City Council chair Jamie Bennett says he'll vote to move the process along on Thursday

Council chair Jamie Bennett just told Ballpark Frankess that he'll vote to move the stadium referendum process along on Thursday, though he also sounded interested in supporting the proposed Nurse/POWW alternative.

"At this point, I could give it a try," Bennett said. "If that’s what people want to vote for, let’s give them the opportunity to vote for that too."

Bennett said he was aware the dueling referendums could produce confusion, and indicated that a single question outlining both positions may be best.

FWIW: Council member Bill Dudley also is on record saying he supports a referendum on the Rays' plan. No other council member has made their position known (though most expect Herb Polson to vote No on the Rays' question tomorrow).

Comments

[Jimbo]

Finally, a voice of reason in this whole debacle of a vote! Let us have the opportunity to vote, and make it one question, not two separate ones. There's no gray area that way, and that will end the debate, one way or another, forever! Hopefully, the stadium passes, but if not, then I'm glad to see Al Lang won't become another condo!

[Dr_Dug]

Our City Council Sucks. With all the Red flags about the deal and the red signs in voters yard, the elected by the people council members aren't doing thier job. Stop the waste of time and money on a deal that the people don't want......
ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL VOTING YES NEEDS TO GET VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE WATCHING!!!!

[Rag Time]

I didn't know that when I voted for the council I'd get a baseball executive instead. I agree with Dr_Dug.... Our City Council should do as the people wish and look out for the interest of the City. The Rays have a stadium,less than 20 years old, that does sell out with other venues and does seat more than the seating of a new waterfront ballpark.
Vote yes and we'll vote you out!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Voting is fine! Could we at least have an informed vote? If you really care about the TRUTH simply follow the link to this New York Times article to see how a new stadium worked in another community.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9123FF932A15751C1A9659C8B63

[Rick K]

Yes, by all means, go with Dr. Dug and RagTime.

Their scheme is to intimidate City Council into NOT letting the people decide.

Less than 3% of the City's registered voters live in properties that have a red sign on display.

Some would try to use this "impressive" figure (augmented by their threats here and elsewhere) to discourage the City Council from letting the people decide.

I say we should all get to decide each and every issue of this nature, after one year of public consideration, starting after whatever proposal is first announced.

[Makes no difference]

You know what, combine them, fine. The public will overwhelmingly vote against the stadium and at the same time prevent the Rays from ever trying to put a stadium there in the future. Brilliant!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K

I keep waiting for your response to the article detailing Milwaukee's experience with the Brewers new Miller Park.
Remember Rick that this morning Aaron quoted Selig as saying ""Once a stadium's up, there isn't a city anywhere that's disappointed." But if you read the article in the following hyperlink you'll see Wisconsin State Senator Mike Ellis , ''The Seligs just scammed the living dickens out of the people of this state.'' I guess that depends on the steroid king Bud Selig's interpretation of disappointment. LMAO
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9123FF932A15751C1A9659C8B63

[Rick K replying to TrulyConcerned]

I just posted my response here.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/ballpark/2008/06/nurse-limit-al.html#comment-117488294

And I will add that I find it interesting that you are so desperate to find supporting facts that you are now claiming that one state senator is the same as "a city".

[Will Ferrell]

Cowbell, or STFU!

[Thomas]

I put on my pants one leg at a time, just like you.

But once my pants are on - I make gold message boards!

Say it baby!

[T. Wallace]

I grew up in St. Petersburg. I watched the Dome go up, I watched the Lightning play in the dome on multiple occassions and I have seen the Rays play in the dome also on multiple occassions. I heard a rumor that if we do not pay for this new WATERFRONT STADIUM then the Rays will be moving to Orlando, I do not know if this rumor is true, however whether it is or not, I say.......LET THE RAYS MOVE TO ORLANDO!! I mean why not??? The Lightning moved to Tampa and we don't miss them much at all so what is the problem??!! All you Floridians deserve to spend your tax money on more important things than another stadium especially consdiering that the Dome is STILL NOT PAID OFF!!!
My prayers & support go out to all of you...
Issues like this is why I no longer live in Florida!

[Truth Detector]

Steve Lange described here. He lied saying that he resigned in another blog but he was re-writing his own history. He's here for political gain only. It's also very telling about his approach/personality. You should know he is leading this charge.

See the article below for yourself
____________________________
North Shore chief ousted

The new president calls it a "sad day" after breaking a tie and voting to remove the association's chief in the midst of a development controversy.

By ANDREW MEACHAM

© St. Petersburg Times, published July 5, 2000

ST. PETERSBURG -- Acting on the request of its membership, board members of the North Shore Neighborhood Association voted Monday night to remove president Steve Lange after only a month in office.

Greg Burton, the association's vice president who led most of the meeting, broke a 5-5 tie on the motion to remove Lange. Burton will be North Shore's new president. Lange will continue as a board member.

The decision was not automatic.

Several board members in the 90-minute meeting argued for another general meeting so that more of the membership -- particularly Lange's supporters -- could weigh in, but that proposal failed. The motion to remove cited a Florida statute that allows boards of non-profit organizations to remove their leaders with or without cause.

"I'm disappointed," Lange said after the vote that ended the meeting. "I think it's an embarrassment for North Shore."

Lange, an architect, had served as president in 1991 and led numerous neighborhood projects since then, including landscaping along Fourth Street and founding North Shore's Historic District Committee in 1997. But within two weeks after assuming leadership because Joyce Frey resigned at the end of May, Lange was coming under fire from residents who accused the new president of having divided loyalties.

Lange supported the controversial development of a new CVS drugstore at 845 Fourth St. N, the current site of Watson's Foodtown. At an emotional membership meeting June 19, residents produced a postcard from Lange to City Council members, one of many such cards distributed throughout the neighborhood by CVS proponents. Lange had also spoken as a citizen on behalf of the development before the City Council, which voted 5-0 to approve rezoning the project needed. That meeting ended with a 31-9 vote to ask the board to seek Lange's resignation.

The board meeting focused more on Lange's personality and pugnacious leadership style. In a brief statement to open the meeting, Lange said he was being punished for backing CVS, a development North Shore residents had packed the City Council meeting to oppose.

But even he acknowledged some "loss of control" in the membership meeting he chaired, which he attributed to the antagonistic mood of the meeting.

Donna Fudge, Lange's attorney -- and wife of real estate broker Felix Fudge, who engineered the CVS sale -- told the board that ousting Lange would not end the controversy. More than 50 North Shore members, including six past presidents and several former board members, had signed a petition calling for another membership meeting in the event the board removed Lange, she said.

"What happened tonight is like firing your star quarterback after he's led you to the Super Bowl, just because he threw an interception in the third quarter," Fudge said.

In breaking the tie vote, Burton called the petition by Lange supporters a tactic to intimidate the board. Such a move, he said, was evidence that "we need someone else at the helm, and I wish it weren't me."

"It's an extremely sad day," he added.

[So what?]

You know, truth detector, you may have a point but the real point is, POWW or no POWW, Steve or no Steve, 68% of people in this city think the stadium plan sucks.

Not much you can dredge up to dispute that.

[Ray F]

So What,

68%???

Was there a vote already??? How can you say 68% of the people in the city when the city never voted???

...or maybe I slept through it.

[Ray F]

ya know 94.37% of statistics that come off the cuff are made up on the spot

[Read the paper]

Here you go, Ray:

"But 68 percent oppose the Rays' complex stadium and redevelopment plan..."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article562778.ece

[Thomas]

100% of Blue Oyster Cult hit songs featured 33% cowbell.

[Taylor]

Read the paper... a poll is NOT a vote. The city has NOT spoken. So now we're back to not wanting people to have a vote? Earlier in the day it was "yes, let's vote... but on two ballot initiatives so we can confuse people" but now it's back to just no vote.

And I keep on seeing people say that the Trop has a higher seating capacity than the proposed new stadium. The trend in stadium development is to build stadiums with less seats to artifically create demand... so of course that's what the Rays are going to do.

[Ray F]

thank you Taylor... i thought I was going crazy because I could've sworn that he said 68% of the people in the city... oh wait he did...

"You know, truth detector, you may have a point but the real point is, POWW or no POWW, Steve or no Steve, 68% of people in this city think the stadium plan sucks."

That's what he said... he didn't say 68% of the 601 people surveyed said it.

whew

[Hard to swallow]

It's called a scientific poll and it is given credibility for a reason a-holes. I have no doubt if the numbers were reversed you'd be talking about the poll non-stop.

Must have been like a punch in the stomach when you saw those numbers. Can't wait until the actual vote, wish I could line you all up and see the looks on your faces when the results are read and there's no more twisting and slithering for you slimy spinsters to do.

Spin, spin, spin, we're still gonna win!

[Taylor]

Polls said Hillary was going to lose New Hampshire, too...

[Ray F]

...so you want to line up people who supported a cause that was voted down and basicly laugh in their faces???

that sounds real mature...

are you going to put your thumbs on your forehead while taunting with the always popular NAH-NAH-NEE-BOO-BOO???

I think that would follow suit with your muturity level. I hope the results don't come during recess or nap time because you might have to get your mommy or daddy to let you know what happened after you get off the school bus.

[Ha!]

Taylor, scientific polls showed Hillary trailing 68%-19%?

Ray, sounds like you're sweating a bit. Guess you're readying yourself for what you're gonna say after this thing bombs at the polls.

[Ray F]

I'm not readying myself for anything. I look at it as a good thing for the city. I will vote based on that. I have a neighbor who has completely different views on it than me. She will vote based on that.

Do you think I will run across the street and rub it in her face if the stadium is approved? NO. Do I think she will run over to me and rub it in my face? NO. Because civil people don't act that way.

3rd graders act that way. I am 1 vote. I have nothing to sweat over. I have a sign in front of my house. I don't go to meetings. I don't go door to door spreading the word. I will show up at my designated polling site to voice my opinion like thousands of others and accept that as doing all I could do.

I didn't vote for Bush either time, but I'm still here.

[Hard to swallow]

Ray, you have a valid point.

I'm not a mean-spirited, uncivil person. My point was that there is a lot of trash talking done in these blogs (maybe not so much by you) and I for one would like to see the looks on all the pro-stadium trash talkers faces when they learn that this deal was voted down.

That's all.

[Ray F]

fair enough

[Hard to swallow]

Perhaps in retrospect that was a childish thing of me to say.

I will take my leave on that note.

[Tommy Lee]

Jamie- Do I ring the cowbell now?

[Ray F]

i love the fact that the cowbell guy hasn't really stated which side he is for. Awesome!

More cowbell.

[Rick K]

I agree with Ray F.

I think he is just here to make sure these debates have a healthy dose of cowbell.

[Thomas]

You're going to want that cowbell on the blog.

Regards,
Rock Legend Bruce Dickenson

[Paul]

'Less than 3% of the City's registered voters live in properties that have a red sign on display.'

Rick - you are the master of impossible statistics. Ok genius, so that means you know how many yardsigns there are, please tell. And how about a house with 2 signs... or how about a house with 1 sing and 3 registered voters in in... apartment buildings count as 1 or... how does your brilliant study calculate those numbers?

Jamie Bennett is at least taking a position which is more than I can say for some of our locals... namely our absent Mayor Baker, who is likely off carrying Charlie's VP campaign posters.

I truly think this is the reason they say more cowbell, but what do I know, I don't even own a cowbell.

[Rick K]

Paul,

My calculations worked like this.

About 97.4876 % of the registered voters in St. Pete live in properties that DO NOT have red signs displayed.

I subtracted 97.4876 % from 100 %, which produced a difference that was smaller than 3 %.

P.S. If I cared A LOT about this, I would shoot video and link to it so that those who think red signs are "everywhere" could see that they really aren't!

[Paul]

That's even more odd Rick, 'About 97.4876 % of the registered voters in St. Pete live in properties that DO NOT have red signs displayed.'

So ok, you flip it around, where did you get your 97% number? (which is dammmm accurate carrying it out 4 decimal places). Where are you getting your numbers from, did the Times do some other poll or sampling that I may not be aware of? or are you pulling the rabbit out of your magic statistician hat?

My point is, you make this stuff up and its actually entertaining to em. You do at times come up with a point or two that I think about... but these stats.. ahhh, well, have at it Rick, I'm sure someone buys yours numbers.

The red signs are everywhere is an off the cuff comment... that is qualitative, not quantitative. Thanks for the video/link offer but none needed, I live here, I know some streets have alot of signs and others have none.

[Don Mott]

Yep Rick is out counting signs and quantifying how many registered voters live in the city versus how many signs he supposedly counted. Only a juvenile or blind follower would buy that crap.

[Move on]

Red signs have been out for 4+ months

Blue signs 5 weeks

Signs don't mean anything. Polls are week when done by local media on small focus groups. Maybe if they took 500 people from each neighborhood in St. Pete. Old Northeast has more red signs shore acres has more blue ones.

Lets more on to some other debate

[Paul]

Uhh, no, lets not move on. My point is not the signs themselves but where Rick gets his numbers because they seem impossible to gather. So I politely ask Rick to divulge his source of his 'only 3% of red sign houses have registered voters' data. Simple enough.

I'm fairly confident he makes this stuff up on the fly and would like to know if he isn't, because that would make him one dang smart rick.

[Jimbo]

Rick, c'mon. I'm on your side, and even I don't buy that number. You better have some pretty compelling evidence to back that up. Otherwise, you're making us supporters look really bad....

[Don Mott]

Jimbo, You will not get an answer. Ricks game is to come here and post preposterous and unverifiable numbers and facts. Then when confronted with real facts that dispute his he simply disappears for a day or two until the heat dies down and his BS is forgotten. At which point he starts all over again. You are right he does make supporters look bad. I am an opponent but I listen to proponents who have a valid argument without making up numbers.

[Real Facts]

I love how "real facts" are defined. Most of the links you give are still educated opinions for which there are educated opinions displaying the exact opposite. Your real facts means whatever seems to support your argument. You discount not just what Rick said now but every bit of information on the other side. I find it hard to believe that every shed of pro baseball information is false but if I listen to you I guess maybe I should.

Do you have "real facts" that WMD's are in Iraq or is that your opinion based on analysis that may or may not be faulty. Do you believe that global warming is man made or a natural cycle. Either way it's warming but there are scientist on both sides. Ego does not equal the real facts

[Don Mott]

Post some real facts. Let's see what ya got.

[Slueth]

Real fact: Don Mott lives in Largo not St. Pete, He loves to blog, he has a finance in St. Pete and loves to take long walks on the beach or Largo central park.

[Slueth correction]

fiance -SP

[Don Mott]

Keep trying and you might get that spelling thing right if nothing else. Might want to spell check your moniker too.

[maths]

There are almost 10,000 red signs in people's yards to date (lets just say 9000 to use a conservative estimate). Just divide the number of houses in St. Pete into 9,000 and you'll see what percentage we're dealing with (hint: it's higher than 3)

[Sleuth not Slueth]

Thanks Don Your right thats a fact: Sleuth

A universal truth not opinion.

[JudyToo]

Here's a fact:
"Lange supported the controversial development of a new CVS drugstore at 845 Fourth St. N, the current site of Watson's Foodtown."
The CVS indeed replaced a gathering place for drug dealers, addicts and a variety of other criminal elements.

North Shore became Old Northeast and is now a very strong neighborhood association noted for its, uh, garden club, porch parties, holiday decorating contests and very beautiful candlelight tours. How nice.

They had a great champion who fought to clean up the neighborhood and now they are just a bunch of pansies. But they have a lot of money, they do vote and they are predominantly against this latest boondoggle. Those who support the new stadium are well known to have a vested interest and stand to personally gain if it is approved.

Here's another fact: 17,000 or so attend Rays games. That is some per cent of the population I think. Maybe 7% of St. Pete. But wait, it's the TAMPA BAY Rays, right? So that is maybe what? 0.5%? And they want ALL the citizens of St. Pete to pay for 100% of the cost?

Yes, 100% - but I know that some of you have been drinking that kool aid again and will argue the point. Any way you try to slice it, it's still 100% public money that could be used for something a bit more worthwhile than another baseball stadium. Like policemen. Firemen. Code enforcement. Improved public transportation. Basic city services that are currently being cut back like crazy. You know, stuff that improves the quality of life for ALL of us, not just 7% or 0.5%.

[Kyle]

It would be interesting to note if any of "the boys" from NY bought any property downtown before making this announcement about a new stadium? If someone could prove something like that, that may be the thing thats turns "fence-riders".

[Jimbo]

Interesting math, JudyToo. Seeing as the Rays are fronting $150M (and not as advanced rent), that lowers the public portion to 67% (or 66.6666666...%, if you prefer). Factor in almost no Pinellas residents don't stay in a hotel in Pinellas (save the one- or two-day mini vacations away from their lives), and that equates to $100M, lowering the St. Pete resident's portion to 44%, (or 44.4444444...%). Count the fact that the Rays will buy guaranteed parking rights to certain spaces throughout the city equal to $55M, the percentage (if you count the sale of land currently used as a baseball stadium and cannot be anything otherwise unless the team vacates as "public money") that St. Pete residents will pay is 32% (or 32.2222222%), which is the estimated $70M for the Trop land and $75M of the same money we currently spend on the dome itself. Don't believe me? Think I'm a shill for the Rays? Source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article518721.ece

That's a lot less than 100%, don't you think?

Stop trying to scare people to believe you. The truth of why you oppose it will help your cause. The problem is, I haven't heard an argument (other than a valid, "I don't want it on the waterfront") that can't be refuted yet.

[Jimbo]

And if you want to get really interesting, the $75M that we're currently paying now, over the course of 30 years, works out to $10 a YEAR per person (about 250,000 people in St. Pete), or 83¢ a month. Granted, it goes by household, not person, but with about 110,000 at the 2000 Census, that's still $22.73 per year or $1.89 per month per household.

I don't know about you, but that $22.73/year don't buy me a lot (maybe one extra pizza a year), but the rewards of reclaiming the Trop on the tax rolls would be worth it, IMHO.

[Paul]

Jimbo, it all adds up. Penny for Pinellas, one time surcharge for schools, one time surcharge to bail out Poe insurance... and the number at the end of the year is big.

[Jimbo]

Yeah, that's fine, but we're talking this number. You mean to tell me you can't afford to spend 6¢ a day (44¢ a week) for a new entertainment venue and 86 acres being allowed to return to the tax rolls after almost 30 years but people will spend $3/day for a cup of coffee? Sounds like priorities need to be reevaluated.

I mean, we spend 3¢ a day (24¢ a week) for Albert Whitted, 2.5¢/day (17¢/week) for Sunken Gardens, 2¢/day (15¢/week) for The Coliseum, 2¢/day (13¢/week) for The "Port" (if you can call it that), 7¢/day (50¢/week) for the Marina, 8¢/day (54¢/week) for The Pier, and a whopping 13¢/day (90¢/week) for the Mahaffey Theater. Source: http://www.stpete.org/pdf/CSP_Budget%20Document%20FY08_FINAL.pdf page L-16 (p 215 in Adobe Reader)

Now, I'm not saying these aren't all worthwhile (those some of them are frivolous, IMO), but it puts it into perspective how much it really costs us. Not everyone in the city uses all these amenities, and some rarely use any, yet we all happily pay for these every day. If we're willing to pay more for a mostly-empty banquet hall, a ghost-town like port, and an airport most people can't afford to utilize (7¢/day total), why couldn't we pay for something people could enjoy more than 81 times a year (playoffs, concerts, the St. Pete Bowl, the park where a parking lot is now, etc.)?

Besides, it adds money back to the tax rolls, so while the exact number can't be guaranteed, any tax income above the current $0/0% right now is an added plus!

[Jimbo]

And something I forgot: the 6¢/day (44¢/week) for the new stadium is already being paid on the Trop (same source above). So, nothing will increase above what's being paid today. Except, of course, the amount of taxable property in St. Pete.

[Native]

Fact to Judy Too- Steve Lange was booted from his neighborhood assoc because he was a proponent for the CVS, the majority of the neighborhood was against it. So Judy check your facts first