by Forbes' Michael Ozanian.

"In fact, the industry's sustained boom is due in no small part to municipalities' foolish willingness to pay for the construction of fancy new stadiums, dish out various tax breaks, and generally act like landlords terrified that their lone tenant might find a better deal across the street.

"Public subsidies pad the bottom lines of team owners and boost player salaries while offering no real economic benefit to the cities involved," the economist Raymond Keating wrote in a widely cited 1999 Cato Institute [a pretty conservative bunch, who actually understand and like real capitalism -- Jon] report on the "costly relationship" between major league sports and government. "They provide another example of government action whereby the few and the influential benefit at the cost of the many."

"The Marlins in particular have perfected the gold-throated beg. The team's original owner, Blockbuster Video magnate Wayne Huizenga, convinced Miami-Dade to pay for nearly $30 million in road and utility upgrades around Pro Player Stadium before he brought baseball to South Florida. He also wangled an annual $2 million sales tax rebate for the next 30 years, which remains in effect for other business interests even though he's long since sold the team. Yet this wasn't enough -- he wanted a new publicly funded stadium, even though Pro Player, which also houses the Miami Dolphins, was built as recently as 1987 (with the help of $85 million in city-backed tax-exempt bonds).

"Like Selig, Huizenga pleaded poverty, he blatantly lied about his finances, and when the locals failed to reward his 1997 World Championship with the ballpark of his dreams, he engaged in what baseball economist Andrew Zimbalist has called "the most radical fire sale of players in baseball history," leading to a disastrous 54-108 record. He then sold the Marlins for a $65 million profit after just five years, in a deal that gave him incredibly favorable terms: 100 percent ownership of Pro Player, a hefty annual rent, and huge chunks of parking and concession receipts.

"Huizenga's emotional blackmail of sports-mad taxpayers has hardly been limited to baseball. In 1996 he convinced Broward County to cough up $185 million to build the National Car Rental Center for the Florida Panthers, his National Hockey League team. The county and the team were supposed to divvy up arena profits 20/80, but after the first five years the Panthers had pocketed $53.7 million and Broward just $331,206, according to columnist Michael Mayo of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

"Worse, the arena's most recent audit, by Deloitte & Touche, warned that "certain factors exist that may indicate that [the Panthers] will be unable to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time." Broward could soon find itself owning, and servicing the debt on, an empty hockey arena.

"This is just a tiny part of the overall sports pork racket. As Keating estimated, "During the 20th century, more than $20 billion has been spent on major league ballparks, stadiums, and arenas. This includes a minimum of $14.7 billion in government subsidies that has gone to the four major league sports...including more than $5.2 billion just since 1989."

Further, "These numbers...exclude the billions of dollars in subsidies provided through the use of tax-free municipal bonds [which are paid off by TAXPAYERS, folks, WITH A LOT OF INTEREST OVER A LOT OF YEARS, and which eat away at the local government's bonding capacity to fund, oh, infrastruccture improvements, let's say -- Jon], interest paid on debt, lost property and other tax revenues not paid on facilities, taxpayer dollars placed at risk of being lost if the venture failed, direct government grants to teams, and the billions of dollars spent by taxpayers on minor league facilities."

"The money quote from baseball's most nauseating bit of self-mythology, the 1989 Kevin Costner vehicle Field of Dreams, was, "If you build it, they will come." Like much of the national pastime's lore, the truth is actually much closer to the opposite: Build a stadium with tax money, and they will eventually leave.

"The most recent example of this phenomenon was the October sale of the Triple-A Edmonton Trappers franchise to a Texas group headed by Hall of Fame pitcher Nolan Ryan. The team moved even though Canadian taxpayers paid for half the construction costs of the Trappers' Telus Field in 1995 -- and even though Edmonton held a 15-year lease.

"Keating made the obvious but infrequently stated point in a March 2000 article for USA Today magazine: "Another major downside to government-built and -owned ballparks is that clubs are transformed from owners to renters. It is always easier for a renter to move to get a better deal. So, government officials who advocate taxpayer-funded sports facilities to attract or keep a team virtually ensure that teams will continue issuing threats and moving."

"Here's a different approach: Tax-funded entities should immediately begin selling off all their sports venues. Why on earth should two-thirds of Major League Baseball parks be fully or partly owned by governments? San Francisco's glorious Pac Bell Park was the first privately financed stadium to be built since 1962; not coincidentally, it generates the most revenue in baseball. Private owners are far more likely to upgrade facilities, seek creative revenue-generating schemes, and stay put in their host cities.

"A fire sale of stadiums and arenas would bring some much-needed revenue for cash-strapped cities and counties, even in the long term (in the form of future sales and property taxes, which frequently go uncollected on municipally owned properties). The city of Los Angeles, for example, projects a $180 million deficit in the next fiscal year, yet it continues to co-own and operate the nearly vacant Memorial Coliseum and Sports Arena while failing to fill the two-foot potholes in the street in front of my house.

"Once cities get in the habit of disconnecting taxpayer monies from professional sports franchises, future subsidies will be all that much harder to justify, and the Bud Seligs of the world will have to go back to making money the old-fashioned way: by earning it."

[Paul]

For all those who don't actually live in St Pete or go downtown: We do not have green benches. They were taken out and/or replaced years ago.

St Pete is a progressive, hip, cultural, proud and beautiful City. I am a 15 year resident, I know.

The waterfront is an attraction. A mega stadium will blight our beautiful downtown and be a nuisance to the existing vibe.

To Council and Mayor: Kill this project today!

[Don Mott]

Paul those who spit out comments about green benches, blue hair and gray hair are usually too ignorant to have logical discourse and know not that of which they speak. If you ignore them they usually go away.

[Salty]

Isn't it interesting that the same type of people who oppose using public money to build a new stadium are always the same people who support using that same public money to fund an art museum or theater.

[jimmy]

Love the new stadium, hate the location.

The Rays need to take a look at Hillsborough County for their new ballpark, as close to downtown Tampa as possible.

Perhaps they could build a new ballpark in downtown Tampa and make it a part of the Channelside scene.

[A real city supporter]

Time to recall the mayor and city council. They do not have one brain between them.

The Rays are loosing now, as expected. Yeah!

No new waterfront stadium.

Give the police and firemen new contracts now. Protect our waterfront and our wallets.

Clean out that pack of rats called city administrators.

March on city hall. Take back the city.

[Jon McPhee]

It occurs to me what seems most wrong about this whole thing.
If our elected representatives were treating this as a business transaction, which it should be since the Rays owners obviously are and since half a billion public dollars in “consideration” is at stake, where is the due diligence on the public side?
Every large business transaction, whether a lease of office or anchor store space, purchase or sale land or assets, sale of good will or controlling shares, and all the other categories, involves “due diligence.” That means examining the transaction from all possible directions, looking for fatal flaws and spelling out all the known and anticipatable risks and possible benefits. The drafting of transaction documents might start early in this process, but the Mont Blanc pens don’t come out until each side believes it has a good idea of what’s at risk. You can bet your sweet bippy that Carl Icahn and Warren Buffett and even The Donald take this part of the exercise very seriously.
What appears at this point is that the elected representatives are just sitting and waiting for the Rays and developers to tell them what’s at stake. Our representatives seem more concerned about how to arrange payment than about whether the transaction makes any sense at all.
Big business deals all get subjected to the fatal flaws analysis, covering every contingency from title to assets, to transaction costs, to tax consequences, to every potential liability from hidden or known environmental problems to litigation by potential veto holders, to financial vicissitudes and business failure and bankruptcy.
Maybe all this is going on as I write and it’s just not apparent. But forgive me if I am doubtful. The Rays look like the old adage about the duck – placid on the surface, but lots of furious paddling beneath the dark water. The city and maybe the county governments look a little more like an upside-down goldfish in a bowl.
Folks in charge, you owe a duty to all the citizens whose tax money you can extract under the power of the state. That duty involves doing the homework for this transaction. Given past performance of that duty, it might be understandable that us poor dumb taxpayers believe we are owed a little more involvement, study and understanding by those who get to speak for all of us, and representation of ALL of us, not just the predators who live in the top story of the jungle.

[averyluckyguy]

Salty,

Perhaps you are unaware of what is going on in St. Petersburg regarding subsidies to the Arts. They are being cut back dramatically and as this is written Councilman Jeff Danner is going around hat in hand to BEG for 1 non 450 million dollars from PRIVATE sources so we can endow our contribution to the Arts. Let see Baseball has already sucked out over 300 million of our tax dollars...even though they can afford to pay Kazmir 10 million a year..Pena 8 million a year and Crawford...he'll break the bank next year...and our subsidy effort for the Arts..Councilman Jeff Danner going around begging for a whopping one million dollars to endow our contribution to the Arts. Let me explain this to you neanderthals in language you might be able to understand. If Danner is successful and could get a 10% return on his million we'd have $100,000 a year for the Arts. That represents 4 days of Scott Kazmir's salary. Could we have at least a LITTLE BALANCE HERE?

[Make A Deal]

Fact 1:
Many businesses(yes art galleries included)get tax funded subsidies.
And less of the St. Pete population is buying art than ball tickets and beer.
Yet we continue to close off streets and crowd parking lots to solicit the creative stuff. Why? Because we get folks from outside of St. Pete to come.

Fact 2:
The financing proposal is the Rays initial offer. Now we get to counter offer. We have the Rays first choice. Waterfront with a strong urban design around it. Lets see how bad they want it!

Fact 3:
10 years ago St. Pete got baseball and we have had a stronger economy since.(after the 1920'sSt. Pete was barely on a map before baseball)
New tax revenues have been created with the increase of downtown development.

Fact 4:
Save the emotions for the game.
We have to be shrewd with the deal we offer the Rays. We offer them the waterfront for $100 million on top of the $150mil they offered already over the next 40 years. Also, we write in a profit share upon sale of the team if relocating.

[get-smart]

Make A Deal what part don't you understand?

I am not against a new stadium. I am against the destruction of the beautiful downtown waterfront . The whole point of a Waterfront Stadium is pure GREED and EGO. This is easy math. They are pumping up the value to dump it and then brag to their cohorts how smart they are. That is it! Nothing more! Nothing Less! The owners don't care about our country or St. Pete. They are cut from the same cloth as the criminal ex-governor of New York.

[Make A Deal]

get-smart
Why is it offensive to have 6 well made Americans invest a portion of their personal monies to grow a low performing MLB franchise.
Pumping up the value for bragging rights, is not bad for St. Pete. We can all brag if this new ownership continues to make this franchise thrive.
They didn't make their money here, but they want to spend it here. We love our tourist. Let's not chase them away.
If we treat them better they might even want to start other business around the area. By insulting them by saying they are GREEDY and are cut from the same cloth as the criminal ex-governor of New York, we cut our relationship short. And will do very little for the community outside of baseball.

St. Pete needs to vote. That is the democratic free choice way of deciding how to spend our tax revenues.

Look at the data of residential growth, business growth, and tax growth since St. Pete got its MLB team in 1998.
The numbers don't lie.

[get-smart]

Make A Deal : Elections!! You say Elections!

By keeping the new stadium a secret, the mayor and city deprived us of an important issue that needed to be aired for our election of our new city council members. I guess the mayor and friends didn't want to take a chance that any of the city council candidates declare themselves opposed to the stadium and God Forbid win.

These people whose butts you are kissing (I do hope you are being paid), Were hiding behind the Fed and pumping and dumping on the stock market to the detriment of innocent investors. Please, just Google "goldman sachs treason." If these people lived in China, Russia or Iran they would have been executed for treason. They outsourced our jobs and they control the commodities where as they will now push oil to $200/bbl. They sold mortgages to people who could afford them. All theses greedy cretins do is stuff their pockets with other peoples money. That is it! They produce nothing! This is pure greed at the expense of our country. These people only care about them selves. These guys are of the same ilk as the crooked ex-governor of New York. Believe me this is an argument you cannot win. Cheers!

[Peggy]

Enough of the corporate welfare. Rays owners want the new stadium just because they don't like the one their in, at the expense of taxpayers. Plain and simple. Well...guess what? I don't like my house either, what taxpayers are going to help fund me a new home? Enough already with the St. Pete Times propoganda!!!! Are the Rays paying them off? Your paper is suppose to be biased. Then report some of the truths that have been reported here on these blogs!!!!

[lb]

Downtown St. Pete has thrived over the last dozen years in spite of, not because of MLB. To say the presence of the Rays has had any great impact on business is conjuring fairies--have you walked 1st Ave South and Central between the Trop and downtown? How many businesses have anything to do with baseball? Ferg's--oh, yeah, forgot about them. Everything else--small, independently owned businesses centered on antiques, art, retail and local professional services. Oh, and how much of the money that the Rays earn (both owners and players) stays in the community, since few if any of them actually live here.
Downtown thrived despite a failed Bay Plaza (this latest scheme keeps that debacle running through my mind--remember all the great retail that was supposed to come from that). It thrived in large part because culturally aware individuals were drawn to our uniquely beautiful waterfront, moved here because they saw potential, and opened businesses that other like-minded people were interested in patronizing. Hence we have a thriving arts/restaurant/club scene that has little to do with baseball. Read the research.

[Greg]

Peggy...I think you ment to say...UNBIASED, in talking about Aaron's articles. But..we get the point. I was wondering the same thing too. Why do all the St. Pete Times articles sound like Rays Pro-Stadium Propaganda? Whats in it for them?

[Make A Deal]

Get-Smart
I just finished an hour of research Googling Spear Leeds & Kellogg, and the business of selling pieces of companies and public structures is legal.
Some employees throughout the years have been caught being cheats.
Which to have dishonest employees is not exclusive to financial sectors.
I know it's hard to imagine the econmic structure has changed from country to global, and will continue to do so over the next thousand years. But for some, the ability to see the benefit of writing up mergers, aqusitions, and trading practices different than what our grandfathers did, fueled a growth sector that was uncharted. There are some recognizable pains in these new frontiers, but the wrinkles will be ironed out before new ones emerge.
And why is it I'm accused of being paid to favor the waterfront stadium?
I like the waterfront stadium, waterfront Mahaffey, waterfront Dali, waterfront Vinoy and Straub, waterfront festivals, waterfront Grandprix, and the waterfront airport.
I want to put a bigger baseball stadium where Al Lang sits now. I wish someone would pay me for wanting that!

[Make A Deal]

I also wanted to make statement on what my take is on the council being secretive so to secure it's agenda concerning the stadium.

Politicians are known for such tactics.
They change direction with the wind!

But who would go public before the i's were dotted and t's crossed?

There was a lot data needed to get together since the new ownership took over to secure a plan at least worth looking at.

[get-smart]

Make A Deal : At least we agree if the council decides not to bring it to a vote, that's fine with you.

[Steve]

This stadium will be a wonderful addition to St Pete. It's a great idea to build on the hallowed grounds of a vacant stadium - Al Lang Field. The little thinkers who are opposed haven't got a clue. Major League Baseball offers a tremedous ecomic impact. The Rays are getting better fast, and we'll have an All-Star Game here and most likely post season baseball too. Major League baseball wants this stadium, the Rays want this stadium, the pulse of the city wants this stadium. Let's build it!

[Make A Deal]

Get-smart:

Knowing that you are admire China, Russia and Iran's government policies,it makes sense you would support a council you say is secretive and corrupt,to decide the case of this proposal.

[get-smart]

Make A Deal - I agree with you. But it seems your Goldman Sachs buddies have no problem in selling America out to this kind. Your buddies have no problem suppling them with the capital to set up factories in their countries. Your buddies have no problems in telling American manufactures that now you don't have to deal with American labor or environmental laws. Labor is now cheap. Do what you want. Your stocks will soar and we will make just that much more. We have the money we have the control. America is being controlled by these investment banker criminals. This country is controlled by an oligarchy. America is spinning down to third world status thanks to your friends. Your treasonous, criminal friends will suck the life out of St Petersburg if we let them. Your friends don't care about America or St. Pete.

[Freeplug.com]

lb,
Please explain your position. Did you find the Rays helped St Pete businesses when they were willing to promote you (and/or members of your group)by having you throw out the first pitch on the INAUGURAL STITCH N PITCH 9/09/2006?

http://prismyarn.com/events.htm?

Or are you simply against the spending of public money to finance the Stadium?

[Make A Deal]

Get-smart
It seems the Rays proposal to build a newer waterfront stadium has you so tied up in emotional knots you can barely see the local issues.
Perry Snell came from Kentucky, William Straub from North Dakato, and even John C. Williams (the father of St. Pete who even named the city after St. Petersburg Raussia) came from Detroit.
It's not bad they came here to purchase low to and sell high.
It's a compliment to what St. Pete's potential is believed to be.

[Rick K]

trulyconcernedcitizen:

I am not aware of any public investment for which the benefits are spread equally to every citizen.

Every street, every park, every fire station, every police cruiser, every musuem, every library book....

These are all public investments for which the benefits are not shared equally.

There are direct benefits of public investment (usually, these go to a small portion of the populace), and their are indirect benefits (which usually go to a larger portion of the populace). In most cases, we can't accurately measure the degree to which each citizen receives benefits of public investment.

So, I will offer the following:

First, stop fixating on the baseball stadium.

Many of us who are enthusiastic about these twin redevelopment proposals like the redevelopment of the Trop site MORE than we like the new baseball ballpark. Many of us absolutely love the idea of adding a multi-block district of modern housing, offices, shops, restuarants, and public spaces to our downtown.

If that (the redevelopment of the Trop site) were the only development proposal on the table (absent anything to do with the Rays), it would be true that some people would benefit more than others from the redevelopment of the Trop site. It would also be true (although impossible to measure with pinpoint accuracy) that the entire City and the entire region would both benefit from the redevelopment.

People can insist that community amenities do not benefit everyone.

But they are making an argument that most enlightened people reject.

[Don Mott]

"In most cases, we can't accurately measure the degree to which each citizen receives benefits of public investment". Rick can we measure the degree to which the Rays owners receive benefits as a private consortium without investing a dime? The items and theories you presented are public services and do not add profits to millionaires bank accounts. Please explain to me why taxpayers should foot the bill for millionaires to add to their riches? Everything in the Rays proposal IS city money, they are not investing a dime yet they will reap a windfall in profits. Do you not agree? Can't wait to hear your spin, BTW do you know Gary?

[Erick]

I support a different stadium:

AL LANG FIELD COMMUNITY BALLPARK

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

[Rick K]

Don Mott:

I do not know Gary. I do not work for the Rays or any of the many entitities that might have a large economic interest in seeing these twin redevelopment proposals get done.

It is possible, though, that I know you. I know an accountant named Don Mott who did some work with a trucking company based in Largo.

My interest in these topics is not based upon whom I know or who pays me. It is fueled by my desire to be involved in an important discussion about the future of our city and region. So about that . . .

Your assertion that the Rays owners aren't investing "a dime" is simply ludicrous. Last I looked, they have already invested/commited to close to $400,000,000 (not counting the commitments to a new stadium) in this community. (By the end of 2012, they will have invested more than a BILLION dollars in the Rays).

It is also VERY important to remember that most of the money spent by the Rays organization, employees and vendors stays right here in the Bay Area. The Rays staff live here. They shop here. They buy gas and groceries and get haircuts and hire local service providers right here in the Bay Area.

When people go to Rays games and buy an italian sausage, they are spending money at Mike Dodaro's ballpark satellites of his pizza business. Mike's employees live in the bay area. Mike Dodaro gives a lot of money and time to local youth sports programs.

When people visit any number of concession stands in the Trop, a portion of the money they spend goes directly to fund local community programs, high school marching bands, youth groups, and so on. This is money that the Rays could keep. Instead, the Rays allow the money to be reinvested in the local community.

Also, the Rays aren't going to own the new stadium. They also will not own the new redevelopment at the Trop site. The City did not put up tax money to buy the Rays from Namoli. They did not put up tax money to sign these players to long term contracts, improve minor league operations, expand global scouting organizations or increase the charitiable giving of the Major League team in Bay Area communities.

The Rays owners, employees and vendors did these things, with the enthusiastic support of those who spend money at Rays games.

That some tax monies are used in ways which enhance the ability of the Rays to successfully operate in St Pete does not bother me, because tax monies enhance the ability of nearly every business in St. Pete to successfully operate in the city. That is the WHOLE POINT of public investment in infrastructure.

Don, I did not live in the Bay Area when the decision was made to level blighted blocks in the inner city and construct a domed stadium in the hopes of someday attracting a big league baseball franchise. At the time, I was working in economic redevelopment for a city government and pursuing an advanced degree in Applied Economics (specializing in regional economics). I ridiculed the folly of such an investment.

Then I moved to the Bay Area, where, as a function of my employment and interest in real estate development, I began to apply the (admitedly sometimes limited) scientific tools economists use to measure the impact of the stadium investment. What I learned in the past 15 years convinces me without doubt that the stadium and it's tenants have played a signficant role in the remarkable rebirth of downtown St. Pete.

And what I know about economics and these twin redevelopment proposals informs me that your description of this matter is off base.

The question before us is not about "giving" public tax money to the owners of the Rays. Instead, what the Rays are trying to do is to win approval for a pair of community improvements which will benefit the team, the team's owners, the employees, vendors and customers of the team, attract more visitors and revenue to downtown, and also improve the infrastructure, attractiveness and economic health of the city's core (together with the greater region).

And I have NO problem considering that question.

What I do have a problem with is trying to cheat by skewing the debate.

[Don Mott]

"I know an accountant named Don Mott who did some work with a trucking company based in Largo". Rick chances are that was my brother Ron, not me. Personally I take offense at the notion that I am cheating since I do not believe I skewed anything. I said the Rays are not investing any of their money, period. How much they contribute to the local economy is a totally separate issue in my mind.

[TruthDetector]

I find Don Mott's assertion that the Rays owners are not contributing their own money to be a HUGE mistatement. If the Rays receive $200 to $300 million a year in income, and spend the bulk of that money here, they are investing their own money.