Rays must overcome missteps in stadium plan

Lots of news to get to from over the weekend... I'll start with my story (since I run this blog) about the Rays' missteps to date.

ST. PETERSBURG — After 20 months of secret planning, the Tampa Bay Rays circled December 2007 for the public launch of their ambitious waterfront stadium and redevelopment proposal.

The news, however, hit the pages of the St. Petersburg Times a month early, and the Rays have been playing catchup ever since.

At each pivotal step, the Rays have been caught off guard, either by criticisms or questions, according to local elected leaders.

The reactions and responses of team officials have further frustrated these leaders, who say they are getting an earful from opponents and little political cover from the team.

Now, with less than 60 days before the city and Rays must reach agreement on a $450-million ballpark, the team faces certain defeat unless the dynamics change and substantive negotiations begin.

The time for "we're working on that'' has ended.

"It's almost like they didn't have a road map of how county government works or how local government works in Pinellas," said Pinellas County Commissioner Ken Welch.

The Rays' missteps, according to observers, are a combination of faulty execution by the team and unreasonable expectations by government.

Some of the problems were probably unavoidable.

The Rays could not pitch a financing plan — and promise that Tropicana Field redevelopment would offset the cost of a new stadium — before developers made offers to purchase the Trop site.

Other problems may fall directly on the Rays.

Why did the Rays wait so long to engage county officials when the team is asking for $100-million in county tourism tax funds?

Why are the Rays insisting on a November 2008 referendum when so many people are uncomfortable with a quick turnaround? Why are so many city and county questions answered with some variation of, "We don't know yet?''

Just last week, for instance, city officials received two detailed reports from the Rays on parking and the environment.

The city, meanwhile, produced its own analysis of the proposed Tropicana Field redevelopments.

At a televised meeting last month, City Council chairman Jamie Bennett grilled Rays' executives extensively, asking them to "redouble their efforts."

Rays senior vice president Michael Kalt, in turn, said he empathized with Bennett's frustrations but added that the team has complied with every request.

Not good enough, Bennett responded.

"If I had all the wishes I could have, I would wish this campaign would have gone an entirely different way," Bennett said later.

The back-and-forth has been typical of the 10-or-so public meetings between the city, the county and the Rays.

On Wednesday, a member of the county's Tourist Development Council asked the Rays if they could quantify the team's impact on the tourism economy — and not just the number of tickets out-of-towners buy.

"We don't have that information currently," responded Rays president Matt Silverman, a phrase familiar to local elected leaders. Silverman did say the team was hiring an economist to study the issue.

Moments later, Pinellas County Commissioner Bob Stewart followed with a question about the Tropicana Field development.

Would it, he asked, negatively compete with a similar large-scale development the county is planning at its Toytown site in north St. Petersburg?

Silverman said he thought the developments could be complimentary, but, he added: "I agree that needs to be something … to work out."

• • •

Time for collecting those answers is running out.

The city and the Rays say they need to reach an agreement on the financing of a new $450-million ballpark by Aug. 1.

Preliminary agreements also must be struck on the operations of the ballpark and on parking.

"It's safe to assume, I think, that things are going to have to fall in place if this is to go forward," said Rick Mussett, the city's point person on the stadium talks. A recent St. Petersburg Times/Bay News 9 poll indicated that 68 percent of St. Petersburg voters opposed the Rays' plan.

On financing, Mussett said: "We haven't got to the point where we started exchanging specific ideas yet, but I think we will be talking to them in the very near future."

Rays officials have been waiting for those formal negotiations to begin.

"We're never going to get an answer to all this stuff unless we get into a room and talk to each other," said Rays point person Kalt. "It's either going to happen or it's not."

Kalt even suggested the city and team lock themselves in a room to help kick-start negotiations. Why, then, should the Rays be taking all the heat?

"That's the way it works," Kalt said. "We're the private party. We take the abuse because it's our idea. It's just part of the project.

"I don't really care about taking the roundhouse if at the end of the day we can get to a project that everyone can agree with."

Comments

[John]

20 months of secret negotiations, 7 months of smoke and mirrors presentations, and with less than 60 days before D-day, we're nowhere better off that we were in Nov.

The most ridiculous & poorly executed proposal I've ever heard of.

Funny how, while people on this blog for months have been throwing out the "build it or the Rays are outta here" card around, that Aaron, nor the Times, nor the Rays, nor the City made it clear to the citizens that the Rays can't buy their way out of their lease for 19 years, which the city attorney finally brought to light in a Times article this weekend.

Disengenuous at best, conspiratorial at worst for keeping that from the public.

[Observer]

John, as usual, is biased and wrong. Of course the Rays can buy their way out of the lease. What is the recourse by the City if the team moves to another state? The lease says that there is no remedy available and calls for continuation of required payments under the lease.

[Thomas]

Interesting that the article was modified by the Times [Last modified: Jun 16, 2008 10:30 AM]

And now the comment about St. Pete's ability to gain an injunction if the team tried to leave is gone.

I know that I saw it - I believe it was by a City Attorney.

Anyway, that rather important part of the story is now gone.

What happened?

[Observer]

John, perhaps you can explain why a quote from a competent professional City staffer explaining that the DEP request is not a binding requirement upon the City is dismissed by you out of hand. Yet, a quote by a City Attorney which is little more than his opinion about how a Federal Court would find, is somehow valid?

[Thomas]

The person who made the quote about the Rays not being able to leave St. Pete for 19 years was familiar with the lease. You are not.

That gives him a significant advantage in discussing what's in it...

[Observer]

Thomas. I have read the lease. And unlike the person making the quote, I have no vested interest in the outcome. I happen to know that US Courts have NOT enforced "can't move" lease provisions against pro sports teams. The honest answer to my question would have been to admit that you LIKE quotes from City staff that support your opinions, and DISMISS those that do not.

[John]

Rick K, just use your name, the "oberver" crap is childish.

And yes Thomas, I saw it too, and I copied it:

"The Rays must play baseball in St. Petersburg for 19 more years, says city attorney John Wolfe. It's not a lease breakable by buckets of money, he says. It's a contractual promise enforceable by injunction"

Funny how that was deleted. This is getting near criminal with the cover-ups, secret negotiations, failure to inform the public of this little "tidbit" of info, I am shocked.

[Observer]

It was deleted because the City Attorney who offered the quote has been told that he was incorrect, and he asked the Times to remove the quote.

[John]

Really, Rick? Usually when the Times makes a mistake they post a retraction and/or correction. Will you post that here to prove your point?

Of course you won't, you don't have a point.

Aaron, why was that paragraph deleted from the story?

[Observer]

Ask any lawyer, courts don't usually force tenants to remain when they want to move out, they merely enforce financial penalties. In the case of US Courts, when a tenant wishes to move to another state, there aren't many cases when the courts made the tenant stay put in the location they sought to leave.

[Aaron Sharockman]

I just went to the story. The paragraph you guys are discussing is still there. I have no idea what you're talking about...

[Thomas]

I'll defer to Aaron as to why it was removed.

But I think it's amazing that you have "read the lease" - sure you have buddy!

You're just another Message Board Rambo who has seen and done it all.

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that I am very impressed!

[Thomas]

I don't think I've gone mental.

The 10.30a version of the story does not include the quote - nor does the copy of it on the blog above these comments.

[Aaron Sharockman]

Here is the specific language from the lease regarding breaking the lease (from the lease itself).

"The CLUB and the CITY agree that neither has an adequate remedy at law for breach of this Agreement. The CLUB and CITY agree that, in the event of a violation of this Agreement, the party not in default shall be entitled as a non-exclusive remedy, and in addition to an action for daamages, to seek and obtain an injunction or decree of specific performance or an equitable remedy from a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin or remedy any violation of this agreement. In the event a court refuses to grant specific enforcement of Section 2.04 (this deals with relocating the team from the dome) the parties agree that one element of the damages to be considered by the court as having been incured by the CITY for a breach of Section 2.04 would be the outstanding bond debt at the time of the breach on those bonds backed by the Franchise funds."

It sounds to me, the actual lease poses the ideas of an injunction (meaning the team couldn't leave) but also poses other alternatives "remedies" other than injunciton. I'm sure if we got that far, the city would argue for an injunction, the team would argue for remedies.... And it sounds either could happen.

[Observer]

Thank you Aaron. Now someone ask a lawyer what US Courts do when a plantiff landlord in one state asks the Federal courts to force a commercial tenant to remain in occupancy at a property the tenant wishes to vacate. HINT: It ain't an injunction forcing the tenant to stay put.

[John]

Aaron,

In your opinion, don't you think that information should have been made very clear to the public from the start?

Seems to me the polls are skewed because voters were'nt informed of this.

If I'm the average Joe hearing every day under whispered breath that if I vote NO, we lose the Rays. Me thinks many people who would have voted yes would have done so only to keep the team here. If they knew they couldn't leave after they got shot down, I suspect the opposition will be even greater now that this info has been made clear, even if it was there all along, buried in some lease.

[Aaron Sharockman]

So, here's what I'm doing... I'm clicking on the link of the post above... Down in the story, in the Hillsborough County section, there is the following:

Hillsborough County

The Rays have studiously avoided the "build it or we will move'' card, but no discussion of Pinellas stadiums is complete without some mention of the cross-bay competition.

The Rays must play baseball in St. Petersburg for 19 more years, says city attorney John Wolfe. It's not a lease breakable by buckets of money, he says. It's a contractual promise enforceable by injunction.

Furthermore, the climate in Hillsborough has changed since the two communities vied for baseball in the 1980s.

"I have not heard anybody, anybody talking about'' the Rays moving to Hillsborough, says Tampa's former mayor, Dick Greco.

And it goes on. Maybe it's me going mental, but I definitely see it there...

[Observer]

The lease is available to anyone who asks. Send an email to City Hall, you get the lease.

[Aaron Sharockman]

john, I reference you to an article we wrote on Nov. 10, 2007. If you remember, that's the day we broke the stadium story... I'll quote the pertinent part below:

Why not Tampa?

The Rays' lease with the city of St. Petersburg makes it difficult, if not impossible for the team to leave St. Petersburg before 2027. The team, according to the lease, cannot move anywhere without the city's permission.

The Marlins, in Miami, have said they would consider leaving the state if a new baseball stadium isn't built for them. Could the Rays leave if this falls through?

Anything is possible, but the city's lease with the team would make it very difficult for the Rays to leave St. Petersburg for another 20 years.

[John]

Thanks, Aaron

I honestly don't remember that story, and from someone who follows this fairly closely, if I didn't see it, probably a lot of others didn't either or forgot about it in this bum-rush to get it on the ballot in Nov. You've seen all the posts on here with people screaming that if we say no to the Rays, they'll leave town, so I guess those folks didn't know about it either.

I stand corrected, and thanks for the quick response!

[Observer]

Of course, none of what has been reported would actually stop the Rays from leaving, especially if financing in another state included subsidizing the Rays' legal fight to break their lease in St. Pete. US Law has about 25 precendents, none of which resulted in the team staying put.

[Aaron Sharockman]

Maybe this is a good topic for a story this week....no promises because my list is pretty long, tho.

[John]

A protracted, expensive legal battle with a city that has a rather sturdy contract is not on the Rays agenda nor is it in their best interests.

Every market in the country that could support this team is in just as dire-straits as we are.

And by the time they might decide to entertain offers when the economy rebounds, our citizens & gov't may be more open to compromise for alternative locations. But it won't be on the waterfront. I think they've gotten that message.

I still would not be suprised if the Rays abandon this "plan" in the coming weeks, to save face with our city, leaving their options open in the future instead of a heated, nasty campaign season, knowing what they know now about where the TDC, BOCC, City Council and citizens stand in this debate.

Should it go to referendum, this will make the Albert Whitted campaign look like a tea party.

[Observer]

John is certain that no other City, anywhere, would, pony up the cash for such a move. Absurd. Unimportant. But still absurd.

[John]

Observer Rick K, do you ever have a point to make or are you just here to slam people's opinions?

You've been reduced to a silly, disgruntled blog bully, and that's sad.

[since1962]

The petulant, uncooperative,uninformed, manipulative nature of these "sportsmen" may deprive this city of ONE important element that need not override and divide.
New Stadium?-
possibly
Greater accesibility than waterfront?-
Alternatives
Reasonable Financing?-
RAYS+
Reasonable Timetable?-When "we don't have that yet" is no longer the Rays response and council no longer pleads for continuance.

Even I would consider it if the TIMES could verify studies and figures quoted.

[Paul]

Rick K. you are quite funny. We only need to read the first couple of sentences of any post and can quickly realize its your hand at the keyboard. Oh well, what ever floats your boat Ricky.

The Rays are in a loosing position now because the media is changing its take on the outcome. The media was portraying this as a sure thing but now they're pointing out the weakness of the Rays proposal and have plenty of quotes from City and BOCC and TDC members, whom cast doubt on the deal getting done. Perception is reality and I think the public perception is swayed fully to 'no deal'.

Too bad for the Rays and what a great soon to be victory for our waterfront!

I'm just wondering after this is all over, what topic will Rick K. blog his 2000 word manifestos on? Surely he's obsessive / compulsive enough to find his next cause :)

[Thomas]

Mr. ObserverMan doesnt even know what he's talking about.

"US Law has about 25 precendents, none of which resulted in the team staying put."

Um, yeah, that's not true. And this is the problem when you just make stuff up - someone else will come along and blow you up.

It seems Mr.ObserverMan is not observing a trial that starts today in Seattle. It's a trail that all legal experts anticipate will be won by the city of Seattle. The defendant is trying to move an NBA team - in direct violation of a "specific performance" clause. When the team were preparing their case to vacate, they were only able to submit a precedent from 1973:

In a suit filed by the city of San Diego to prevent the San Diego Padres from relocating, San Diego claimed its lease provided that the baseball team must play its games at the stadium, but the court rejected that argument and said damages could be determined financially. (Ultimately Ray Kroc purchased the team and kept it in San Diego). However, the San Diego lease didn't contain a specific performance clause.

Seattle was able to counter with several case histories, including the Twins, Pilots, Mariners, and a trial court granting a temporary restraining order barring the Seahawks from relocating to Los Angeles in 1995.

Go ahead and post a correction/retraction Mr Observer.

[Paul]

Thomas, we all know Rick K. doesn't correct his made up stats or 'factoids' that he creates. He either goes away for awhile, claims he was joking (while insulting the person calling him out) or just tries to hide behind one of several other names. That's his MO.

I thought the same thing right off, 25 cities have already done this? Wow, sounds like the leases would have been modified by ohhhh, the 3rd or 4th time that happened, so as to protect the cities. What do I know? I'm just a blogging hack who wants this crazy idea stopped and our City saved financially.

[Thomas]

I think the Seattle case will be very interesting in removing any attempt by the Rays to "threaten" relocation.

That's really their only chance at getting this passed as is.

Once the illusion of relocation is removed - the Rays will have no choice but to make a fair deal... which is what they should have done to begin with. I guess you can't blame them for trying. And you can't blame the city and it's citizens for saying "No thanks!"

[Ray F]

Aaron,

I have a question that may seem like I'm switching my view on the Stadium...

The Rays say that they will not make another push for a new stadium if this request isn't realized.

If they are bound by their lease to stay in St Pete until 2027, could their claim that this is a first and only attempt at a new stadium lay proof that they may be doing a buy and fly in a few years???

By that, I mean if they want to leave St Pete, the city would have to allow them to leave. I really don't think the city would let them out of their lease. Why wouldn't they try in a couple years for a new stadium after a couple winning seasons if the plan falls through???

[Ray F]

i think the fact that they say this is their only push for a new stadium shows that they (the owners) don't plan to be here much longer.

I'm sure after a few winning (or promising) seasons, the return on their investment would be pretty high even without a new stadium.

[Lee]

Thomas,

Thanks for your insightful posts. But as always you bring actual facts to the debate and we know the PRO's are ANTI fact.
Yes as John mentions there has been a complete campaign, including the St. Pete Times editorial quoting Steve Raymund.."What will happen if the Rays leave." Then the ultimate sleazeball of all time Bud Selig, a documented liar weighs in with the Ray's can't compete without a new stadium. And so yes the lease is a MAJOR part of this debate and determines need from the citizens point of view. Do we NEED to cave in to the New Yorkers requests or can we sit pat?
One element of the departure debate that has been studiously avoided by observer is the "anti-trust" exemption issue. This has been a sore point many times with Congress and it get's rubbed especially raw when carpetbaggers from New York drop into the Florida to move a team from a perfectly functioning facility to make even LARGER profits.
In addition to the lawsuits the PR would be horrendous not just for the Rays but for the other 29 owners who may balk at having their preferred status examined too closely. As a footnote..remember that according to Forbes (perhaps the most respected financial publication in the country) the Rays franchise value went up over 20% from 06-07 a year when they had the second lowest payroll in all of baseball. Their cash flow increased 15% that same year. Any of you businessmen happy with a 22% gain in your business' value and a 15% increase in revenue in a single year when you had the lowest payroll of all of your competitors. There is a word for what we're debating here..it's actually quite simple...GREED!!!!!

[Michael]

I love how the times points out that they broke the stadium story a month early. Maybe if the times had let the Rays follow their own time table we would not have so many people against this idea. How about 'Floridas best paper' starts just reporting news not trying to make the news.

[Rick K]

What in the world.

First, you people make fools out of yourself by asserting that I am posting while I am 32,000 skyward, without a scintilla of proof. (ALL the while congratulating one another for your 'factual' posts).

Then Thomas attacks a poster named Observer who offered the correct factual assertion, that there has not been a sustained case in US Court Law where a US Court prevented a sports franchise from breaking a lease.

Thomas points to a case underway today (which wouldn't be a precedent, in any case) which "experts agree" the landlord will win.

Truth is, the US Supreme Court has upheld the notion, well entrenched in Federal Law that a State Court is powerless to keep a business in their state. Observer did not claim, as Thomas wishes to FOOL us into thinking, that there has never been a court ruling that said a team must stay or cannot move.

What Observer says is that all cases that have worked themselves out in the US Courts have resulted in teams moving anyway, or other non-judicial remedies.

Notice what Thomas will NOT do.

He will not link to a single case in US Federal Courts that proves his attack on Observer is correct.

There is no federal law that would force the Rays to stay at the Trop if they wanted to start playing in some other state and MLB approved of the move.

No law.

[Don in St. Pete]

Rick K., Somehow I just can't see the money grubbing owners of the Rays shelling out the many millions it would cost them to pay of the Trop to be free of their lease. The shysters are trying to suck us dry right now, what makes you think they would open their wallets to facilitate a move?

[Thomas]

First Rick, you're violating your self imposed ban on responding to me.'

Then, put this statement:
"as Thomas wishes to FOOL us into thinking, that there has never been a court ruling that said a team must stay or cannot move."

Next to this fact:
"In 1995 a Washington court granting a restraining order barring the Seahawks from relocating to Los Angeles"

Boom - Outta Here. Right there Ricko. You're done.

"Published: February 3, 1996
The Seahawks' owner, Ken Behring, made it official yesterday. He intends to move his team out of Seattle, possibly to Los Angeles. King County, which holds the lease, does not agree and has filed a lawsuit to keep Behring from moving the team. Late yesterday, a Washington state judge issued a restraining order, blocking the move."

Got that Rick - you can go ahead an post an apology/retraction/correction now champ!

[Rays Mike]

"Carpetbaggers from New York". There it is again.. The REAL reason some of you rednecks are against this. Hey General Lee - This is 2008, not 1865.. The war is over... Not everybody who actually wears shoes and a suit is just some big-city slickster out to hustle your money from you... I wonder how many New Yorkers would ever come and spend their tourist dollars here if they were felt as welcomed as you would make them.

[Rays Mike]

"Money grubbing owners?" "shysters are trying to suck us dry?" Listen to yourselves.. I'm embarrassed for you...

[Thomas]

We could also look at the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission which successfully sued Major League Baseballto keep the Twins playing when they were facing contraction.

Another example of the specific performance of a lease being ruled on by a court. Different twist - same result.

You got that apology/retraction ready yet Rick?

[Rays Mike]

"i think the fact that they say this is their only push for a new stadium shows that they (the owners) don't plan to be here much longer."

Just like the Glaziers, right? It's only been 10 years, when is the "For Sale" sign being posted on Dale Mabry????

[John]

This deal is all but dead. End of story. The Rays have had 7 months. 5 weeks left, and still their proposal is the business-plan equivilant of Swiss Cheese.

My prediction stands, the Rays pull a press conference in the next few weeks and here is how it goes:

"After much research and debate, meetings with local & county government bodies, and listening to our fans, the Rays have decided to withdraw our proposal for a waterfront stadium".

They save face with all parties, they're not HUMILIATED after the referendum, and they keep their options open to come back at us with something else next year, likely on a piece of property that does not require a referendum.

Oh and Rick (aka Rays Mike, Demetrios, Observer, et al)....the sky is not blue!!! It's an illusion created by the sun reflecting off the oceans. Spin that one too.

[Rick K]

Thomas, you continue to prove your ignorance. There has not been a Federal Court case as you describe.

Why must you lie?

There has not been a single US Court ruling upheld on appeal that ordered ANY tenant ANYWHERE to remain in occupancy when they want to move. This goes for sports teams, military units, agencies of the government, and every other type of tenant.

Thomas is lying to you all. Attempting to distract.

There is no US Law that permits a US Court to force a tenant to remaing in occupancy, only to force financial reparation.

[Rays Mike]

Hey Joanne... I will bet my referendum vote to yours that I am not Rick K. Aaron can verify...

[Rick K]

The funniest thing about John's prediction at 3:26 pm is that virtually NONE of John's previous predictions have come true.

We are all laughing at that one.

[Thomas]

Rick says: "that there has not been a sustained case in US Court Law where a US Court prevented a sports franchise from breaking a lease."

Boom - Outta Here.

Specific Performance is enforcable.

See Twins or Seahawks cases as cited.

Rick, you're getting owned here buddy. Don't fight it. Just apologize, correct, and move on.

[Thomas]

Rick it's pretty easy.

You said it never happened. I just showed you two cases where it did happen.

You got caught - now you're trying to talk your way out of it.

It's kind of sad to watch you do it.

[John]

Virtually none? I've only made one, so I guess I'm batting 1000...LOL

Thanks, Rick!

[Laughing out LOUD]

THOMAS' reply to Rick's assertion that there is no FEDERAL case is to quote a STATE case?

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!

[Laughing out LOUD]

John is now claiming this is the ONLY prediction he has offered.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Ha!

[Laughing out LOUD]

Thomas is again trying to fool everyone, all the while acting like he has proven some point. His foolishness is sadly consistent.

There is no US Law that requires a tenant to stay put.

None.

There are NO Precendents in Federal law.

None.

There are no instances when a Federal Court has barred a tenant from moving to another state.

None.

Thomas wishes to pretend, distort and obfuscate.

But he cannot change the facts.

The facts are, there is ultimately very little the City of St Pete could do to stop the Rays from leaving Florida, beyond asking courts for help. Ultimately, Federal Courts will deny the City's request that the courts force the Team to stay put.

It hasn't happened yet.

Thomas wants to fool you.

But he is lying.

[Rick K]

Thanks Laughing.

Agreed.

[LOL @ Rick K]

Rick forgets one teeeeny tiny detail. Nobody has ever had to go to Federal court since it's always been decided at the state level...

a swiiiiing, and a missss

[Rays Mike]

So what I am reading here from the ANTI stadium people is that they want to do nothing to help the team be as successful as possible on the field, but force them to stay in a lease for the next 19 years, and stay in a stadium that people do not want to go to and will not provide the revenue streams needed for the team to be consistantly competitive, just so a) they can protect a parking lot that sits next to the bay, b) TOURISTS, not residents, won't pay anymore taxes, and c) a bunch of "carpetbaggers" (nudge nudge, wink wink) won't get any of their precious money? If they don't get the stadium, they will move, and they should say good riddence to us if they do..

[Thomas]

Owned Rick - You got absolutely owned.

You can try to substitute semantics for content, but we all know what's up.

Specific Performance in sports facility leases are enforceable - as cited.

I got a deed for Rick in my pocket. It's not worth much - but maybe Hines will redevelop it as a consolation prize.

[Rick K to Thomas (sigh)]

They are not enfoceable by US Courts, which is the ONLY court which has jurisdiction when talking about a move out of state.

If the Rays begin play in another state, there is nothing the US Courts would do to interfere. And there is little doubt that the US Courts would stay any injunction in Florida court.

Not only that, the cases you cite are stated incorrectly.

I am, again, done with you. You will keep lying, because You are incapable of having an honest debate.

[Thomas needs a dictionary]

Thomas, if getting your butt kicked suddenly now means you "own" the guy who put a beat down on you, then your assertion, like most of your other assertions made in these spaces, is correct.

If Up is Down and Black is White, then you "owned" Rick.

His point remains true and undented. You on the other hand remain a fool hellbent on distraction.

[Rays Mike]

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't get into the debate about precidents, but I know as a Rays fan that unless I am OJ or R Kelly, do I really want to take my chances with the courts.

[Thomas]

Dude, posting with a bunch of other names to try to support yourself is so sad...

[Thomas]

Rays Mike,

You seem confused. Let me help you:

"they want to do nothing to help the team be as successful as possible on the field"
No one is obligated to support the Rays. Those that do support the team do so by buying tickets, merchandise - watching the games and supporting the teams advertising sponsors.

"but force them to stay in a lease for the next 19 years"
The team signed the lease. The taxpayers did not. It's the teams obligation.

"stay in a stadium that people do not want to go to"
Actually, now that the team is playing well, the Trop is selling out on occasion. You should know this. You are "Rays" Mike.

"will not provide the revenue streams needed for the team to be consistantly competitive"
The team has a very favorable lease agreement for revenue at the Trop. Sounds like you've been sipping the Kool-Aid Mike.

"b) TOURISTS, not residents, won't pay anymore taxes"
Excise tax, Parking surcharges are not "tourist taxes".

"If they don't get the stadium, they will move"
Object - conjecture. The lease at the Trop is going to make it very difficult for them to move. There's some other posts on this thread as to the legal challenges the team would face. The precedents are not in the teams favor.

[Lee]

Ray's Mike,

I'll retract my carpetbagger remarks, even though it's still in a 2008 dictionary...I guess a long held leftover from the 1860's. I'll let Don decide if he wants to retract his "money grubbing" remark. As for your "redneck" remark you can choose for yourself. As someone who attended college for a period in Brooklyn at L.I.U...coming from Northern Kentucky just across the river from Cincinnati and thus in the Cincy metroplex..it used to amuse me to hear the New Yorkers ask me seriously.."Did you wear shoes to school or go barefoot?" "Do you drink moonshine?" That was mildly amusing...but to hear Mr Kalt insult citizens who had different opinions about the proposal he is being paid huge dollars to promote..while impugning other's motives as being politically motivated..does call into proper use the word "Carpetbagger". So let me be quite clear here...I do not mean to insult all New Yorkers...just the sleazy little Mr Kalt who has insulted enough of our honestly motivated citizens. Imagine a man earning a high six figure salary...working for owners who could make a quarter of a billion on this deal...impugning the motives of citizens being paid NOTHING..VOLUNTEERING their time out of love for their city.
I suspect if you look in the dictionary for the word Carpetbagger you'll see a pic of the stereotypical know it all New Yorker... Mr Kalt!!!

[Paul]

Ricky K's multiple personalities kick in. This is better than the crappy jokes I get via email from my co-workers.

Hey, let me post something, then jump on here and followup with a bunch of other posts backing that up... wow, genius, unreal. Rick is the master blogger. bwaaa haa haaa. This stadium deal is so going down the toilet with a double flush, just to make sure all the 'crap' is properly disposed of. You think we could get a toilet big enough to throw Kalt in? I'll chip in the first 20 bucks to buy one.

[Evan]

Actually the Rays are only hurting themselves by alienating and pissing off would-be future fans of this county, by trying to force this deal down everyone's throats with taxpayer money, on our well-protected waterfront. Most of us remember the past, and we are destined not to repeat it.

I'm a season ticket holder (4, actually for the entire family). I bought Rays jerseys & merchandise for my 2 kids. I bought concessions every game. I never walked out of the Trop spending less than $50, usually closer to $80 per game.

Guess what? The Rays just lost a good customer until we get new ownership. I will never support a team that treats its fans in this way.

[Thomas]

Rick,

Let me help you too while I'm at it.

Your post should have simply said:

"Sorry Thomas, you were right. The court precedents indicate that teams are not allowed to break specific performance clauses in leases and settle with monetary relief."

If it made you feel better, you could have even added: "None of these items even made it to federal court as the state ruling was not challenged by the team trying to vacate the lease in question. You were correct in stating that specific performance is enforceable and I recant my inaccurate posts to the contrary."

[(not) Thomas]

Yeah Rick,

You should have said that.

You got owned buddy.

[(still not) Thomas]

LOL at Rick.

Right on Thomas - you sure owned Rick there.

Whooo!

[Rays Mike]

So Evan - You think Namoli treated you better? On the field or off of it? That's a laugh... I'm pretty sure that 99.999% of Rays fans will say that the free parking, the improvements to the Trop, the increased payroll, the better performance on the field, would indicate that Sternburg is a better owner. And can ANYONE give any evidence or examples that the current ownership has lied, cheated, swindled, as all of you have so freely spoke of??

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rays Mike,

Here is the most recent example of a huge lie. Mr. Silverman told the TDC board that 66% of the money for this stadium would come from NON PUBLIC funds. Can you do the math for me. 150 million..in February Mr Kalt stated that was in lieu of rent...is our rent not public money...but even if you go with that lie and credit the team as coming up with 150 million of their OWN money...that's just 1/3 hardly the 66% Silverman mentioned.

[Interesting]

Mr Kalt has stated five times (as recently as last week), and Aaron has also clarified this - the $150 Million in voluntary upfront contributions from the Rays is not in lieu of rent.

[Thomas]

Actually, the $150M contribution from the Rays was not clarified. And since we still don't have Lease Terms, so no one knows if it's in lieu of rent or not.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Interesting,

I told you I would concede the 150 million and give the Rays the benefit of the doubt. I still need someone to do the math for me...how did Mr. Silverman tell the TDC that 66% of this stadium would come from non public funds. 150/450 = 33% about half of the Rays claim.

[Rick K]

The $60 to $70 Million (or whatever) that will come from Archstone Madison is not public funds, under any applicable legal definition of what constitutes public funds.

Further, and far more importantly, NEXT to ZERO of the Stadium cost will be paid by a typical City resident who does not patronize Rays games.

That is the key to this whole thing.

Even if the ANTI's wish to hide that point.

Most "average taxpayers" will not pay one red cent towards this Stadium.

Which makes it a heck of a deal, in any book.

[Rick K]

Parking revenues . . . .

The "parking" revenue portion of the Rays finanical projections works like this . . . .

Somehow, money will be collected from people who park vehicles downtown with the intent of going to the New Stadium to watch Rays games. Those monies (none of which would be collected absent the Rays game) can be used to offset a portion of the new stadium development costs (which, by the way, include new parking spaces).

Since NONE of these parking monies come from general taxes, and ALL of them come from voluntary contributions from Rays patrons who wouldn't otherwise elect to give that money to the City, that money cannot be regarded as "City" money, either.

The argument the ANTI's try to make is that because the City may temporarily hold onto a dollar, that dollar is public money. Under this logic, the following would be true.

Imagine if the Rays proposed to fund 100% of the New Stadium costs by levying a surcharge on Rays game tickets. The City would secure bonds to construct the stadium, and the Team would collect monies from Rays spectators, and turn that money over to the City.

Under the ANTI's attempt to use deceptive langauge, they would classify those payments as PUBLIC contributions, even though they are 100% from the private sector.

[Thomas]

First, if this were to go forward, and Archstone bought the Trop - the Rays are erroneously calling that a "private" contribution. It is in fact a "public" contribution because Archstone pays the public for the Trop site, and then the public uses that money for the proposal. Obviously a public contribution. No way around it.

However, the stadium financing doesn't include the Public Money obtained in the potential Archstone deal - that money is used to pay off the Trop debt - not the new stadium.

The new stadium financing, as most recently proposed at the City Council, is comprised of only $150M in private funds. The other 66% is public. And that is a combination of excise tax, bed tax, and parking surcharges. A portion might be paid by tourists on the bed tax, but the city excise and parking surcharge on all downtown spots is coming from the residents. In fact, during the City Council meeting the number requested from the bed tax was $137M. Which means the other $163M is coming from excise tax, parking fees, etc.

Anyone who thinks the average tax payer won't be paying for this is either stupid or lying.

It's a horrible deal for the public and that's why 68% of the people oppose it.

[Paul]

How am I not paying as a tax paying resident of St Pete? Let's see... Al Lang field gets a new stadium built on it... and the City no longer owns that land. That City is me. Since I reside here full time and am a resident, I see that as my land. Therefore, I am paying. Logic. Its really not that tricky.

And what's with 'average tax payers' not paying. What's non-average? Are you implying some tax payers will pay and others will not? How is that possible? You should drink bottled water Rick, as the Seminole water system seems tainted. We have great water here in St Pete, too bad you don't live here. We like outspoken types like you. I got some land right by the stadium if you want to move here... lol.

[Thomas]

The most immediate payments from the general public are:

- $103M in excise taxes
- $35M in city owned parking revenue

There's $138M right there. So much for "next to zero for typical resident"

We don't know how the other $25M in "Use Fees" for parking is going to work. But over 30 years, 81 home games, that's about $10,300 per game in "Use Fees" that needs to be generated.
I wonder if the parking attendants are just going to ask "Hey bud, you going to the Rays game- if so, that'll be an extra buck!"

The financing plan is a jam job.

[Rick K to Paul]

Paul.

The ownership of Al Lang will probably change from City Onwership to the County, or something like that.

And it will be owned by the government, but leased by the Team, just as it is now.

Ownership of the land will not transfer to the Rays, they will merely have a leasehold interest, for which they propose to pay certain monies.

Just like in the case of nearly every other public facility leased by a private entity, the City's capital costs will exceed the tenant's contributions, but the project will be undertaken in the reasonable judgement that the public good from the capital investment will be good for the citizens.

Average tax payers in St. Pete will not go to games, as the ANTI's keep saying over and over again. Therefore they will not pay the $150 Million from the Rays, or any of the per-year fees based on ticket sales to Rays fans.

The average St Pete resident also does not spend the night in hotels in Pinellas County, which means the average St Pete taxpayer will not pay one penny of the Hotel Tax.

The average citizen of St Pete does not currently go downtown for Non-Rays events during the hours of Rays games, so those people will not pay any parking-specific charges to subsidize these proposals.

The average citizen of St. Pete does not pay "excise" taxes, which is the specific funding source the City is considering using to pay for the City portion of the new stadium development deal.

So, yes, Paul, I am saying this:

When all is said and done, the Rays will pay a larger portion towards this new stadium and the events that take place in the stadium than will come from any other source.

The "county" contribution will be paid almost 100% by people who are not St. Pete city residents.

The "city" contribution from excise taxes will be collected disproportionately, not evenly from all citizens in the city.

The "parking" contributions of this deal will be paid almost exclusively by Rays patrons.

That is the truth.

[Rick K to Paul (2)]

I forgot the contribution from Archstone Madison, none of which is public money and none of which is available to the City for use to build a new stadium to replace Al Lang field unless the Rays voluntarily agree to vacate their lease at the Trop.

So that is another $70 Million, none of which comes out of the pocket of the average taxpayer in St. Pete.

And, using WestShore Mall, and International Mall as a guide, the odds are that the bulk of spending at the new retail stores will either come from new residents in the neighborhood, or people who live outside the city. So even if we are to track the source by which that private $70 Million contribution will eventually be paid back, we can see that the Average Tax Payer in St. Pete pays the smallest portion of any group.

[Thomas]

" they will merely have a leasehold interest, for which they propose to pay certain monies."
Object - Speculation.
Sustained. The Rays have made no commitment to pay rent on a new stadium.

"Average tax payers in St. Pete will not go to games"
Object - Speculation.
Sustained. It's an absurd notion that no St. Pete residents will go to Rays games.

"The average citizen of St Pete does not currently go downtown for Non-Rays events during the hours of Rays games"
Object - Speculation.
Sustained. There is no study of St. Pete residents movement patterns, nor is there a definition for "downtown" geographical boundaries for the parking use fees or public contribution.

"The average citizen of St. Pete does not pay "excise" taxes"
Not True. The public pays the excise tax.

"When all is said and done, the Rays will pay a larger portion towards this new stadium and the events that take place in the stadium than will come from any other source."
Not True. The public pays 66% to the Rays 33%. Also, the lease terms may included TIF or CapX accounts for taxes collected at the stadium. The public pays the majority.

"That is the truth."
Actually, it's a bunch of speculation and then a couple of completely false statements. But hey, who's counting? Right Rick!

[Thomas]

"I forgot the contribution from Archstone Madison, none of which is public money"

Acutally, since Archstone is cutting a check to St. Pete and not the Rays, it's Public Money the city is tbe turning around and using to appease the Rays.

True, it would not be Public Money if the Rays don't vacate the Trop, but it's still Public Money since the Rays don't own the land they are selling.

[Don Mott]

Wow Rick you need to take your meds. You're floating between different personalities and then talking back to yourself. I'm really worried you are becoming delusional.

[Richard Christy]

The dome would look sweet on the waterfront! I'm from Kansas and we don't have domes or waterfront so I'm voting to move the dome in the August primary.

www.movethedome.com

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

Why do you continue to omit the fact about the current lease and the "air rights" available to the city. The city has the rights to develop the 65 acres around the Dome without moving the team. The cost to the city would be approximately 75 million for a parking garage to replace any lost parking for the Rays. Coincidentally enough that is about the same price being bandied about by the developer...who by the way told Councilwoman Curran they'd be happy to redevelop with the Trop in place.
Of course then we'd keep ALL the tax money generated from all these mystical magical sources Rick K likes to site.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO BUILD THE RAYS A NEW STADIUM TO REDEVELOP AROUND THE TROP.
THAT IS A FACT RICK K.

[Rick K says]

ATrulyConcernedcitizen:

You ask a straight forward question, but you kinda cheat in the way you word it.

I happen to like the bundle of benefits we get from these paired redevelopment proposals, and find all alternatives that I have read, so far, to be less optimal than these paired redevelopment proposals.

I do not argue that there are any number of alternatives which might achieve some of the objectives I find desirable.

But I have not yet found a combination of alternative proposals that will give us all that we will get from these two redevelopment plans.

If I want a hamburger with ketchup and lettuce and relish and onion, on a bun, with baked beans and potato salad and cole slaw and lemonade, and I can have all of the above, I see no good reason to settle for less.

[Observer]

Strong analogy about the picnic plate.

I'm just saying.

[The Real Rick K (with DNA to prove it)]

This is a funny thread. It begins with multiple false, baseless assertions about hidden identities of posters (easily verified by the Times). It then progresses to a series of false claims by the ANTI's, followed with additional False Claims by the ANTI's.

If this is the best they can do, it is no wonder they are so paranoid and desperate at this point.