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!!!

[Terry Ward]

Read where baseball commissioner Bud Selig was busy trashing the Trop and pushing a new stadium, perhaps in Tampa rather than St. Pete. If the Commish ever says anything nice about St. Petersburg his tongue will probably fall off.

[get-smart]

Why is everybody so concerned that taxes are not being paid on the Trop site?

The remedy is to have the Trop revert back to city ownership. Property taxes on the Trop will be due. Have the Rays pay their own way. Stick them with the bill. So now you have taxes being paid at the Trop!

But that brings up a good point. Who will pay the taxes on any stadium if the state court or legislature remove the loophole? It needs to be stated in the contract.

Cheers

-

[Rick K]

Get-Smart, are you saying that the contract should account for all possible future legislative changes?

[Clear Direction]

Dear Rick K,

It is nice to see that you already know all you need to know to support the stadium.

that is without knowing what the cost.

If the Trop redevelopment will pay for the current debt.

if the Ray's parking ideas can be implemented.

What the remediation at the Trop will cost and who pays.

Rick K, making a decision to support this proposal without regard for the answers to key questions like the ones above (and many more) tells me that you just want a new stadium.

Well little Ricky K, we all have wants, but as responsible adults we have to weigh the pros and cons to determine if going forward makes sense.

By August 15th the elected officials (whom you trust implicitely) will have to decide if they have enough information to move this plan to the ballot (as of now the majority say they don't).

If you recall, P.O.W.W. has been asking for the answers to these questions that you say are o.k. to ask since the plan was revealed in November 2007. We still don't have answers! Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock!

No answers, No Ballot question.
No Ballot Question No Stadium!

[get-smart]

RRRick K

It may not be future legislation by the time it gets built on Gandy. MLB may not have as many tax exemptions/breaks/loopholes in the future. It would be prudent to plan and have a contract. Just like you do. At your age you have a life insurance policy that names your dependents for the proceeds to go to when you die. I'm sure you already have your burial plot or chosen incinerator ...Last Will. You Know; You Plan for the inevitable.

Everybody knows the Waterfront Is Off Limits!

[Rick K]

Clear direction, you misunderstand.

I am not saying that the answers to those questions are unimportant.

But I am confident we will get answers to the important questions.

I also trust that if something comes up that makes turning this deal down a no brainer, we'll do so.

When it comes to answers. They are coming. Most of us who are following POWW's conduct doubt that there are ANY answers that will make POWW think it is okay to vote on this in November.

If the question were phrased like this, I would vote yes tomorrow.

"Are you in favor of authorizing the City staff to negotiate real estate agreements with the County and the Tampa Bay Rays baseball club to build and operate a new baseball stadium on the City's waterfront at the site of the current Al Lang stadium, according to terms approved by a majority of City Council."

[John]

That just proves you're an idiot, Rick.

[John]

Even the blog poll shows a majority of the voters in poll, think no developer should have been asked to waste their money on a dead turkey. And Rick K can only vote once here, too.

But as I've said before, it's fun to watch Rick K squirm....Rick you should move to Gibsonton...with the rest of the carnies.

[Clear Direction]

Rick K,

That is quite a leap of faith! I prefer to have my information prior to making a decision as to whether I support an issue.

You certainly have the right to make your decision any way you please, however, I believe it to be more rational to gather all the information PRIOR to making a decision.

Your way seems to make the decision, (based on what I am unsure) then maybe get the facts.

I am curious, Ricky, what if you do not like the answers you get after the project has already been approved?

Please share with me what recourse you would have?

[Clear Direction]

Ricky, Ricky, Ricky,

We have all been hearing that the answers are coming since November of last year!

Yet still no specifics, just power point presentations and broad strokes.

You are clearly not aware of P.O.W.W.'s position on this issue. allow me to enlighten you.

The position as I have stated, is that P.O.W.W. is in favor of placing these items on the November ballot.

P.O.W.W. has asked the city council to be certain that citizen have enough information to make an informed decision on the cost and risks associated with the proposal.

Once that threshold has been met, P.O.W.W. looks forward to haveing the opportunity to Vote.

[Rick K]

Clear Direction, part of the problem with POWW is that you guys don't recognize valid and reasonable answers when they are available. Most of the important questions have been answered. There are only a few left, really.

They include:
1) What are the lease terms?
2) What is the negotiated offer for the Trop Site?
3) Where will the money come from and on what time table?
4) Are these projects likely to receive all the required permit approvals?
5) What gaurantees are there?

That is about it for probably 80 % of the electorate. With that information, added to what has been disclosed to date, most people will be able to make up their minds.

Of course some, especially those in POWW, will want more information than will be made available. This is true of a portion of the electorate in every election. People who feel they don't have enough information can sit it out or vote their conscience. The rest of the people will also vote for what they want.

This is how it should be.

This is how it always it.

It should never be that the slowest among us or the most pessimistic or pig headed gets to establish the election timing for the rest of us. That isn't a good way to run a civilization.

Clear Direction, you and I actually think more alike than differently. The primary difference is that you start out with a pessimistic view of these proposals, and I start out with an optimistic one.

Your life has convinced you to be pessimistic, cynical or untrusting (Or some combination thereof). My life and professional experience has taught me that the few weeks we have left will be enough for most people to get enough answers to the questions they regard as important.

I've always been confident of that.

Although I will honestly admit this. Even though I have told you that I am predisposed to voting yes, I do allow for the real possibility that I will vote No. If answers to all the questions I outlined above are not available and reasonable, I may very well join the ranks of the No voters and send Mr. Kalt back to the dugout.

The analyst in me tells me that the odds are that we'll have answers to those questions. And POWW will still not be satisfied.

And, seriously, I think that POWW continues to marginalize the group as a political force. Which is not to say that they cannot signifantly mobilize the no vote in the City. I am saying that POWW's website is brimming with presentation that most informed voters, elected officials, and journalists see as little more than attempts to distort and deceive.

While I believe you that most in POWW don't see the group as being about distortion or deception, that is not how the group is playing to people who are not actively involved.

An old school chum of mine is teacing a summer school class in political rhetoric. As a class assignment, the students are keeping tabs on this issue in St Pete. They are reading the local media accounts, primarily from the Times and Tribune, and also looking at the websites of POWW and FWS.

As I understand it, the class has so far been instructed to stay away from this blog. From what my pal the professor has told me, there are only 2 kids in the class who think that the media, FWS and POWW are fairing equally well in providing accurate information to the public. The rest think POWW is coming up short.

It's unfortunate, really. I went to the website today in response to a pair of questions from Chris Jenkins and Truly Concerned, and I couldn't believe how many distortions and lies are on the site.

I have no idea why POWW's official presentation to the world relies so heavily on deception. If the group expects to influence undecided voters they would do better to strip away the disinformation.

Of course if they are truly convinced that 60 - 70 % of citizens will vote "no," then it really doesn't matter, I guess.

[Don Mott]

Your attempt at disinformation is totally ludicrous, funny and borders on insanity. Unfortunately for you , you are the only one who doesn't see it.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick,

Again could you EVER offer some SPECIFICITY to your charges of lies on the POWW Website. Let's go for a real empirical effort here...not broad sweeping opinions from Rick the all knowing. How about listing..line by line EXACTLY what you consider to be lies on the POWW website.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

Do you understand what the word specific means. You claim to understand what ad hominem attacks mean..I've even included a definition..and pointed out specific examples of your ad hominem efforts...NOW ARE YOU EVER GOING TO GET SPECIFIC? What are the LIES on the POWW website?
There are many folks against this for many reasons..not ALL are POWW supporters and with due respect since you are completely unaffiliated with POWW I don't think you deserve to be the arbiter in determining who is a POWW supporter and who is not. To be perfectly fair you should stick to the POWW website which is obviously the OFFICIAL place of POWW positions. Again I challenge you to begin with your top ten list of lies or even distortions. There is certainly room for debate in taste...many feel the stadium huge ugly and garish and totally out of scale with the waterfront and downtown..others find it to be a baseball work of art..there can be no lies or distortions associated with this issue since it is one of taste. Parking and traffic is also another area where there is room for debate...HOWEVER NOBODY not even the Rays or the city denies that it is an ISSUE..otherwise why would both entities have spent so much for a parking study. We can debate the level of inconvience of the INCREASED traffic..the difficulty in finding a parking spot...but noone..not the Rays..not the city..in fact only a MORON would not concede that parking and traffic will be changed and changed profoundly. Can those issues be solved..depends on your definition of solution. Certainly there are physically enough spots in downtown to park all these cars...eventually the cars would be able to work their way through the maze of one way, somewhat narrow streets..the debate is over HOW MUCH INCONVENIENCE is involved...how much will the CHARARCTER of our downtown be changed.
I'm just pointing out Rick K that while there are areas for debate...what I'm looking for in your next response is your top ten lists of SPECIFIC LIES on the POWW website. You have slandered the group with repeated ad hominem attacks and shotgun blasts of your opinion...man up and present your top ten list of LIES!! AND PLEASE BE VERY SPECIFIC!!!

[Clear Direction]

Ricky,

let's just go with the five questions you list.

If we get the answers to those five, I will support the referendum! On the other hand if we do not get them answered to the satisfaction of the council members and county commissioners and as a result either of those bodies votes to kill this issue then you will accept it and embrace that decision as the only logical conclusion, right?

As I have mentioned, I am opposed to the issue primarally due to the waterfront location of the stadium. However, I am not at all anti- development or progress. I am also not anti-baseball or sports.

I wish the Ray's had adoped a more consultative approach to their desire for a new stadium.

I beleive that it is highly likely that the Ray's would be able to get a new stadium well prior to the 2027 lease expiration assuming they abandon the waterfront location and involve the community in the process.

And Ricky, your scurrilous accustaions and sweeping generalizations regarding those with differing views only serve to diminish further your credibility and any valid points you may have.

[Clear Direction]

Ricky,

let's just go with the five questions you list.

If we get the answers to those five, I will support the referendum! On the other hand if we do not get them answered to the satisfaction of the council members and county commissioners and as a result either of those bodies votes to kill this issue then you will accept it and embrace that decision as the only logical conclusion, right?

As I have mentioned, I am opposed to the issue primarally due to the waterfront location of the stadium. However, I am not at all anti- development or progress. I am also not anti-baseball or sports.

I wish the Ray's had adoped a more consultative approach to their desire for a new stadium.

I beleive that it is highly likely that the Ray's would be able to get a new stadium well prior to the 2027 lease expiration assuming they abandon the waterfront location and involve the community in the process.

And Ricky, your scurrilous accustaions and sweeping generalizations regarding those with differing views only serve to diminish further your credibility and any valid points you may have.

[Clear Direction]

Ricky,

let's just go with the five questions you list.

If we get the answers to those five, I will support the referendum! On the other hand if we do not get them answered to the satisfaction of the council members and county commissioners and as a result either of those bodies votes to kill this issue then you will accept it and embrace that decision as the only logical conclusion, right?

As I have mentioned, I am opposed to the issue primarally due to the waterfront location of the stadium. However, I am not at all anti- development or progress. I am also not anti-baseball or sports.

I wish the Ray's had adoped a more consultative approach to their desire for a new stadium.

I beleive that it is highly likely that the Ray's would be able to get a new stadium well prior to the 2027 lease expiration assuming they abandon the waterfront location and involve the community in the process.

And Ricky, your scurrilous accustaions and sweeping generalizations regarding those with differing views only serve to diminish further your credibility and any valid points you may have.

[Clear Direction]

Ricky,

let's just go with the five questions you list.

If we get the answers to those five, I will support the referendum! On the other hand if we do not get them answered to the satisfaction of the council members and county commissioners and as a result either of those bodies votes to kill this issue then you will accept it and embrace that decision as the only logical conclusion, right?

As I have mentioned, I am opposed to the issue primarally due to the waterfront location of the stadium. However, I am not at all anti- development or progress. I am also not anti-baseball or sports.

I wish the Ray's had adoped a more consultative approach to their desire for a new stadium.

I beleive that it is highly likely that the Ray's would be able to get a new stadium well prior to the 2027 lease expiration assuming they abandon the waterfront location and involve the community in the process.

And Ricky, your scurrilous accustaions and sweeping generalizations regarding those with differing views only serve to diminish further your credibility and any valid points you may have.

[Xenu]

Xenu will cure Clear Directions stuttering problem. All Hail Xenu.
With the ring of this cowbell, you will stop repeating your words.

[Rick K]

What's with the four posts?

Clear Direction, I am glad you will support a November Referendum if those questions are answered. I will provide more details about my problems with POWW's website later on. I am not quite finished with that analysis.

But to the bigger point.

Look, I am being completely honest when I admit that if I don't like the answers to those questions, I may not be able to vote "yes," either.

There really are three types of committed "no" votes at this point, in my view. The first are those who absolutely don't want anything done at Al Lang. Logical or not, it doesn't matter. They want the satus quo (or perhaps replacing Al Lang with a park, or whatever).

I have no problem with this view. I just wish those who held it would state it honestly, and stop, instead of resorting to all sorts of deception, distortion and distraction.

The second set of solid "no" voters are the kooks and lunatics. I am not concerned about these people, as nothing will change their minds and they are a constant part of each election.

The third group of people who are leaning towards "no," are those who might be persaudable, if they receive satisfactory answers to their questions.

I imagine the yes votes break up the same way. The "no matter, we'll vote Yes" folks, the crazies, and those of us (like me) who are inclined to vote yes based upon what we know about these proposals, what we expect from the future, and what we expect we will learn as additional details come out.

These two groups of persuadable people, on either side, together with those who are admitedly undecided, will determine the outcome of an election, if we have one.

I cannot say with complete confidence what makes the persaudable no voter generally pessimistic. I have suspicions, but I don't tend to hang out with people who are generally pessimistic, so I am not completely up to speed on the way they view the world.

As for me, and people like me, there is a very heavy reliance upon our own life experience, observations, and appreciation of history. Personally, I have been involved in development issues for decades. My experience has taught me that most of the imagined negatives the pessimists dream up can either be overcome, mitigated, or they never happen at all. While there are sometimes unforseen negatives or negatives which balloon beyond expectations, competent developers apply themselves to overcoming obstacles.

When ANTI's claimed that the environmental issues at the Trop would cost tens of millions of dollars, I knew, right away, that they were probably full of crap. I understand the environmental assesment and remediation processes, and have read thousands of environmental studies and reports in my life. This experience taught me that the liklihood of environmental problems in the tens of millions of dollars would be so slight, that the odds were greater than 100 to 1 that things couldn't be that bad.

Ditto with this business about killing manatees, or destroying acres of vital sea grasses.

When the ANTI's argue that parking was unworkable, I know they are full of crap. There are urban stadiums in Cities with far more severe parking shortages (cars wanting to park divided by available parking space) than St. Pete would have.

Unlike many of the ANTI's, I have been to ball games at Wrigley, Fenway, Yankee Stadium, Shea, Great American, Coors Field, and several other parks. I have been to football games about 50 college and pro stadiums, many of which do not appear, on a normal day, to have enough parking to accomodate fans, but which manage, on game day, to absorb it all.

When the ANTI's argue that we should have never run off Spring Training (with it's 15 three hour games during the peak of tourist season), and turn around and say that 81 MLB games, most of them outside tourist season, would be ruinous, I can only laugh.

When ANTI's say there is "nothing wrong with the Trop," or that the Trop is "perfectly good," I can only shake my head. We don't decide important issues like this because some people think the status quo is fine. Nearly half the people in the colonies loved the idea of continuing to be subservient to the English throne. Majorities of people in the south wished to perpetuate slavery, and later, postpone the advances of the Civil Rights movement.

The best community answer is rarely to defer to those who just want the status quo.

When the ANTI's say that publicly financed stadiums never result in economic benefits which exceed their costs, I know several things. First, that cannot be true based upon the laws of economics. Second, the data that is available does not support that conclusion. Third, most credible disinterested parties (like the courts and the US Department of HUD) consistently find the opposite to be true. Fourth, and this is a biggie, if it is true that public subsidies of sports stadiums are net losers, then that would be a reason to support THESE paired redevelopment proposals.

Follow this logic for a bit.

Assume for a minute that public subsidies of a home field for the Rays would produce a net negative cost to the economy of St. Pete and Pinellas County. If that is true, then we are faced with losses forever. Each year we operate the Trop, we have a loss. If we replace the Trop eventually, we will have losses.

However, These deals (pairing a new stadium with redevelopment of the Trop Site) allow us to OFFSET those losses (which aren't real, but lets pretend they are) with tax income and other economic benefits from the Trop field redevelopment.

In other words, if the ignorant pessimist viewpoint, or, more charitably, the Zimbalist school is right, then THESE paired redevelopment proposals may be the very best possible solution to solve the intrinsic problem.

How do we figure out if that is likely? The same way we test the hypothesis that public subsidies of the Rays make or lose our City money each year. We put pen to paper and add it all up.

This is what I do. It's not what anyone else who posts here does, but that doesn't matter. One does not need expertise and a lifetime of practical experience to perform simple calculations.

You just start listing costs and benefits, or pluses and minuses. Tally them up, and you've got an answer.

Professor Porter at USF is notorious for not intentionally excluding may of the pluses from his calculations. All the "anti" subsidy studies do the very same thing. They either don't count the pluses, or they "assume" them away.

And we can tell much about the honesty and intellect of the people who post here by what sources they cite to bolster their claims. One guy here repeatedly quotes Porter's incompetent thumbnail analysis of the impact of the Miami Super Bowl (in 2007) and completely ignores the comprehensive study peformed by others which attempted to accurately count all positive economic contributions from the Super Bowl.

The Super Bowl study represents a serious effort to actually count all the money. Porter's work attempts to NOT count the money. When someone holds up Porter, it is because they DON'T want to be as accurate as possible. They prefer distortion.

Ditto Zimbalist, Humphries and the others. Their analysis of the Tampa-St Pete SMA since the six new publicly subsidized sports stadiums have come on line would go like this.

"Sure there has been tremendous economic growth in the SMA in the years following the construction of these new stadiums, but none of the economic growth is attributable to the stadiums."

That would be it.

They wouldn't prove that.

(Because they can't)

And on it goes.

I will find some time in the next few days to write a bit about POWW's website's attempt to distort and deceive. In the meantime, I will just post what I have written in the preceding paragrahps. I will post this KNOWING that none of the already committed "no" votes, and none of the "no" nutjobs, will be convinced.

And I am perfectly okay with that, because those groups are not my audience.

[Xenu]

Xenu shall cure the "nutjobs". Xenu will start with their leader and work his way down. Xenu shall clear their minds to hear nothing but cowbell. All Hail Xenu!

[Rick K]

Xenu is funny. Cowbell mixed with ambiguous mysticism is a powerfully funny combination.

[John]

As it stands now, 47.3% (a majority) think NO developer should have been chosen. Why would that be??

I bet Aaron is a little embarrased he added this "stupid" question to the poll.