Baseball chief needs to butt out

From the Times editorial board

Memo to baseball commissioner Bud Selig: Butt out.

Tampa Bay in general and St. Petersburg in particular does not need your two cents on how much you dislike Tropicana Field and how badly the Tampa Bay Rays need a new stadium. Your sarcastic remarks to ESPN's Howard Bryant — "They can't make it in that ballpark. Have you been there?'' — are not appreciated. And when Bryant answered that he had been to the Trop many times, you wouldn't let it go. "Do I need to tell you any more than that?''

It would be one thing if you visited regularly or, say, showed up for the series sweep of the Chicago Cubs that drew more than 90,000 very loud fans. But don't make wild generalizations when you apparently haven't graced us with your presence in four years. Maybe you'll make it down for a playoff game this fall?

Pinellas County commissioners, St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker and City Council members are perfectly capable of creating a viable financing plan for a downtown waterfront stadium, even in these tough economic times. And if everything somehow falls into place this summer and the stadium issue makes it to the November ballot, St. Petersburg voters will reach a reasonable judgment about what is in the best interest of our community without your bluster.

One more thing. You may have forgotten how St. Petersburg came to build the dome and eventually get the Rays. The City Council did not listen to baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth's warning in 1986 that St. Petersburg was not among the top candidates for a franchise. So declarations by meddling baseball commissioners don't carry much weight around here.

The Trop is an exciting place to be this summer, and we don't need you to tell us that the Rays will need a new stadium at some point. Let this community wrestle with the issue, and keep your opinions to yourself — unless you want to talk about abolishing the designated hitter.

Comments

[Rick K]

I think the Times Editorial Board really comes off as an insecure bunch of kids who resent "outsiders" telling them what to do, even if they have every intent of doing precisely what the outsider is advising.

A pretty embarassing editorial, in my view.

[Jon McPhee]

Amen to the editorial "Butt out" to Selig, who has ripped off the people of Wisconsin for his own giant subsidy. Anything he might have to say on the subject is just so much cowbell.

But what's this next bit? "Pinellas County commissioners, St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker and City Council members are perfectly capable of creating a viable financing plan for a downtown waterfront stadium, even in these tough economic times."

One might be tempted to say that if there is any doubt remaining as to where the editors of the Times come down on the Siamese twins of "paired development, this ought to put it to rest.

We should be gratified and comforted that these folks have every confidence that our elected representatives can "create a viable financing plan for a downtown waterfront stadium"? So it's a foregone conclusion, then? What do these investigative Fourth Estate people, with all their access, know that we don't?

And we can be glad that they at least recognize that we are facing some "tough economic times." What might that mean, when politicians with the advice and counsel of the Ed Armstrongs of the world, are figuring out how to encumber the tax base and economy of our area to support a "viable financing plan"?

I have to ask if these folks read the stories in their own paper.

[Will Ferrell]

Sounds like Bug Selig needs some Cowbell, STAT!

[Rick K]

Of course, "Pinellas County commissioners, St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker and City Council members are perfectly capable of creating a viable financing plan for a downtown waterfront stadium, even in these tough economic times,"

The above is not only a factually correct assesment of the abilities of the BOCC, Mayor, and St Pete City Council, but the statement also accurately reflects what is actually going on right now. The Rays are currently involed in negotiations with the Mayor's office and staff at the BOCC and City in an attempt to work out a viable financing plan (part of which will be presented to the voters of St. Pete in November, for citizen approval).

That the likes of Jon McPhee continually look at reality and see something else is both sad and instructive.

[John]

Rick K

Did you see the interview with Bob Stewart on Bay News 9 yesterday?

Channel 342 on brighthouse, then select political/political show/June 22

A prominent member of the BOCC on television telling the Rays that their deal is all but dead and for them to re-consider Toytown.

Care to try again???

That is, after your done making out with your picture of Ed Armstrong....

[John]

Oh and Rick...the financing plan has absolutely NOTHING to do with the referendum.

The referendum is STRICTLY a land-use change for Al Lang as it pertains to a buy-back and lease to the Rays....but hey, we don't even have a lease negotiated yet so how can we vote on one? Tic Toc, time is running out.

[Clear Direction]

Rick K,

Please keep us posted as to how the negotiations with the City and BOCC are progressing.

I am sure that the rest of us would be interested in your insider's perspective as to your progess.

[Taylor]

I'm a new stadium supporter, but I agree wholeheartedly with the position of the editoral board here.

[Ray F]

I agree with the article.

Bud Selig is a chode. The guy is never down here. He could give 2 steamy piles about the Rays. He helped get them here, but, what have you done for us lately Bud???

How can a commissioner sit on his hands when one of his owners (Vince Naimoli) makes himself seem as untouchable as Julius Caesar when it comes to the fans??? How can he allow a team to never even make it out of the starting block from day 1??? He should have labeled Vince Naimoli unfit to own a franchise after the 3rd year.

Don't tell us how to run things here, Bud. Even though I agree with your point, I don't think you are exactly the poster child for responsible administration policy.

Why don't you visit Yankee Stadium of Fenway Park 25 more times this year and see how your favorite sons are doing.

[Rick K]

I have no insider knowledge about the negotiations. I am reading the newspaper and getting my information from the valuable, balanced updates Aaron provides in this blog.

One of the funnier characteristics of this whole public process is the way the ANTI's repeatedly admit to being blind to what is happening right before our eyes.

Negotiations are ongoing.

Details to follow....

[Joel]

Why on the Earth should the commissioner of major league baseball not be allowed to comment about an issue affecting a major league baseball team, whther you agree with his opinion or not?

[Thomas]

Joel,

I think the point is that Bud is not very in tune with St. Pete.

He's running "New Stadium Playbook 101" by bashing the current location and elluding to relocation, seemingly oblivious to the actual climate for this proposal.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting Bud not be allowed to comment; but rather he should be a bit more informed before he opens his cake hole.

[Rays Mike]

What if Selig showed up on Sunday afternoon, when despite the Rays record, there was no more school, it was a weekend, parking was free if there were 4 people in the car, the AC was blowing, ticket prices are the cheapest in MLB, (insert any other excuse) and the attendance was 19K - 10k below the league AVERAGE? Granted, Selig could have taken a more diplomatic and prepared answer to the question, but what is he saying that isn't true?

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick...there are proponents of the stadium that actually attempt to make sense...you however have LITERALLY lost the meaning of the word FACT.
FACT-A real occurrence; an event:
You state without pause...
"The above is not only a factually correct assesment of the abilities of the BOCC, Mayor, and St Pete City Council...
You cannot factually state the abilities, you can state your opinion and then others would be free to debate your OPINION by pointing out your historical precedent you seem to value... an 85 million dome that ballooned to over 300 million...with a 40 million dollar redevelopment fiasco, Bay Plaza, that saw the city literally destroy historic properties using eminent domain for a project that didn't get past a parking lot. Of course there is the small matter of remediation that staff claimed would be 68,000 then got serious and did some testing revising their figure to 2 million..actual cost over 5 million. You Anti Plan B's just cant seem to get it through your thick skulls that your historic precedence DEMANDS MORE DUE DILIGENCE. Of course seeing the weakness of your ad hominem rants reveals that you have no diligence-Earnest and persistent application to an undertaking; steady effort; assiduity.- Rick. As for the rest of the anti plan b's or pro paired proposals please understand we do not lump you all into the Rick K mold. Demetrios...Ray's Mike..Ray F..J and others we enjoy hearing your non emotional well thought out offerings.

[Adam]

Um, yeah, Times editorial board, you need to grow up.

[Rays Mike]

I do my best to delete out the emotional attacks, but sometimes, I get too fired up! :-)

For the record, I am all for Plan B - If Plan A doesn't pass, which at this point I am realistic, and I doubt will.. I just hope all of those who are only for Plan B right now will accept the findings and recommendations that come out of the studies...

[Clear Direction]

Wow Rick K,

I am now more convinced that ever that you are a Ray's employee!

No substance and "Details to follow"!

[Adam]

"They can't make it in that ballpark. Have you been there?'' . . . And when Bryant answered that he had been to the Trop many times, you wouldn't let it go. "Do I need to tell you any more than that?''

Amen. Even new-stadium opponents have to agree that the Trop is a joke. If you've been to ANY other big-league stadiums, you know the Trop is obviously inferior.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rays Mike,

We are with you brother. We don't wish to lose the Rays either. Archstone Madison is doing a 600 million plus development in Anaheim right now on the Angels parking lot. They have already floated the idea of a development that featured a new stadium for the Rays on the Southwest Corner of the Trop site. How they time everything so that the Rays do not lose any play dates is indeed "something that needs to be worked out". However a large part of the problem is that in addition to the waterfront location(off limits to many)
is the Rays attempt to do this before the Trop is fully amortized. Just 3-4 years in the planning could mean another 70 million or so for the project...as well as give citizens..officials..staff time to really perform serious due diligence and work out the details.

[Chris Jenkins]

It's the joke where there is ideal parking, ideal highways connecting to it, and where the team is currently winning. The joke is thinking downtown would be a better location.

[since1962]

PLAN B as suggested by Bill Foster which INCLUDES the involved stakeholders in a non rushed deliberative process will be acceptable.

NOT NOW
NOT ON THE WATERFRONT
LESS TAXPAYER MONEY/RISK

That is PLAN B

I would eliminate the Foster Whereas that insists on yet another name change.

NOT INTRASIGENT

[Dorks Who Think You Can Slide The Trop Down Central Ave]

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with The Trop ... it just needs to be moved!
Hey, is my 1.8 seconds of fame up yet?

[Adam]

"It's the joke where there is ideal parking, ideal highways connecting to it, and where the team is currently winning. The joke is thinking downtown would be a better location."

Yeah, that's what makes a great stadium--parking lots and highways. Whoohooo!!!! How tacky is that perspective?

Dude, the Trop is warehouse, not a baseball stadium.

[Chris Jenkins]

Are you really cracking on the guys at http://movethedome.com ?

I think their ideas have about as much chance of success as EcoVerde...

[Chris Jenkins]

Whatever, Adam. The Trop is a warehouse where the team is winning. It's a warehouse that sold out a game / Trace Adkins concert. It's a warehouse with plenty of parking and an easy ride in from out of town. It's a warehouse that Rick Baker loudly and publicly praised just LAST YEAR as a viable team venue.

[Adam]

Lipstick on a pig, my friend.

[Chris Jenkins]

Mud or lipstick, doesn't change the flavor of the bacon.

[Adam]

What are you smoking? Now, you're making my point.

I think both sides can agree that the Trop is sub-standard. It's a rediculous place to play major league baseball. This isn't 1987.

[Adam]

Selig may be out of touch with St. Pete, but the Trop makes St. Pete look out of touch with any sense of culture and visual appeal. And that's an unfortunate-and inaccurate--represenation of our city.

[Thomas]

If you keep this up you will not get an invitation to be one of the few who actually get to sit inside the dome as it's moved.

Plus I've heard that All American Rejects will be playing a concert in the dome as it's moved.

Don't you feel dumb now!

[Chris Jenkins]

Adam, based on what?

The team can win there.

There is parking there.

The Mayor just said what a great place to play it is.

I don't know why you think both sides can agree that the old stadium sucks, but I can pretty well assure you that only one side thinks so.

[Chris Jenkins]

Adam strikes me as the type to get a new car every couple of years..."because it's not 2004!"

Function over form.

Substance of style.

Common sense and practical application of city resources.

Guess which side of this debate doesn't particularly demonstrate those traits?

[Chris Jenkins]

Correction: Substance OVER style

[Clear Direction]

Adam,

I beleive your premis that both sides can agree that the Trop is sub-standard is flawed.

Clearly, many on this blog are willing to debate the point.

[Jimbo]

I love how everyone eludes that the stadium isn't downtown already. Are you serious? It's less than a mile from the water already and people say "it won't work downtown"? C'mon people, the only thing that won't work are the homeless who frequent the parks along the water right now. I personally would rather see my waterfront full of life than worthless bums.

I'm open to hearing about a "Plan B," but the problem is, Plan B solves none of the problems of the "No-Build" alternative: a stadium that displaced hundreds of families, surrounded by parking lots with everyone crowding streets to get in them, that's isolated from the rest of the surrounding community.

The only way a Plan B would work is having the new stadium lose almost all the parking. Make people walk from parking lots from around the city to get them to impulse shop. Turn the sea of parking into all types of retail and low- to middle-income housing. Have people experience what this city has to offer. Because, at this point, it's not about a new stadium anymore; it's about creating an economic engine that will jump-start us out of this funk of an economy we're in.

The new stadium would need to be built to accomplish that, though, and something more than a retractable Trop needs to take place. If the TV crews can't see downtown through the outfield wall, you defeated the purpose of this new stadium: to entice people to come here, guaranteeing we don't have a loss for tourism. Otherwise, all we're doing is building a Trop with no A/C, and that would be a waste of my money.

Oh, and I think Bud Selig is a d-bag, too and needs to get his house in order before he even thinks of criticizes others.

[Demetrios]

For those who are embarrassed by some of the actions of POWW, take solace in the fact that the Pro's have to deal with Bud. I don't care much for him!

[Adam]

"Function over form."

A blowup doll is "funcional," but I think we can all agree that it's not ideal.

[Sara]

You know who else can butt out? POWW and Fans for waterfront stadium. We can make our own minds up without those jackholes telling us what to think.

I am against putting a huge stadium on the waterfront and no matter what either group says, that's not going to change.

However, I am not opposed to a new stadium in another location, where the Trop is now for example, just so long as I don't have to pay for it!

Everyone should butt out and let us vote, and I think its pretty clear how that vote will turn out.

Plan B anyone?

[Chris Jenkins]

Not having the blow up doll experience you do, Adam, I can't really comment on your analogy.

I will say that although a nice shiny new car with no bugs or quirks would be really golly gee great!

It's not realistic right now for my budget, though.

A nice shiny new sports stadium would be awesome! It's not realistic for the taxpayers of this county right now, especially not when the cost is not clear and guaranteed.

[Adam]

Yeah, if everyone just "butt out," then I wouldn't have any information on which to base my opinion!!

Yes, Sara, tell everyone to butt out, and then ask, "Plan B anyone?"

[Sara]

Sorry, I didn't know you relied on others to form your opinion for you, I thought, like myself, you could find the facts for yourself (using the internets, for example)and then decide what YOU thought about them

so do you know what I mean when I say plan b, sweetie, or do you need poww or fans for to tell you what that means and what you should think about it

[Adam]

Point well taken, Sara. From now on, I will never rely on what "others" say when I form opinions (even if what they say is fact); instead, I will rely solely on the internet. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you.

[since1962]

The anger and unwillingness to pay for ANY costs expressed by sara and others is the Rays fault.

Baseball teams are CONSTANTLY ranked so it is ironic that the selfish Rays won't allow us to RANK OUR PRIORITIES.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Sara,

Congratulations on being civic minded enough to do your own research and come to a logical well formed opinion.

However you don't have to slam POWW/Fans for the Waterfront Stadium for presenting facts that others, who may not be as civic minded and proactive as you, have not taken the time to discover.

[Adam]

"Not having the blow up doll experience you do, Adam, I can't really comment on your analogy."

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you, but here's the analogy I'm making, Chris:

The Trop : a nice baseball stadium :: blowup doll : a real person.

Even if you're opposed to the Rays proposal, you have to agree this is a fair analogy.

I've been to lots of other parks (Atlanta, Detroit, both NY parks, Boston), and the Trop is amateurish and stale.

[Rick K]

What insanity is this where the ANTI's keep pretending that their fantasies are somehow eqivalent to reasonable judgement of informed people?

It does not matter that a few ANTI's think the Trop is fine. That doesn't settle the matter. These are ANTI's, who have no intention of voting for these proposals, regardless. What doer would let a naysayer determine how the doing gets done?

The Rays are in a position far better than any nattering nabob of negativity to know which characteristics of a stadium best match their likely market challenges in the coming decades.

The Commissioner of Major League baseball knows a great deal more about viable stadiums in MLB than do these uninformed delusional "experts" who desire to keep the waterfront stuck in 1974.

The thousands of Rays fans who have been surveyed by the Rays and MLB have offered information about the continuing viability of the Trop moving foward than the completely uneducated "guesses" of the chattering "no" brigades.

The Trop is obsolete. To better serve the Rays and the community, it should be replaced.

So says the Rays. So says Major League Baseball. So says City Staff.

On the other hand, the 30 plus active members of POWW think otherwise.

Um. Ok.

[Sara]

Both groups present "facts" as they see fit. If you rely too heavily on either group's "facts" then you do your self a disservice.

Adam, I encourage you to go the library and do some research (of scholarly articles, for example) of the impact of professional sports and the public funding debate (which has been going on for over 20 years).

Of course, you can also find much of that research on the web, but by all means, spend some time in a library as well.

[Sara]

Rick, I agree. I think POWW are wankers. I also think the Rays need a new stadium. Just built it somewhere besides the waterfront and don't make me pay for it and we're good.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Rick K]

I am loving this confusion ANTI's have about facts and honest representations.

Summary: most of the claims POWW makes on its website are not factually correct or truthful claims. Their website is little more than a compilation of wishful thinking, needless worrying, unfortunate distratction, and both subtle and outright deception.

Adding to that reality is the post of the most ardent ANTI's who regularly post in these Blogs. They pretend that these paired redevelopment proposals will COST the citizens of St Pete money. The fact is, the only set of reasonable financial projections which have been put published by competent financial analysts indicate that these proposals will MAKE the citizens money!

What bizzaro world is this where ill informed fringe players insist on pretending that deals that will make us money will actually lose money?

And they do this without any reasonable evidentiary support.

QUESTION: Where is a reasonable study by competent finanical experts predicting that the costs of these proposals will exceed their returns?

ANSWER: There isn't one. None. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

HOWEVER, that lack of any reasonable basis for their claims has NEVER stood in the ways of the ANTI's trying to dominate public debate with their FANTASY view.

It's madness, I tell you.

[Sara]

Rick, I agree. I think POWW are wankers. I also think the Rays need a new stadium. Just built it somewhere besides the waterfront and don't make me pay for it and we're good.

Seems reasonable to me.

[since1962]

RrrrrricK
YOU DO KNOW WHO YOU'RE
QUOTING

"nattering nabobs of negativity"

SPIRO AGNEW
the first and only vice president EVER to RESIGN
Whatever happened to his boss... mmmmmmmmm

[Rick K]

Of course I know who originated the phrase.... Speechwriters for Spiro Agnew. But why on earth would that fact have ANYTHING to do with the fact that the ANTI's who post here do little beyond serially repeating a bunch of delusionally paranoid visions of calamity?

[Rick K]

Sara:

I totally respect both your position as stated here, AND the manner in which you have stated it.

I wish all who oppossed these paired redevelopment proposals would be as honest as you.

There is NOTHING wrong with holding the views you hold. You assert them openly with no attempt to disguise or confuse. You find no need to bolster your reasoned judgement with questionable claims or silly tangents.

In short, I applaud your posts in this vein.

Where we differ, really, is on both the points you hold as important.

With regards to how much you and I would be required to pay for a new stadium. I am not aware of any reasonable stadium scenario in which you or I would have to pay less than in this deal. All things considered, if the actual financing terms come close to those the Ray's proposed in outline form, the average citizen of St. Pete who does not attend Rays games will pay a smaller amount for this proposed stadium than the citizens have paid for any stadium in Florida that I am aware of.

Personally, the Trop field redevelopment is what I like best about these paired redevelopment proposals. But I also really like the opportunity to improve our downtown waterfront, draw even more people to downtown, and leverage the contributions the waterfront can make to being a major tourism attractor.

Building a stadium on a dump or in some distand suburb doesn't give us these other benefits, which I think are awesome.

I love that the new stadium design includes more usable green public park space downtown on the waterfront. I love the mini-ampitheater style feature.

I love the idea of connecting the urban retail experience with open spaces and public ameneities which connect the waterfront and will serve to attract visitors to one waterfront venue to other waterfront venues.

The symbiosis of the whole plan is very appealing to me.

[Thomas]

"The Trop is obsolete.... it should be replaced. So says the Rays. So says Major League Baseball."

The Rays will play at Trop until 2027. So says the lease.

If they don't like it, they can foot the bill for their new stadium.

[Sara]

Rick, I can see why you like the proposal and I agree, there are a lot of great aspects.

For me, the waterfront is the dealbreaker. I've lived here all my life and have participated in protecting the waterfront for the better part of 20 years now. I'm not against ALL development on the waterfront, but a 35,000 seat stadium is the exact opposite of my opinion of what we should put there.

I think we should develop part of Al Lang (the part along 1st South) with shops and restaurants and leave the part along the water as park.

I also think we should build a new stadium on the Trop parking lot and once its complete put a mini version of what they propose we redevelop it to be currently.

The sale of the land to develop part of the Al Lang site and the sale of the land to develop around the new stadium should be the public's contribution. The rest the Rays and MLB should pay for themselves.

[since1962 re RICK]

The quote matters Rick because Agnew was charged with EXTORTION,TAX FRAUD and CONSPIRACY, plead No CONTEST & RESIGNED. His boss Nixon sufferd a similar fate.

These are your quotes for THIS issue to SQUELCH public discourse?

YOU CAN DO BETTER

[Jimbo]

So, since1962, by your logic, quoting someone of less than upstanding character automatically brands a person a liar, thief, and criminal?

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick "Spiro" K.,

I still offer my challenge of specificity in your charges of lies on the POWW website. Again my friend your OPINION does not make it so. Since you want to go back in time for your phrases.."Where's the beef?" List your top ten SPECIFIC LIES!!!
Your observation..."The fact is, the only set of reasonable financial projections which have been put published by competent financial analysts indicate that these proposals will MAKE the citizens money!" What the Hell are your talking about Rick?
This is antithetical to your very arguments that our "professional" city staff is still working on these figures. Where were you when these same competent analysts were making projections for Bay Plaza..our last real attempt at a development this size. Perhaps you mean the "projections" from the Rays...we have already exposed with your historical precedence the FACTS about the accuracy of Mr. Kalt's last projections. Raw numbers Rick not ad hominem BS statements about Mr Kalt. And for you or anybody else who dares to rely on any information from Bud Selig...chew on these numbers..projected cost of Milwaukee's Miller Stadium 250 Million
Actual cost determined by Wisconsin State Auditors over 425 million. Brewers "proposed" contribution 90 million..actual closer to 13 million of their own money.
Brewers record for the immediate three years after the new stadium..subtantially worse than the 5 years prior to the new stadium...5 years btw they had a losing record!!!
The slimy Seligs committment to winning in the new stadium helping him win...release 7 high price players and cut payroll in half. Bud Selig is the BIGGEST LOSER to ever infect MLB. Can you say steroids? Wisconsin State Senator Mike Ellis' observation about Selig...''The Seligs just scammed the living dickens out of the people of this state.'' Do you get that Rick. A Wisconsin State Senator who HAS NEVER BEEN A MEMBER OF POWW YOU LAME BRAINED IDIOT!!!!! ARE YOU RICK FORREST GUMP?
These a raw numbers Rick and historical examples...FACTS..Rick..not some juvenile diatribe from somebody so desperate to get their way they need somebody to quickly supply the pacifier.

[Xenu]

Xenu believes Adam needs to ring more cowbell. Xenu believes ringing cowbell will wake you up. More cowbell please Will.

[Bobby Fenton]

Chirs Jenkins may well have now secured the award for the dumbest poster on this entire blog on either side. He has based his argument on the fact that the Rays are "winning games right now" and that the Trop "has parking". Then he proceeds to make fun of Adam. Genius. Just genius.

I won't even bother addressing his first assertion that the team is winning so the Trop must be fine. That is too stupid to even get into.

As far as the parking goes, that is the biggest non-issue to be raised out of this whole thing, and I actually have to tip my hat to the nay's for making it stick, but it is simply ridiculous. Aside from the fact that there are many more spaces than is being let on by the nay's, have we ever stopped to think that maybe it would do us some good, just once, to build something that isn't surrounded by a thousand miles of asphalt on all sides?

We are known as the land of strip malls, etc., all around the country, and our cityscapes and architecture in our urban areas don't exactly set the world on fire when you compare it to other cities. Does anyone ever think of these things before they immediately sacrifice setting and atmosphere and feel for another 5,000,000 BTU's of A/C and their own giant parking lot?

[Bobby Fenton]

And another thing while I'm at it. You people need to let this Trop thing go. Whether you think it is fine as it is or not no longer matters. It is a moot point. The simple fact, and this is a fact, is that within the next decade the team is leaving that place. Where they go could be a number of places. In St. Pete, Tampa, or elsewhere, but they will NOT be in that stadium. All of you should know this by now.

So if you don't like this proposal and want to start talking counterpropsals and other options, or, (gasp), how St. Pete/Pinellas can actually WORK with the team and negotiate, then that's perfectly fine. I'm not saying we should automatically rubber stamp the first deal out there. But stop acting like stamping your feet, balling up your fists and chanting "LEASE UNTIL 2027!" is going to make the whole issue go away. There will be new stadium somewhere. Selig didn't say anything that wasn't true. I don't like him either, but he was right. So the next question is, where do we go from here? The answer is not, "Nowhere, dude, everything's fine!"

[Xenu]

Xenu has not yet given any awards to either side.
Xenu thought you were known as the land of strip "clubs"
Xenu thinks setting the world on fire and adding 5,000,000 BTU's of AC would be self defeating.
Xenu likes space and parking lots.
All Hail Xenu!!!

[Thomas]

Bobby,

I'm referencing lease through 2027 and the fact that the City Attorney has indicated it's enforceable by injunction as major leverage for the city.

I'd encourage them to use it to make a better deal. 66% public financing when the city holds all the cards is not very astute dealings.

Also, it extends the time table. There's no need to fast track this proposal if it's incomplete or irrational.

I'd like to think the Rays truly are good civic partners and therefore will be open to discussions that result in a real win-win.

[Jimbo]

Amen, Bobby! It's nice to hear someone with long posts, like myself, making more sense than Rick K. (Sorry, Rick, I'm on your side and all, but some of the stuff you say makes me cringe.)

It's also nice to hear someone who's tired of both sides, not just the naysayers, spew the BS and vitriol out of every orifice they can to make their point.

Let's hope all sides can work together to make this, or "Plan B" happen, and soon, because I really believe no one wants to lose the Rays!

[Bobby Fenton]

And Thomas, you're right, man. I understood what you were trying to say and wasn't specifically referring to you in that last post. You've been pretty reasonable from the threads I have been reading up here.

The point is in my mind, everybody should be exctied about the prospect of a beautiful new park and all of the possibilities it will hold. The public stance and that of Pinellas county leaders, which at least anecdotally right now seems to range from mildly hostile to downright obstinate, should be an open minded one geared toward negotiation.

We should all be able to agree that the whole area is better off with this team playing here in a nice place we can all enjoy and be proud of. I cringe when home game highlights come on ESPN because the Trop just doesn't hold up.

[Xenu]

Xenu thinks TV makes the Trop look "fat"

[Rick K about POWW - #1]

My first objection to the group calling themselves POWW is their group name.

My study of economics and lifetime of experience convince me of some things. I think it is obvious that if the aims of POWW were achieved, the Citizens of St. Pete would be poorer than we will be if these paired redevelopment proposals are built. So, POWW's objectives will lead us to having LESS money in our wallets. Not more, as they hope those who read their name will assume the group will bring about.

Additionally, I do not believe that POWW's postions will "preserve" the waterfront. What they will more likely achieve is a postponement in solving the community problem of how best to increase community use of the waterfront while we also find a way to leverage the impact the waterfront can have on attracting tourists.

So, out of the gate, I find the name of this group to be intentionally deceptive. As a comparison, the "pro" group calls itself "Fans for a Waterfront Stadium."

Nothing deceptive there.

At best, the POWW name reflects their unrealistic dreams that not considering these paired redevelopment proposals now will somehow make the City a better place. That is wishful thinking designed to fool people into assuming that POWW's proposals are very likely to result in a richer citizenry.

[since1962 re Jimbo]

JIMBO
Plan B is the only option left

Watch the interview on Bright HOUSE 342
(Political June 22)

1)Build Political Support

2)Better Timeline

3)Viable Location

I don't wan't Rays to leave but how willing are they to stay and accept reality.

[Thomas]

I don't cringe when the highlights come on ESPN anymore!

44-31 going into the second series with the Fish.

The County, City, A-M, and Rays all should be open minded. The Trop redevelopment idea is a great start. Now let's get some real financing options going and move forward.

[since1962 reRick]

Rick "spiro"K

Quoting Agnew does not make you the best judge of public debate and its participants.

He too would have preferred that those "nattering nabobs of negativism" NOT ASK QUESTIONS!

[Rick K to PlanB, errr 1962]

Since 1962,

Make whatever judgements you wish to make about the degree to which my inclusion of a alliterative phrasing from a speech writer undermines my assertions here. Most of us suspect that you would find anything I say of value, since you seem hellbent on accepting only those assertions, facts, and reasoned opinions which reinforce the views you have already formed.

I do not claim to be the best judge, 1962. And I do not really think your opinion of my worthiness as a judge is likely to make much difference to me, unless there is something I don't know about you which would cause me to view you differently than I do.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Bobby, Jimbo, Rays Mike, let me assure you that there are actually members of POWW who love baseball and attend Rays games. They understand and agree with Bobby's points.
They realize the Rays are going to do everything they can, including utilizing their high priced New York attorneys to get out of the Trop lease. Despite Rick K's attempts to demonize POWW the vast majority of them happily support plan b. However negotiation is a two way street. Bill Foster's plan B makes the most sense. If the Rays are serious and not just using this as a ploy to leave...why would they not be receptive to negotiating with a community that welcomes then instead of one full of red signs? If it's the waterfront or nothing then the Rays are not serious. Because if we concede that the Trop doesn't measure up, you must concede that the stadium is not what draws people...Thomas has provided plenty of factual documentation for that.

[Rays Mike]

Sara -

Do you realize that YOU won't be paying for it? The Rays, Archstone, and the bed tax, which paid by tourists, will be paying for it..

[Rays Mike]

I cringe whenever ESPN makes fun of the terrible attendance figures, when the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs aren't in town, and there isn't a concert after the game...

[Rick K]

A TRULY CONCERNED,

There is no factual documentation that stadiums do not draw people.

None.

There are wild claims of such, without factual support.

There are misapplied statistics which SEEM to support the notion.

But there is NO FACTUAL basis for the claim that stadiums do not draw people.

More importantly, almost noone who is in favor of these proposals bases our support on a fundamental belief that the key to everything is increasing attendance for the Rays.

Instead, we view these realities:

1. The Rays want a new ballpark, for reasons having to do with the their bottom line AND other reasons.
2. If history is any guide, the Rays are going to get a new ballpark.
3. The Trop was the wrong stadium, built in the wrong place, and it's current configuration wastes too many public resources.
4. Wasting the 86 acres at the Trop Site is an unconscionable act that we can no longer justify as enlightened adults.
5. The city's waterfont is underutild.
6. Neither the Rays nor the waterfront currently are well positioned to best leverage the natural advantages both could have in increasing the attractiveness of St. Pete to tourists.
7. The opportunities to reap the tremendous benefits of these HUGE redevelopment proposals do not come along very often.

Those are the sorts of things most proponents see.

We aren't that concerned with Thomas' fictional accounting of what is likely to happen to Rays game attendance, which is likely to be based on a large variety of variables.

[Rick K about typos]

#5 above should be

"The city's waterfont is underutilized."

[since1962 reRick]

"something about me to cause you view me diffrently"?

NAZI STORM TROOPER PERHAPS?

There goes that nattering agin

[Xenu]

Xenu knows nothing is free. Xenu knows that those on the bottom always get screwed the worst. Xenu knows the majority pay for the exception. Xenu has seen Peter rob Paul. All Hail Xenu!!!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K.,

Pathetic response to my request for your top ten list of specific LIES on the POWW website...a response that includes..."I object","I think","Additionally I do not believe",
"I find" "That is wishful thinking designed to fool people into assuming that POWW's proposals are very likely to result in a richer citizenry."

Rick..Rick..Rick..while I have no objection to you "objecting" "thinking" "not believing" "finding" you have yet to recognize the difference between FACTS and your opinion. In a civil society we can all agree to disagree without calling each other liars, especially again since you are UNABLE to state even one FACTUAL LIE!!!!
I challenge you to cut and paste from the POWW site where it states that...talks about creating a richer citzenry. Certainly POWW talks about priorities of where SUBSIDIES and tax money should be applied. Rick even you must concede that we are talking about over 10 million dollars annually which is a subsidy to a business able to pay it's employees 10 million a year. You must also concede this is TAX money!!! We can all debate the merits of this subsidy...and whether an extension of a tax amounts to a new tax...but Rick you FORREST GUMP...again you fail to present FACTS. Talk about hubris..when a man is so delusional he thinks his opinions are fact....

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick,

You claim that the Holy Cross studies..Baader...Zimbalist...Heartland Institute...Cato Institute and the Brookings Institute..use NO REAL FACTUAL DOCUMENTATION LIKE SALE TAX RECEIPTS and other hard data unlike your made up opinionated BS. So you think POWW is lying for posting academically, peer reviewed, independent studies. You my friend are a true wacko and I give up. I never really hoped to change your mind on the issue...at the earliest stages I had some pleasure in the simple debate..but you are unworthy of another post. Nobody can counter Rick K's opinion when facts are irrelevant.

[Thomas]

"There is no factual documentation that stadiums do not draw people. None."

What Rick means is there is no factual documentation... if you completely disregard the published attendance numbers. You can easily see there was no lasting increase in attendance for Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, etc, etc.

Seriously - what type of loon claims that there is no documenation when MLB publishes the attendance numbers?!?

[Thomas]

Winning increases attedance - nothing else does. (Except for Northside of Chicago)

Even New York had sagging numbers when they were playing poorly.

In 1992 the Yankees only drew 21,589 per game.

[Thomas]

"There are wild claims of such, without factual support"

SOURCE: Baseball Almanac

Milwaukee Brewers
Miller Park Year 1: 34,704
Miller Park Year 2: 24,317
Miller Park Year 3: 20,992

Pittsburgh Pirates
PNC Park Year 1: 30,834
PNC Park Year 2: 23,148
PNC Park Year 3: 20,983

OK Rick, here's your chance to be a man and admit you were dead wrong.

Will you do it?

Will you offer a retraction/correction/apology?

[Rick K about causation]

Thomas is confusing the concept of correlation with causality.

The raw attendance figures do indeed prove that some new stadiums have seen diminished attendance after an intial increase.

However, there is no factual basis for claiming that people are not influenced to come to new ballparks in larger numbers.

An economist attempting to prove the causation Thomas wishes were true would say something like this:

All other things being equal and unchanged, the attendance figures prove that new ballparks do not generate sustained increases in attendance.

The flaw in such a "proof" of course, would lie in the fact that "all other things are not equal and unchanged."

Thus, no reasonable competent economist would attempt to do what Thomas does, which is attempt to sell statisical correlation with causation.

[Rick K about Thomas]

It is also important to note that virtually no one who is supporting these paired redevelopment proposals in these forums is basing our support on a wish that a new ballpark will lead to more fans in attendance at games.

That is not the case.

Obviously, then, Thomas' attempts here are to distract from the actual relevant issues.

It matters not to me if the Rays attract more fans or not. The Rays think they will better off finacially and otherwise in a new stadium. They have said they won't be sticking around til the end of their lease.

They have also offered an exciting solution to the problems they percieve. Happily, the Rays' proposed solution also will likely bring all sorts of other positive benefits to our community, far in excess of their cost.

That is the relevant discussion.

Not Thomas' fantasies that he understands basic economics.

[Thomas]

Dude, you're such a Loon!

You said it:

"Posted by: Rick K | June 23, 2008 at 05:24 PM : There is no factual documentation that stadiums do not draw people. None. There are wild claims of such, without factual support."

Did you want to correct your statements of 5:24PM?

Or are you going to expose yourself as a total fraud... again.

[Rick K to Truly Concerned]

Truly Concerned:

I can't quite figure you out. One minute I have you written off as a hopeless fringe kook. The next you seem eager to engage in meaningful discussion.

I have not replied to your request to document what I regard as POWW's numerous attempts to distort, distract, delay and deceive.

I have no problems whatsoever differentiating between opinions and facts.

For example, all that we KNOW at this time tells us that at the very best, POWW's self-picked name represents something that they HOPE will come true. They HOPE their objectives will result in preservation of wallets.

The facts remain to be seen.

So, at the very best, POWW opted for a name that does not factually represent their group's aims. It represents their dreams or wishes.

Comparatively, Fans for a Waterfront Stadium have selected a group moniker that clearly and factually spells out what the group is about. It is fans who support a waterfront stadium.

POWW hopes that it's objectives, if pursued, would lead to a preservation of wallets and waterfront.

POWW's could have named themselves People Opposed to a Waterfront Stadium. But they did not opt for a factually correct label. Instead they opted for a fuzzy name about what they HOPE will come true.

So the one group opts for a factually accurate description of themself. The other opts for a group name that does not immediately tell everyone the factual truth about the group.

I have not yet claimed, Mr. Truly Concerned, to have presented proof of a factual lie by POWW. Instead I have presented what I believe to be intentionally deceptive, distortive and distracting choices by POWW.

The name "Preserving our wallets" (to everyone but the members of POWW, apparently) means that the group is about promoting plans which will, if persued, end up with at least the same amount of money in our wallets that we had before their plans. In this specific case, when POWW has organized in opposition to a specific pair of proposals, most everyone who reads the words "preserve our wallet" understands them to mean that POWW's plans, if enacted, would make people's wallets the same or better off than they would be if we persued the specific plans POWW has organized to defeat.

You can fool yourself into claiming that POWW is about being as truthful as possible. But most of us can see otherwise.

[Rick K to Thomas]

Your idiocy is endless, isn't it?

You have presented no factual evidence that the stadium is the reason these people stopped coming to the games in the same numbers as the prior season.

You have presented no factual evidence because there isn't any.

You silly dope. Please stop pretending to understand things you don't understand.

[John]

When are you guys going to learn that Rick K is nothing more than a spam-bot with pre-written, nauseatingly lengthy, meaningless retorts of spin and distraction??

Just ignore him. He is irrelevant at this point.

Save your energy for the Plan B discussions forthcoming.

[Thomas]

New Stadiums have not had a prolonged effect in attendance in any market, ever.

That's the new news Rick.

I posted the numbers from the Brewers and Pirates.

You can easily go to Baseball Almanac and see the same story for the Astros, Phillies, Braves, Mariners, Cardinals, Padres, Tigers, Reds, and Orioles.

The only thing that causes attedance to jump is winning.

[Thomas]

It's pretty easy to find "factual documentation" that new stadiums have not had a prolonged effect on attendance in any market, ever.

The attendance numbers provide a nice, neat factual account.

If a new stadium had ever had a prolonged effect on attendance - you would see it.

Instead we have a list of a dozen teams that all show the same exact thing.

Don't worry Rick - You don't have to admit it. The rest of us already know it's true, even without your buy in.

Boom - Outta Here!

[More Rick K to Truly Concerned]

When a Truly Concerned talks about " over 10 million dollars annually which is a subsidy to a business able to pay it's employees 10 million a year."

I am not sure at all what he means.

If I give you a subsidy of $10 million, and you create $30 Million of economic benefits, then it might more accurately be said that my subsidy has created a 2 for 1 real return on the expenditure, which, in the end, wasn't an expenditure at all, but an investment which doubled over time.

If I light a $100 on fire and let it burn to ashes, that $100 has been consumed and will never return. Alternatively, if I invest $100 today and get $300 back tomorrow, I merely invested the money and realized a return on my investment.

TRULY CONCERNED, I think you might benefit from re-reading my specific criticisms of Zimbalist and the others. In many cases, I offered specific critiques of their work. I do not dispute that they sometimes use facts in support of their claims. But I find that they often intentionally use the WRONG facts or use facts that do not actually support their work. They also often ignore available facts which DISPROVE their main contentions.

But far more importantly, these people usually just state certain claims without factual proof. The most glaring example being their repeated incorrect factual claim that there is "near unanimity amongst economists that public investment in sports stadiums produce net negative financial returns to their regions."

TRULY CONCERNED, if you were truly serious about finding the truth (not just responding to what I say), your own serious study of the work the ANTI's have cited would lead your untrained eye to see glaring problems with the work.

Sometimes, the a study shows that the income for an entire City did not appreciably increase after a new stadium was opened.

As if the two are simply and directly related, and any stadium proponent anywhere has asserted such.

If you actually read these studies, you would see that there are Other times (when City incomes have risen) that they analyze an entire Region's income, and other times when they analyze an entire State's income.

The willingness of the researchers you so love to quickly shift their definition of the most valid data set is nothing more than "selective fact shopping."

It is ludicrous to assert that if a stadium is a positive economic benefit to a City that the income in the entire State should automatically rise upon stadium completion, otherwise the Stadium can't possibly have contributed positively to the economy.

What if the truth is that, absent the stadium, the State income would have decreased by a billion dollars and the positive effects of the new stadium diminshed would-be shrinkage by $250 million?

If that is factually correct, the approach of your beloved "analysts" is designed to completely miss that impact. You should all be weary of studies that don't aim to determine the truth, but instead seek only to serve a particular predetermined point of view.

Some people I know drive Limousines for a living. In January, 2007, the traveled from Tampa Bay to the Miami Area and spent a week there. They did this because the influx of people in the Miami area to be part of the Super Bowl events created a temporary shortage of limousines and chauffeurs in the Miami area market. Suddenly, there were more people demanding limousines than there were limousines in Miami.

12 Limousine drivers shared 4 hotel rooms on the far outskirts of Miami for a week. They spent more than $1000 on fuel at Miami area gas stations. When they added up the amount spent on hotel, meals, entertainment, office rental, local commissions, and fuel, these 12 chauffeurs spent thousands of dollars in the Miami area.

Now, your favored analysts, CONCERNED, would have us believe that every dime these chauffeurs spent in Miami that week would have been spent in Miami by someone else, if these guys and girls had not gone down to Miami for the Super Bowl.

They would make this claim (as USF's Porter does) in definace of the laws of economics and without a single factual shred of proof. They won't have found a single displaced vactioner who intended to go to Miami that week and spend the same amount of money but was denied the opportunity to do so because he was displaced by limousine chauffeurs.

In short, they will be pulling their claims out of their rear ends.

And people like you will applaud them.

People like me will not.

[Chris Jenkins]

"Chirs Jenkins may well have now secured the award for the dumbest poster on this entire blog on either side. He has based his argument on the fact that the Rays are "winning games right now" and that the Trop "has parking". Then he proceeds to make fun of Adam. Genius. Just genius."

The irony in this is more than I can bear.

Hey Bobby, you're clearly not qualified to decide who is dumb. Since you need a little handwalking through the postings, let me help you along. Don't dribble, dear. That's what your bib is for.

1. Cherry picking lines out of my posts without taking in the overall context, which was simply that Adam posited "Everyone HAS to agree that the Trop is HORRIFYINGLY bad! OMG OMG OMG!!!", which is not a tenable position. As a matter of fact, the most common response I hear about the issue is "What? They've GOT a stadium." Anecdotal to be sure, but nonetheless...

2. I didn't make fun of Adam. He brought a blow up doll to his blog post. I noted it. What's the problem?

3. You did not anywhere in your post make a single countering positional statement. You called objections about winning dumb, and parking a non-issue.

So, despite having nothing resembling a debate position whatsoever, you wade into the fray, and pronounce me dumbest ever.

Look up "Irony" in the dictionary. You'll find your post there.

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, Rrrick, champion of the non sequitur and double negative -- what ever happened to "is revealing" and "is very revealing?" Had to fall back on "is instructive," which is weaker yet?

If San Franciscans can tell the Giants franchise owner to build his own darn stadium without benefit of public money, seconded by San Jose and Santa Clara, why not here? Especially since the Giants organization is making a pretty good buck staying right where they are?

What's with your persistent insistence that us taxpayers have to pony up maybe $2,000 or $3,000 apiece (there's probably two or three residents for every taxpayer, out of 250,000 divided into $600 million for the proposed subsidy?

What's with the constant notion that our fearless leaders' only charge is to figure out which public assets and tax revenues will be levied on to give the Rays owners a subsidy to build a "downtown waterfront stadium" and enable a developer to maybe build "something" on the wreck of an unamortized Dome?

Oh well, as someone once observed, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," or words to that effect.

[I'm the dumbest poster!]

I did not read the article but I did go to movethedome.com and read up on alternate solutions to the debate. The Times Op-Ed board ought to expand upon this idea.

P.S. I always thought the dumbest poster was the Menudo one my friend had circa 1985. No one actually listened to Menudo did they? Regardless, I'm sure no one will argue that poster is clearly the dumbest.

[Rick K to Jon McPhee]

Let me ask you this Jon McPhee...If the Rays are going to pony up nearly 100% of the cost of a new stadium, why can't they do that somewhere else just as easily as they could do it here?

Wouldn't it make equal sense to build their own non-subsidzied stadium near New Orleans or Tunica/Memphis or Vegas or Portland or Nashville or Charlotte or any other city in the US where the local government is more hospitable and the economics make more sense?

Or do you buy into the fantasy that there is no way the Rays could leave Florida any time they choose?

Personally, I don't view the "if you don't agree to this stadium they will leave" arguments as being terribly important. For me, those considerations aren't even in my top 15 reasons I like these proposals. But to ignore that potential is pretty short sighted and a bit small time.

As for your baseless claim that this deal will cost everyone in St Pete several thousand dollars a piece instead of MAKING every citizen of St Pete richer, you can dream all you want, Jon. You can even rejoice that others share your fantasy. It's like a club. You even have your red signs to identify each other!!!

Your obsession with seeing only PART of this picture is your chief shortcoming. You obsess over the money you jealously fear the Rays owners and players will make. You obsess at the expense of the more complete picture. The job of public servants is to find ways to provide the best possible future for the City, from among all the available alternatives.

EVERY decision impacting development will put money in someone's pocket. The question is to find ways to do that which spread as many benefits as widely as possible. We've managed to find a once-per-millenium opportunity to achieve the very, very rare.

That's the bigger picture you and your red sign devotees are missing, Jon.

[I'm So Ronery]

I hate to disagree but the dumbest poster of all time is "The Golden Girls Bikini Extravaganza" I had growing up. I used to think Rue McClanahan had nothing on Bea Arthur. What a babe! Estelle Getty was okay and Betty White was too "girl next door" for me.

[Don in St. Pete]

Like many of the previous posters I've been to many of the parks mentioned, including Fenway yankee Stadium, The old tiger's field, the jake, etc......What I can say is that the most enjoyable times I have had watching baseball were at Tropicana Field, bar none. It was nice harassing Chili Davis when the Angels were at Fenway from the left field line but I had to wait in line for a half hour to take a leak. I've seen Rick K. post at least 1,000 times on the various blogs but am still waiting for him to post his first fact. Opinion, innuendo and imagination are fine but they do not constitue fact. Fact is and irrefutable piece of eveidence and since many people here have so expertly shot down most of you supposed " fact's " with eveidence to the contrary, I'll leave it at that. The only facys that are known so far as I can see is that the Rays are asking for our waterfront property for nothing, zilch, zippo. The taxpayers will be on the hook for at least $765. million. The Trop is the most enjoyable place I have ever watched a game. NO WATERFRONT STADIUM EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rick K about crazy math]

Why have the ANTI's gone crazy with thier fabricated estimates of the amount of public subsidy now proposed for the new stadium. Did the latest "message coordination conference call" have a lot of interference or something?

Now the craziest number so far (at 10:33 pm). Instead of a hundred or two hundred or three hundred million in subsidies, we are now told by the ANTI's that the subsidies will COST us $765 Million.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa.

Ha.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Well Rick K now you can add hyperbole to your list of assinine literary accomplishments...
" We've managed to find a once-per-millenium opportunity to achieve the very, very rare."
What kind of crack cocaine has Michael Kalt slipped you Rick. That is soooo over the top as to be truly ludicrous.
A once per millenium opportunity to achieve the very, very, rare. The only very very rare thing that his been achieved here is that Kalt and his minions have managed to discover someone as over the top as you.
300 million amortized over 30 years at
3 1/2 % is about 15 million a year.
Toss in another 10-12 million a year in subsidy for no property tax..something the Rays already receive and you can see a pretty healthy shift of wealth from taxpayer to wealthy owner. As to the benefits...simply imagine investing that same 15 million a year in an industry that actually produces jobs according to SIC or NAIC numbers. Imagine spending that money anywhere else and you have what economists call opportunity costs. Of course you Rick K do not care about science or economists...you choose to not only ignore but totally dismiss numerous...far too numerous to mention here..academic, peer reviewed, INDEPENDENT economic studies. You refer to them thusly..." But I find that they often "INTENTIONALLY" use the WRONG facts or use facts that do not actually support their work." INTENTIONAL DISTORTION...Care to venture some motivation. Who is paying them the money to DISTORT INTENTIONALLY? You really expect us to take YOUR word over academic peer review committees. Is this some CONSPIRACY against stadiums? What is their motivation. You choose to disbelieve INDEPENDENT scientific peer reviewed research but you believe numbers tossed off by people like Michael Kalt and the developers who all stand to earn millions of dollars. Rick can you understand the concept of CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Can you understand how horribly incorrect ALL the numbers were regarding Yankee stadium..the new Met's stadium...Selig's Milwaukee stadium? And so let me get this straight Rick...You choose to defame independent peer reviewed, research, but embrace research produced by folks who will earn millions and millions from their slanted results. Really?

[Don Mott]

Posted by THE RRRICK "Let me ask you this Jon McPhee...If the Rays are going to pony up nearly 100% of the cost of a new stadium, why can't they do that somewhere else just as easily as they could do it here?" Better check that sugar bowl before you eat your next bowl of cereal. You asked for peer reviewed economic articles, I gave them to you. You dismissed them as though you are more experienced and smarter than the writers and offered nothing comparable to refute them. You were working on a rebuttal to Johns numbers showing the lack of stated income from the Super Bowl in Tampa but we never saw it. You were working on a list of what you called lies that POWW presented but then changed your tune to call it deceit without presenting your promised list. Debates are about offering and accepting opinions not bullying people to accept your OPINIONS as fact!

[Bezarro Don]

Fact, Don's one Largo citizen with too much time between bingo nights.

Super bowl didn't bring in any money, right I suppose football doesn't have any economic impact on Tampa Bay. Half of America wouldn't know where Tampa was if it weren't for sports. You act like every business is sending their books into Big Brother to Audit for us.

Can you verify the economic impact of Taste of Pinellas, Mainsail, First night or Shakespeare in the Park. Waiting...Waiting no I didn't think so.

It's simply part of our overall standard of living. You could use your same argument to get rid of any of the subsidized events because as you said they must not produce and economic impact.

[Walt]

Here's your cast of Characters:

Bud "Scam Artist" Selig: check out http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9123FF932A15751C1A9659C8B63
In which it says: "Referring to the family that owns the Brewers, State Senator Mike Ellis said, 'The Seligs just scammed the living dickens out of the people of this state.'"

Michael "The Financial Genius" Kalt, who's last big deal was the Yankees new stadium, in which his infrastructure projections were under-estimated by 79%, and in which the Yankees just told NY it will need AN ADDITIONAL $400,000,000 to complete the stadium that is scheduled to open in 2009.

Stu "Greedy" Sternberg who was recently quoted as saying: "It's got to be something that's right. We're still long-term greedy, which is a motto from one of my old businesses, and what that means is that you can't completely mortgage your future."

But, it's okay, if the city of St. Petersburg mortgages its future!!

[1962 re bizzaro]

"PART of our OVERALL standard of living"

PART

unlike the Rays, those other groups are NOT DEMANDING a share of our LAND AND TAXES DISPROPORTIONATE TO ANY REASONABLE CALCULATION OF THEIR ECONOMIC IMPACT.

[Jon McPhee]

The last item I can find in the annals of this blog on "finances," in line with the vision of "focusing on the impact to taxpayers" in the header, is the discredited PowerPoint presentation linked in on May 19. Maybe there's more that I missed.

We the voters of St. Pete (and no one else in Pinellas County,) who might get to speak on the single question of the future use of Al Lang, are left groping for facts among a flood of rhetoric, "projections" of the fiscal and PowerPoint kind, and pretty much dead silence from our representatives.

You can bet that the franchise owners have performed some pretty deep analysis of what they would gain out of this subsidy, and what it would cost the public.

Don't be shy about asking our elected representatives where they are in analyzing these transations. Let us not let the "negotiators" kid us. This is not a "partnership," folks -- it is the practice of "The Art of War," a la Sun Tzu. The franchise owners are looking for a big win in a zero-sum game.

We can hope that the City and County have undertaken joint or separate fiscal and due diligence analysis of a similar sort, so they know something about the relative strengths of the parties' positions and what they might be ready to give up out of our collective pockets.

I would guess that Aaron may have done a little Excel work of his own, since he seems to have access to a lot of info that might illuminate the debate, and might eventually share that.

There are a number of thoughtful people who contribute here, who have some experience that might help enlighten us and help us be sure that our leaders don't give away the store.

Here are a few categories and particular items that have come up in blogspace, various (if few) articles in the Times, public statements and my own ruminations, that might start some thinking and maybe help us understand the real costs to, and possible opportunities FOR THE PUBLIC, in this set of "evolving" proposals.

This is not my schtick, and I have neither pride of authorship nor any claim to the depth of expertise that ought to be brought to bear here. So have at it, folks. Maybe we could focus on the actual issues instead of trying to persuade the Ricks and Rays and such of anything, or answer their blasts.

A short List Of The Things The Governments And Residents Maybe Ought To Know And Think About:

1) Initial conditions
a) Ownership of the property – all interests, present and future
b) Appraisal of property for present value and potential future uses
c) Current tax status and tax income, including real estate, business, sales
d) Time left on Trop lease, and rent currently owed through lease term
e) Remaining debt on Trop
f) All annual expenses for infrastructure, public services, maintenance and improvements (Rays say $11 million to City/County)
g) Income from the property, from all sources
h) Cost of confirming environmental status and potential liabilities
i) Identification of all stakeholders and veto holders, including at least residents, community groups, government agencies
2) Valuation of all public assets involved, with attention to validity of assumptions and projections
a) Al Lang Field
b) All portions of the Trop properties
c) “Offsite” city land sought by developers
3) All income streams involved, from tax revenues to rents to subsidiary transactions, e.g. vendors, skyboxes, advertising, naming rights, and potential displacement of present incomes of existing businesses
4) All costs involved, including interest on debt service, infrastructure additions, ongoing public services, e.g. at least safety, sewer, water, roads,
5) Loss of existing assets, including unamortized value of the existing stadium
6) Present and prospective market conditions for sports viewing choices, residential property in redevelopment, retail participation in redevelopment, tourist and trade capacities and demands for hotel space, with assessment of validity of projections
7) Terms of ownership, both present and prospective, for all properties and interests, including e.g. the proposed ownership group’s office building
8) All government approvals required, with time lines for them, whether constitutional, legislative, regulatory, or ownership-based
9) Existing comprehensive land use planning and zoning, with means for and nature of any changes required
10) Tax status of all properties involved, both present and in the event the proposals go forward
11) Analysis of bonding costs and benefits, bond counsel opinion issues, and possible lost opportunity cost of this use of bonding capacity
12) Examination of possible lost opportunity costs of dedicating these properties and the public costs associated with them to the proposed private uses
13) Risks and benefits of allowing ownership group to control construction and disbursement of public funds and determination of change order-versus-overruns, control of construction litigation, what entities would be created to manage this work, capitalization, and what oversight and controls would be appropriate
14) Further explication of the traffic and especially parking situation and impacts
15) Impacts, duration and effects on residents and businesses from demolition and construction
16) What impact fees would be appropriate
17) Environmental issues and liabilities for all elements of the proposal, including at least assessment of the former gas plant site and any cleanup required, bearing in mind possible residential use of the property
18) Nuisance-type impacts from an operating stadium (light, noise, etc.)
19) Experiences of and costs and benefits to other communities and governments that have undergone stadium projects, whether publicly or privately funded, with evaluation of validity of analyses in light of advocacy by authors – including stadiums that have been built by team owners or private businesses, e.g. the four identified in the Ownership group’s Power Point slide purporting to show the relative position of this proposal in the universe of recent stadium projects
20) Time lines and critical paths for all elements of the project, PERT or whatever, including demolition, infrastructure creation (roads, water, sewer, utilities) and site construction

[Rick K to Don Mott]

Don, for the last time. I am not responsible for when you come here, and I am not responsible that you miss the things you are looking for.

But as to your latest post, above:

I have NO IDEA what the sugar bowl reference means. I have googled it and come up with nothing. So what on earth are you talking about?

Don, I will make this simple for you. I have NEVER SEEN links from you to peer reviewed articles with sufficient proof. You have twice posted to a pair of Brad Humphries links, one of which was a web report of testimony he gave before a government committee which rejected his testimony, and the other was to an unpublished paper that contained no proof and was not peer reveiwed. I guess it is possible that the paper you linked to was later peer reviewed and published, but the link you provided was to an unpublished, unreviewed paper.

So maybe you are confused about what all that means.

Anyway, Don, when you twice posted your two links to Humphries, I did respond, in detail.

I have also provided extensive lists of portions of published economic texts, snippets of articles in reputable, Economics journals, academic papers, and other mainstream references from respected economists who disagree with the quacks you continually link to.

Every time I respond, you say nothing. Only to reemerge two weeks later claiming I never responded.

You now foolishly assert that I was "working on a rebuttal to Johns numbers showing the lack of stated income from the Super Bowl in Tampa but we never saw it."

Don, maybe it is true that you never saw it, but I certainally posted it. In fact, it was four posts that thoroughly decimated Thomas' plagiarized assertions of Porter's invalid analysis.

You are also incorrect about me having changed my tune about POWW's attempts to deceive, distort, distract and delay.

I have bullied no one on this site, sir. It is the ANTI's who bully.

They will stop at nothing to chase away anyone who disagrees with them.

Why do you think most of the "pro" posters only last at this site for a short time before leaving all together? The reason is because the ANTI's make this such an inhosbitable place. They will try anything. Whether it is hysterical lies, distractions, personal attacks, long stories about New York, incredibly long lists of reference citations to meaningless crap, Thomas' latest fantasy, or the latest attempt by some strugling politician to gain a wider audience at the expense of public good, their attacks are relentless and unending.

It is the ANTI's, as a group, who attempt to bully. Their aim in these forums is to discourage and send away would be posters who support these proposals. 95% of the crap the ANTI's post here would not be allowed in a court of law.

So, Don, you can keep on pretending that you think I am trying to bully people. It's just another in the long list of tactics you ANTI's use to try to intimidate people out of participating in these forums with opinions and facts and perspectives that differ from yours.

[Rick K about Jon McPhee]

Anyone who wants to can find the information Jon lists in his 8:13 AM post, using this Times website and other easy to find sources.

About 98% of the info Jon lists has already been made available.

The ANTI's strategy is to ruin these blogs so that no one who comes here seeking information to help them make up their minds will find anything useful here. The ANTI's fear that new people who come here will find arguments from proponents, and they don't want that. So their latest strategy is to fill these blogs with meaningless garbage that discourages anyone from reading for more than just a few minutes.

Sad.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K

I'm having one of my in your words..
"hysterical lies, distractions, personal attacks, long stories about New York" moments.
You still haven't described how "" We've managed to find a once-per-millenium opportunity to achieve the very, very rare." does not qualify as hyperbole.
Hyperbole-A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect.
Rick even the Pro's have now been posting on here that much of the stuff you are spouting is EMBARRASSING them. For example you say of much of the academically peered reviewed studies using hard data after the fact..not projections of those who stand to earn millons..." But I find that they often "INTENTIONALLY" use the WRONG facts or use facts that do not actually support their work." And so Rick WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION TO INTENTIONALLY DISTORT THE FACTS. These are academic studies, not ratings/subscription driven efforts that need to pander for viewers/readers. WHY would they as you say INTENTIONALLY DISTORT? Why do you choose to defame these academically credited economic studies but choose to believe the efforts of those biased by the fact of the potential of millions of dollars in profit. Rick do you have any understanding of the term "conflict of interest"? Perhaps that is what is at the root of your absurd claims. Maybe you are on the Rays payroll. If that is the case...all is forgiven..you are simply doing your job...if not..then again sir you fit the Forrest Gump defintion perfectly.."Stupid is as stupid does." And it's beyond hubris if you think people are going to take your word...your opinion...over academics with graduate degrees producing peer reviewed research that comes to the same conclusion time and time again. Do you live in the twilight zone? WHAT IS THEIR MOTIVATION TO INTENTIONALLY DISTORT? I understand Mikey's figures..his bosses could make a quick quarter of a billion dollars from this deal. The academics are simply seeking to get published in journals and whichever result they come up with does not influence whether they get published or earn more money.

[From the Balcony]

Bottom Line
In order for this thing to have a chance to work the financials must come together in a way that uses
New Revenues Only.

In order for that to have a chance to happen, the Entire Trop Site must be made Available for Redevelopment(new ad valorem & sales tax dollars) in addition to the New Sales Tax Revenue that will be generated by a new stadium on the Al Lang Site.

The opportunity to Expand what most of you refer to as Downtown is one that ought not to be lightly dismissed regardless of what you think about baseball and it's overall impact.

In addition to the benefit for the Archstone-Madison Group and the Rays, the City Benefits by finally having a trigger for the long overdue Infill and Redevelopment of the Central Avenue Corridor west to 16th St.

For those of you who say that the original construction of the stadium was supposed to do that, be aware that the initial conception did nothing to facilitate that. Otherwise, at the minimum, there would have been an on site parking structure and storefronts on 1st Ave South to leverage this opportunity.

Urban Planning has evolved over the last 20 to 25 years and the notion that by simply building a stadium that all of this collateral redevelopment activity would spontaneously generate has long since been discredited.

It's been often said that the Trop is a Suburban Stadium built on an Urban Site, and that is undeniably true. Had the original planners attempted to hedge the bet by incorporating some of the aforementioned notions into the original concept we might not be having this community discussion
(that occasionally degenerates into a political foodfight) this early.

The notion of Build It and They Will Come got us a baseball team and virtually nothing else.

This Community Discussion is not only about the future of Major League Baseball in Downtown St Petersburg, but about the future of Downtown St Petersburg itself.

This initiative represents a second opportunity to get it right. t

To TrulyConcerned, about your 9:33 AM post.

Talk about your ad hominem attacks.

Your attempt to dismiss the thorough and reasoned studies which endeavor to measure ALL real impact from something like a Super Bowl is instructive and hilarious.

First, because it is the classic Ad Hominem attack.

Since you cannot assail their data or reasoning, attack their motivation or who you assume paid for the work.

That is ad hominem. Attack the research and findings, not who paid for it.

If the data or reasoning is faulty, that should be easy enough to prove.

But that isn 't what you do.

You act like assumptions are as important as the actual facts.

For example, you assume that the authors of the various studies you link to are pure. They are not.

You assert that these anti-stadium reports are always unbiased and never funded by someone with an agenda.

You don't know, but you pretend.

Unlike you, I know who paid for many of those studies. And also unlike you, I do not believe that one needs to attack motivation or who paid for a study if the study is itself weak or easily attacked.

Sometimes anti ballpark studies are paid for by Teachers Unions, AFSCME, and other financially significant groups who would prefer to make a grab for the public tax dollars that are being considered as contributions towards public stadia.

Othertimes, the anti ballpark studies are paid for by other interests with even more nefarious objectives.

Still other times, the studies aren't paid for by anyone, really. Sometimes the reasearcher endeavors on his own (which is a form of payment, but lets ignore that for a moment) to study a question and weigh in, just in the interest of adding to public knowledge.

The motivation or funding behind a study does not determine it's worth.

But the study itself does.

Consider this EXCELLENT example.

Super Bowl XLI was played in Miami in 2007. Because a number of groups wanted to know just how much the Super Bowl impacted various specific business sectors, and other groups wanted to know how much the total impact of a Super Bowl is, Sport Management Research Institute, as a business decision, undertook to perform a comprehensive study of the economic impact of the Super Bowl on the Miami area. Their intent was to gather and analyze loads of valuable data, then to sell their data and analysis.

You can view the Executive Summary of the report here:

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/05/23/22/2007_SBXLI_Economic_Impact_Investigation_Executive_Summary.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

Sports Management Research Institute aims to use applied research to help venue operators and event planners enhance revenue streams. They peform feasibility studies, impact analysis, and provide a variety of consulting services including mystery shopping, fan surveys, and loads of other detailed reports into the minutae of how fans and arts patrons make decisions and how much those decisions end up generating.

Among SMRI's clients are the Broward Center for the Performing Arts. Professor Kathleen Davis heads up SMRI, which has done economic impact studies of three Super Bowls, several Orange Bowls, numerous pro tennis and stock car events, and community festivals.

In their study of the economic impact of the Miami Super Bowl, they used a team of researchers to conduct loads of surveys, and they also gathered all kinds of data. They attempted to count every person who came to the Area for the Super Bowl, whether they attended the game or not.

They attempted to find out how these people traveled to Miami (car, train, bus, plane, private plane), where they slept (hotel, rented house, a friend's place), how much the spent (on meals, lodging, retail, and other categories), how long they stayed, and how much they enjoyed the experience.

They peformed THOUSANDS of surveys. They analyzed reams of data. The crunched loads of numbers.

In the end, their research led them to conclusions about the total economic impact of the Super Bowl in Miami,