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