Rays response on enviro issues at new ballpark

The dredge and fill is down to .4 acres, the Rays report in this newest correspondence with the city.

UPDATE: The link should work now.

Comments

[Will]

It doesn't.

[Raymond The Rays Mascot]

There are no serious enviro issues @Al Lang site that can't be worked out. New stadium will be more than 705 more eco friendly to our city's environment, plus new stadium will have a state-of-the-art storm drainage/runoff system underneath it that can be recycled & put to good use for something else, which that site currently doesn't have(it's just asphalt parking spaces now, yeah like that's really useful & helpful to the environment). In other cities, they dregde all the time to make way for improvement projects & more important progress that will spurt/jump start our local economy again, then in 4 yrs St. Pete will be fully ready to capitalize on a rebounded & robust economy. What a great day it will be in St. Petersburg!

[Trey Parker and Matt Silverman]

Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!

[Dave in St Pete]

It (link) works now.

It took two months for this update and they have much larger questions left to answer in two weeks!

This ill concieved 'plan' is never going to pass as we will never have real numbers or real anwers.

Each 'update' so far has raised more questions than they answer.

[Sean]

Dave,

What new questions come from this 'update'? They seem to have minimized the need to fill in part of the bay, which was one of the POWW concerns. If there are additional questions now I would like to know what those questions are and have the Rays answer them. Just curious.

[Dave in St Pete]

This one? I don't know.

I was mainly talking about the financial updates where they change the numbers each time and where the monies come from. (55 mil from parking, 25 mil from parking (with a new tax) etc).

Polson and Danner both pointed this out yesterday. If the Rays ever actually have a solid proposal there will be no time left for negotiations, it will be a 'take it or leave it' deal.

As Bennet pointed out yesterday there were no other possibilities looked at. This has been set up from the beginning by the Rays as a last minute, rush it through or we leave, golden contract.

Not a good way to win friends or influence people.

[Rick K]

Dave's characterization of the timing is, in my view, inaccurate.

NOW is the time for negotiation.

The reason the Rays proposal keeps changing is because of NEGOTIATION.

The City told the Rays that it had concerns about the site design, parking, financing, and the environmental impact. The Rays incorporated those concerns and CHANGED their proposals. This is the negotiation process.

It is happening now.

When the Council votes in August (if it comes to that), they will vote on a yes or no deal. The negotiation will be done by that time.

I am not sure what Dave from St. Pete has in mind. But it looks like he is missing the very public negotiation that is unfolding before our very eyes.

[Dave in St Pete]

I do not see negotiating.

I see the Council asking questions about the ONE proposal on the table. Then the Rays change some numbers and the council asks more questions.

In negotiations there are counter proposals and counter offers.

There has always been only the waterfront proposal and the offer stays the same 150 from the Rays (I think it's from the Rays but not sure on where that is coming from or what it covers).

[Thomas]

Speaking of inaccurate:

Rick is never going to be accountable or answer questions. It's not what he does.

But, if you are actually interested, here's how it went down:

According to sales tax receipts, Hillsborough County reported January 2001 sales of about $1.44 billion. In January 2000 they reported roughly $1.4 billion.

There was growth but not more than is seen in any year-to-year comparison. In fact, it was less than the average growth by year.

Now, people certainly did come to Hillsborough specifically to attend the Super Bowl in 2001. However, in the end, all of their spending yielded no net increase in sales tax receipts from the previous January when there was no Super Bowl in Hillsborough.

John F. Sugg, Investigative Reporters and Editors and the Society of Professional Journalists award winner, has written some excellent pieces on this topic while he was doing research prior to Atlanta hosting a Super Bowl.

[Rick K]

Rick will reply one more time to Thomas' silly post about Super Bowl numbers. I already did it, but I will do it again.

Apart from that, Dave says he doesn't see negotiation, yet he acknowledges that the Rays keep changing their proposals. I am not sure WHY Dave imagines the Rays are changing their proposals, other than as the result of counters by the City to their original offer.

This is part of the negotiation. Other parts are going on in private. Of course the final offer the City Council votes on will be an all or nothing up or down vote. The negotiation will be finished by then.

NOW. As to this latest report from the Rays.

I am blown away.

I am VERY impressed that the Rays have taken the feedback from the City and its citizens so seriously. I am very impressed that the Rays are committed to seeking LEED certification for the new stadium, creating a net benefit to the bay's ecosystem, and finding more ways to work with the City to highlight the ballpark's waterfront location.

I am pleased that the Rays have reduced the amount of fill from their first proposal to this latest one, by more than 80%. I am excited by what I now think will be enhancements to marine life in the Bay.

The Rays are also actively exploring ways to work with the University of South Florida's Ecosystems Technology Group to implement state-of-the-art monitoring methods which could be a showcase new technologies that aid investigation and research and also create meaningful bay education opportunities.

The Rays just keep hitting home runs!

I think the newly redesigned stadium will improve the City's waterfront, draw more people to the waterfront, improve marine life in the bay, and also, just maybe, improve the PLANET!

Cool.

[Thomas]

When you reply, be sure to include the ACTUAL sales receipt numbers - not just your fabricated "data".

Remember - people certainly did come to Hillsborough specifically to attend the Super Bowl in 2001. But their spending yielded no significant increase in sales tax receipts from the previous January when there was no Super Bowl in Hillsborough

[Jimbo]

Excellent = supports your argument, even though it may not be a generally accepted opinion. I'm not saying this report you're claiming is or isn't, Thomas, I'm just pointing out how funny it is to see people think something is "excellent", "superb", "outstanding", etc., when it sides with them, but they denounce any article or story, written by a peer of the "excellent article," because it goes against their claims.

Not citing any examples, and quite frankly, this was an observation, nothing more....

Dave, now you're trying to confuse the issue even more. They give you an answer to the environmental and space concerns (.4 acres equals 17,424 sq ft, about the size of two or three mansions on Venetian Isles, FYI), but that "raises more questions"? If you're saying you have financial questions, then you're on the wrong post. This is the environmental post, in case you missed it. How does reducing the fill .2 acres raise financial questions? Otherwise, you're arguing for argument's sake, and that just makes you look as bad as you claim Rick K looks.

[Dave in St Pete]

When did the council present any counters?

[Jimbo]

You do realize they work outside one one Thursday a month when they have their meetings, right? Just because it's not televised or it's not in council chambers doesn't mean there's no negotiating going on. Why else would the project have made the changes it made since March 2007? I mean, you saw all the changes from the pdf above, right?

[Rick K]

Dave is mischaracterizing things, by a degree of seven.

The Rays have answered about 70% of the questions people had a month ago.

People like Dave PRETEND that the answers raise even more questions.

But they don't.

Anyone who wants to know which characterization (Dave's or mine) is the best fit here can simply go read the last four or five reports the Rays provided to the City.

The Stadium design response answered most every concern the City raised.

The parking study answered most every concern the City raised, and even presented a reasonable argument for the City requests that the Rays expert disagrees with. (The team's experts contend that building a 3500 space parking garage is impractical and will create an overabundance of parking downtown for all non-game periods).

The environmental concerns included complaints about the size of intrusion into the bay, effects on sea grass, waterflows, manatees, and other protected marine species. The latest environmental report nails most of those questions.

Some of the ANTI's were foaming at the mouth a week ago about the potential millions it would take the City to comply with the Florida DEP's "mandate" to handle contaminated soil at the Trop sight. One guy even crowed that the cost would be in the tens of millions. Another thumped that he "knew" this was a legal requirment upon the City.

Yesterday's meeting at City hall debunked both those myths. The City staff clearly indicated that the DEP request for a deed restriction was a request, and that it would be a LESS responsible action than the action the City has undertaken instead. The total remediation costs related to the problem in the DEP memos is around a hundred grand.

In a $500,000,000 development, $100,000 is less than the costs for rented port-a-potties.

EVERY day reveals more and more information. EVERY day makes these twin proposals more and more attractive.

Yet Dave and his buds claim we are going backwards.

They will still be saying that in November, when they are crying about how the Rays either bought or stole the election.

[Dave in St Pete]

Ahhhh, so back door deals are 'negotiating'.

Got it. That silly sunshine law only appies some times.

[Rick K to Dave, Hello Dave, Hello]

Dave, the CITY has presented numerous counter offers to the Rays, in the form of Responses to the Rays original proposals.

If you have been reading the Rays replies this week, they have been replying to counter offers made by the City.

Aren't you paying attention?

[Rick K to Dave, Hello Dave, Hello]

Dave, these proposals and counter proposals are being published for the entire world to see.

The negotiations so far, have proceeded in compliance with the Sunshine laws and other applicable Florida statutes. Didn't you hear Councilman Kennedy's prepared statement yesterday?

Much of these negotiations have been in the sunshine. Some (specifically dealing with Rays lease terms) have been conducted as the law anticipated (in private until a final deal is worked out).

You must not be paying attention.

[Dave in St Pete]

Parking

Yep, they had an answer. Cut the 'estimated' income by 30 mil and tell the city to ceate a NEW tax (that Curran pointed out was illegal).

[Jimbo]

Just because they're not in council chambers when they talk doesn't mean transcripts aren't available. As soon as I have time, I'll find them for you. I have a job I get paid to do, and it's not blogging, that's for darn sure!

In the meantime, if you want to, feel free to beat me to the punch and check yourself: http://www.stpete.org

[Rick K to Dave, Hello Dave, Hello]

Dave, Dave, you silly boy.

Curran is wrong.

Of course the City has the power to regulate prices charged for parking downtown.

Of course they can do that.

There is no law that says they cannot. And you cannot claim such a law.

All you can do is point to proof that the Rays and the City have been negotiating and claim there is no negotiation.

Sad.

[Dave in St Pete]

Rick, hello, Rick,

Can you 'suckers' (you call us 'antis') do something other than personal attacks?

I hereby am ignoring you and you ad-homonym attacks.

Have a nice day. ;)

[rayray]

Reports, architects / developers may not have to fill .4, it could be even less than that, just don't use our COWBELLS to fill in for this splendid new iconic waterfront attraction that will magnify downtown like never before.

The Rays are doing all the right things to make the most positive impact with the least risk to city & residents. They are stand-up people with high integrity which can't be said for poww(aka, piss off ____ ____)!

Go Rays!

[Thomas]

Step aside from the Cowbells from Hell.

Regards,
Pantera

[Rick K to Dave and Thomas]

Dave:

I expected that.

An Ad Hominem attack, by the way, is when a person IGNORES the argument you offer and instead only offers personal attacks against you.

I attack your arguments, while being personally insulting. So my replies to you are not ad hominem. They are simply rude replies to your arguments.

But go on with yourself.

Thomas, I am almost finished with a reply to your Super Bowl rant, why don't you post it one more time so I can post underneath it?

[Ray F]

it was a case of inevitability that Pantera be referenced on a blog.

hahahahahaha

Hinske must be coming up to bat.

great Thomas... you really should come over to the Dark Side.

[Thomas]

Sure Ricky,

In summary form:

- Super Bowl did not increase sales tax receipts above average Y2Y growth in Jan 2001.

- People did come to Hills.Co. specifically for the game, but it made no major impact over non-SB years.

[Thomas]

Also, I hope you're not about to go Councilman Kennedy and post a novel.

- Just on Rome Show "when Coco Crisp charged the mound we had no choice but to come out and defend him. Sincerely, Tony the Tiger and Count Chocula"

[Ray F]

man... Kennedy nearly put me to sleep. It reminded me of Billy Madison when the principal said we are all dumber for having to listen to the incoherent babble. Man god have mercy on your soul.

[Thomas]

What, his articulate annunciation and riveting voice inflection didn't keep you glued to the screen?

[Thomas]

Come on Rick, it's not that hard.

The sales receipts from the county are published.

All you have to do is say "Thomas, you were right. The Super Bowl in 2001 did not produce a significant increase in sales for the county. I was wrong. I retract my previous statements regarding the SB."

I'm putting a lot of faith in you here, but I think you can do it...

[Ray F]

I
especially
liked
how
he
took
time
to
make
sure
he
was
reading
line
by
line

[Steve Lange, Flip Flopper]

Steve Lange pushed hard for dredging to extend the airports runway and then jumps up and down about dredging for the stadium. Flip Flopper I believe is the term.

Another Hypocritical stance by Steve Lange.

[Ray F]

That's because if the water gets churned up too much during the dredging process, some airport opponents might get discovered with their concrete shoes.

Otherwise, Steve Lange is all for baseball on the bay.

[Jack]

I agree, the plan is much better than when it started. The aerial of Al Lang also looks much much worse than the new proposal. I see a overall improvement of the waterfront from the existing condition. You'll also now have shade as you want down the waterfront. Looking good.

[The stadium should have landed on Albert whitted]

They could of fit 10 stadiums on the airport site.

It's amazing how big the airport is when you see the aerial of the stadium and airport together.

[Steve Lange, Flip Flopper]

Steve Lange --Dredging, it's wonderful if it's for my precious airport to send a runway out over the bay.

Steve Lange --For anyone else to suggest dredging, you are going to kill sand dollars, the horror. You should stop the whole project.

His two sided month continues to illustrate his hypocritical nature.

By the way, doesn't Steve design airplane hangers. Seems like he has a vested interest in saving Albert Whitted. -- Save the airport it's historical and by the way I will lose business if it goes away.

[Ray F]

SAVE FERRIS!!!

[Paul]

did we start a new discussion, or am i missing something? the airport is a done deal, its an airport. how does that have anything to do with the new uber stadium? it doesn't.

nice jabs at one person, you get to advance to 6th grade.

the Rays owners are not giving any alternatives, which is bad for them. they will have to do all this work all over again to move to where ever it is they will go when this gets slaughtered like the diseased cow project it is, at the polls.

no new waterfront stadium. sorry mikey and stu. go sulk in NYC over some expensive dinners. we don't like your slimeball type 'round here.

[Stadium maybe!!]

Does anyone else wonder when Thomas and Rick are going to get it over with and f*$k already?

[Jimbo]

LMAO! I think you summed it up perfectly, Maybe!

[Stadium maybe!!]

Suspensions just got handed down.. this is going to be a freaking disaster.

[Jimbo]

Hey, Paul, you do realize that the illustrious founding fathers of this city are not from St. Pete (or Florida), but from...wait for it....THE NORTH! Peter Demens was from St. Petersburg, Russia (hence the name), John Williams was from Detroit, Frank Davis and George Gandy were both from Philly, Tony Jannus was from DC...need I go on?

Point is, people from the North are d-bags because they're "from the North" so this "carpetbagger" BS needs to stop. The ownership has proven they can be trusted; they did everything they said they would: they raised the salary, they committed for the long-term success of the team, and they paid for the rehab of the Charlotte Sports Park like they said they would, with no new taxes. Why don't we give them a little more time (though I wish they'd be more forthcoming) to prove their case?

[Paul]

Jimbo, you do know about St Pete history, that is good. And since you seem to know a bit more than the average guy on the street, you're also aware of Snell and Williams who worked their butts off to assemble all the land for our beautiful waterfront park system. So yes, I feel correct in saying these NYC slimeballs don't give a ratts butt about St Pete, with their waterfront suggestions. Yeah, there's a ballfield there now, and it is 'human scale' not a monsterous behemoth of a structure that is proposed.

[Rick K]

I think if Snell and Williams were alive today, they would be very much in favor of these paired redevelopment proposals.

Everything I have read about them convinces me that this is true. They envisoned an active waterfront ribbon of community amentities and inviting open spaces that would both attract people to downtown and make their visits more enjoyable.

You ANTI's do not own the opinons of dead guys. Everything we know about them informs us that they probably would have LOVED these deals!

[Paul]

ohhh sorry Rick, you're right, you know the opinion of the dead guys, and well, the rest of us don't. Hey, where are your stats today? Not doing any 'Rick surveys' today? that's a shame, I so look forward to them.

No, the waterfront is meant to be parkspace. We'll get this killed, don't you worry. You are 1 vote as am I. Voters aren't reading these blogs for advice... they have their red yard sing minds made up already. So keep posting, I'm actually impressed at your tenacious blogging. You may want to think over just how much time you waste on here... and get a 2nd hobby.

[Jimbo]

Paul,

Thanks for the compliment. Even a transplant such as myself can know a thing or two about the city he loves, and I wish others actually did know more. That might help bring people together on issues that plague our city, the stadium question notwithstanding.

My only question is why Snell let Al Lang get his baseball stadium on the waterfront in the '20s if, as you put it, "the waterfront is meant to be parkspace (sic)". You're right; they worked their butts off to collect all the land they could to prevent it from turning into something like Channelside. But, if they were worried about anything that wasn't a park being on the waterfront, why would they have allowed Al Lang to use a piece of that land for baseball?

Also, if we shouldn't have anything on the waterfront, should we tear down the St. Petersburg Museum of History, or maybe the Fine Arts Museum or the North Shore Rec Center, all of which are located on land formerly occupied by parkland. Maybe the marina shouldn't be on the waterfront, either...well, that wouldn't make sense to move it inland, but to another part of the waterfront, one that wasn't originally part of a park. Maybe we could tear down that useless "Port" and build it there and reclaim the land that once was a park. I think it's called "Demen's Landing" now...?

The point is, we have already built on some of the parks, but no one seems to mind that. No one cared enough 70 years ago to protest Waterfront Stadium (as it was once called) because it was "taking away parkland" because they saw the importance of Spring Training.

Times have changed, and Spring Training isn't the money maker it used to be (especially with all the teams going to Arizona, so let's not use that excuse to save a, at most, 30+ year old minor-league park), but we have something the citizens of St. Pete would have killed for back then: we have the equivalent of the Yankees, the Boston Braves, the Tigers, and the Philly Athletics (all then-Northern teams), teams people who moved here rooted for and teams that graced our presence every spring here, right in our city. To lose the impact the Rays and MLB provide to the city (with their charity work, their employing of local people for everyday jobs at the Trop and assisting the visiting teams, and the tourism dollars they, believe it or not, bring in...I've sat to people from NY who came here to watch Yankees games before; they never heard of St. Pete until they came here) would be a disaster.

I know you're a self-proclaimed doer and not a watcher, Paul, and I respect that. I wish I had the gumption to get my lazy behind out of a chair and do more than yard work and walking around downtown St. Pete. However, there are plenty of people like me who watch sports more than doing them, and you have to be mindful of that as well. Your reason is a perfectly acceptable one (I don't watch any sport, I participate, so why should I pay?), but it's the others that try to ram easily refutable ones down our throats. I just wish people would say, "I oppose the stadium because I don't like it." That's an acceptable enough reason for me. If you have a source to back up your argument, that's fine, but no more myths. But thank you, Paul, for being open to your reason as to why. I wish more people would take your lead of honesty.

[Rick K to Paul]

Paul, I will advise you thusly:

You misread my motives. And you misunderstand much about me. You will ignore this advice, of course, but you might do better to focus inward, rather than on what you believe are your abilities to know things which you do not know.

It might be, for example, that I made the claim upon what the City father's wanted to show how ridiculous it is when the ANTI's do the same thing.

Simply stated, we do not know how those guys would have felt about these proposals. A historian could argue either side, and make a persausive case.

You also do something very funny Paul. You totally miss humor and the well practiced rhetorical technique of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd.

People from the ANTI side often make untrue claims for which they lack data to back it up. A classic example is that the 'red signs are everywhere."

They aren't everywhere. Based on my drives through the City, which are extensive, since I travel the streets of this City nearly every day, Red Signs are on residential properties representing somewhere from 1 to 10 % of the electorate.

It so happens that it cracks me up when they make these unprovable claims that are not supported by even the most casual observations. I often respond to these childish claims by making up some similarly unprovable claim. For example, I once claimed that 3.454576 % of properties had red signs (or something like that).

My intent when I do this is not to convince people. It is to demonstrate to EVERYONE how absurd it is to make up facts.

That the ANTI's often don't see my point is even funnier.

And when they COMPLAIN that I made up facts, that is even still more funnier.

So, yes, Paul, I will clue you ANTI's in. All of us on the pro-side KNOW that I am making up facts, when I am, in fact, making up facts.

On the other hand, Paul. I sometimes state real facts.

Just because some in the ANTI side think that any fact not supported by a LINK is not a fact, that doesn't impress me at all. I will let the handful of unbiased people who come here.

I also state my opinions quite often. And while I know many, many on the ANTI side cannot tell the difference between opinions and facts (based upon their own repeated assertion of their opinions as immutable fact, for example, That Snell wouldn't have wanted these proposals!), I am not confused by the difference.

Also, Paul, I often attempt designed to encourage people to question what they think they already know about these issues. When I report about how many people I have asked about their opinions on these deals, I am not making that up.

I do happen to know it is meaningless, because my screening is not scientific, my sample is not representative, and so on.

But I offer these observations in the hopes that someone may read them and decide to start asking people whom THEY come in contact with. Anyone who does so will soon learn that this is not as lopsided an opinion issue as many in the ANTI side think it is.

Paul, you have complained when I have made up facts, without seeing why. You have failed to see the absurdity and humor in a lot of this.

This is not life and death. Our country is in a brutal war on three fronts. People's lives are lost every day in those battles. This is just a question about what we want St. Pete to be like for our kids and their kids.

It's okay to be silly and serious at the same time. It is okay for people to be passionate. It is okay to disagree.

If I think Trox is being a bully with a pen, I will say so. If I think Thomas is plagiarizing, I will say so. If I think the ANTI's have no rights to claim the dead guys are on their side, I will say so.

You, my friend, would be better served to think less about me, I think.

[Paul]

Thats fine Rick. Thanks for letting us know that you do make up some things as facts, in the name of humor. We are likely to think you are not as crazy as we'd thought. I can appreciate humor... just that you aren't the best comedian.

[history revisionist]

Straub park was deeded to the city in 1918 but discussion began in 1906. The original Florida Power Park was established 1916.

Pioneer park and the Al
Lang site were not part of the original plan. Pioneer park was purchase by Bayfront tower to preserve their view and then given to the city to maintain. There's no record of any objection to the American past time at that location.

Many are putting words into Snell and Straub's mouth saying what they would or would not have wanted. This is purely hypothetical. The same argument could have been given to change the airport completely into a park, or to tear down the Mahathey instead of the major renovation.

[ctb]

I sincerely hope people are getting smarter about these boondoggles - suggest reading:

Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle over Building Sports Stadiums by Kevin J. Delaney and Rick Eckstein

http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/acatalog/__Public_Dollars__Private_Stadiums_1314.html

Sports, Jobs, and Taxes: The Economic Impact of Sports Teams and Stadiums by Roger G. Noll and Andrew Zimbalist

http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/1997/sports.aspx