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

[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.