Fans For Waterfront Stadium responds to Nurse/POWW alternative

Fans for Waterfront Stadium founder Kenny Locke just called the Nurse/POWW referendum alternative an 11th hour scare tactic meant to confuse voters. "We see it for what it is," Locke told Ballpark Frankness.

Locke believes the question would distort the entire referendum process. The stadium vote already is a referendum on the future of the waterfront, he said.

Comments

[Locke is a hypocrite]

This is so blatantly hypocritical it would make me laugh if the implications weren't so disturbing.

How can you print and distribute signs that say "Let Us Vote!" and then come out against allowing citizens to vote?

People should have a say in the future of the waterfront. This whole argument about "confusing the voters" is also a complete double standard since the referendum item the fans group has advocated all along is a vague and misleading one (extending the Rays lease).

They keep saying, "we have faith in the citizens of St. Pete to weigh the facts and make the right decision" yet now they are calling a counter effort an 11th hour scare tactic (and notice you'll keep hearing that phrase over and over, its their silly spin machine at work).

Put both of them on the ballot and let the people decide.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Hypocracy may be an understatement in this one. LET US VOTE!!! What is there to be SCARED about. The fact that the citizens have already indicated their desires in Vision 20/20 and reaffirmed in the more recent LDR rewrites perhaps frightens the scam artists who are behind this absurd proposal.
Aaron if you're going to quote the poster boy for all that's wrong with baseball, Bud Selig, perhaps you could provide some background for your readers. If not, perhaps they'd like to become informed citizens by going to this insightful New York Times article about Selig's Brewers.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9123FF932A15751C1A9659C8B63

[Jimbo]

No, I agree with Kenny. It can be misleading and lead to a false result. Look at the bullet train or the pregnant pigs on the State Constitution. People all over the state said they were mislead on both those issues because of their wording. Same thing will happen here if we add this to the ballot. It's possible (though common sense would say otherwise) that both could pass. If one's overridden by the other, where's the democracy in that?

Aaron proposed an excellent solution in another post on this blog. The question should say something like, "Do you want the Rays to have a lease Al Lang? If you choose 'No', then you agree to have that property remain at the same height, or lower, and follow certain zoning rules for perpetuity." Why is that not an option being discussed. Common sense would tell you that people voting for the stadium would vote against the zoning, and vice versa. Why allow for that error room?

Personally, I like the stadium idea, but if it doesn't go through, I don't want a condo, mall, or anything else there, except a museum or something cultural. Having it all on one ballot vote will allow that to happen.

Besides, something neither side has brought up yet. What happens if the stadium question fails AND the zoning question fails (because they weren't tied together)? That's a whole new can of worms right there!

[Not Neccessary]

Jimbo, the nonsense you and Kenny are talking IS the eleventh hour scare tactic.

What I'm hearing is, we need to make the ballot language clear, totally unambiguous, and not at all misleading.

And your "can of worms" wouldn't be new at all, we'd just move on to another use for Al Lang, although one that would not be limited by usage capacity restrictions.

I can smell you pro-stadium folks panicking. Your desperation is embarrassing.

Let us Vote...On Both!

[Faulty logic]

"Why allow for that error room?"

What if you don't support the stadium but also don't want to see the usage capacity limited to what it is now? Then what do you vote on?

Perhaps you want something slightly bigger than Al Lang, just not a huge stadium with a hefty price tag...

Your logic is...lacking.

[Ray F]

As long as POWW (since this was their idea) should present a detailed cost/benefits analysis to the voters of the city...

Including- tear down cost of the stadium that's already there, ecological impact of the wasate that tearing the stadium down would cost, the amount of money that the city would lose by not hosting baseball games there (st pete got $.56 from each ticket sold there), what would be done for parking should there ever be a public event held there that draws more than 30,000 people, the impact that tearing down the stadium would have on the St Pete Grand Prix route, drainage for the new parkland, landscaping for the new park land, watering fees, maintenance costs, etc. etc.

That's only fair before it's on the ballot.

I don't think the voters have enough information about this issue to be able to vote on it on such short notice.

Sure... a new park would be nice, but what is it going to cost the taxpayers is what we want to know???

[get-smart]

atrulyconcernedcitizen -

Good find & read - I just Google Maps Miller Park. Surprise! Surprise! It is in the industrial area surrounded by interstate hwy. The stadium is surrounded by a parking lot. Oh yeah! the roof makes a dome!

[Malcolm Glazer]

How dare this organization ask the community to pay for part of this stadium?

The gall of some people! They're trying to use taxpayer money to line their own pockets!

Who would fall for that?!?!

[Voila!]

Ray F, what a concept, having all the details in place before the final decision to put something on the ballot is made.

Of course that would be fair, I think Council will just be asked to "start the process" the same as they are with the Rays proposal.

Then, like the Rays, supporters of this other ballot item would have time to help the city gather all required info.

What's good for the baseball goose is good for the citizen gander, no?

[Jimbo]

Faulty,

One of the biggest arguments against the new stadium is that it could block the views of the Bay and make it seem inaccessible. Don't you think that anything bigger than Al Lang would supposedly do the same thing? You're just arguing for argument's sake.

[Ray F]

Voila,

Obviously you haven't read any of the city council reports (financing plans, developer proposals, etc.)

So... where are any of the first steps from POWW? Obviously tomorrow is the preliminary vote on whether to allow the referendum... would it be fair to allow them to just ask for it to be on the ballot and it magically appear there without some obstacles???

POWW will have to come up with a lot of info to match the Rays at this point in order for them to deserve to go on to the next vote.

[Faulty logic]

We aren't talking about SIZE, we are talking the intensity of use.

Perhaps some people want an aquarium there (just as a hypothetical example) which will only be two stories high but will have have a greater intensity of use.

In that case they would vote No on the Stadium item (they don't want a stadium) and No on the intensity of use (they don't want to be limited by the current zoning, etc).

Do I need to rephrase that in a simpler, easier to understand way?

[Dave in St Pete]

Ray F,

Nope, You're wrong again. The Nurse proposal does NOT have any building or tearing down in it. Just a use restriction. The studies you are howling for would happen when a use under the new rules was proposed.

[Rick K]

It is HILARIOUS that the ANTI's (who know full well this is a desperate tactic to confuse people) who are now pretending that they have ALWAYS supported voting this November (even though they have made numersous public statements saying this November was too SOON) are now pretending to play the "Hypocricy" card.

If ONE YEAR of public consideration was not enough time to consider a new stadium proposal, how is 6 months enough time to consider a change like what they are proposing now.

I say the CITY COUNCIL should call their bluff, and tell them they will schedule a special election (No sooner than next May, to give us a year) if the Stadium question fails in November.

[Jimbo]

Semantics, Faulty...semantics.

[Voila]

Ray, allowing citizens to cap the intensity of use of the Al Lang site is not the same as determining WHAT will end up being on that site (which, as you mention, would require extensive information gathering). That would be left to future visioning sessions, the City Council and City Staff.

This would be to prevent future large scale projects from moving forward on the waterfront.

Pretty straightforward.

[Faulty logic]

Not semantics, sorry you don't understand the difference between the size of a structure and its intensity of use (generally, the number of people who use that structure in a given period).

You can have a very large structure with a low intensity of use and a relatively small structure with a high intensity of use.

But the point is, generally, the greater the intensity, the larger the structure needs to be to accommodate.

A configuration/structure with a max intended capacity of 5000 people is cool. A configuration/structure with a max intended capacity of 35000 people is not cool, according to this ballot language.

Again, pretty straightforward (unless you're part of that 19% that actually like the stadium plan and will say anything you can to keep its hopes alive).

[Ray F]

OOOHHHHH, I get it...

Right... i have to see the forest for the forest, not the trees. We're not supposed to assume this is the precursor to making Al Lang into a park.

Sorry, I forgot, we're dealing with upstanding UNELECTED people here.

While we're at it, why don't you come to my house and measure my lawn to make sure it isn't too long. I wouldn't want to ruin anyone's view.

This blog is getting out of hand.

BUILD THE BALLPARK!!!

[Dave in St Pete]

Ray,

I can imagine many uses other than a park under the Nurse proposal.

Please take off the Rays colored blinders. You really need to start accepting the fact that the stadium proposal is doomed.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,
Perhaps you are new to our community or simply a Rays mole. But let me bring you up to date. This wouldn't be a six month period of consideration for the Nurse position. Actually it is a hope from citizens that the 3rd time would be a charm. That is to say if we finally get it on a ballot for a certified vote, the Mayor, and city staff can no longer enter into SECRET discussions about a piece of property the citizens have already addressed. For you newcomers...Vision 20/20 already called for what is suggested in the Nurse amendment. It was placed into our City's Comprehensive Plan supposedly to give it weight. Perhaps supposedly is the KEY word here. Much more recently the topic of the Al Lang property came up in the Land Development Regulations rewrites, and after many PUBLIC meetings soliciting input from ALL concerned citizens, AGAIN the citizens expressed an unequivocal very specific desire to designate that property DCP not DC3. Mr Mussett in one of the sneakiest moves of all time told citizens not to worry they'd fix that in the now infamous glitch ordinance.
I believe the Nurse amendment is simply a vehicle for telling Mr Mussett and other's to honor the original agreement(s) to zone this DCP.

[Ray F]

Dave,

You may be in St Pete, but you can't be from St Pete. You must be another transplant that doesn't give 2 squats about our city or civic pride.

Sure, I'll make a drive to Tampa and see the Rays play and at the same time I'll think about when I was a little kid- My parents bought me a Mariners hat when they were supposed to come here. Then I got a White Sox hat when they were supposed to come here. Then I got a Giants hat when they were supposed to come here.

I wasn't the only one doing it... thousands were and you people need to realize that some other kid in some other town is doing the same thing I did for 10 years and maybe they'll get our team that our past leaders fought tooth and nail to get.

You really need to accept the fact that the city will get nowhere by letting this fail.

[Professional Sports Not Necessary]

Ray, you should make that argument to the residents of the following cities *where there is no professional sports team whatsoever*. These are also cities, by the way, that consistently rank higher than St. Pete in overall quality of life:

Raleigh, NC - Famous for its proximity to great universities and as an incubator for cutting-edge tech firms, Raleigh has so much green space it's described as a park with a city in it.. In 2008, Forbes magazine named Raleigh no. 1 out of the "Top 200 Best Places For Business And Careers. Also one of Money Magazine’s 10 Best Big Cities in 2006 (#4).

Austin, TX – Austin has more music venues and restaurants per capita than any other U.S. city and is nicknamed Silicon Hills due to its large number of tech employers. One of Money Magazine’s 10 Best Big Cities in 2006 (#2).

Athens, GA - A vibrant, restored Victorian-era downtown teems with art galleries, trendy shops, world-renowned nightclubs and distinctive dining. Historic architecture and impressive gardens complete the unique blend of traditional heritage and trend-setting southern culture. The vibe and energy that gave birth to R.E.M and the B-52's is alive and well today! "Best Small Places for Business and Careers" (#13), Forbes, March 2008.

Colorado Springs, CO – Ranked #1 on Money Magazine’s 10 Best Big Cities in 2006.

Eugene, OR - Eugene is known for its unique, exciting mix of arts, culture, education, scenic beauty, and passion for recreation.

Tucson, AZ - Men's Journal magazine named Tucson in its list of the top 5 best places to live. The magazine ranks cities based on career opportunities, access to nature and the quality of urban life. Fortune Small Business magazine named the area on its list of "100 Best Places to Live and Launch."

Charleston, SC - Charleston was chosen as the No. 6 Mid-Sized City Arts Destination by American Style Magazine. The recognition is based on readers’ surveys and is posted annually. Charleston attracts millions of visitors a year who come to experience the city’s rich history and culture as well as the many recreational opportunities.

Savannah, GA - Known as America's first planned city, Savannah attracts millions of visitors, who enjoy the city's architecture and historic buildings:

Asheville, NC - Asheville pops up on national rankings for a variety of things: Modern Maturity named it one of "The 50 Most Alive Places To Be" American Style magazine called it one of "America's Top 25 Arts Destinations," Self magazine labeled it the "Happiest City for Women," it is one of AARP Magazine's "Best Places to Reinvent Your Life. Note: Asheville’s population is less than St. Pete, although the Asheville metropolitan area is as large as the St. Pete area.

Fort Collins, CO - Great schools, low crime, good jobs in a high-tech economy and a fantastic outdoor life made Fort Collins No. 1 on Money Magazine’s Top 50 Best Cities 2006.

Boise, ID - Boise boasts 2,700 acres of green space and trails, with the foothills of the Rocky Mountains serving as a backdrop. The downtown is stocked with boutiques and restaurants, and a three-block-long farmers' market comes to town every Saturday in the summer. One of Money Magazine’s Top 50 Best Cities in 2006 (#8).

Omaha, NE – Omaha has a booming downtown and riverfront. One of Money Magazine’s 10 Best Big Cities in 2006 (#7).

Tulsa, OK - Tulsa was selected as one of America’s Most Livable communities by the Partners for Livable Communities, Washington, D.C. (April 2004). The area prides itself on its growing economy, recreational destinations and cultural attractions.

[Ray F]

None of which I would be caught dead in. I wasn't raised in any of those towns, but, I'm sure if you gave them a baseball team after trying for one for 20 years and then they let it slip away because of some nut balls who want to erect a shrine to Richard Dawson or Bob Barker, they'd have the same conversation.

[Dr_Dug]

Bud Selig is an Assclown!!! And so is the St.Pete Times news!! All Assclowns!!
Read the truth behind Bud "the assclown" and how he's screwed people for the brewers(owns Team).

Tommy G. Thompson played a key role in the building of Miller Park in Milwaukee with public money while he was governor of Wisconsin. Like many other residents of the state, he feels a bit jilted.

''The Brewers made it clear that if we built a modern, state-of-the-art stadium, it would provide them with the resources to field a winning baseball team,'' Thompson, now the secretary of health and human services, said. ''The Brewers need to put an end to the games. They need to invest in a winning team.''

Other politicians are more outspoken. 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.''

It was agreed in 1995 that a retractable-roof stadium would be built for the team. The stadium was ready for the 2001 season. When it opened, the Brewers had not won a divisional race for 19 years and had not had a winning season in eight years. Each of the three years in their new digs, the Brewers have had a substantially lower winning percentage than in any year from 1995 to 2000.

When the deal was hammered out, the stadium was to cost $250 million, with the Brewers contributing $90 million. The Brewers were to receive (and have received) all revenue from the stadium, even from events other than baseball.

The state's Legislative Audit Bureau reported that as of the end of 2001 the stadium's total cost rose to nearly $425 million. The Brewers' share stayed at $90 million, $41.1 million of which came from a 20-year naming-rights deal with the Miller Brewing Company. The balance appears to have been borrowed by the team, and $36 million of the associated team debt was canceled by the quasipublic Stadium District in September 2002.

The Stadium District was supposed to contribute $3.85 million a year toward maintenance and repairs, costs normally assumed by the team. For ending that obligation, the Brewers' debt to the district was extinguished. The upshot is that the Brewers appear to be contributing only about $13 million of their own funds to stadium construction, and the audit bureau is concerned that the ballpark may suffer from inadequate maintenance resources over the years.

Meanwhile, the Brewers' ownership has decided that the team cannot be competitive in the near term. The opening-day payroll was reduced from $52.7 million in 2002 to $40.6 million in 2003 and to a projected $30 million for 2004. (The Brewers have dumped the salaries of seven of their higher-paid players from last season.) Fans want to know what happened to the promise of a competitive team.

Fans might also want to know what the Brewers are doing with their revenue-sharing money from Major League Baseball. During the labor negotiations, Bud Selig, who put his 30 percent interest in the Brewers in a blind trust after becoming commissioner in 1998, reportedly insisted that the new agreement restructure the revenue-sharing plan so that the third quartile of teams receive a proportionately larger benefit than the bottom quartile.

His family's Brewers just happen to be in the third quartile and just happen to have increased their net revenue-sharing receipts by more than any other team. It rose from $1.5 million in 2001 to $9.1 million in 2002 to an estimated $18 million in 2003, according to a financial analysis the Brewers provided to potential investors in July.

The labor agreement is clear that each club must use its receipts ''in an effort to improve its performance on the field'' and that the commissioner ''shall enforce this obligation.'' Thus, the Brewers appear to be violating their covenants with the people of Wisconsin and with the players' union, as the commissioner seems to be idly standing by.

Do the Brewers have a defense? First, we have heard that the team is loaded with $110 million in debt. True enough, but this is about the average debt level for a major league team. Much of this debt appears to be from the stadium. (The naming rights are paid over 20 years, so some of the team's share had to be financed.) That is, this debt is the product of an investment, not a bleeding income statement. Indeed, the Brewers' own financial analysis shows a $20.24 million operating profit for their three years in Miller Park.
Some additional debt may have been taken on when the 29 teams bought the Montreal Expos two years ago for $120 million. This is also an investment that should yield healthy returns when the Expos are sold.

Second, the Brewers will say that they are rebuilding and that all teams go in a cycle. Never mind that the team has been rebuilding for 11 years and never mind that General Manager Doug Melvin says they want to emulate Minnesota (a team Selig tried to eliminate three years ago and whose opening-day payroll grew from $40.2 million in 2002 to $55.6 million in 2003). The real point is that the team can be developing its minor league talent at the same time that it acquires new major league talent.

The team needs pitching and a right fielder; many promising young players have been available at a range of prices this off-season, but the Brewers haven't shown any interest. If a new stadium is to be successful in generating revenue, the product on the playing field must be attractive. By refusing to invest in today's team, the Brewers are squandering the rich revenue opportunities of a new stadium as well as breaking the bonds of trust with their fans.

And if the Brewers were really sacrificing 2004 to be strong in 2005 and 2006, why do their projections for payroll and player development expenditures remain flat from 2004 through 2006? Something here doesn't compute.

[Native]

Pro @ 12:29 congrats you have listed college towns that have major sports teams.....nice try

[Dr_Dug]

Bud Selig is an Assclown!!! And so is the St.Pete Times news!! All Assclowns!!
Read the truth behind Bud "the assclown" and how he's screwed people for the brewers(owns Team).

Tommy G. Thompson played a key role in the building of Miller Park in Milwaukee with public money while he was governor of Wisconsin. Like many other residents of the state, he feels a bit jilted.

''The Brewers made it clear that if we built a modern, state-of-the-art stadium, it would provide them with the resources to field a winning baseball team,'' Thompson, now the secretary of health and human services, said. ''The Brewers need to put an end to the games. They need to invest in a winning team.''

Other politicians are more outspoken. 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.''

It was agreed in 1995 that a retractable-roof stadium would be built for the team. The stadium was ready for the 2001 season. When it opened, the Brewers had not won a divisional race for 19 years and had not had a winning season in eight years. Each of the three years in their new digs, the Brewers have had a substantially lower winning percentage than in any year from 1995 to 2000.

When the deal was hammered out, the stadium was to cost $250 million, with the Brewers contributing $90 million. The Brewers were to receive (and have received) all revenue from the stadium, even from events other than baseball.

The state's Legislative Audit Bureau reported that as of the end of 2001 the stadium's total cost rose to nearly $425 million. The Brewers' share stayed at $90 million, $41.1 million of which came from a 20-year naming-rights deal with the Miller Brewing Company. The balance appears to have been borrowed by the team, and $36 million of the associated team debt was canceled by the quasipublic Stadium District in September 2002.

The Stadium District was supposed to contribute $3.85 million a year toward maintenance and repairs, costs normally assumed by the team. For ending that obligation, the Brewers' debt to the district was extinguished. The upshot is that the Brewers appear to be contributing only about $13 million of their own funds to stadium construction, and the audit bureau is concerned that the ballpark may suffer from inadequate maintenance resources over the years.

Meanwhile, the Brewers' ownership has decided that the team cannot be competitive in the near term. The opening-day payroll was reduced from $52.7 million in 2002 to $40.6 million in 2003 and to a projected $30 million for 2004. (The Brewers have dumped the salaries of seven of their higher-paid players from last season.) Fans want to know what happened to the promise of a competitive team.

Fans might also want to know what the Brewers are doing with their revenue-sharing money from Major League Baseball. During the labor negotiations, Bud Selig, who put his 30 percent interest in the Brewers in a blind trust after becoming commissioner in 1998, reportedly insisted that the new agreement restructure the revenue-sharing plan so that the third quartile of teams receive a proportionately larger benefit than the bottom quartile.

His family's Brewers just happen to be in the third quartile and just happen to have increased their net revenue-sharing receipts by more than any other team. It rose from $1.5 million in 2001 to $9.1 million in 2002 to an estimated $18 million in 2003, according to a financial analysis the Brewers provided to potential investors in July.

The labor agreement is clear that each club must use its receipts ''in an effort to improve its performance on the field'' and that the commissioner ''shall enforce this obligation.'' Thus, the Brewers appear to be violating their covenants with the people of Wisconsin and with the players' union, as the commissioner seems to be idly standing by.

Do the Brewers have a defense? First, we have heard that the team is loaded with $110 million in debt. True enough, but this is about the average debt level for a major league team. Much of this debt appears to be from the stadium. (The naming rights are paid over 20 years, so some of the team's share had to be financed.) That is, this debt is the product of an investment, not a bleeding income statement. Indeed, the Brewers' own financial analysis shows a $20.24 million operating profit for their three years in Miller Park.
Some additional debt may have been taken on when the 29 teams bought the Montreal Expos two years ago for $120 million. This is also an investment that should yield healthy returns when the Expos are sold.

Second, the Brewers will say that they are rebuilding and that all teams go in a cycle. Never mind that the team has been rebuilding for 11 years and never mind that General Manager Doug Melvin says they want to emulate Minnesota (a team Selig tried to eliminate three years ago and whose opening-day payroll grew from $40.2 million in 2002 to $55.6 million in 2003). The real point is that the team can be developing its minor league talent at the same time that it acquires new major league talent.

The team needs pitching and a right fielder; many promising young players have been available at a range of prices this off-season, but the Brewers haven't shown any interest. If a new stadium is to be successful in generating revenue, the product on the playing field must be attractive. By refusing to invest in today's team, the Brewers are squandering the rich revenue opportunities of a new stadium as well as breaking the bonds of trust with their fans.

And if the Brewers were really sacrificing 2004 to be strong in 2005 and 2006, why do their projections for payroll and player development expenditures remain flat from 2004 through 2006? Something here doesn't compute.

[Dave in St Pete]

Yep,

10 to 20 percent of the population pushed for MLB for 20 years and simply would not believe the fact that it wasn't wanted here.

So finally the politicians caved and spent the money. The ballpark sat empty for 10 years. Then we were given a team, oh wait...spend more money to update the stadium.

Now the recent 10 year history has proved that MLB won't work here, yet that same 10-20 percent are just sure that if we just spend even more money it will work.

Rays supporters, please TRY to learn from the past. I can't afford to keep paying for your ignorance.

The waterfront, museums, and over all ambiance of St Pete is what makes this city a great place to live and visit, not MLB.

[Dave in St Pete]

Native,

Push for a good college team all you want.

BTW is it the college or the team that is the attraction to businesses and families?

[Dr_Dug]

Dave..you hit the nail on the head!!
The waterfront, museums, and over all ambiance of St Pete is what makes this city a great place to live and visit, not MLB.

[Rick K replying to Professional Sports]

Is the 12:29 poster serious?

First off, if you don't want pro sports, that is fine. No one who thinks the City is better off with the Rays will be persauded by your silly list.

There are multiple problems with your list. But, more important, your list actually MAKES a significant point in support of having professional sports teams. You point to Raleigh, NC, a city which sees nearly 20,000 people leave ten times a year to go to Charlotte for NFL games. Their average expernditure outside the Raleigh area? Hundreds of dollars per trip.

Ditto for NBA.

But guess what, Raleigh has an NHL team. The Raleigh-Durham area also has THREE Minor League baseball teams.

Plus, Raleigh has MAJOR college Athletic Programs.

If the Rays were to leave St. Pete, the City would have NO MAJOR COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS, No minor league baseball, and no professional teams. But people from St. Pete who wanted to pay money to watch those sports would happily go to cities outside St. Pete to do so.

Professinal Sports, no one is arguing that Pro Sports are necessary. Some of us are arguing that the City is better off with them than without them.

[Dave in St Pete]

Sports?

Fine. Bring the grapefuit leagues back to St Pete. They worked here. They helped bring tourists here in the spring when it was still cold and nasty up North.

During the summer the tourists come anyway for our beaches and palm trees.

[Who took my red sign]

Ray F,
None of which you'd be caught dead in? My my what a narrow focus.Pro teams are famous for holding cities hostage. You don't have to be a"nut ball" to tire of their semiannual ultimatums.

[Jimbo]

Pro Sports Not Necessary,

You may wish to clarify your facts before making such claims (and remember, just because they're "minor-league teams" doesn't mean they don't have a fanbase or professionals playing them):

Raleigh - Home of the NHL Carolina Hurricanes since they moved from Hartford, CT, in 1997.
Austin - Home to 5 pro-sports teams
Athens - No sports
Colorado Springs - Home to 3 pro-sports teams
Eugene - Home to 3 pro-sports teams
Tucson - Home of AAA Tucson Sidewinders and a NASCAR-sanctioned track
Charleston - Home to 5 pro-sports teams
Savannah - No sports
Asheville - Home of Single-A Asheville Tourists
Fort Collins - No sports
Boise - Home to 4 pro-sports teams
Omaha - Home to 3 pro-sports teams
Tulsa - Home to 5 pro-sports teams

So, that being said, all but three of the cities you named above have pro sports, albeit all but one are "minor-leagues", yet they made it onto this "better-than-us" list.

Why, if this list of cities is better than us, was St. Pete named on a list of global destinations as a "must-see" Peter Greenberg, NBC's Travel Editor: http://www.pinellascvb.com/media/detail.php?rel=69

I think the people of this city take for granted all the things the founders have worked so hard to do. People saying sports are not needed would be in direct conflict with Mayor Al Lang's vision for St. Pete. Yet, the same people saying, "Let the Rays go," also say, "Bring spring training back!" Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

[The end is near!!!]

Bob Stewart, Ken Welch, members of the Tourist Development Council/BOCC:

PLEASE Tell Bud Selig, the Rays, Rick K and Ray F what they can do with their threats!!!

We don't take kindly to being threatened in our own city. We expect you'll kill this before we get to vote, but if for some reason you delay until after the referendum, WE WILL VOTE NO NEW STADIUM ON OUR WATERFRONT!!!

[Major League Misconception]

Jimbo, thanks for helping me clarify. I was referring to MAJOR LEAGUE sports teams (since that's what you need to be a major league city, right?).

Not one of those great cities has a major league sports team and NONE, ZERO, ZIP have a major league baseball team. Yet ALL seem to be doing just fine.

[Jon]

Kenny is absolutely right, this is a scare tactic. Karl Nurse's suggestion conveludes the issue.

I am perplexed at the paranoia surrounding the waterfront ballpark proposal. Other cities would be thrilled to have such an offer. Residents need to stop buying into the negative spin POWW is placing on this. They've admitted to making fradulent claims. St Pete will receive tremendous economic benefits resulting in better schools and public services.

[Dave in St Pete]

Jimbo,

We sure don't have spring traing now, thanks to the Rays.

[Nice Try Cheese Steak]

Direct conflict with Al Lang's vision? How about direct conflict with Snell and Straub's vision when they gave the Al Lang parcel to the city.

How about direct conflict with Vision 20/20, which was about as democratic as you can get.

Learn your facts before you come down here and try to use our history against us, Johnny come lately Jimbo. Or go back to Philly.

[Really?]

Jon, "They've admitted to making fradulent (fraudulent, by the way) claims."

Go on...

[Jimbo]

Dave,

You should be glad we don't have Spring Training. When Al Lang is torn down to make way for a new stadium, park, museum, or whatever we decide will go there, the City will be saving its net loss of $850K a year on keeping up that dump. Sorry to say, but just because it's historical doesn't mean it's salvageable. And besides, Spring Training never brought us enough revenue to cover the cost of that place.

And finally, the Rays did us, and them, a favor my moving Spring Training out because it will now pack get more people to pack the Trop. No team, since the 1916 Philly A's, has played Spring Training at home. Do you know why the Marlins play all the way up in Jupiter even though there's a perfectly good stadium in Ft. Lauderdale, more than 1/2 the distance from their home turf? Because they need to get people from all over the state to know who they are to help attendance. Same with the Rays. Spring Training is nothing more than a big marketing tool to help these teams become visible or retain their viability.

Why else would Tampa want to call the Yankees "their team"?

[Rick K]

Raleigh has NHL (Major League) Hockey.

Also, every one of those cities (save one) has MAJOR COLLEGE Sports. St. Pete would have none of the above if the Rays were to leave.

Further, looking at what happens in those cities lends support to the idea of pursuing these paired redevelopment proposals.

A study I read in Colorado Springs discussed how much money leaves that City and gets spent in Denver, where they have more than a few pro sports teams. That study noted, interestingly, that a majority of residents surveyed, when asked to check items off a list of things that influenced their decision to keep residing in Colorado Springs, listed "having pro sports in Denver" as a reason to live there.

94 % of people who checked that item also indicated they would be "much more" likely to increase their household spending on watching Pro Sports if the teams were within a 30 minute drive of their homes.

Interesting that an ANTI dude holds up this list, because it is populated with Cities that lose countless billions of dollars in spending to other cities with Major League sports.

[NOT ON OUR WATERFRONT]

Rick K doesn't get it.

NOT ON OUR WATERFRONT!!!!

[Rick K]

Absurd. The 20/20 plan was not "about as democratic as you can get."

97% of City Voters didn't participate in developing that plan.

Which is more democratic, a plan constructed by about 1 - 3 % of people who claimed to be residents (with no effort to disqualify non-voters), or a City Wide election in what will probably be the best attended general election in decades?

[tourism based economy]

With our local economy centered around the tourism industry, it makes sense to have a major sports franchise in St Pete. We have an opportunity to Showcase our city on tv's around the world 81 times a year in what amounts to be a three hour infomercial. Why wouldn't we want to showcase the best possible venue?

Yes the money concerns me, but the idea of not wanting it on the waterfront, I don't get it. It is a ballpark. A smaller ball park, but a ballpark. The Nurse/POWW alternative IS an attempt to distort the referendum process.

[get-smart]

Jimbo -

I just checked Colorado Springs and found this: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4190/is_20070316/ai_n18738216

"Despite a metropolitan population of more than 550,000, the city has only one professional sports team, the minor league baseball Triple-A Sky Sox."

Could you please name the teams.

[Ray F]

Dave in St Pete,

WE DON'T NEED SPRING TRAINING ANYMORE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RAYS!!!

The Marlins don't train in Miami.
Nor the Braves in Atlanta.
Yankees in New York.
Red Sox
Cubs
White Sox

Need I say more??? We have a Major League Sports Franchise in our backyards. They moved an hour and a half away, big whoop- Drive to Dunedin or Clearwater if you need to watch the starters take batting practice. Or go to Tampa to watch the Bronx Bullies.

[Missing the point]

Rick at 1:38, doesn't seem to bother those cities in the least bit since they all consistently rank as great places to live. All I hear from your argument is that we need enhance our local Universities.

By the way, lets see a link to this study you refer to.

[Rick K]

correction to 1:39 PM post, above.

Rick K refuses to be fooled, bullied, or distracted.

Rick K gets it that you people want to tear down Al Lang stadium.

He gets it.

He opposes it, too.

[Jimbo]

No, NOT, you don't get it.

Toytown is a dump...literally. It would cost, at last estimate, $150M to clean that up to make it workable: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/08/15/Neighborhoodtimes/Developers_see_shiny_.shtml Add that to the cost of construction and demo of the Trop and cleanup there, we're talking $600M+.

Derby Lane or anywhere on Gandy is out. Derby Lane, while in hard time like everyone else, will survive, and people will fight to keep it; change is hard for people to take. All of a sudden, there will be a surge of people to protect something no one goes to. But, it happens. And to buy land somewhere on Gandy would bring the cost up $50M, easy.

Tampa's out; they can't get people to go to games now, why would they take a chance there?

Orlando's out; they can't sell-out a 10,000 seat minor-league stadium, why would they take a chance on a 40K+ one?

The Al Lang site is the only logical one; the land's not in use, it's already owned by the owners of the new stadium (the City), and it has the natural views that people expect in a stadium. Do you think that PNC Park in Pittsburgh would be the heralded park it is without the tremendous view of the skyline? Do you think AT&T Park in San Fran would be the "jewel" it is without the Bay Bridge in the outfield?

Great parks have settings, too, and a parking lot is not the view most people want (see Shea and McAfee).

[Jimbo]

Get-smart,

I apologize. I meant to change that to one team when I copied and pasted. My mistake. However, please check the veracity of the rest, and you'll see they're right on.

[Forgot One!]

You forgot one obvious location, Jimbo...

Where they already are!! Let them build a new stadium right next to the old one.

Okay, go ahead and give me a line of crap as to why this won't work...

[Thomas]

Major League Misconception,

I do not support the current proposal.

But I must jump in to say that your post about "magazine rankings for city" is pretty silly.

Comparing a Top 20 metro region like Tampa-St.Pete-Clearwater to Boise makes you look a bit foolish.

If you want to make accurate comparisons, use San Diego, Sea-Tac, Portland, et al. Not obscure little towns that had a "nice" rating in a some dopey magazine. "Bend, Oregon" is the most "livable" city in the world. Which is why only 77,000 people live there.

[Major League Misconception]

Hmmm...Well the Boise metro population is 643,650 and the "dopey magazine" I referred to was a CNN/Money Magazine ranking.

[Dr_Dug]

Bud Selig is an Assclown!!! And so is the St.Pete Times news!! All Assclowns!!
Read the truth behind Bud "the assclown" and how he's screwed people for the brewers(owns Team).

Tommy G. Thompson played a key role in the building of Miller Park in Milwaukee with public money while he was governor of Wisconsin. Like many other residents of the state, he feels a bit jilted.

''The Brewers made it clear that if we built a modern, state-of-the-art stadium, it would provide them with the resources to field a winning baseball team,'' Thompson, now the secretary of health and human services, said. ''The Brewers need to put an end to the games. They need to invest in a winning team.''

Other politicians are more outspoken. 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.''

It was agreed in 1995 that a retractable-roof stadium would be built for the team. The stadium was ready for the 2001 season. When it opened, the Brewers had not won a divisional race for 19 years and had not had a winning season in eight years. Each of the three years in their new digs, the Brewers have had a substantially lower winning percentage than in any year from 1995 to 2000.

When the deal was hammered out, the stadium was to cost $250 million, with the Brewers contributing $90 million. The Brewers were to receive (and have received) all revenue from the stadium, even from events other than baseball.

The state's Legislative Audit Bureau reported that as of the end of 2001 the stadium's total cost rose to nearly $425 million. The Brewers' share stayed at $90 million, $41.1 million of which came from a 20-year naming-rights deal with the Miller Brewing Company. The balance appears to have been borrowed by the team, and $36 million of the associated team debt was canceled by the quasipublic Stadium District in September 2002.

The Stadium District was supposed to contribute $3.85 million a year toward maintenance and repairs, costs normally assumed by the team. For ending that obligation, the Brewers' debt to the district was extinguished. The upshot is that the Brewers appear to be contributing only about $13 million of their own funds to stadium construction, and the audit bureau is concerned that the ballpark may suffer from inadequate maintenance resources over the years.

Meanwhile, the Brewers' ownership has decided that the team cannot be competitive in the near term. The opening-day payroll was reduced from $52.7 million in 2002 to $40.6 million in 2003 and to a projected $30 million for 2004. (The Brewers have dumped the salaries of seven of their higher-paid players from last season.) Fans want to know what happened to the promise of a competitive team.

Fans might also want to know what the Brewers are doing with their revenue-sharing money from Major League Baseball. During the labor negotiations, Bud Selig, who put his 30 percent interest in the Brewers in a blind trust after becoming commissioner in 1998, reportedly insisted that the new agreement restructure the revenue-sharing plan so that the third quartile of teams receive a proportionately larger benefit than the bottom quartile.

His family's Brewers just happen to be in the third quartile and just happen to have increased their net revenue-sharing receipts by more than any other team. It rose from $1.5 million in 2001 to $9.1 million in 2002 to an estimated $18 million in 2003, according to a financial analysis the Brewers provided to potential investors in July.

The labor agreement is clear that each club must use its receipts ''in an effort to improve its performance on the field'' and that the commissioner ''shall enforce this obligation.'' Thus, the Brewers appear to be violating their covenants with the people of Wisconsin and with the players' union, as the commissioner seems to be idly standing by.

Do the Brewers have a defense? First, we have heard that the team is loaded with $110 million in debt. True enough, but this is about the average debt level for a major league team. Much of this debt appears to be from the stadium. (The naming rights are paid over 20 years, so some of the team's share had to be financed.) That is, this debt is the product of an investment, not a bleeding income statement. Indeed, the Brewers' own financial analysis shows a $20.24 million operating profit for their three years in Miller Park.
Some additional debt may have been taken on when the 29 teams bought the Montreal Expos two years ago for $120 million. This is also an investment that should yield healthy returns when the Expos are sold.

Second, the Brewers will say that they are rebuilding and that all teams go in a cycle. Never mind that the team has been rebuilding for 11 years and never mind that General Manager Doug Melvin says they want to emulate Minnesota (a team Selig tried to eliminate three years ago and whose opening-day payroll grew from $40.2 million in 2002 to $55.6 million in 2003). The real point is that the team can be developing its minor league talent at the same time that it acquires new major league talent.

The team needs pitching and a right fielder; many promising young players have been available at a range of prices this off-season, but the Brewers haven't shown any interest. If a new stadium is to be successful in generating revenue, the product on the playing field must be attractive. By refusing to invest in today's team, the Brewers are squandering the rich revenue opportunities of a new stadium as well as breaking the bonds of trust with their fans.

And if the Brewers were really sacrificing 2004 to be strong in 2005 and 2006, why do their projections for payroll and player development expenditures remain flat from 2004 through 2006? Something here doesn't compute.

[Jimbo]

Yeah, and the Tampa Bay metro has 3+M people. Like Thomas said, bigger metros would be better comparisons.

And building where they are doesn't help anyone, Forgot; so I didn't forget, I left it out on purpose. That leaves the same problems they're trying to fix now: increasing the tax base, improving a blighted area, and reconnecting the old Gas Plant back into the city grid.

They didn't make the mess (building the Trop in a sea of parking disengaged from the rest of the city), but they're trying to fix it. Remember, the Rays moved in 10 years after it was built, so don't fault them for a poorly-engineered stadium property.

[Jimbo]

Hey, Dr Dug, we get it. You don't have to post that every 30 secs. If you have nothing intelligent to add, say nothing at all.

[Thomas]

Dude, that's the point. 636,000 is nothing for a metro area. It's not even on the charts.

Boise is like Pensacola or Baton Rouge. It is not comparable to a major Top 20 metro area.

The comparison is not valid.

[Hard to swallow]

They're not trying to fix any mess and you know it. They're trying to get us to foot the bill for a stadium on our waterfront (and it aint gonna happen).

There's no reason they can't build themselves a new stadium right next to the old one. No reason at all.

Your arguments have become laughable.

[Major League Misconception]

Okay, if you want to argue that St. Pete, a city of 250,000, is so drastically different than these other places just because it happens to fall within Tampa's metro area (although I prefer to think of St. Pete as its own city and not part of Tampa) then your argument is solid.

But...

One could also argue the converse, that we already have plenty of sports teams in our metro area and, if having professional sports teams are a requirement for being a major league metro area, we already have that covered and don't need to spend all this extra money on one of them to have a new stadium.

[Rick K]

Hard to swallow makes foolish claims.

These proposals ARE VERY MUCH about fixing the mistakes of the Trop and the currently underutilized waterfront Baseball Stadium.

In fact, that is PRECISELY what these proposals are about.

That the ANTI-s want to PRETEND otherwise reveals everything we need to know about them. They aren't interested in honest discussion of the issues before the City? They want to lie and cheat this debate.

They want to achieve victory through any means, other than honest and open debate followed by an election which maximizes voter participation.

[Ray F]

there is a reason... because they don't have to. Plenty of cities would build a stadium for them. Accept it. If we don't approve this, they will wind up leaving.

That may be fine with a lot of people, but not with me and that's why I carry on and on.

[Good!]

Well it is fine with me! Let them go! Lets focus on making this city the best it can be, not on making this a sports town.

And I'm all for a vote.

Oh, and Rick, no one cares about any of the stuff you're talking about. I know a lot of people who, like you, think POWW are a bunch of a-holes.

But they still don't like the stadium plan and can't wait to vote it down in November, whether the Rays end up leaving as a result or not.

[Rick K replying to Good!]

Good!

My feedback informs me differently.

Thanks, though.

[Good!]

"My feedback informs me differently."

What does that even mean?

Are you saying the people you come in contact with on a daily basis are of a similar mind to you?

That means little compared to a scientific poll, like the one the St. Pete Times just put out.

[Thomas]

I'm not falling for the "build it or we'll relocate" threat. In fact, I'm offended by it.

First, they don't have a viable relocation offer. There are no other cities jumping up to make a better offer. Those who claim that Charlotte or Portland or Las Vegas could land the Rays are simply scared. The current publicly funded sports facilities/political climates in those cities do not make them viable options for the Rays. Spare me the threats.

Second, the team signed a lease through 2027. The city has legal options to enforce the lease. The pending Seattle v Sonics trial could provide a nice precedence for these types of cases.

Don't threat us with relocation. Step up and make a deal that doesnt require so much in public contributions.

[Thomas]

"Plenty of cities would build a stadium for them"

Oh yeah? Where? With what money?

[Mitch]

Thomas - you are sooo naive. Another city or even MLB could EASILY pay the balance of their lease. If the citizens do not vote for this terrific opportunity the Rays will leave and this city will spiral downward. I do not want to live in a place with grumpy people and boarded up businesses. I want to live in the thriving city of St Pete with a beautiful waterfront stadium and a MUCH NEEDED shopping district which is severly lacking in Pinellas County.

[Rick K about Thomas]

Thomas forgets that the Lightning and Storm used to play in St. Pete, but now they play in Tampa.

The Twins once played in Washington DC,
The Braves once played in Milwaukee,
The Dodgers and Giants once played in NYC, and so on.

Thomas likes to PRETEND that the Rays have no other options. Which is exactly how Thomas approaches these arguments. His "arguments" here remind me of the joke about the guys on an island who found some canned goods and are trying to figure out how to open the tins, when one of them excitedly says, "I've got it! Let's assume we have a can opener."

[Dave in St Pete]

Jimbo,

"All of a sudden, there will be a surge of people to protect something no one goes to. But, it happens. "

Perfect description of the people supporting the Rays.

[Ray F]

sorry dave, just because they don't go to the games doesn't mean they aren't fans or supporters. TV and radio followings have grown significantly in the last couple of years.

I have never disputed that some people simply cannot afford to go to more than 3 or 4 games a year. That doesn't mean their vote doesn't count as much as yours or mine.

[Jimbo]

Actually, Dave, I agree with you. No one cared about the Trop until the Rays wanted to do something, then all of a sudden, people who haven't set foot within blocks of the dome in years think it's the greatest stadium ever built. People who lived here all their life and didn't know there was a stadium on the waterfront already started going to games to say, "Hey, look! Don't tear this down, cause we're here now!" Where were you for the past 80 years?

Same will go with Derby Lane, The Pier, and any other underused landmark in this city. I mean, Albert Whitted survived a vote, after all....

[Ray F]

I've never been to the holocaust museum but that doesn't mean I don't support it being here.

[Thomas]

Witches once were burned at the stake.
Explorers once thought the world was flat.
Blah blah.

I'm not "pretending" anything. I asked a very straight forward question. Where is it - exactly - the team is going to go? When they get there, who is going to pay for the stadium?

Mitch - You dont have to worry about "boarded up businesses". With or without a waterfront stadium, the Trop site is still a developers dream. So there will be no "spiral downward" no matter what the Rays do or do not do.