Poll of the Week: Was the City Council right?

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Comments

[get-smart]

AAron-

Is the Rays Overrun Guarantee still good with Archstone? They didn't pick the builder, therefore no control of construction.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Aaron,

I'm afraid I'm with your compatriot Howard Troxler. Where is the protection?
Where is the city's recourse if 21 million is all that ever materializes. No word...no contract..is a guarantee since the newly formed Corporate entity is able to declare bankruptcy at any time. But then again New York City declared bankruptcy..and this past year Santa Clara California teetered on the brink...perhaps that is our protection..we could always declare bankruptcy if this doesn't pan out.

[Rick K]

Aaron, yet again I comdmend you for finding a way to provide balanced coverage. At first I was laughing at the inclusion of the poll answer, "No, they should have picked no one."

But then I recognized it as part of your consistent pattern of balance.

This blog is terrific. And the Times coverage of this issue and all its related subissues has been good, also.

Thanks again.

[Clear Direction]

WHO the developer is is far less important than WHAT is developed and what protection are in place to gaurantee that the project will produce the projected Tax revenues even if the market dictates a scaled back project.

In addition the entire 86 acres must be purchased by the developer at a fee-simple price that will retire the current Trop Debt.

The questions of infrastructure costs to the city and remediation also are important details which need to be negotiated.

Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock!

[since1962]

Dazzling Retail PROJECTIONS are ONE WAY to distract from reality.

The beach based tourist economy will not support these "paired" proposals.

A-M is redeveloping a similiar site in Anaheim in
a parking lot WITH A STADIUM.

SUPPORT PLAN B

[Rick K on the moving bar]

What is missing from these declarations like the one offered by Clear Direction at 11:47 AM is obvious.

When everything Clear Direction has asked for us granted, he will not suddenly support these proposals. Instead, he will move the bar and insist on new criteria to be satsified.

On a different, but related note. I have no idea why the ANTI's are off on this ill informed delusion about the planned financing as has been projected by Archstone.

The latest from Archstone, according to the Times (and also as reported yesterday at Council) is this:

At the time of commitment, Archstone plans to commit to all of Phase I with a guarantee. They also plan to gaurantee the entire land purchase price as well as the demolition of the Trop.

I don't know where this misinformation is coming from.

It is possible that I am the one who is misinformed.

[SUPPORT PLAN B]

Attempting to combine or "pair" the two issues illegaly into one refferendum
is another feeble bit of manipulation from city legal staff that WILL temporarily derail ANY redevelopment.

[Rick K says Plan B is a sham!]

A careful and reasonable reading of Plan B, considered in light of the history of the hysterics spewed by the ANTI movement over the last months, convinces me that Plan B is a sham designed to do two things:

1. It attempts to give political cover to any elected official wishing to punt (which is one of POWW's objectives, to keep this question OFF the ballot in November); and
2. It gives the proposer of Plan B a political platform to run for office in the future

The Plan is not, in my view, designed to promote democracy or reward those who have been bold and imaginative in trying to improve our City.

As for the remarks at 12:21, that incoherent mumble (1962 is that you?) is yet another attempt to deceive.

What the City Council and their attorney discussed yesterday was trying to find a legal way to incorporate the relevant issues in a ballot question and also in the ordinances which will frame and support the ballot question.

The "two issues" are these:

Should the City be allowed to
1. Transfer ownership of the Al Lang site to the County so that
2. The property can be redeveloped with a new baseball stadium which will then be leased to the Rays.

That is a two part real estate transaction, but it is probably a single question.

Or not.

We will let the legal pros work that out.

What we ought not do is jump to conclusions and pretend that our premature conclusions are the same as actual facts.

[SUPPORT PLAN B re R]

Not a POWWR
Wouldn't vote for Foster nor THESE paired proposals under ANY circumstances.
The courts and MORE taxpayer money may be wasted deciding the single subject issue!

PLAN B is a reasonable solution regardless of "our" distaste for Mr Foster and keen insight into his true motives.See we have SOMETHING in common!

[Aaron Sharockman]

Get-Smart

The Rays say they are willing to pay for the cost overruns at the new ballpark. That is not tied to which developer is redeveloping Tropicana Field. Put another way, the developer of the Trop site will have nothing to do with the building/construction of the new stadium. Hope that helps.

[Clear Direction]

Rick K,

I'm not sure how you feel qualified to comment on what I will or will not do in the future.

If, as I stated in my earlier post, these checks and balances are put in place, I will in fact support the item being placed on the November ballot.

In all of my meetings with council members, I have asked (and to a person the council members have agreed)that before they vote to place this question on the ballot that the citizens will have enough information to make an informed decision. I feel financial details, including the cost and what the risk to the taxpayers will be are required to make an informed vote.

Rick K and others have the misguided impression that I am somehow against letting the citizens vote on this issue and nothing could be further from the truth.

Now, will I miraculously change my not on the waterfront views? not likely! and I submit that many other voters feel the same.

Regarding the possibility of Rick K being wrong? Clearly not in his world.

Archstone-Madison has said that they may need to downsize phases 2 and 3 should market realities not meet their "Shoot for the Stars" plan. therefore I am just asking that the city require that whatever IS built throws off enough tax revenue to pay off any city bonds well prior to the expiration of the Ray's proposed new lease.

Also, since we have no current contract or agreement with any developer that once we do, that said lease requires them to purchase the entire 86 acre site at a price which will payoff the current Trop debt.

Please Rick, explain to me why this is unreasonable!

Is tha

[Aaron Sharockman]

Hey Support PLan B---

Just so you know, the Tropicana Field redevelopment will not be on the referendum at all. The only referendum have to do with 1) the leasing of Al Lang to the Rays and 2) the techinal sale of Al Lang to the county (ala what's in place now at the Trop).

The redevelopment of the trop will not be a ballot quetsion.

[Clear Direction]

Aaron,

Has anyone asked anyone at the county if they are amenable to intering into an inter-local agreement and lease back agreement with the city?

are they aware that by doing so that they would be providing an additional 10 million or so annually in forgiven property taxes to the city and the Ray's?

Someone should probably check with them before the November election.

[Rick K again]

Clear direction, as I understand the way the Times has reported this (which happens to square with what I heard at the council meeting),

While a deal is not yet done, the current state of negotiations prior to yesterday was that Archstone Madison had proposed they would, at the time of closing, gaurantee the first phase will be completed, they will also guarantee the ENTIRE land purchase price and gaurantee demolishian (sp?) of the dome.

You are right to want more answers.

I've always said if we can't get reasonable answers by August (whatever), then it would make sense to shut this down.

[SUPPORT PLAN B]

Aaron

I'm sure the Rays would like to distract with the trop redevelopment and promises of cost overun payment BUT...
This has always been a complex multidimensional proposal with intertwined implications.
BED TAX EXTENSION(other uses)

DUAL SUBJECT REFFERENDUM

WATERFRONT LOCATION

RAYS $$$ CONTRIBUTION

TAXPAYER LAND CONTRIBUTION

TRAFFFIC & PARKING

QUESTIONABLE FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS(parking revenue)

These are just some of the reasons I reject the Rays proposal, hope for the sensible redevelopment of Tropicana and SUPPORT PLAN B

[Clear Direction]

Well then Rick K,

What questions to you feel NEED to be answered by August 15th (the absolute dropdead date) before you would support placing this on the November ballot?

I am curious what information you require in order to make an informed decision?

[Will Ferrell]

You left "No, they should have picked the Cowbell".

Cowbell, it's the new chicken.

[Nate]

A new poll released by C. Bryan, J. Katz, & PA-POWW (People Against Preserving Our Water/Waterfront)shows that 53.2% of St. Petersburg residents will leave town permanently if the city council does not allow us to vote on the new stadium (2,500 people were questioned during the week of 06/16/08).
Link to poll will be added shortly...

[Nate]

PA-POWW: People Against Preserving Our Wallets/Waterfront...

[Howard Troxler]

Whatever happened to Thor?

[Wait . . .]

Isn't "Plan B" the morning after pill?

[John]

To the poster @ 4:28

That's exaclty what it is. You take the Plan B pill right after you've realized you've been screwed with no protection..

Works in this case as well.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Nate,

That's truly brilliant! I get that you don't give a s*&t about the waterfront...but you also simply wish to give away all your money. Since you don't wish to preserve your wallet I'd love to meet you at a gas station where perhaps you could let me dip into your wallet to grab some quick cash for that $4 a gallon fillup.

[Rick K on questions]

Rick says, "PA-POWW is awesome."

As for Clear Directions inquiry about what questions I have about this, I don't really have any. But I don't think I should dictate to the rest of the City and County on this issue.

See, the bottom line is, I trust the City staff, the County Staff, the Rays, and their various professionals, along with the various other governmental agencies and any third party financial institutions who will be involved in these deals to get it done. In other words, I trust the free market, free press, and God to put together an optimal deal.

But I understand that most people don't share my view, and I think questions are fine.

I just think POWW would have a lot more credibility if they joined the effort to get answers to the questions, instead of advocating for a postponement or cancellation of a November citywide vote.

Let's see if we can answer questions.

Elections have fixed deadlines for a reason. The reason is not to discourage voting.

[Nate]

The irony is that the long term effects of this proposed project will improve our wallets and waterfront two fold. Currently we have an empty relic called Al Lang on the waterfront (proposed is a state of the art stadium and park), currently no one is paying for property taxes on the dome sight or Al Lang sight (the proposed project is would put millions more into the economy over the years and add jobs/housing).

PA-POWW!!!