Nurse: limit Al Lang development; prohibit Rays' stadium

St. Petersburg City Council member Karl Nurse said he plans to introduce a referendum question on Thursday initiated by opponents of the stadium. The referendum, which could appear opposite the Rays' proposal on November city ballots, would limit the development potential at Al Lang Field and possibly stop the Rays' plans — even if voters approved them.

The question would ask voters to cap the development potential of the Al Lang Field site to its current level. The intention, according to Nurse, is to prevent anything bigger (including the Rays' proposed 34,000-seat stadium) from being built there.

UPDATE: Anti-stadium group POWW has a bulletin on its web site this morning asking its supporters to back the Nurse/POWW referendum alternative.

Nurse, a council member appointed in April to fill a vacancy, said he got the idea from former City Council member Virginia Littrell. Littrell is a leading member of the antistadium group Preserve Our Wallets and Waterfront.

"She's been pitching this idea around town for a few weeks," said Nurse, who said it's logical to infer that he opposes the Rays' plans. "People every day tell me what they want me to do."

If both questions were somehow approved by voters — the stadium and the development cap — Nurse, who has talked to city attorneys about the idea, said the question that receives the most support would prevail.

"The voters will decide if they want the stadium, not me," Nurse said in a followup e-mail. "I thought the alternative proposal to protect the Al Lang site also made sense to send to the voters."

Comments

[Jimbo]

Horrible idea! This is Democracy Inaction. So, for this idea to potentially go through, it would need two votes by the people (one for the stadium and one against the zoning law), but it can die with only one? That's completely unfair and makes a mockery of the whole process! And I'm sure the zoning proposal would be worded in such a way that people would be confused and pick the wrong button, and somehow, 74% of the people would be for the stadium, but 89% would be for the new zoning law, and the majority of the city just lost its voice.

Somehow, this whole thing got really shady in the other direction....

[You Are A Hypocrite]

You people are such hypocrites. Let us vote! Let us vote!

Oh, wait, I mean, only let us vote on the thing we want to vote on.

News flash, Jimbo: Whichever one got MORE support would win. That's called....

DEMOCRACY.

My god you pathetic spinsters are such blatant hypocrites.

Besides, you don't have to worry about the scenario you just described. Less than 30% of people in this town even support the stadium AT ALL.

[Aaron Sharockman]

Let's explore the scenarios should the Nurse/POWW alternative make the ballot.

1.) People who vote "yes" on the Rays' plan vote no on the Nurse question. That makes sense.

2.) People who vote "no" on the Rays' plan vote yes on the Nurse question. Again, that's logical.

In either of those two scenarios, the outcome is either a new stadium or a park. But the question becomes is the Nurse question necessary?

As you may or may not know, the City can only do one thing on that property without a referendum anyway: Build a new municipal building or City Hall. Short of that, any other type of development (condos, hotel, retail, whatever) would require a referendum. And it's stands to reason that the city won't be replacing its City Hall anytime soon.

So then, let's talk about scenario 3 (both measures pass, most votes win).

The only way that scenario comes to fruition (for either side) is if voters are confused. You CANNOT be for limiting development on Al Lang Field and a new Rays' stadium. And you CANNOT be for a new Rays' stadium and limiting development at Al Lang. Now, you can argue about a potential undervote on one question compared to another. But in an election where 70-90,000 people might vote, that's not going to happen.

I've heard people talking this morning about some hybrid proposal that may eliminate confusion. It could be as simple as if the Rays' proposal doesn't pass (assuming it gets on the ballot) then Al Lang's development potential is capped. In other words, make a no vote for the Rays' proposal a cap for development at Al Lang. You'd have to include that language in the referendum, but it seems that would clear up potential controversies.

What are your thoughts on that plan?

[Jimbo]

Now, Aaron, I like that. I'm completely for an "If, then..." proposal. That eliminates the confusion of voting wrong on both sides. I just don't like the possibility of people having one intention and voting for another. Ease of voting and understanding what you're voting for is what democracy is all about.

[Dave in St Pete]

Yep, I can see the voters getting confused.

After all, there are about 30% that think opening the city checkbook for a pivate business it a good thing.

[Rays Mike]

I am very Pro-Stadium, but I am all for Aaron's proposal. If you have to win by duping the other side, it just opens the door for endless litigation...

[Rays Mike]

So 70% of the city residents think that any kind of tax break or incentives to lure and keep businesses in the city is a bad thing? I doubt it..

[Dave in St Pete]

LOL, I make a joke and you get your panties in a bunch.

No I think tax incentives for business that actually provide good paying jobs is acceptable, to a point. But I do not think building a new 'plant', passing the debt on the old 'plant' to the next buyer, and giving all profits to the new 'plant' is even marginally intelligent or a good thing.

[Clear Direction]

Aaron,

This Preserve the waterfront ballot item is being proposed because every few years someone comes up with a plan to develop the waterfront.

This item would keep that from continuing at the Al Lang location.

The citizens of St. Petersburg have consistantly, in public forums and visioning sessions, vision 2020, etc. expressed a desire to have the Al Lang site preserved.

This new item would direct the city to finally do just that.

The site could still be used for anything the citiizens and the council approve as long as the intensity of use is at or below the current level.

LET US VOTE!!!

[get-smart]

My Referendum wording on the ballot would be:
Yes/No
"Do you want to enrich these greedy NY Goldman Sacks investment bankers who became wealthy by aiding and abetting the outsourcing of our American jobs to China and now want to destroy our waterfront?"

See - No confusion.

[Taylor]

Then every few years continue to vote against it.

This new idea is ridiculous, and I firmly believe the council won't even put it on the ballot.

[Dave in St Pete]

Clear Direction,

Are you suggesting that we vote to hold the council reponsible for their stated promise for a park at Al Lange? You mean you don't trust them to keep that promise? You don't think that once the stadium is voted down they will try to sneek it or some other abomination past us, do you?

Oh well, if you insist but I am sure we can trust them. /s

[Clear Direction]

Dave,

Trust them if you wish.

I will VOTE and give them "clear direction"

[Dave in St Pete]

Clear,

I know it doesn't come through well in print but that was sarcasm on my part.

I don't trust them either!

[Rick K]

Aaron, you have raised a great point.

To clear things up for everyone in the City, somesort of hybrid referendum that answered BOTH questions would be best.

The worst possible outcome would be to have both issues pass, but one with a few more votes than the other.

The losers would feel cheated.

Best to combine them into one question.

It could even start out with the poww proposition first, then move on to the ballpark question.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Folks before you weigh in with anything more PLEASE read what happened in Milwaukee with a new stadium.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9123FF932A15751C1A9659C8B63

[Not Neccessary]

Rick et al.

There is no reason to combine them, in fact it would not be fair to voters.

Lets just say you don't support the stadium but also don't support limiting the usage capacity. Then what do you vote on?

Given the likelihood of people voting in favor of both is low (you can't be for the stadium AND for limiting the usage capacity), the chance of both of them passing is also very low.

But even still, there are mechanisms in place in the event of such a very, very unlikely scenario, so no need to reinvent the wheel here folks.

Let Us Vote...On Both!

[Ray F]

Sooo...

POWW offers a different referendum 2 weeks ago that is purposely meant to railroad a 7 month process. I think it would be only fair for POWW to present a detailed cost analysis on what it would cost the taxpayers to tear down the stadium, re-do the landscape and the maintenance costs to the city for the next 100 years. Also, they will have to prove to me to win my vote, that it would bring in 1 million visitors a year while providing a state of the art venue to showcase to the city.

I bet their proposal will get on the ballot with no hiccups at all. Looks like an official that wasn't even elected will get his way.

Maybe he will be happy to drive the bus to the trailer parks to pick up all the poww folks. Make a stop at the Bayfront tower too while you're at it fella.

[Rick K]

BUSTED.

A Truly Concerned Citizen has just proven my case for me.

All the ANTI's ever offer as "proof" are assertions from the SAME handful of ANTI-Stadium zealots.

Take the above post with a link to the "New York Times" by atrulyconcernedcitizen.

Does the link take us to a well researched news article in the venerable New York Times which attempts to investigate what happened to Milwaulkee after they built their new stadium?

NO!

It does not.

That link takes us to a five year old guest OP-ED piece in the New York Times, written by none other than Andrew Zimbalist, the same guy who is quoted or is the author of virtually EVERY "study" or link provided by the ANTI's.

EVERYONE here knows that Andrew Zimbalist thinks that public investment in sports stadiums are a losing proposition for the public.

EVERYONE also knows that Andrew Zimbalist cannot prove his belief.

EVERYONE also knows that lack of proof has never stopped Andrew Zimbalist from running around claiming things he can't prove.

But, returning to the actual Op-Ed piece in the New York Times....

Zimbalist's principle indictment of the Brewers isn't even economic in nature. KNOWING that even his usual lack of attempt to prove assertions about the ECONOMIC realities of Milwaukee's public investment in Miller Park will come up short, Zimbalist doesn't even TRY to argue economics.

Instead, he uses the OPINION pages of the New York Times to argue that the Brewers ripped off the citizens because they have failed to put a winning team on the field!

He is using a straw man argument!

And not even doing that effectively.

The OPINION piece by Zimbalist is five years old. In the most recently concluded baseball season, the Brewers finished in second place in their division. On September 1, 2007, they were in FIRST PLACE.

So, in review:

Atrulyconcerened citizen wasn't trying to enlighten everyone with the economic growth that has come about as a result of public investment in a new baseball stadium, he was trying to fool us.

An OP ED piece by the very same commited ANTI STADIUM zealot that is quoted in every other link provided by the ANTI's does not EVEN TRY to argue economics.

Instead the ANTI-STADIUM crusader Zimbalist writes about the "broken promise" whereby he insists that the public investment in the stadium did not pay off because the Brewers have not won on the field.

How is ANY of that relevant to the Bay Area?

If anyone who lives here wants to examine the local relationship between new publicly-financed stadiums, fan attendance, and on field wins, a Bay Area resident need only glance across the Bay, to look at the Buccaneers and Lightning, who have both won WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS after getting new stadiums.

{EDITORS: what a lame attempt by a trulyconcernedcitizen}

[So easy a cave man can understand it.]

Ray at 11:18, none of that is being suggested, only a limit on what can be done moving forward. Cart before the horse my misguided friend.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Wow touched a nerve did I Rick K. Great to see you foaming at the mouth with nothing more than your"opinion" At least Zimbalist reported FINANCIAL FACTS to support his oped piece!!!!

As for Zimbalist being a committed anti-stadium zealot..I first learned of this man when Michael Kalt referred to him at a Neighborhood Assn. meeting to support one of his arguments. Come on guys you can't have it BOTH ways.

And I suspect Rick K that you find the Holy Cross Economic study quoted in the CONA report...studies by organizations as diverse as The Brookings Institute, The Cato Institute..The Heartland Institute...all simply anti stadium oped rants. I'm going to stop now because I suspect Rick K is in the financial loop to benefit from this proposal, otherwise he would begin refuting actual numerical facts instead of simply spewing opinion.

[Ray]

These POWW people need to get a life. As long as there are no new taxes levied against us, bring on the new stadium. If they don't like the idea of the noise happening as often, move.

Not crazy about sitting in the heat, but the dome has done it's job and it's time to move on. Hopefully their improvements they've mentioned will keep it reasonable (heatwise) in there.

[Walter Fernando]

This is a great idea. I believe that instead of building a massive stadium (and it is massive) on a site with a much smaller footprint, we should be considering a Major League Soccer stadium. Why not? We already have a baseball stadium and a major league ballpark. More youngsters play soccer, we could host the state HS championship, European exhbitions (i.e. Manchester United and others play at other small MLS stadiums) would fit perefectly with the downtown, Latin American teams would pack it in, the "Tampa Bay Rowdies" would have an instant following. I say "Build the Waterfront SOCCER Stadium"

[Native]

these are the same tactics that were used for the airport, confuse the voters into thinking if the airport is taken away it will be replaced by entirely by condos...BUILD THE STADIUM AND REDEVELOP THE TROP SITE

[Thomas]

Rick - are you going to cry, or just stomp your feet and throw a tantrum?

I'm not surprised a fanatic simpleton like you is fully pacified by a "world championship". Gleefully content to ignore the horrific gauging the public took on the Tampa facilities.

Also, it's curious that you object to the article being five years old. Did you want me to go copy/paste your post citing numerous economic papers from the 80s and 90s?

I guess a hypocrite is like a leopard huh Rick? Neither of you change your spots.

[Tim]

Booo Karl Nurse. Horrible idea.

[Dave in St Pete]

YEAAAA Karel Nurse! Fantastic idea. This way once the stadium scam is dead and buried it can never come back to life.

[NO WATERFRONT STADIUM]

Karl Nurse or Herb Polson for MAYOR!!!!!!!

NO WATERFRONT STADIUM!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bored with This]

Don't worry Karl - we voted Virginia Littrell out of office because she had terrible ideas, if you want to pass her ideas off as your own now - we'll do the same to you.

Vote for or against redevelopment of the trop site.

Vote for or against building a stadium.

Then let's be done with it.

[Faith Andrews Bedford]

Aaron, You wrote: It could be as simple as if the Rays' proposal doesn't pass (assuming it gets on the ballot) then Al Lang's development potential is capped.

A good idea to have that language all in one question. The hundreds of citizens who took part in the 20/20 visioning for past years truly expected the Council to vote the Al Lang site into parkland forever and to cap its development intensity. But city staff told them to hold off last summer. Keep your options open, they said. We now know why. The Mayor and staff had been in secret negotiations for months and knew full well that the Rays had had their eyes on developing that land for their own tax-free uses.

It's time the City lived up to its promises to its citizens and protect the one last vestige of Mr. Straub’s waterfront vision. If the citizens do not want to pay for a Rays stadium on their waterfront then they should get what they were pledged – a waterfront for all the people for generations to come.

[Don't put words in Straubs mouth]

How exactly was the Mr Staub's vision include the Al Lang site if thats true did it also include Albert Whitted and the Yacht Club. Whitted is preserved for a few of your neighbors and fenced to the public. "a waterfront for all the people for generations to come"

The St. Louis Browns were the first spring training team in 1914. In 1918 Staub park was deeded to St. Pete. Thats four years before. Pioneer park was purchased by the bayfront tower more recently to preserve their view and given to St. Pete to take care of maintenance cost.

Al Lang was not part of the waterfront he lobbied for and there's no record that he opposed the original stadium. I'm sorry but your putting words into a dead mans mouth.

If spring training was still at Al Lang would you still want to kick them out to have your park for ...all generations to come.

[Conspiracy theory Faith]

Secret negotiation, right...Have you heard of sunshine laws. Good luck trying to prove that one. Thats anti-government conspiracy propaganda. Way to sell out your local government without a shred of proof.

I think that POWW is secretively negotiating with the Uhurus to boycott the stadium together so they can build a walled utopia on the trop site once the Rays leave town.

See no proof but somehow sounds plausible.

[Where the Faith]

Faith must not be available for comment

[Ex-POWW Member]

This was such a shady proposal! I used to support POWW but now I think that they are the sketchy ones in this whole deal. Using a council-member to do their bidding? Gross. And to think that this referendum would essentially cap any type of development at Al Lang at its current level, regardless of the proposal, stadium or otherwise? Yeah, no thank you Mr. Nurse. I'd rather be able to take these one at a time, not some eleventh hour hasty kibosh on ALL future development.

POWW, do you pick signs back up?