Chamber's bullish report comes a day late for Rays

The day after the Tampa Bay Rays pulled the plug on plans for a waterfront stadium, the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce offered a largely bullish report on the Rays’ now-defunct proposal.

Chamber officials, who had been reviewing the Rays’ proposal for months, did not come as far as endorsing the idea of a waterfront stadium on Thursday. The Rays’ change of plans meant the business community didn’t have to take a formal position.

But chamber officials and members of the group’s task force on baseball mostly supported the prospects of a downtown waterfront stadium.

A ballpark at Al Lang Field would cost less and potentially offer more, said Steve Raymund, the Tech Data chairman and head of the chamber’s baseball task force.

“One thing you can say about the waterfront, like it or hate it, you were going to leverage a lot of in place infrastructure,” Raymund said.

The chamber task force, which included both St. Petersburg community and business leaders, also believed that though financing the ballpark and parking downtown remained issues, they were not insurmountable.

An analysis performed for the chamber by PricewaterhouseCooper’s found that the Rays contribute $92.5-million a year to the city in economic activity; a new waterfront stadium would generate $134.4-million a year. 

The potential redevelopment of Tropicana Field, which is now also delayed, could generate an additional $75.1-million a year in new spending, the analysis found.

The chamber task force had expected to make a recommendation on whether to support the Rays’ proposal on Wednesday, but was pre-empted by the team’s announcement that it was abandoning its previous proposal.

In the place of that recommendation, the chamber joined other city and community leaders in urging that the city rally behind the team in finding a viable stadium alternative.

Chamber president John Long said Thursday he hoped that process would begin quickly.

“We should not kid ourselves,” Long said. “There are other communities that would like to have our team. And they would not worry about cost.”

Comments

[Thats What She Said]

Would all of the people who spent countless hours arguing that a new stadium would not lead to economic prosperity, that sports actually have a negative influence on the economy, please issue a statement of apology? Yes I'm doing to you Don. Apparently Rick K wasn't as crazy as we thought.. Ok, he probably was, but at least he was right about something.

[Jimbo]

Here, here! Even after the slowed-down time table (not the end of the project as some pointed out), more and more facts come to light supporting the fact that this would be an excellent opportunity for the city. Since nothing has been ruled out, why not continue to consider it? And, if we can all agree on it soon, we can keep Las Vegas, Norfolk, and San Antonio at bay!

[Thomas]

Why don't you direct your attention to a Federal Court Room in Seattle, WA where the attorneys for the Sonics are arguing they should be let out of their lease early because the team brings no economic impact to the area and there will be no impact if they leave.

Please note, these same Sonics used "impact reports" like the ones above in order to convince the tax payers of Oklahoma City to fund over $120M in renovations to an arena.

So, it seems that when a team wants a new arena they bring millions in economic benefit. However, when a team wants to terminate a lease, they bring nothing in economic impact.

I'm going to go with the version made under oath in a Federal Court - teams bring minimal, if any, economic impact.

So I think you know what you can do with your request for an apology.

If Vegas, Norfork, or SA wanted a team - they would have made a move for the Marlins any time over the last 8 years when they were begging for someone to take them.

Once last time...

BOOM - OUTTA HERE!

[Thats What She Said]

I know! I'm most concerned about that.. I like the argument that toytown area would be better for the people coming from Tampa, but I just like the downtown feel of being able to go out after the game, not isolated from everything like that would be, unless you went ahead and developed the whole area (possible?). Also, I'd much rather the view and the nice breeze rather than the smell of garbage.

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, Aaron, where's the actual report? You've usually published the doc or at least a link to other important public pronouncements.

And let's see, the Chamber is noted for its realistic and unbiased assessments of economic issues and opportunities in St. Pete, right? What level of participation will these boosters have in the new process?

[Thats What She Said]

Are you kidding me? What do you want the lawyers that are trying to get a team out of their lease to argue? THEY ARE LAWYERS ARGUING THE TEAM CAN LEAVE!!!!!!!!!! Why would the owner, who is from Oklahoma City, want to move the team there if they are a drain on the economy.. And why does Seattle desperately want to keep them there? To sum things up.. Oklahoma city, dumber than Vegas, Norfolk, every other city that didn't take the Marlins, and PricewaaterhouseCoopers.. dumber than Thomas

[Thomas]

Actually it wasn't the lawyers - the team brought an economist. They put him on the stand to testify under oath and everything.

It was the strangest thing, you know what he said? He said he's been studying this for 20 years and has never found a team that made a significant impact on the economy.

So while you are posting sillyness, I'm referring to an expert, who is an economist, testiying under oath.

It's okay to be wrong. And it's okay to be stupid. Which is fortunate for you - because you're wrong and stupid!

[Mike]

Hmm. The economist from this article seems to think that the Sonics provide 1200-1300 jobs worth up to $188 million to the local economy, an impact that cannot be assumed to be replaced if the team leaves. This economist was brought to testify under oath by the city. I think Thomas owes the other dude an apology. Don't be so smug.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nba&id=3452495

[Thomas]

Dude, you don't read so good. You should apologize for being semi-literate.

The Sonics put Brad Humphreys on the stand.

Humphreys contradicts everything said by City witness Lon Hatamiya. Humphreys said that studies using multipliers "don't make the cut" of accredited economic journals.

*Humphreys said the relocation of the Sonics will have the "No detectable economic impact on the city."

*Humphreys said he uses standard data sources, economic indicators and other factors that affect economic performances, "We have to collect a lot of data, city specific data on franchise moves and stadium data."

Sonicslawyer Paul Taylor asked Humphreys, ""Do the Sonics generate new economic activity in the area?"

"The answer is no," Humphreys said.

*Hatamiya suggested that Sonics fans would save their money if the team moved, Humphreys disputes that, "They won't stop spending. I don't see anything like that. The consensus from a large number of economists is that the pay goes into different pockets."

*Humphreys added, "In this case it's pretty clear, the lack of economic impact from the departure of the professional sports franchise."

*Humphreys said Seattle is "pretty much like all the other cities with a sports team" and the Sonics' departure "won't have an impact on Seattle's net economy."

*Humphreys said that while Seattle consumers may not spend their money at a Queen Anne restaurant before a Sonics game like they did before, "the dollar will be spent somewhere else in Seattle."

[Thomas]

The 'impact' studies that show huge economic benefits use "multipliers".

As Humpries said, studies using multipliers "don't make the cut" of accredited economic journals.

Anyway, Matt Garza was dealing today. When the team moves to Vegas, he'll feel right at home!

[Waterfront Stadium]

Let's still build this waterfront ballpark, baby! It is indeed the prime location and offers the best possible scenerio for the Rays and St Pete!

[2 cents ...]

Thomas, reading that article, it looks like two different opinions to me. One was supporting the city's view and the other was supporting the owner's view. Statistics can be used in many ways, and it appears this is one of them. And the assertion that secondary and tertiary value-adds aren't sound economics is b.s. that the owner's economist used to bolster their shaky position. Sheesh.

[make a deal]

For a person who thrives off of big city vitality, the Rays withdrawing their waterfront proposal exposes our weaknesses. Our very own elected community leaders and business CEO's kept their tongues tied just long enough to prove our Mulberry like mindset, dooming us to an average kind of existence that can be found a 1000 times over throughout the United States. They might not have the Dali museum, but they have others.
So our county(not city) will maybe have a stadium that does not have the urban density that the St. Pete waterfront downtown offers.
Knowing all we know about driving our cars and their pollution causing motors and lack of exercise it causes, having a stadium in the heartof tens of thousands of residents was the ideal for our thriving future.
Mopeds, electric taxis, and mass transit. People walking for 10 to 20 minutes through a beautiful living and breathing downtown. Healthy people.
But instead, pessimism spoke, and now our city residents may have given all the Rays Stadium optimistic energy, entrepreneurial efforts, and current jobs from corporate to parking attendants to the county, if POWW let's them build in Pinellas at all.
Now let's think of what to do with the Trop. in 2023. It's prized air conditioning system can be used for national bingo tournaments. Or for the fast growing sport of the Ultimate Fighting Series. How about with the Trop's controllable atmosphere, house all of the St. Pete homeless????

At the Al Lang site, another park the city has to hire people to maintain the grounds for the 20 people who use it a day.

At the Trop.... We'll it will, according to POWW be to much of a cost to clean for development, so it's future consist of traveling shows, rv, boat, home...ect.

And in these economic dire times - denying the excitement of multiple developments is just the stupidity icing on the slow town of Mulberry cake.

The Rays waterfront and Trop redevelopment proposal gave a jolt of excitement when everything else in the economy appeared dismal. It created in my head a futuristic city that enabled city residents to thrive without individual cars. A city that had everything. Arts, restaurants, shops, and our own MLB team.
St. Pete has not been hospitable to the Rays new owners and their hired team.
Not many of the staff recruited from all over the country,want to live in a city that deems them money hungry carpetbaggers. We seem to have left a bitter taste in their mouths.

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, make-a-deal Barney -- it's Mayberry, not Mulberry. Make sure you've stuck that single bullet in your six-shooter before you pull the trigger. Is your vision of a "futuristic city" here maybe something out of "The Jetsons"?

So if these are "dire economic times," when folks are losing the houses they've lived in for decades to tax burdens caused by the speculators next door and in the now-closed mortgage brokers' offices, does it make sense for the guy in the bungalow to empty his bank account to buy a swimming pool for the guy in the McMansion next door?

Hey, I'm told crystal meth "gives a jolt," too. That's not maybe the best recommendation for shooting it up.

But take heart, bunkie -- there may yet be jet cars and antigravity amongst the soaring towers of St. Petersburg. But they won't be developed by the Rays' outfield, or infield either. Those kinds of things are more likely to come out of places like Jabil Circuit and, if we can stop the brain drain caused by this state's government inattention, USF and such place. And your notion of mopeds and electric trollies and such -- THAT's going to come out of our Council and Mayor's office -- they've shown themselves so friendly to mass transit and bike travel and such.

"Living and breathing dwontowns." Those come from BASEBALL STADIUMS? by dumb luck, some stadiums might either start in the center of a "dense population" or have one spring up around them. But after all the baseball games I've been to, rowdy and mean are more often the characteristics of those wandering minstrels you prate about. Ask the folks around Wrigley Field about what the fans do for and to them.

And there's still likely to be another stadium here yet. We just have to hope it won't be another something jammed up the backsides of the plain people who form the backbone of this area.

Democracy is inconvenient for those who like to push other people around. But when you're back in the pack, Bunkie, for whatever reason, you might be glad that there's often some wisdom in the community at large, and the strength to resist high-handed self-styled nobility.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

I write this from the town I grew up in..Cincinnati. Walking over the former LN railroad bridge..now a converted walking bridge(similar to the old Gandy) I looked at the Cincinnati Waterfront I grew up viewing. No resemblance of course. Before where I saw downtown...a levee..boats...Now there is a solid wall of stadia...the Reds..The Bengals and a huge arena...It is literally a wall between the downtown and the river. It sucks!!! I used to enjoy going into the old industrial neighborhood..through the hood to old Crosley Field. What a great old 30,000 seat stadium. But of course in the late 60's we were told how antiquated and ugly. Then they build Riverfront Stadium...30 years later it's the Great American Ballpark. What kind of BS is it that baseball has become sooo boring that it needs a beautiful waterfront view to make it a viable product. We looked at factories at Crosley Field..(built by the way by Powell Crosley not the taxpayers) and if the Reds were winning we loved it.
Isn't it ironic that places like Camden Yards..Coors Field and Jacobs Field were built in depressed industrial areas surrounded by empty factories and designed with the"retro" look. Apparently Crosley Field was the cool place I remember from my youth. Again St. Petersburg is a GREAT PLACE TO LIVE ALREADY!!! For those who dislike it soooo much why not move to Tampa..Atlanta or Miami. Why insult us..simply make your choice to live in a city that doesn't get off on the Saturday morning market..the wonderful musuems...artists...waterfront activites...Tampa is DESPERATE to emulate St. Petersburg's waterfront ambience..trying to buy back their waterfront property along the Hillsborough River. And please spare the economic BS arguments. My wife and I had season tickets to the Lightning for 5 years at the Forum. Every season we might pick 3-4 games to go VERY EARLY and eat at Newks..otherwise we simply ate inside the Forum. So there is your economic impact! The Tampons never got a cent of our money. Nobody want to walk 15 minutes to a ballpark...sit through a 3 hour game...return 15 minutes to their car...then get stuck in 45 minutes of traffic..for a 45 minute ride back home to Tampa..Bradenton..Sarasota. Oh they're not only gonna do all of that but they're going to take the time to shop as well...and of course they won't be lured by all the amentities and dining opportunities the Ray's ownership is sure to include inside the stadium. Look I'm for keeping the Rays...but the Waterfront is simply an absurd idea even if you don't give a rat's behind about St. Petersburg's downtown ambience. It would be death for the franchise....and save me the absolutely NAIVE remarks about the owners know best...it's not like Stu and the boys couldn't pull a Levi Jacobs and pump and dump the franchise.

[Walt]

A few points:

1) The Chamber report was done BEFORE the press conference yesterday. The task force members put the finishing touches on it at Val-Pac (where the press conference was held), IMMEDIATELY after the conclusion of the conference. It was originally the Chamber's press conference, but the Rays saved them some egg on their face by co-opting the conference.

2) Let's see the actual report and the PW report on which it is based. You may find that the Chamber talks of "certain" economic benefits that were "contingent" benefits in the PW study... benefits, IF certain things happened.

3) The Chamber was completely marginalized in this discussion... a month late and a dollar short!

4) Who gets naming rights? Steve Raymund's Tech-Data or Jeff Lyash's Progress Energy? Or, will Jabil trade their 94 acres at the intersection of I-275 and Gandy for naming rights?

Just take the waterfront off the table and protect it from these carpet-baggers.

[Pella]

We are down around 80 police officers. The police and fire departments are working without contracts because the city wants to cut their medical benefits after retirement. Human services will be cut $820,000 this year alone (based on City records). Code enforcement, library and community center hours being cut, park maintenance being cut back, etc. etc. All together our budget this year alone will be cut about $14,000,000. But, we have to have a new waterfront baseball stadium according to the suits, Rays and knuckle draggers.

Those of you on this blog pulling for the Rays stadium think you will be getting a new toy that you do not have to pay for. After all, the bed tax is paid by whom (tourists mostly) and needed by whom (hotel and service industries). The excise (sales) tax is paid by all of us but will used to support baseball fans, not the City uses above.

You baseball fans make me want to.........sometimes. Why not just stay in the Trop and shut your yaps you greedy, selfish nimrods. The Trop is in perfectly good condition and the Rays are winning there. Besides, no one has stepped up and listed ANY reasons why we need a new stadium other than some BS about views to the waterfront during the game. Polllleeeeeaaaaaasssseeee!

[Don in St. Pete]

The Chamber sucks wind. they were going to say exactly what Baker told them to say. Thos were probably projected #;s in 2012 dollars after some redevelopment at the Trop site. Toytown is a far more appealing site. No traffic issue, quicker entry and exit for those from Tampa, clearwater, Pasco, etc...plus the is 300 hundred acres that could be developed with a baseball them and loads of parking, retail, restaurants and amenities that would have been impossible at the Al Lang site. Not onlty that but the can build a multiuse facility that can pay it's own way to some degree by hosting Conventions, boat Shows, Home shows, Concerts, and football bowl games.

[Don Mott]

I will not apologize, for everything I have ever stated is true and backed up with facts. As Walt said let us see the results of that report. Any thing can be skewed to meet its publishers agenda. I would really like to see where those numbers came from. The fact is the Rays tried to pitch a fastball and the residents responded with a hit, period. Accept it and get over it. They would not have backed down if they thought they had a chance. What does that tell you?

[Nathan]

So, just out of curiosity, without deal to build the new stadium all but dead, including the companion project to re-develop (er, actually develop) the Trop site, what is going to become of the Trop WHEN the Rays vacate it in 3-5 years, either for another market entirely or at a minimum a location in this market that is not downtown St. Pete? Seriously, do you anti-stadium guys have a plan for what to do with an empty eyesore? At least now it's an eyesore that brings in SOME traffic.

Seems to me it's clear that St. Pete residents are not interested in a new stadium under any circumstances, and particularly not so if it includes significant public dollar contributions. Fair enough. But do be prepare to lose the Rays, because that is absolutely going to happen.

[Nathan]

"build a multiuse facility...."
_______________

You're kidding, right? The Trop is a "multi-use" facility. It's horrendous. It's ugly. It's cavernous. It's impersonal. It's devoid of character. THAT is what we stadium proponents hate. Other than seeing the game live and in person, which does indeed have significant value, watching a game at the Trop is like watching it in a giant, ugly sports bar.

chamber report requires

50%

RAYS CONTRIBUTION

towards new stadium...

appears that TOYTOWN won't be quite as expensive as criticised.

[St Pete Business Owner]

Let the Rays build a stadium by Toytown with less than 33% public money, totally refunded with interest if they leave before the end of the lease.
Redevelop Tropicana field into a sustaibable business/green enterprise zone to provide better quality jobs and attract federal and state money, shielding us a little better from the ups and downs of the economy.
The main economic beneficiaries of the Rays in downtown have been Fergs and the people who have parking spots in their yards, so there will be minimal impact if they leave downtown.
This plan didn't receive widespread support because tax payers were not shielded from harm and because there are few good reasons to build high-end retail shops and expensive condos in a crappy economy (and flat population growth in Pinellas), since it will just draw business away from downtown.
If the Rays can come up with the right plan, awesome. I understand why they feel they need a new stadium. But we have seen so many carptetbaggers, and people with brilliant ideas, come through St. Pete, and then just leave us with a mess and our cash in their suitcases. Maybe eventually we can learn to be sharper.
Thanks

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Nathan,

What are you thinking dude? Do you even have any common sense. The developers were going to build when the DOME IS TAKEN DOWN! The ONLY difference in the scenario you suggest is that we will have NO debt remaining on the DOME because the Rays CAN'T leave WITHOUT paying it off first..not even the New York Shylock lawyers will be able to break that part of the lease. And so here is the answer to your inane question. The Dome debt is retired...we put out an HONEST RFP with time for others to respond..and guess what Nathan...we get our developement and we get ALL the money...it doesn't go to the Rays new playtoy on the water. WOW what a concept..we get the development and ALL the money from an HONEST RPP process. The money from the development in these "paired proposals" was supposed to pay for the Rays stadium...the stadium has NOTHING to do with the redevelopment..other than to siphon the proceeds from the taxpayers pockets. It was always OUR land not the Rays!!!

[Jon McPhee]

Don, the franchise owners weren't pitching a decent fastball or even a high-inside -- it was a beanball, pure and simple. We should be glad our collective reaction time was quick enough to duck out of the way.

[Walt]

Nathan:
The Rays aren't going nowhere in 3-5 years. According to John Wolfe, our City Attorney (and a good one at that) their lease is such that they can be enjoined from leaving... read that as: "from playing elsewhere"..even if the cash penalty for breaking their lease (contract) is down to a reasonable level.

[Jimbo]

truly,

You say that our police and fire forces are suffering and human services is being cut as well. First, we can blame the illustrious Amendment 1 on that, but on what we can do, let's cut the pork, and not demonize people who had nothing to do with the construction or location of the Dome.

- Albert Whitted costs us about $1.4M a year, after the revenue it (barely) generates;
- The "Port" costs us $718K with virtually zero revenue;
- The Coliseum costs us $850K to subsidize ballroom dancing for the elderly;
- Al Lang costs us $850K to maintain, and that was with a team generating some sort of revenue; and,
- The Pier costs a whopping $3.1M for no one to go there except to fish or eat at Cha-Cha's or the Columbia (which I hear is leaving for Beach Dr?).

Source: http://www.stpete.org/pdf/CSP_Budget%20Document%20FY08_FINAL.pdf

That $6M could go a long way to help make up the budget shortfall. That also doesn't include the $2.5M for the Trop, which needs to be paid in order to keep up with our contract with the Rays (in case people forget, a contract works both ways: the Rays agree to stay in the Trop (or St. Pete, at the very least) until 2027, and the City promises to do upkeep and routine maintenance while they play there and will not kick them out without just cause or a new place in the meantime...sounds almost exactly like a lease for a house, wouldn't you agree?), so we still need to pay that money so long as the Trop still stands; that cannot be diverted.

Why not try this? The Coliseum and the Port are useless; they need to go and that will save $1.5M right there. Albert Whitted is, unfortunately, not going anywhere in the short-term, since we don't have a ballsy enough mayor like Daley in Chicago who said, "This downtown airport is costing us WAY too much money, so I'm done with it," and bulldozed the runways in the middle of the night (yeah, the FAA wasn't thrilled and fined him, but at least the City was rid of a tax burden). And, the Pier needs the pylons rebuilt in order to keep its integrity, but no one goes to their anymore, so now the question is: should we pay to rehab it, or do we level it and save some money? The Rays (and the CoC apparently does as well) insist they need a waterfront home (which would help with the image of the city, but that's always debatable), so why not give them a deal and get us to save money each year: let them have The Pier.

They pay for the upkeep and rehab, and they can build their waterfront stadium without touching any parkland that the people are so desperate to save. It leaves Al Lang alone to try and attract either some sort of Little League or college playoff game or an MLB spring training team (if you so insist, but it'll need some rehab as well; 20 years ago is too long in this market), and it takes care of the eyesore that the Pier has become.

Of course, people will complain about parking again, so why not build 4-level parking garages on the two current parking lots near the Pier? That'll destroy the view of the Bay, I'm sure people will say, so bury two of the levels underground so only two levels are exposed; just because it's Florida doesn't mean things won't work underground. Fort Lauderdale built a tunnel under their river, and the Skyway was once considering a tunnel (it would have been too long, however), and with today's technology, we could keep the water table from seeping in (they do it in Manhattan, which has the same exact problem, all the time) in all but the worst 100-year flooding (which you wouldn't want to be at a game in that weather, anyway). That could be premium parking, and the original plan of having people park other places and walk or use trolleys to the Pier would still be in effect.

Also, the stadium could be oriented either to face the skyline with the Bay to the back, or flip it around and see nothing but Bay; either way, it's a great view, and sure to get us much more than one All-Star Game.

People from Tampa (via Channelside), south of the Skyway (via Apollo Beach), and Northern Pinellas (via Safety Harbor) could board ferries that would dock with the Pier and help mitigate even more of the parking issue.

The design would need to change from the one shown, however, because as long as Albert Whitted still has planes, there will be air hazard heights to account for. But something similar with a shorter spire could work.

That solves 3 problems:
1.) Getting the Trop land back on the tax rolls (thereby increasing tax revenues),
2.) Making sure the Rays get a new stadium in a location most people can agree will like (so the Trop can be developed), and
3.) Removing the tax burden of an under-utilized asset to this city that needs new life.

It may not be as far-fetched as it sounds, though the Rays would have to agree to take care of at least 75% of it, or it will be pointless and we'll be back to square one. This is the best way everyone gets what they want and there's more money in the city to hire more officers, fire fighters, and other services that I can agree are suffering. The only way this deal will be financially possible if the land is already owned by the city, because to purchase land increased the project enormously. I don't know if that would work, but it's worth a shot!

[Sara]

Why don't all you people who thin St Pete sucks so much because we don't want a huge stadium built on on the waterfront just move somewhere that has such a stadium. San Francisco for example.

If you think St. Pete is a podunk little Mayberry full of small minded simpletons, then move to another city. Are you that immobile that you have no choice but to stay in an area that you so despise? I mean, people used to cross oceans in little wooden boats to seek a better life in places more suited to their tastes, you can't even pack your stuff into a truck and drive somewhere?

Personally, I love the laid back, chill vibe of downtown and the fact that this IS NOT a "major league city". That's why I moved here from a larger, busier, more crowded, dirtier, less personal city that was.

I don't want to turn St. Pete into Boston, Philidelphia, San Francisco, etc. etc.

I want to continue to live in "St. Pete"

But again, if you don't, rather than trying to change St. Pete into the type of place you do want to live, why don't you just move to one of the many places out there that already have what you are looking for?

[Jimbo]

Or maybe you can realize that if something's not done to keep the momentum going that was started in the '90s with the opening of the Dome and BayWalk, everything will return to the duldrums of the '70s and '80s. Everything changes, but you're making it sound like an apocalyptic change, like people are talking about building 1000' skyscrapers and tearing down ancient architecture. We're talking about a dome that has served its purpose and trying to renew the sense of excitement this city had when it first opened. Also, we're talking about increasing a tax base that's depleting every day. I'm not sure why that's so complicated to understand.

[Jimbo]

The "St. Pete" you love is only due to steps made in progress, Sara. If we don't continue that progress somehow (be it waterfront stadiums or rehabbing landmarks), the "St. Pete" you love will be gone.

[Sara]

Jimbo, the St. Pete I love involves the actual progress that has and continues to be made. Progress that has nothing to do with a new stadium and will continue just fine without one.

In fact, a huge stadium right on the waterfront would fly in the face of the progress that has occured.

[Jimbo the Baseball Nazi]

Hey Jimbo, that has got to be the most selfish, idiotic post of this entire ballpark frankness blog.

Why don't we just level all of downtown and start over, building downtown around your giant sailboat? Yeah!!

People like you scare the hell out of the rest of us with your "contributions" to this discussion. You've just succeeded in making Rick K sound like a rational human being. Good work!

[Sara]

Sometimes progress involves perfecting and fine tuning what you already have rather than taking on a monumental change in hopes of drastic growth. There's a lot of ways St. Pete could continue to see progress that involve perfecting those things already in place, rather than trying to redefine things altogether.

[Sara]

10:04, while I agree with the gist of your post, I would encourage you to refrain from calling people idiotic Nazis.

We disagree about what's best for St. Pete, but I think we all do want what's best for St. Pete. I'm sure Jimbo's a great guy, he just has a different opinion.

[Mike]

Sara, thanks for moving to our town. We're glad you like it. But if you think that it is static and will remain as it is in this current synoptic view, then you really have nothing to contribute. We understand that newbies come to our town because they like it, but it is a dynamic place that is in the midst of a growing phase. Please be prepared to contribute in a positive manner. This is not in support of the stadium or against it, simply a recognition that smart growth is desirable, and is the reason that the city you chose to move to is here.

I mean, some of your statements suggest that YOU might be a carpetbagger telling US what to do with OUR town, no?

[Jimbo]

What? Because I'm thinking outside the box and not using defunct trash dumps and Tampa as locations I'm a "Baseball Nazi"? Give me a break. If they want to get this process going, they really need to think of alternatives that could work. Like I said, I very seriously doubt mine would, but it doesn't make it any less valuable than someone who thinks they could get PIE to close so we could build there.

And Sara, what progress is being made now with nothing being built on Trop land until the team vacates? The Grand Bohemian has been stalled for two years now, there's three condo projects that have been killed (one near the current Dalí included), and everyone's (rightfully so) trying to hold on to every penny they can. If we don't do something soon, we're in for a downturn.

Honestly, at this point, a new stadium doesn't have anything to do with it for me; redeveloping the Trop does. We can't do that, however, unless we have a place for the Rays to play (we're contractually obligated, and I'm sure the Rays can get a lawyer on their end to enforce that, as well), so we have to think of a stadium, which is secondary to me, but since we have to have one, might as well make it a showcase/masterpiece and not just another dump. Getting the Trop land redeveloped is what concerns me most, because we desperately need that land back to keep great things happening in St. Pete.

[Jimbo]

Oh, and thanks for the nice words, Sara; you seem like an intelligent, nice person yourself. Hopefully, we can all agree we're merely brainstorming to come up with what's best for the city we all love!

[Sara]

Jimbo, we can develop around the Trop right now if we wanted to, in fact AM included that option on their plans. That would be a good thing to do also because it would give us money now, with little obligation (like a huge stadium) and then get stuff on the taxrolls sooner.

I also advocate developing part of Al Lang (the part along 1st South) and turning the rest into a park with some noteworthy feature.

[Jimbo]

Problem with redeveloping around the Trop is it will need to be replaced in the not-so-distant future, no matter what. It's 20 years old, and domes always cost more in maintenance and upkeep over traditional stadia, due to the physics involved in keeping the roof aloft. Why not build it now while the costs are still manageable and before inflation takes over, raising the cost to make a necessary rebuild when it's do or die to well more than the $450M?

[Sara]

I think the main reason is because we don't have the money (especially if unforeseen costs arise, as they almost always do). A partial redevelopment, leaving room for a new stadium when we can afford to build one, would seem the most responsible approach. Besides, in a few years it may be more affordable to start building, one can't really predict the future when it comes to that.

[since 1962]

Jimbo

You are an idiot

"let "them" HAVE the pier!"

More fill in the bay perhaps to fullfill the WATERFRONT BASEBALL AT ANY COST mantra?

"the parks people are so desperate to save"

Yes "Jimbo" our city history involves the assemblage of the waterfront park system.
While MANY community activities occur yearound IN THESE PARKS, they are ALSO BY DESIGN places of quiet relaxation ON THE WATERFRONT

something YOU need..........

[Sara]

Come on guys, lets keep it civil and kind.

[Jimbo]

No, Sara, I'll respond; he's always filled w/vitriol anyway.

since1962,

First of all, if you read all the posts, I said, a few down from that one, "...I very seriously doubt [my idea] would [work], but it doesn't make it any less valuable than someone who thinks they could get PIE to close so we could build there." We gotta think of creative ideas to 1.) stop money from bleeding out of our coffers, and 2.) keep the momentum going from the opening of the Dome. You have any ideas you would like to share, and "status quo" is not acceptable, as not changing anything means progress, and the rest of the world, leaves you behind.

Secondly, I never said anything about filling in the bay. I said "build it on The Pier." That means, build pylons to expand the end of The Pier to fit the stadium (which, surprisingly, is not much smaller of an area than Al Lang...look at Google Earth to see). The water would still flow underneath like the current structure.

If you're going to quote and ridicule me, make sure you have all the facts right.

So, what's your plan, seeing as I threw mine out there, even if it's a little much for a Minor League City?

[Sara]

Minor League City has a nice ring to it, actually.

Laid back, chill, happy go lucky, kind, clean, friendly little Minor League City on the Bay. Where the sun's usually shining, the beers always cold, the fishing is good and the women are smokin' hot.

Sounds like a great place to live.

;)

[Jamie]

The problem w/ redeveloping the Trop site while the team is still there is the problem the city had with the Waterfront site...parking! There is less off-site parking up by the Trop than there is around the Waterfront. Where would people be able to park for the games? It would be one thing if its an issue for a year or two, but it wouldn't be something we could permanently do without creating some good sized parking garages, or public transit...

[Sara]

But according to the Rays parking study that wouldn't be an issue. ;)

[Jimbo]

No, Sara, that's what Pinellas Park's for, sans the hot women, of course. :-)

St. Pete has been in the shadow of Tampa for years. We're finally getting recognized as a destination by people of my generation with the Grand Prix, the new clubs that Hollywood stars like Ashley (Simpson) Wentz, Rihanna, Chris Brown, and Paris Hilton have been to, and the arrival of the new-and-improved Rays. I think it's time we live up to what people from around the country see and be Major League.

I'm not saying be bigger, just better. Miami is starting to be known as a dump by people outside Florida. Tampa's OK, but when people come over here, they see what the Bay area really has to offer. We can either be a flash-in-the-pan city and our main source of income, tourism, dries up over time, or we can keep it coming and be something great. I personally prefer the latter, because you can still be laid-back, friendly, fun, and still Major League: look at San Antonio (who has an NBA team) or Austin (with AFL) or even San Diego and Portland, OR (both highly-regarded cities for young professionals with more than one sports team).

[Jimbo]

And the parking issue was for downtown, not at the Trop, since all parking west of about 6th St was essentially excluded. In the other direction, I don't know for certain, but based on the public and private lots highlighted in the traffic report around the Trop, the majority of them are in the parking lot that wants to be redeveloped. So, I'm assuming that it's not a reciprocal statement about parking.

[Jean G]

The problem with democratic processes like this one is that we have to let people who are not competent participate in the process.

[Mike]

To whom are you referring, Jean G?

[Don Davis]

Now that we have some time lets study the alternative uses for the Al Lang Field property. Even if after the study it remains the preferred site for the Rays, it may not be the best use for the people of St. Petersburg.

[Jimbo]

Yeah, Jean, to which person(s) are you referring? Just because someone's opinion differs from yours doesn't make them "not competent" or wrong. That's a very elitist statement, and something like that is uncalled for.

[Susie Q]

Sara, thank you for posting. You are a breadth of fresh air.

If the Rays want a new stadium they can pay for it, or, as Karl Nurse suggested put a percentage on the gate at future baseball games to pay for the new stadium mortgage. Brilliant Karl, brilliant.

In this way baseball loving fans can pay for the stadium they want and so would the Rays. After all these are the two groups who want the new stadium and these are the two groups who should pay for it.

Brilliant, just brilliant. Thanks Karl Nurse.

[Sween]

Baker does not have the authority to renegotiate the City's lease agreement with the Rays absent City Council's resolution authorizing him to do so. Likewise, Baker does not have the authority to delegate negotiations between the City and the Rays to someone else. Once again Baker is misusing the mayor's office.

[Susie Q]

I wondered about that Sween. Thanks for clarifying it for the rest of us.

[Kathleen]

I thought it telling that the Chamber's wheels grind so slowly it couldn't eve get into the debate while it was still alive. So what are our dues for if you take your time to inject your opinion??? I'm asking myself that question.

[get-smart]

Kathleen -
From my reading of the article, it is unknown when the chamber received the report. They could have been sitting on it for weeks. What ever side the chamber took, half of its membership would have be alienated.

It is unknown without the report to know what PWH considers a monetary contribution to the activity of St. Pete. Are the Rays' contributions gross or net? Is it subtracted from the cities/counties millions that are pumped in to support private enterprise that hires a million dollar ball player and a $6/hr part time corn dog vendor? Does the money stay in St. Pete or does it find its way quickly to New York?

Without the report it is unknown what the balance sheet looks like. This is a job for AAron. He can get the report.

If the chamber won't release it then we know it's a fraud.

Cheers

[Rick K]

Sween, of course, is wrong. Baker may do anything within the definition of his job title, as laid out in the city charter. While only the City Council can bind the City in most matters, NOTHING whatsoever prohibits the Mayor from seeking to negotiate changes to ANY excisting contracts the City has, before presenting requested changes to the Council for their action.

If it isn't absurd enough that Sheen offers his baseless mischaracterization of the Mayor's job, it is more absurd that people chimed in to cheerlead his misdirection!

[Susie Q]

New spin from a clue-less Rick K.

You were completely wrong on the waterfront stadium and Trop redevelopment paired projects. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And now we are supposed to believe your new spin on what the Mayor's abilities are. Next you will be telling us you know where the stadium is going to go and what it will cost. Yea right.

[Rick K to John]

Susie Q/ Poww insider:

I have not been wrong very much. I might be incorrect in my recollection, but it seems to me that I never said the Rays wouldn't pull this proposal back.

In fact, I can't really think of any serious factual assertions I have made in these blogs that have been wrong.

Susie Q, you did a good job of leading POWW in their disinformation campaign of distortion and deception. You actually managed to serve the public, though not in the way you imagined.

As a result of your shrill fringe minority, the Rays have now seen a significant and critical core of political and business leaders circling around the idea of getting a new stadium deal done for the Rays!

You can imagine I was wrong, just as you can imagine that the citizens of St. Pete previously voted to keep Al Lang as it is, or that countless manatees and irreplaceable seagrasses will be murdered, or that the cost of environmental remediation at the Trop is going to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Imagine all you want.

Jump up and down and say I am wrong. (Do it three times, for maximum immature impact).

You can imagine the Mayor doesn't have the powers which are clearly spelled out in the City Charter if you want.

But the rest of us can read.

[Rick K to Susie Q]

My mistake, my last post at 2:07 pm was meant as a reply to Susie Q.

[YESvillages at gateway fields]

NO MORE Rrrrrrickettes

Eliminate the slavishness, unquestioning and unquestionable parrotting of this hack

The Villages at Gateway Fields

[YESvillages at gateway fields]

NO MORE Rrrrrrickettes

Eliminate the slavishness, unquestioning and unquestionable parrotting of this hack

The Villages at Gateway Fields

[Purple Mountain's Magistry]

Hey Rick K: It must gaul you to know that a bunch of POWW'ers informed and convinced the vast majority of this town, in light speed I might add, to such an extent that it convinced two governments, the TDC and the Rays to give up. Must drive you crazy! And yet for all of your ramblings you amounted to nada, zip, zero. How can you continue to call us the loosers when that label is clearly yours?

[Pella]

User fees! Let the baseball fans pay for the new stadium themselves. End of the dilema!

[Rick K on Purple]

Purple, it does not gall me.

I do not regard POWW as the losers and have not labeled them as such. You might have me confused with someone else.

Although, it is true that I do not share your view that POWW achieved victory here. I think what has happened has brought us closer to the liklihood of a new waterfront stadium to replace Al Lang field.

POWW did not convince governments to give up.

POWW crystalized critical support for the Rays plans which will now be much, much harder for POWW to defeat.

I am not saying that POWW's views will not ultimately match the outcome of a city wide election. Its too early for me to have any confidence in my ability to predict that.

What I believe is that POWW succeeded in making just enough noise that reasonable people thought, "OK, let's give them what the want. More time, a broader coalition, and more answers."

I think this is MORE likely to lead us to a waterfront ballpark, not less.

[YESthe villages at gateway fields]

SLAVISH SYCOPHANT

BLOG BLOATER

[Rick K go the professional ToyTown booster]

To the 5:59 pm poster, who appears to be a professional booster of a ToyTown site:

Funny that you call me a sycophant, YES, when it is you who slavishly repeats the ANTI party line, calls people names, and attempts to hijack this debate into nothing more than a serial string of repetitive posts by the committed oppositionists.

I, on the other hand, am, as I long have, staking out ORIGINAL positions which are not squared with the stated desires or beliefs of elected officials or the Rays themselves.

You have an interesting life where you see things as the opposite of how they actually are.

[YES the villages at gateway fields]

DON'T fully comprehend slavish

??????????????????????????????

BLOG BLOATING

SLAVISH

SYCOPHANT

[Susie Q]

Rick K:

"POWW crystilized critical support for the Ray's plans".

Are you serious?

If this is true it would be tantamount to the Japanese sinking their own ships during WWII to shorten the war and allow the other side to claim victory.

[Equal footing]

If there is one person from POWW or has ANY CONNECTIONS to POWW (the same people that said "They will do anything to derail this"), than there needs to be equal representation from FANS on the committee.

One POWW, One FANS
Two POWW, Two FANS
Or none from either.

[since1962]

I agree ONE of each BUT also a represenatative who supports NEITHER POWW NOR BASEBALL but appreciates the RELATIVE importance of both. A represenatative whose MAIN concern is the PINELLAS economy and has a fundamental grasp of major issues.

[mrclean]

I don't think it's going to be an on going committee of all its members. Most likely, it will be similar to the chamber's committee format. They may have one meeting of the whole. After the initial meeting each group will talk amongst themselves and email their findings to the chair. The real committee will meet in secret or stealth (emails, phone conversations). The chair will pick and choose the info to get the desired result.

[Rick K]

I think no one should be permitted to serve on the Committee unless they credibly sign a public vow to do everything they can to help the Rays get a new stadium, by publicly and privately advocating for the recommendations made by the committee with regard to stadium location, design and financing.

This committee ought to have no members who start out as oppponents of a particular plan or approach to get a stadium built!

Opponents ought to be relegated to the sidelines.

[mrclean]

Rick K - You are right. I have been on committees and all members work for a common goal. The committee also votes on motions set forth by the committee members.

I think this committee will tabulate the land options and tax funding sources. Others groups POWW, CONA , Friends of Rays, etc. will be patronized by the real committee (stealth group). The politics is such any group that wants in will be fine. There will be no boardroom vote by these outside groups. They may be mentioned in the summery. Just like the chamber.

[Rick K to Mr Clean]

Mr Clean, I liken this pursuit to the events connected with the Continental Congress which met in June and July of 1776, to discuss ways of proceeding to declare Independence from the rule of the British Crown.

I think the wisest decision the Congress made, at the onset of their deliberations, was that their final "action" would be supported unanimously.

In other words, those who were not there to figure out HOW to declare independence had no business being there.

I think the same is true in this case. While the concerns of everyone should be evaluated and considered. I do not think it makes any sense to form a committee with people who believe the question is not HOW but IF.

Of course, I have no say in who is on the committee, so my discussion about it's composition and mission are merely matters I find interesting.

[Pella]

mrclean: No way Jose. We had 68% and the Fans had 19%. So POWW should get three seats and the Fans one.

See, we can do math too!

And for your second ascertion. Following the Chamber format would be tantamount to civil war. If this is what you want, bring it on. You will be driving right up my alley.

Rick K: "Opponents should be relegated to the sidelines". What are you smoking, drinking or taking. You can't be serious?

[since1962]

public dissent and debate is a GOOD thing Rrrrick.

Prequalifying yes men eliminates any rational discussion and would result in another failed plan.

Dissenting voices WILL be heard; much better to acknowledge and incorporate majority public opinion within the plan rather than an insular business/political
"confrence call".

[Rick K]

You ANTIS are missing the point.

Forget about the Rays just for a minute.

In life, the best way to get things done are to put people who are completely committed to getting the thing done in charge of getting it done.

There are always naysayers. Naysayers SOMETIMES add value. But not often. Competent doers are skilled enough at identifying likely obstacles and shortcomings and either devising strategies to overcome them, or prevailing through perseverence.

Naysayers should not drive this issue, which, at this point, is to find a way to BUILD A STADIUM for the Rays in the Bay Area, to keep the team here for another 30 or more years.

Seriously.

It is important to consider political realities as the proposals move forward. But naysayers should be relegated to their optimal role, which is criticizing the proposals and process from the outside, instead of holding up every meeting with desires to return to evaluation of the mission statement.

To be effective, groups need to have a common purpose. Anyone who does not wish to serve on the committee to find the BEST WAY to build a stadium to keep the Rays will not share the committees purpose.

Therefore, there is no point in having those people on the committee.