More on the bed tax

An add-on to today's story about the hotel bed tax (I'm hoping this is easy to follow):

• The county's hotel bed tax is 5 percent on hotel stays
• Currently, the county contributes the entire "4th cent" (or one-fifth of the entire tax) to help pay off the debt of Tropicana Field.
• The Rays propose to extend the use of that tax to fund a new ballpark, but the team says it wants to cap the committment of county funds. Put another way, the Rays don't want all of the money generated by the 4th cent (as they now receive at the Trop), just enough to pay for $100-million of the construction of the ballpark.
• That means that between 2016-2046, according to the Rays, the 4th cent will generate $140-million that will not be directed to ballpark construction. That money can be used for tourism advertising, which in turn could free up more money for beach renourishment.

The Rays are asking the county to contribute $100-million to the project. Because the county would have to borrow the money and then repay it over 30 years, the cost would be much greater, like a mortgage.

The Tourist Development Council is expected to make a recommendation on extending the use of the hotel tax on July 9. And the county commission is tentatively scheduled to follow with a decision July 22. The 4th cent, in case anyone was wondering, will not expire if the Rays proposal is denied. It's simply a question of how the money should be spent.

Comments

[Thomas]

If the County says "No Thanks" - is it a deal killer?

Or will the Rays step up and contribute the $100M themselves?

Maybe the Rays should ask MLB for the money instead of asking the County...

Afterall, MLB is reporting record revenues while $43 million in planned cuts for Pinellas County Schools.

[Aaron Sharockman]

Thomas,
It's not been put in those blunt of terms... But I think it's pretty safe to say that losing $100-million from the project will be a deal killer.... if for no other reason than the Rays would have like two days to come up with a new way to fill the gap.

On your other point, MLB doesn't really contribute money to new stadiums. At least they haven't done it for the two dozen or so teams that have built new buildings in the past 15 years. My guess is MLB can afford to help the Rays, but the owners of the other 29 teams (who run MLB) probably wouldn't be too interested in helping the Rays out.

[John]

Aaron

Do the Rays have any explanation for taking 7 months to get basicly nowhere with the details? They have 6 weeks left. Seems to me, a smart businessman would have most, if not all the details layed out BEFORE they announced it back in November!!

That is what Leslie Curran is mad about, and rightfully so. Same goes for the TDC and BOCC. I watched the meeting yesterday and I saw zero "ga-ga" faces from anyone.

This deal is dead, they just haven't announced it yet.

[Rays Mike]

This is why negotiations shouldn't be played out in public - just give us what has been agreed to by the team, city, and county, and let the voters decide... "Ga ga" faces, public announcements (or lack of) of every detail, it doesn't make any difference when the Rays and the city/county are in a room trying to hammer out the best deal for both sides. What type of leverage would either side have if they jumped for joy at the first proposals that were announced? My advice to all of you government cynics, since none of you are privy to, nor have any say in the minutia of the negotiations, is to let this play out until agreements are made as to financing, etc.. The public's job is THEN to learn the facts pro and con about the agreement, and THEN to decide in November..

[John]

Rays Mike

So you don't believe in public hearings to gauge voter apathy/support? Sunshine laws? You're ok with our elected officials negotiating with our tax money behind closed doors?

LOL!!!! You scare me.

[Rays Mike]

I know I am not an economist, nor a tax accountant, so most likely my knowledge isn't as great as the decision-makers. I'm all for Sunshine Laws AFTER agreements are made. If I don't like what I see in the agreement, or how it is acheived, then I vote no. An elected governmental official who makes his next decision based on the latest poll and not what is best for his constituants is mearly pandering for votes in the next election. If you voted him in, let hime do his job. If you don't like the decisions that were made, vote him out..

[Paul]

I'm just not seeing the negotiating part. The Rays give their presentation, then the Council or BOCC or TDC asks a bunch of questions... and the Rays say 'we'll get that for you'.

Negotiating to me is 'I'd like this'.... and then the other party says 'Ok, well let's settle for me giving you your request in exchange for that.'

I just don't see that. I see the Rays asking and asking and asking for tax payer money (hey, my relatives rent those dang beach front motel rooms too) and the Rays not being able to provide the very basic answers to questions. Just how is this 'negotiating'? The Rays are not giving in to anything. Help me if I'm wrong on this observation.

Where are the Rays giving and conceding to this supposed negotiation?

[Jon McPhee]

Mike, first of all, how often does any politician get voted out of office? For any reason? They have insulated themselves by gerrymandering and the other (fiscal) benefits of incumbency. Ask Mr. Troxler about our state legislature and any turnover there.

And you must be sandbagging, if you are arguing that we, the taxpayers, ever get to "vote no" on whatever deal the back rooms and influence peddlers produce. The ONLY vote the public gets is the likely ill-informed one on the Al Lang use question. And I will bet a strategy is in place to negative a "no" vote even if the referendum is allowed to go forward.

Maybe you know some tricks I don’t, but once the guv’mint has inked a deal with the likes of the Rays owners, the ratchet has turned, and it only goes one way. But you of course know that too.

What civics class did you sit through? Trust our "competent" government to make "good" decisions, because they are smarter than us rubes? That is most definitely not how it’s supposed to work, unless you happen to live in Zimbabwe or Myanmar. You have to know that there are real strong reasons for “government in the sunshine” – government in the shadows reeks of mildew and other worse stinks. Maybe you want the stadium deal so bad that you put out this smoke without caring what it means to representative government.

We may get the government we deserve, but I and most of the rest of the citizenry don’t deserve the government you seem to want, in your individual head-in-sand invocation of “In Politicians We Trust.”

[Rays Mike]

"The likes of the Rays owners". Why bother even arguing with you rubes....

[HAROLD]

This really comes down to control of land use. The commissioners dont ever want public input (though referendums or ballots) until after they have decided what they want to do. The Public , in their view is just not smart enough to deal with the complex issues of land use and development and urban planning. Nevermind that many of us "public" are better educated than the average commish.
Back room deals, misrepresentation and misleading data sets are the mainstay of public works programs because they have lots of money associated with them.
Bud Selig says "It guarenteed revenue". Well let him pony up the money. There isnt a darn thing wrong with the Trop that cant be fixed with a new Rug.
I am a season ticket holder and I can tell you this ; I sweat one time in the Sun on a July Sunday and that will be it for me. I'll be watching from the bar on the beach. Here is an alternative for you
How about we put together a couple of seasons over .500 ,get some fannies in the stands then start singing for a new
perch?

[observer]

Here is a rube test for you. It is well documented that Jerry Jones, owner of the Dallas Cowboys accerlated his plans for a new stadium to make a "presidential" election year. He knew that gave him the best chance of getting the maximum number of "uninformed" voters you all are speculating about. Can anyone be so incredibly trusting that they don't realize that this thing was announced one week after council elections...set up to coincide with this years' presidential election...please I'd like to sell you some stock in the Sunshine Skyway bridge.

[Don in St. Pete]

Aaron Sharockman and the St. Pete Times as well as the Rays know only too well what the deal actually entails, whether it's 2009 dollars or 2049 dollars the money we are being asked to supply via bonds will actually be around a 1/3 of what we have to pay back. Do the math yourself, because Sharockman has already said he won't do an article on the financing unless it's going to referendum. In essence they are asking for around $800 million like the Yankess got for there new stadium ( who's price is going up ), except St. Petersburg is around 1/40th the size of New York City. I hope they'll at least give out free vaseline at the polls in november.

[since1962]

The first half of TDC meeting contained dire tourism projections including REDUCED REVENUE from the bed tax,Lower occupancy, Pinellas being poorly positioned to market to the necessary afflent traveler and NO available capital in the market for upgrading existing or additional high end resorts catering to affluent travelers.WHERE WAS THIS IMPORTANT INFO - ST PETE TIMES at a time when taxpayers are beig asked to use tourism dollars well into the future?They want to rush this thru before the media will ask the questions let alone investigate and report.

[Will Ferrell]

This thread needs some Cowbell before it's too late.

[neanderthalsrule]

We have learned well from our masters the Rays. Did you see the cool way the Rays pulled their gas guzzling Hummer and other vehicle in on private property to block the big Red Sign.
Well we just destroyed two more of them..that's three signs down for our side. Those poor POWW people don't have the money to keep replacing these things since they don't have deep pockets like the Rays. Who needs shills like Aaron and Rick K and Ray F..we'll take care of this thing ourselves. THE RAYS RULE!!!

[Rick K]

It is cracking me up that the ANTI's are describing those who are in favor of moving these proposals forward as the side who puts out misinformation or is counting on widespread ignorance to carry the day.

If an impartial observer looks through these blogs dating back to April, she'll be convinced, as I am, that the ANTI side, as represented by posters in these blog threads, are all about disinformation, misinformation, distortion, and distraction.

While I am certain that there are some who are opposed to these proposals and have no problem saying, simly, "I don't want these proposals." There remain, unfortunately, a number of ardent ANTI posters and campaigners who cannot help but employ all manner of tricks, lies, and distractions.

This thread, all by itself, is a very good example.

-- There is a claim that Jimmy Johnson pushed to have the Dallas Stadium question put on the ballot during the highest turnout election in order to capitalize upon the widest possible amount of ignorance. This is a completely baseless claim that has also been levied against the Rays ownership. The ANTI's wish to pretend that the public is more ignorant than they are. The ANTI's wish to pretend that the more ignorant people who vote, the better it is for the Rays. There is simply no evidence (at all) to support this false assertion.

-- One poster (who is very prone to using real stastics to support incorrect conclusions) tries to somehow tie together tourism taxes and cuts in our bloated school district budget, as though there is any reasonable or actual connection between the two. Most who examine the issues would agree that the School system is bloated (for example, it has thousands of paid crossing guards), and that the Rays make a contribution to the County's tourism industry. It's not like the County has the authority to divert the fourth cent bedtax to the local school system. In fact, the Trop Field redevelopment will (in 99% probability) contribute significant additional resources to the County school system. But the ANTI's wish to fool people.

-- The ANTI's try to pretend that the Rays are intentionally understating the true costs of these proposals. In reality, the Rays' financial projections use inflation and future/present value compuations to adjust their numbers. The ANTI's who say that the Rays are understating construction costs of the new stadium don't tell you that, if this is true, than the Rays' up front contribution of $150 Million is actually more than $150 Million. The liars are trying to fool people by pretending that the Rays numbers are not adjusted for time value.

-- Other ANTI's wish to pretend that the Rays have not provided details about these proposals. Besides being preposterous on their face, these assertions seek to trick people into NOT examining all the copious amount of information the Rays have provided to date. So far, the Rays have provided 4 different project designs for the new stadium. Each new design has reflected changes requested by the City and other stakeholders in negotations. The Rays have provided an independent professional traffic study, and a reply to the City's questions and concerns about that study. The Rays have provided an independent professional assesment of the environmental concerns related to the new stadium site. This study, prepared at the Rays' expense, directly addresses many of the questions and concerns raised by the ANTI's (such as the large number of manatees, seagrasses, and other protected species that would be devastated by the redevelopment of Al Lang field).

I could go on listing many more of the attempts by the ANTI's to distract, distort and deceive.

They keep trying to assert that it is widely accepted by nearly all economists that public investment in sports stadia cost more than they generate in economic benefits. They quote to a very long list of citations that make the same claim, without ever pointing to the original study that proves the claim. They ignore all evidence to the contrary. All they need to do is begin calling the Economics department at the University of Florida. They will find that there are some economists (including two right here at USF) who hold this unproven view. But they will also find that clear majorities of economists hold exactly the opposite view: If done correctly, public investment in pro sports facilities can produce net positive economic benefits far in excess of the public investment. There are thousands of articles, studies, reports, and books written by economists taking the opposite view. The mere existence of this scholarship PROVES that the ANTI's claim is untrue. Yet, they pretend this research does not exist.

There are text books used in graduate level university courses focusing on regional or developmental economics. About 85 % of the graduate econ majors in the USA use the same five texts. NONE of these texts support the view that public investment in sports stadia always (or nearly always) produce net negative economic benefits. None.

Yet, the ANTI's post articles and links where the same three dozen people assert that there is unanimous agreement among economists that no net positive benefits come from these deals.

The Florida Supreme court examined this very question a few years ago. Hillsborough County enacted a new county wide tax (approved by the voters) to invest in capital projects in the county, including the construction of what is now known as Raymond James stadium. The Florida Supreme Court looked at the trial court testimony from "experts" about the annual economic impact from a stadium, and also from the economic impact of a Super Bowl. The Supreme Court found that there was NO question as to whether the positive economic benefits were substantial (they list a range of numbers which add up to BILLIONS of dollars).

As I said, I could go on. But I won't. Nearly everyone out of the Bay Area to whom I send links to this blog writes me back with the same view. They are amused that the ANTI's would try so blatantly to distort, deceive, and change the topic.

The ONLY people who don't see it, are those who have gone round the bend.

It's perfectly okay to be against these proposals.

It's not okay to bully or cheat the public debate.

Th

The ANTI's repeatedly try to mischaracterize

[Javon Dawson]

What is an "Anti"?
All of the sudden I am now anti-gun!

[Rick K]

Javon,

I didn't know you were ANTI anything.

The ANTI's I am referring to are those on this site (and on other sites) who represent the organized opposition to these paired redevelopment proposals, together with their accomplices.

If you just wondered to these sites and happen to be opposed to these proposals, you are probably not an ANTI.

The ANTI's are those who will use any trick to distort, distract, or deceive.

They will call the Rays owner's names. They will raise straw man arguments.
They will attack posters who take a favorable view of these paired redevelopment proposals, without attacking the arguments. They will offer an endless stream of "reasons" people ought not favor these proposals. As each reason is debunked or invalidated, they will move quickly to the next fake reason.

They will cite bogus studies, make up numbers, plagiarize, mis quote, and use faulty logic.

In short, Javon, the ANTI's do not care about the truth. They do not want the public to vote. They believe that ANYONE who favors these proposals is ignorant, and their goal is to supress ignorance. They want to be allowed to decide this issue for everyone else.

If that isn't you, than you aren't one of them.

[Jon McPhee]

Keep it up, "not not a politician" Rick. Maybe somebody will believe your pixie dust. Do I misremember, or is the trick of attributing to someone else the bad attributes you have called "projection," or was it "transferrence?"

[Ray F]

Ok, Ok, Ok,

We all must agreee that nobody who posts here daily is going to change their minds either way. I'm for the new stadium. Jon McPhee is against the stadium. Rick K is for the stadium. get-smart is against the stadium. Jimbo is for the stadium. Thomas is against the deal.

Why can't we just comment on the story that is posted? Why do we have to keep spilling the same info over and over???

If somebody new comes along- I can understand. But what is the point typing the same stuff to the same people???

Have some originality.

How about talking about Dollar HotDog Night tonight at the Trop.

MMMMMMMM Dollar Dogs... drooooool

I'll be there. I'm going to Wednesday's game agaiunst the Cubs. It nationally televised ya know??

[Rick K]

Very few of the people who come to visit these threads are actually the long time readers and contributors. Those of us who read these threads daily and comment often make up a very small percentage of those who come here and read.

I post, from time to time, information or viewpoints that seem, to the most habitual readers, to be the same stuff I said two weeks ago.

There is a good reason for this, born in my own experience.

Each week, I invite "new" people to these blogs. These people often come here only once or twice, and usually only read the latest threads. They do not have the benefit of all that has been written before.

Nearly every day, I receive a question from someone I invited to the blogs. Usually, the question I am asked is something that has already been adressed here. It's obvious to me that the fact that something may have been debated or discussed two weeks ago will have no influence on new people who come here and read what has been written over the last day or two.

For this reason, I will, when I have the time and the interest, continue to post in an effort to counterbalance what I believe are underhanded attempts by the ANTI's to cheat this debate by any means.

While I appreciate Ray's point that it lacks freshness to talk about things we have already discussed, I will not let the dishonorable tactics of the bullies carry the day!

Thanks.

[John]

You mean new people like "Questioner", Rick?? LOL hypocrisy, defined.

You've even been called out on several threads from other people that support this for "turning them off" with your exhausting diatribes of spin and rhetoric.

[Rick K to John]

John:

How plain can I make this?

I do not care if you are turned off. I do not care if people whom you imagine are people whose support I would enjoy having are turned off.

I will say what I think adds to the public conversation.

I will not, of course, take advice from you an a topic that I don't care about it.

[HAROLD]

Hey guys Im new to your blog and I appreciate Ricks spiel. I find the ANTI"S categorization a little unsettling however. ANd I find the lashing out humourous. I am unable to portray the Rays ownership as evil or good. Its just a business trying to maximize its assetsa and income. My main problem with the new stadium isnt about the stadium or the waterfron. I cant think of a better use of the waterfron to maximize the site for the most people. There is going to be justified misgiving by the people that live downtown but it not just for them. i lived in Baltimore and Pittsburgh and both cities are better off with the new stadiums. My problem is with the timing.
A new stadium of itself is not going to put people in the seats on a night to night basis. My family has lived in St Pete for three years and we have adopted the Rays and Bolts as our own.
We support the teams by buying season tickets and merchandize. But the local support continues to be apathetic at best for the Rays.
Cellar Dwellars cant improve attendance with new uniforms or new digs.Improving the product improves returns. The new ownership is doing that. But its not there yet.I repeat what I posted earlier.
Put a couple of seasons over .500 together build the fanbase and then lets measure the interest in a new stadium.
Here are some fact about pinellas county taken from the census of 2006
population 924,413
percent over 65 20%
percent under 18 19.3%
median income 38,547
median home value$96,547
bachelors degree or hight 22.9%
percent below the povety level 11.1%

This population is not going to be very understanding of a $400 Million sports stadium.
Or a $200 MILLION sports stadium
Or even a fifty dollar seat price.
There is not the fanbase here. Yet
Build the fanbase.
Its only in the movies where "If you build it they will come"
My opinion
Im OUT