Selig's tough Trop talk

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig has only attended one game at Tropicana Field as far as anyone knows, and that was in June 2004, before all the improvements by the Stuart Sternberg-led ownership group.
But that didn't stop Selig from bashing the Trop, in his bid to push the importance of the new stadium, in an interview with ESPN's Howard Bryant, which is excerpted below. And the way Selig answered the St. Pete/Tampa question is interesting, especially since the Rays have a lease with St. Petersburg through 2027.

Tampa Bay has been the league's success story in the first half, but it has not translated to better attendance. What is your level of concern for the future of baseball in Tampa?
Look, they're really pushing on a new ballpark. I think if they can get it done, it will really help them, no question about it. They've got a good club. They've done a great job scouting and drafting. Their attendance is up 4,500, but it's not enough. They can't make it in that ballpark. Have you been there?

Many times.
Do I need to tell you any more than that? And so, they need a new stadium. The demographics of the Tampa-St. Pete area are good enough for baseball.

On the St. Pete side, though?
Well, they're going to have to make that judgment. If they can get rights … I know there are people who think it needs to be on the Tampa side, but I'm going to leave that to (principal owner) Stu Sternberg. If they can get a new ballpark built, yes, I think they can be a very successful franchise.

- MARC TOPKIN

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig has only attended one game at Tropicana Field as far as anyone knows, and that was in June 2004, before all the improvements by the Stuart Sternberg-led ownership group.
But that didn't stop Selig from bashing the Trop, in his bid to push the importance of the new stadium, in an interview with ESPN's Howard Bryant, which is excerpted below. And the way Selig answered the St. Pete/Tampa question is interesting, especially since the Rays have a lease with St. Petersburg through 2027.

Tampa Bay has been the league's success story in the first half, but it has not translated to better attendance. What is your level of concern for the future of baseball in Tampa?
Look, they're really pushing on a new ballpark. I think if they can get it done, it will really help them, no question about it. They've got a good club. They've done a great job scouting and drafting. Their attendance is up 4,500, but it's not enough. They can't make it in that ballpark. Have you been there?

Many times.
Do I need to tell you any more than that? And so, they need a new stadium. The demographics of the Tampa-St. Pete area are good enough for baseball.

On the St. Pete side, though?
Well, they're going to have to make that judgment. If they can get rights … I know there are people who think it needs to be on the Tampa side, but I'm going to leave that to (principal owner) Stu Sternberg. If they can get a new ballpark built, yes, I think they can be a very successful franchise.

- MARC TOPKIN

Comments

[Sam]

The Rays are OK with this clown mouthing off like an idiot to ESPN? Great job, again...Rays.

It just gets more hilarious with each new story.

[The KOOK antidote]

The Commissioner is right of course. But maybe we should all just turn over our rights to participate in this decision to the likes of Sam or Don or John or whomever.

NOT!

[Rays Mike]

What is Selig saying that isn't incorrect? Would the Rays stay in St. Pete when their lease expires in 19 years if they can't get a new stadium built? Do we want to risk it and find out?

[John]

Rays Mike

Who said they can't get a new stadium built?

Just because this paticular deal will fail, all because of the Rays own mis-steps, how does that translate to you into they'll NEVER get a new stadium?

Are you REALLY paying attention here, or just posting knee-jerk reactions to other people's posts?

[Colorado Snowbird]

John, most who read these threads would conclude that Rays Mike is paying far better attention than you. No need to get personal either. Rays Mike has demonstrated time and again that he is paying attention. That he doesn't embrace every fantasy advanced by the organized opposition merely reflects his intelligence and independence, not a lack of attention.

[Rick K]

Colorado Snowbird is right about John. He's just an ANTI who hates everything, just like the rest of them. Rays Mike and Ray F are by far much more in-tune with how all the citizens want these paired redevelopment proposals at any cost.

Go Rays Mike!!

[Matthew]

Two points become evident:

The Rays are doing very well, therefore, the don't need a new stadium to win games.

Who ever said that a new stadium will bring more customers? Studies have shown that there is an initial honeymoon period, about a year or two, when curious people will go to a game or two just to see what's up. Then you'll be back to the usual crowd and a depressing, half filled stadium ( a la the World Series Winning Toronto Blue Jays) that has cost the City 450 million!

[Colorado Snowbird]

Matthew, we can believe you, if you think that is wise. Or, we can believe the Rays, who are in the business of increasing their revenues. The Rays ownership has access to marketing information that convinces them that this new stadium will increase attendance and revenues. You have not seen this data, so I think the wisest move would be to remain silent until you have seen this data. Otherwise you are asking us to ignore actual relevant market information in favor of vague generalities which may or may not apply in this case.

[Ray F]

See,

MLB is all but coming out and saying that this will affect whether St Pete gets to keep a professional baseball team.

Some of you may be OK with that, but I sure as hell am not.

BUILD IT!!!

...and just think about when you're daddy threatened you with the belt- you sure stopped what you were doing in a heartbeat even though dad really never actually slapped you...

[Demetrios]

Yes I agree totally with Colorado Snowbird. The Rays have all the answers.

Trust the Rays to do you no wrong. They want to help the citizens, not themselves.

These paired redevelopment proposals will do just that. Nobody will be out of work, it will never rain in St. Pete again, and we'll all not have to pay taxes once these paired redevelopment proposals are fully built out exactly as Archstone has said they would.

Trust the companies!!

[Thomas]

The Rays aren't going anywhere. The City Attorney already said the Trop Lease includes language that makes it enforceable by injunction.

If MLB and the Rays think they need a new stadium, they can cut a check and build one. Nothing is stopping them from paying their own tab.

[Colorado Snowbird]

Thomas is hilarious in supporting this assertion by a reporter that a City Attorney's opinion is the same as an absolutely true fact, while his cohorts previously refused to accept the professonal opinion of a City staffer about a 25 year old DEP case.

[Observer]

Colorado Snowbird is hilarous because he's Rick K posting under the name Colorado Snowbird because he lost all credebility and respect under his own name.

Don't forget about how these paired redevelopment proposals will cure cancer.

[The KOOK antidote]

The post by Obserever at 3:24 was made by an impostor pretending to be the real poster who uses the name Observer, in an attempt to deceive people.

[Thomas]

It's official. The Blog has gone mental.

[Ray F]

I agree Thomas.

Leave it up to a couple of retards to ruin what, so far, has been a fairly civil (sometimes heated) debate.

I won't even bother posting until everyone can revert to acting like they didn't fall down the evolutionary ladder.

[Colorado Snowbird]

I think the penalty for impersonating someone else on this blog should be a permanent ban from posting here. It would stop all this nonsense.

[Colorado Snowbird]

Colorado snowbird is neither a man, nor is she Rick K. All claims to the contrary are attempts to deceive people.

[The Idiots from Bay City Lumber]

BUHAA HAA HAA HAAA .... BUUU HAA HA HA HA HA HAAA!!!

[Add some cowbell]

Add some cowbell to that laugh, and you will REALLY have something.

[Tarpon Demetrios]

Aaron

As long as children are allowed to impersonate others, this blog has lost all credibility. I rarely participated but enjoyed reading the opinions of others, whether they were outrageous or not. To the PRO or ANTI who initiated and/or perpetuated this, mainly at the expense of my name, you have some serious self-esteem issues. I converesed with Thomas, Carnac and Get-smart(who claimed I was Rick K) and tried to show respect for their opinions. I am for this proposal but I understand that I could be wrong. Unfortnately the majority show hatred to those who's opinions differ from theirs.

Aaron, unless you can regulate and limit the use of posts, there is no reason to read this garbage! I'm done

[Tarpon Demetrios]

To clarify, Thomas and Carnac did not show hatred but others surely did. Get-Smart banished me to Tarpon but I'll get over it. I didn't want to be misunderstood. Now I'm done!

[Rays Mike]

Responding to John at 2:32 PM, The Bed Tax is the biggest source of public funding. If the TDC recommends against using Bed Tax funds for a new stadium now, why would they in 19 years? What would have changed? If this option is unacceptable, then plan B could be using property tax and/or a sales tax increase, and that would have even less of a chance of passing, IMO...

Repsonding to Matthew at 2:51 PM: Yes, the Rays are doing well now. But they do not have the revenue streams to resign these young players who are currently making below market-value because of the age and years of MLB service. The 30,000 crowds this week were great, but keep in mind that 50% of those fans were Chicago fans, and it was the perfect storm of the FIRST TIME EVER that the Cubs have played here, and the Cubs are in first place, and we are playing well. Now, if you want to argue that they all came from Chicago, then you will prove my argument that baseball is great for tourism.

[Bobby Fenton]

The shortsightedness of so many of you is appalling. All of these St. Pete people get so defensive about this stuff, and are now taking this opportunity to simply rip Tampa. While I think it's great that you are all so in love with your place over there, it's not so great that it isn't better off with a major league baseball team rather than without.

LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. The more I hear people saying things like, "We don't need the Rays anyway, we have beaches" etc., etc., the more I wonder about the citizenry of St. Pete and the less I wonder why you have the reputation you do. It's called progess, people.

I will be the first to admit that while Tampa's downtown has improved, it could use more improvement. I'm also smart enough to know that hypothetially, a BALLPARK WOULD HELP TO DO THAT. However, that isn't what's on the table here. A ballpark for St. Pete is.

Yes, we are one area and we should all work together, but I think that if you sre a citizen of St. Pete who really wants to see the city make "The Leap", then you are absolutely out of your mind not to want this.

I am not ripping St. Pete's downtown. I've heard it's nice. I never go there myself, except to, guess what, GO TO THE TROP (which as we all know isn't actually downtown but near it). I am not alone. Baseball brings people, and repeat after me slowly - PEOPLE - ARE - GOOD. Either way, though, don't tell me everything is so great that you're better off losing a major league franchise. That is incredibly dense and it is indicative of the same stuff we've heard so many malcontents in St. Pete spout so often over the years.

Good try ripping Tampa, guys, but you all know that isn't what this is about.

[To Bobby Fenton]

Your downtown is a disgusting, industrial port with a bunch of half-empty condo skyscapers. How's that Trump Tower coming along?

Our downtown, if you actually came to see it, is a beautiful stretch of waterfront parks and museums.

You see, we here in St. Pete actually cared enough to plan our downtown, unlike Tampa.

Currently the Trop and the downtown core are perfect neighbors. They co-exist peacefully. Yet they're close enough for Rays fans to easily intermingle in the downtown core before or after the game, without cannibalizing all the parking for the rest of us wishing to enjoy the downtown.

Personally, I think the Trop is the best location. The waterfront is off limits. We have no desire to look like downtown Tampa.

Perhaps you Tampons should worry more about your infrustructure, because currently I can't even drive on 90% of Tampa streets without fear of having the suspension torn from underneath my car, or getting caught in a storm and being stranded in South Tampa's notorious floodwaters.

[Rays Mike]

Why is Al Lang's parking lot off limits?

[Bobby Fenton]

^
:
:
:
:
:
:

You see up there? This is what I'm taking about. Tha is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. I'll repeat, I wasn't even riping downtown St. Pete. To be honest, I have been there before, and it isn't all that it's cracked up to be, but whatever, tha wasn't even my point. We just get more vitriol spewed forth by people like, um, o wait he didn't sign his name.

Anyway, everything I said still stands. People are entitled to vote on whatever their vision is for St. Pete. If yours is of a quieter place that's fine how it is now, then fine.

But it should not come at the expense of holding back our baseball team. If you can't see that:

1) They need a new stadium

and

2) Like it or not, they are going to be playing somewhere else ten years from now, in St. Pete, Tampa, or otherwise...

then you're just shortsighted. If St. Pete doesn't want this, let them go. Trying to stamp your feet and demanding they stay at te Trop until 2027 or whatever is asinine.

And if you think any of us in Tampa would ever trade places with St. Pete in a million years you're out of yor minds. I don't like the way the port looks either. The problem is, we actually have a major port. What are you gnna do? I guess it's too bad we're not more like St. Pete with an airport for 15 cessnas a day to take off and land at.

[Bobby Fenton]

Quote from guy who didnt sign his name:

"Currently the Trop and the downtown core are perfect neighbors. They co-exist peacefully. Yet they're close enough for Rays fans to easily intermingle in the downtown core before or after the game, without cannibalizing all the parking for the rest of us wishing to enjoy the downtown."

Aside from Ferg's, downtown St. Pete sees almost nothing from Rays games. They don't "coexist peacefully" except in that neither creates much for the other. I'm calling bull on that statement. The parking issue is a dead issue, there is so much more of it than the naysayers lead people to believe. And I will say it again, yeah, it'd be more crowded, but everybody with me now...PEOPLE...ARE...GOOD.

I can't stand this indecision married with a lack of vision, to quote Tears For Fears.

[To Bobby Fenton]

Oh you mean the airport that has become a cornerstone for what is fast becoming a world-famous stop on the Grand Prix circuit? We're being called "The Monaco" of the US by folks from Europe, quoted on ESPN during the race.

Or did you mean the St. Pete Airfest, where you can actually watch an air show with a beer, rather than being strip-searched at MacDill to watch theirs?

Personally, you can HAVE the Rays and their giant igloo-not-so-cooler. It will look great crammed in between a rusty dry-docked phosphate tanker and the aquarium!! You might even get that guy living alone in a 20 story empty condo tower on channelside some neighbors (see related Times story).

Stop wasting your time here and call your mayor and tell her to fix your damn streets and flooding problems!!!

[Rays Mike]

So you would rather have ONE weekend a year for an event that is not even contractually bound to St. Pete past 2010 than 81 dates of a bustling downtown (hopefully more with the playoffs and World Series?)

[To Rays Mike]

We have that already....why the need to spend half a billion to move it 16 blocks and screw up everything else? Because Bud Selig said so?? HAHAHAHAHA!!

[Bobby Fenton]

Rays Mike, it's completely futile to try and help these people to see. The Rays either didn't realize how shortsighted and stubborn most of these people in the electorate are, or they dd know it, and this is just step one of a larger overall plan.

[Rays Mike]

Ferg's is not downtown....

[Lou]

I invite Bud Selig to come to St. Pete July 4th for the home game against KC.

The only catch, he needs to drive into downtown and find a place to park as if he were going to a sold-out waterfront ballpark and walk to the Trop, which is the same distance the Rays parking plan offers, only in reverse.

And Aaron is to follow him and interview/photograph him from beginning to end.

[Jon McPhee]

Selig drains the same blood the Rays owners are hoping to extract from Pinellas County. Ask the folks in Wisconsin. Nothing he has to say on this subject is worthy of any attention except maybe as a gag item on Letterman.

One of the Pros said the Rays owners are trying to maximize revenue. Say what? Looks to a lot of people that they are trying to maximize the selling price of an asset made up of "good will," which they are well on the way to destroying by their gluttony, and the talents of their "boys of summer." And, of course, by a "free stadium."

While you anti-decency types are whining how you gotta have a stadium and right now! And all you other people pay for it!, how about those San Francisco Giants, and the incontrovertible facts that the public told the owners to buy their own d--m stadium if they wanted one so bad, which real businessmen (not well-timed-sellout investment bankers) actually went and did, and look! They're still there in San Francisco, having been told to go scratch by two other communities that weren't interested in a big subsidy for the crack-of-the-bat boys, and are actually making a nice buck for themselves. Not, of course, as much as the Rays owners would like to skim off the general wealth of the Peninsula by having us pump up their leverage in the Rays asset with a ton of public money.

And guess what? The Giants organization found a BETTER place on Frisco Bay that actually worked for the community.

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

Bobby Fenton:

Good work. Your posts contain a well enunciated set of opinions, with no outlandish presentation of "false facts." You clearly state what you believe without feel the need to shore up your post with bogus "facts."

From my perspective, You are a model poster, sir.

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

As to Jon Mc Phee's post:

The objective here is not for the Rays to find the stadium which is best for the team. It would be possible for the team to participate in the development of another stadium at another location, either using private monies or using a combination of private monies and tax subsidies from another government.

THAT isn't what is on the table, however.

What is on the table is an unprecedented public-private partnership for a DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT stadium, which will not only improve the Ray's stadium situation, but will also solve OTHER problems downtown.

Problems that the citizens of St. Pete should be allowed to vote upon.

Just because YOU don't see the problems or don't want to solve them does not mean the rest of us should be denied our rights.

[Rays Mike]

And do you wonder WHY there hasn't been a privately funded stadium since Pac Bell Park was built? Even if the Giants get to keep ALL of the revenues generated at the park, baseball and otherwise?

And for the THOUSANDTH time, please give me one shread of evidence that the ownership group will dump the team as soon as the stadium is built.

What evidence can I give you that the new Rays ownership led by Stu Sternberg has been the model when it comes to being a community partner since taking over ownership in 2005? They have delivered on every promise they have made to our community.

Several examples of what they have done right:

1. The ownership group invested $20M into upgrades to Tropicana Field.

2. They have been very involved in the community through the Rays Baseball Foundation, contributing three grant programs in 2008. This puts dollars directly back into our community, with the most recent example this week of renovating the baseball fields at Azalea Little League.

3. They offered free parking for 2 years (unprecedented in all of professional sports) and allow fans to bring their own snacks/drinks into games.

4. Last year, by opening up concessions stands to volunteer groups to run and administer during games, these organizations were able to generate close to 1 Million dollars in raised funds to help their causes.

5. They have the Rays Community Corner at ballgames to help raise awareness for various non-profit community groups.

6. They said that payroll would increase to put a competitive product on the field. It increased in 2008 from $23M to $42M. The result: one of the best teams in all of Major League baseball and giving St. Petersburg their first ever pennant chase.

7. Investing $150M of their own money into the proposed new waterfront ballpark.

As well respected St. Petersburg Times columnist Bill Maxwell said in a recent article, the Rays have been a "good and trusted corporate citizen." http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/article529856.ece

But, no... Keep calling them carbetbaggers and prove your ignorance..

[The Real Rick K]

Building on what Rays Mike posted at 7:45 PM.

(For the record: To my knowledge, Rays Mike and I have not met, nor have we corresponded away from these forums. I find his posts to be calm and rational and well reasoned)

One of the more interesting contradictions about the ANTI's arguments on this blog has been the way they embrace a third party "expert" when it suits their purposes, and discard the same expert when they don't like what he has to say.

A case in point which is relevant here is the "hero" of the academic economists who belong to the small school of devout believers in the notion that public investmen in sports stadiums do not produce net positive ecoonomic benefits for their regions.

The hero and most famous of all the "anti-subsidy" economists is Andrew Zimbalist. Zimbalist's anti-stadium subsidy writings are the cornerstone of all anti-subsidy writings. Virtually every single study or article that the ANTI's link to about stadium financing is either work done by Zimbalist, or work which credits Zimbalist's earlier work and tries to build on it.

Zimbalist is "the man" when it comes to providing academic backing to the claim that public subsidy of sports stadiums is a losing proposition.

The ANTI's love to quote Zimbalist and all who build on Zimbalist's work.

INTERESTINGLY, Zimbalist wrote a book a few years ago called "May the Best Team Win: Baseball Economics and Public Policy." (2004 Brookings Institution Press).

Now, while I happen to believe the overwhelming majority of Zimbalists' work is crap, it is interesting that the ANTI's who post on this site race to discard Zimbalist's advice.

In the 2004 book, (which I recommend for anyone interested in baseball, business or economics) Zimbalist argues for a whole host of "improvements" to the way Major League Baseball's teams conduct their business.

Among the improvements Zimbalist recommends:

- Attempting to reach younger fans
- Attempting to market American baseball internationally
- Letting fans come onto the field after games
- Increasing "family" amenities and pricing plans to attract greater family participation
- Attempting to lower the costs of the ballpark experience (such as by reducing parking fees and letting fans bring in water and peanuts and so on)
- Increasing team giving to charity
- Sending players and team representatives out into the community to become more visibly involved in charities
- Being more open and honest about their business objectives
- Increasing teams' financial participation in new stadium deals
- Finding ways to build stadiums that do not rely almost exclusively upon new taxes upon local citizens
- Marketing teams more regionally

You may notice that all of the above list (which does not represent all of the ideas Zimbalist has to offer, by any means) are things the Rays have done or currently are doing....

So, if Zimbalist is an expert to whom we should look for advice.... The Rays are doing far more than most of the "bad citizen" teams that Zimbalist takes to task.

What anyone who thinks Zimbalist is "THE MAN" ought to be doing is holding the Rays up as an example of the model baseball franchise.

[Kevin Crawmer]

I know Bud Selig personally and he will be endorsing the campaign to move the dome to the curent home of Al Lang. It's the only logical choice.

[The Real Rick K]

to the 8:21 pm poster.

There is nothing logical in that choice. In fact, it is not even possible and in no way desirable. Why must you post these childish diversions here?

[Jon McPhee]

Rick K, real or unreal, you are the one pushing to deny people their rights.

You say "that's the deal that's on the table."

BS.

As should be increasingly apparent, every piece of this end-run-around-comprehensive-planning is open to negotiation, if only the folks who we elected to represent us have the smarts and cojones to man up to it.

You continue to shill for the "original deal" as if it is some Second Coming. The Chosen People (Archstone?) have made it very clear that the "paired development" is not only very contingent, it is also likely to look nothing like the pretty pictures with the pristine ponds and little stream, and maybe only part of what is supposed to "pay for the stadium" will ever get built.

Being willing to say "No!" and walk away from the table is pretty much part of every negotiator's tool set, and being smart enough to know when to do so ought to be too.

Spare us the crap about "unprecedented public-private partnership." This is a Ben Dover deal as presented, and how many times does the "$150 million of their own money" have to be debunked?

The reason why other private-pay parks (of the very few in motion since the 2000 completion of the Giants' field) have not been built is that rollovers like you folks run the city and even state governments that have been suckered by the blather of people like the Godlike Commissioner Selig.

It seems you may be getting the idea that the people you wanted to "vote" on this issue (who don't actually get to vote NO on the whole darn thing, of course) are ready, willing and able to say "Screw You" to the Rays owners on their waterfront grab. They don't really get a say at all on what our Council and Commission and municipal staffs and executives "negotiate." I expect you maybe have walked a bit away from the "Let Us Vote" crap you used to put out anyway -- the few signs I used to see with the blue "Let Us Vote" have all been replaced with "Let's Build the Ballpark." Stay on message, like Gary Grooms taught you, okay?

Your examples of "good corporate citizenship" by the Rays are a joke. A lot like letting the peons eat the crumbs that fall from the royal table. It's such transparent pander-marketing it is to laugh.

But once again, this is a waste of bile -- you people will persist in your assumed air of superiority and arrogance and phony self-righteousness 'til the cows come home, secure in the knowledge that you may get what you want by getting people who can't really afford it, to pay for it.

Come on, boys -- let's see what kind of stuff you got! See if you can burn a few really good snot-balls over the inside corner!

Faugh.

[Rays Mike]

Thank you, Rick. I am actually considering ending my posting on here, because I feel like I am arguing with the same 3 people over and over again, as opposed to trying to convince those who are on the fence and need information on what decision to make on Election Day. The big picture here is NOT to prove the ANTI's are wrong or liars, but to state my case on what I think is best for St. Petersburg, and what is best for the Rays, based on personal observations of other cities successes. You can't put a price tag on civic pride, and I know from experience what a championship team can do to the morale of a community. But that is my opinion. Jesus Christ... We have been waiting 10 years for the Rays to be competitive, let alone in contention, and yet each day I suck myself into arguing the same arguments with the Johns and Trulys and 62s, who I all honestly think love this city and want to do what they think is right. My biggest wish is that the Rays ownership is given at least 1% benefit of the doubt, as yes, they hasn't played the political game smooth as they could have, but the evidence of what they have done since they took over deserves at least an open mind with regard to their intentions, and not the instant assumption of ulterior motives..

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Well Jon there is hope that the people elected to represent will yet do their job. Leslie was great today...the TDC will have their turn and I include this letter to the TDC for the man most people feel will be the next Mayor of St. Petersburg. If nothing else...those who understand the politics behind this entire scam have to give Bill Foster credit for having the "cojones" as you refer to them Jon..for daring to attempt a solution,thereby putting love of his city ahead of his political ambition...I can't wait to see how the Times rips him for this...the Phil Gailey bile should be truly entertaining.. As a former councilman and former member of the TDC Bill Foster sent this letter...
June 18, 2008
The Honorable Robert B. Stewart
Chairman - Board of County Commissioners
315 Court Street
Clearwater, Florida 33756

Re: Waterfront stadium proposal

Greetings:

After reading a great newspaper article by John Romano, and coupled with the comments of Stuart Sternberg and Bud Selig, the time has indeed come to address the elephant in the room. Without a new stadium, the Tampa Bay Rays will leave St. Petersburg, and our City’s one hundred year history with major league baseball will be just that - history.

Last night, I witnessed our beloved Rays defeat the best team in baseball, and while driving home, passing yard signs and billboards, I was brought back to earth by this constant reminder of the polarizing issue facing the community, and a thought came to mind. Why do we have to choose between our affinity for waterfront land and baseball? Why isn’t Plan B on the table for discussion? City / County leaders and newspaper writers have danced around Plan B for the past few weeks, and yet no one is willing to put anything on the table for public discussion. The time has come for a reality check, and for us to make certain admissions which are obvious - thus, Plan B.

You begin with the recognition that the Rays and MLB are significant economic partners with St. Petersburg and Pinellas County, and you realize that the Trop has a shelf life. It wasn’t designed to last forever, and our partners require a new house to remain economically competitive. Says Mr. Sternberg "I know we have to be here at least five years, and I know we can't be here for 20". Next comes the acceptance that the stadium proposal as it exists, in all likelihood, will not pass muster with the citizens of St. Petersburg or Pinellas County. The risk of failure, to the City, to the County, to the Rays, is simply too great, and alienating the most important partner of all - the citizens of St. Petersburg and Pinellas, is not the answer. The Rays have a great many fans, champions and supporters, and we would love to come to their aid, but not this, and not now.

In Plan B, the Rays, either voluntarily or through the appropriate vote by the County, pull their plans for a new “waterfront” stadium. The City and County assemble a task force consisting of the best and brightest from all stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Rays, City, County, CVB, city
June 18, 2008
Page Two

and regional Chambers, Downtown Partnership, neighborhood leaders, hotel planners, etc., with one mission: to design, locate and fund a baseball facility with a multi-use component benefitting the Rays and Pinellas community with economic benefits to all partners, and with minimal tax implications on the citizenry.

Plan B is all about timing, funding, design and location - not in a New York minute, but at a pace conducive to today’s market and environment. Plan B allows the community a moment to breath, and to appreciate the Rays current successes on the field as we roll up our sleeves to begin work as true partners to resolve some of the challenges on all sides. This will certainly work within the original time frame proposed by Mr. Sternberg, and will ensure that neither side, with the exception of the Ray’s fascination with “waterfront”, will be required to make unpalatable concessions. Issues over size, compatibility, parking, transportation, environment, heat, location, tourism, the Arts, etc., become a thing of the past. The Rays could have their offices on site in a multi-use facility geared for baseball, which site could accommodate the private development of convention and hotel facilities. Not only could we get an All Star game, but we could be back in the market for a Final Four or concert tours, and actually compete for events now housed at an ever aging Forum in a sister city. Rolling back the proposed timetable five to eight years allows us to pay off our existing debt, and gives the partners greater funding opportunities in an improving economy with less impact on the taxpayers. This renewed partnership will demonstrate that we are all in this with a common goal, and this process in the sunshine will enhance the buy-in required for all citizens.

This is Pinellas County, and we are a little more thoughtful when it comes to the preservation of our unique assets and quality of life, and moving at a “Pinellas pace” has served this community well. The lack of support for a waterfront stadium is not an indictment of our love affair with baseball or the Rays - it’s just this plan - this location - this timing. There’s no rush. Remember, it took the Rays eleven years to build a winning franchise.

Attached hereto is a sample Resolution for consideration by the TDC. I am no Resolution writer, but perhaps you get the gist, and will consider a few points worthy for discussion.

Please consider this in your deliberations, and if you have any questions, then please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,



DWF:wh Bill Foster
Enclosure
cc. Board of County Commissioners
Members Tourist Development Council




________________________________________________________________________________________



RESOLUTION OF THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
D/B/A ST. PETERSBURG CLEARWATER CONVENTION
AND VISITORS BUREAU
______________________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, the Tampa Bay Rays and Major League Baseball are significant partners with the City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, and Tourist Development Council, and play an important role in the economic benefits to all partners; and

WHEREAS, all partners have made significant investments in the development of the multi use domed facility known as Tropicana Field, which has played host to the Rays, Lightening, Storm, NCAA Regional and Final Four tournaments, concerts, conventions, home and boat shows, and a myriad of other events which benefitted the Rays, Pinellas community and tourism; and

WHEREAS, while the Rays are contractually obligated remain and maintain the Tropicana site through the year 2027, we acknowledge that in all likelihood, a new multi-use stadium facility
should be considered prior to and in anticipation of the expiration of the present agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Rays have requested that all partners begin this process,

NOW THEREFORE, we, the Tourist Development Council, d/b/a St. Petersburg/Clearwater Convention and Visitors Bureau, do hereby resolve:

1. Recommendation that the Pinellas County Board of County Commission and the City of St. Petersburg, assemble a task force consisting of stakeholders involved in and impacted by the stadium issue, including, but not limited to, the Rays, representatives from Pinellas County, St. Petersburg, CVB, city and regional Chambers, neighborhood and business communities, etc., with one mission: to design, locate and fund a baseball facility with a multi-use component benefitting tourism, the Rays and Pinellas community with economic benefits to all partners, and with minimal tax implications on the citizenry.

2. The facility must be a multi-use domed or retractable roofed facility tailored for baseball, which facility could accommodate other events benefitting the community and tourism, and compete as a concert and convention venue, and further, the surrounding site must be able to accommodate the private development of convention and hotel facilities.

3. In light of the significant contributions by the citizens of St. Petersburg and Pinellas community, past, present and future, it is requested that the name of the team be changed to reflect the home of the Rays, which said name change, we believe would be of significant marketing benefit to tourism and add value to the communities commitment to the Rays and Major League Baseball.

APPROVED this ________ day of ________________________, 2008.



__________________________________________
Chairman

[get-smart]

RRRick K., Tarpon Demetrios, Rays Mike, Colorado Snowbird and Sybil

Coming to a niche theater near you.

Your Front Row Seats are Reserved.
Make sure you order extra butter on the popcorn.
I will come-in-hand_y!

Now sing-a-long ...

Let's do the time warp again!
It's just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right
With your hands on your hips
You bring your knees in tight
But it's the pelvic thrust that really drives you insane,
Let's do the Time Warp again!

Cheers!

[Rays Mike]

Why hasn't there been another privtely financed stadium?

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/25729

[Rays Mike]

"The way we've done things has worked for us here in San Francisco," Peter Magowan said. "We financed it this way because we had no other choice. And we have never said this was the right way in Minnesota or Miami or Detroit. We hit the economy right. I don't think we could've done it today. So in no way do I say we have a new recipe for somebody else."

[Rays Mike]

I think it is a great idea as a Plan B -I just think the Al Lang site is a better Plan A.

[The Real Rick K]

Rays Mike, I know what you mean.

So often these threads denigrate to the very same spittle battles, or much worse. Lately people make them about personal attacks or impostors posting as others, or whatever.

Like you, I hang in here because I get the sense that someone who hasn't yet made up his or her mind will stumble across these forums for the first time, and I don't want that person to discover only unchallenged fabrications and distortions by the ANTI posters.

Unlike you, I am not as charitable in my assesment or handling of the ANTI's. I find most of them to be openly dishonest and NOT determined to have the citizens of ST Pete vote. Most of them want there to be NO VOTE.

They will try ANYTHING to achieve their victory. Part of that is trying to drive people like you from these forums.

If I was confident that people like you and Ray and Bobby Benton would be here countering their sludge, I would go away entirely, because they have made me into a mythical ANTI-Beast against the ANTI-side. They spin it as though they (with their coordinated points and ceaseless multi-pronged attacks) are little peons battling some huge Goliath (in the form, alternatively, of jewish carpetbaggers from New York, or me, about whom they have written about 50 false claims for each irrelevant true one).

Bottom line: The ANTI's who post here are not posting here out of love for the City. They are posting here with the specific aim of denying the citizens of St. Pete of their right to a fair full election on the question.

They don't want an election. And if there is going to be an election, they sure as heck don't want people voting based on the truth.

They will try to achieve their immoral victory by any means avaiable.

This approach to disenfranchise the citizens of St. Pete infuriates me. So I will stay in the battle.

It would be great for the people if folks like you stayed in, also, and did what you can.

Even if you do decide to leave, you should do so knowing that your contributions here have not been wasted.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

Again I ask you...if we vote and crush it..is it finally over...or do we have to put up with your BS forever? The Times
68-19...the last public hearing..opponents 400...pros 200 including literally dozens who were brought in from out of town by the Rays.
These people cannot not vote and so while they kept it to a simple 2-1 at the hearing they won't help your vote Rick. We WANT TO VOTE BROTHER..BRING IT ON!!!

[Rays Mike]

When was that 68-19 poll taken?

[Jon McPhee]

No, no, Rick -- you have it wrong again. The citizens of St. Pete, the only ones who actually get to vote, want to VOTE NO on the one little piece of this "paired development" that they have any actual democratic say over...

Whereas people like you hope that the Ed Strongarms and "Music Man" Bakers of the world can pull a rabbit out of an orifice and "Give you, give you, give you what you cry for..."

Re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-peating your lies does not make them into truth. You ought to know immorality -- you apparently live with it every day, from what and the way you write.

You sad case -- this is a "battle" only in your and a few other "pros" minds. Like the idiots that say "we're" on the verge of "victory" in Iraq, and have no idea how to define what victory looks like there.

There may be an opportunity for growth on the Pinellas Peninsula that doesn't run into one corollary of the Paradox of the Aggregate, that once enough people have moved to a desirable area it's no longer desirable. But sucking a cool billion out of the public's pockets (What's that? A Thousand Bucks for every man, woman and child?) for a single-purpose structure that riles (one way or another) everyone that confronts it ain't it, especially when all that does is enrich a few carpetbaggers who have no loyalty or interest in this area but the profit they can make off selling the team someday.

And the Rays, the young men on the field, are the team, and we should be proud of their (very well compensated) play. The "team" is not the bean-counters and fiscal schemers in the offices those same folks are trying to replace with a $10 million taxpayer-funded new "executive mansion."

[get-smart]

So Rays Mike, does that mean you won't be at the new "Niche Theater." We have a seat reserved for you. We will be singing the 'Time Warp' together. It will be a blast.

-----------
[doctor's note] I don't think RRRick K can suppress Rays Mike more than 36 hours. The personality is well formed and has established auditory communications with him.

[Rays Mike]

I think that the ANTI's just endorsed a Plan B, in which they can potentially end up spending MORE public money on a MORE expensive retractable-roof stadium ... Talk about a rush job. The Rays plan has been studied for 7 months, deemed "shoved down our throats", and the ANTI's are calling for Plan B yard signs 10 minutes after reading the proposal....

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K.

By and large I have respected your attempt at spinning and distorting. You now choose to quote Zimbalist just a week after I provided a hyperlink to a New York Times OpEd piece written by this very same Zimbalist. He simply pointed out Bud Selig's ACTUAL record with the Milwaukee Brewers and how despised Selig is in his own hometown for scamming his fellow residents. And now of course Selig is making his same BS arguments here for the Rays. At that time you replied without EVER REFUTING the facts Zimbalist used, that what would you expect it was Zimbalist who has no credibility at all. So which is it Rick K. Is this called situational credibility? Kind of like situational ethics?
But aside from that your entire rant is just patently incorrect. Yes Zimbalist is certainly one of the most famous anti-stadium economists and he is widely quoted. However to state.."Zimbalist is "the man" when it comes to providing academic backing to the claim that public subsidy of sports stadiums is a losing proposition." is simply your opinion and not necessarily shared by everyone else. Many including Ralph Nader who used to be the man for consumer protection prefer the work of Robert Baade of Lake Forest College in Illinois who conducted a 30 year study. Others would refer you to Joseph Bast of the non profit Heartland Institute, and other might like the research from the conservative Cato Institute..or perhaps The Brookings Institution a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations. Personally I am like the Council of Neighborhood Associations and lean to the work of the Holy Cross Economics Dept study because it specifically studied this subject from 1980-2004 in our own state of Florida.
But Rick your desperation is truly beginning to show...the developers have admitted to the Times that they are "shooting for the stars"..Kalt's baby in New York..the new Yankee stadium is rapidly becoming Kalt's folly with mind boggling cost overruns both in stadium and infrastructure costs..and you Rick K are now reduced to the ad hominem attack of somebody is out to disenfrancise the voters. Rick I used to respect you and I'm sure you could give a rat's behind about my opinion...but man you have descended into the pathetic..I do not dislike you..I truly feel sorry for you.

[Jon McPhee]

And we should all be convinced by a comment by Peter Magowan, a good on-message MLB franchise owner like Selig, that "the market was right" for that-there privately funded Giants stadium.

He had his efforts to sucker the San Franciscans shoved in his face TWICE by actual referendum votes that were styled in a way that let the public actually say NO! (unlike the namby-pamby Al Lang referendum we MAY get to vote on.) And then when he tried the scam in San Jose and Santa Clara, he got the bum's rush in those "markets" too.

All of those communities are considerably richer than the Pinellas Peninsula, and could probably have afforded to do a subsidy if they thought it advisable. Why is it the least bit attractive to argue that our demonstrably smaller and on average less-well-to-do community ought to swallow the "we'll leave if we don't get what we want" MLB bait and commit every man, woman and child to pony up what? A thousand bucks apiece to give not the "team," but the franchise owners, a freebie asset?

Especially if people who on average are a lot more business-savvy and wealthier than here say NO WAY to a franchise owner's subsidy demand?

And is this guy or is he not making a bundle off his new PRIVATELY-
FUNDED digs? How F'in much is "enough?"

Not sure how it is now, but I want to a lot of Mariners games in the demolished Dome there (before the billion-dollar sliding-roof thing they have now) and the team and the sportscasters used to call the crowd noise in that dome "the 10th man on the field." I hear those sounds in our own unamortized and still debt-laden dome now.

[Rick K about the loony ANIT movement]

Y'all have gone round the bend.

Y'all ANTI's I mean.

A Truly Concerned, I might be mistaken, but I believe I have offered several critiques of Zimbalist, including that pathetic op-ed piece in the New York Times which has been proven to be wrong, even as it is built on false premises.

I have never waiverd on Zimbalist, nor any of the other committed anti-stadium zealots. Unlike the ANTI's and most everyone who posts here, I have actually read the stuff you guys linked to. Before you linked to it. I read Zimbalist's stuff as it has come out over the years. I just reread "May the Best Team Win" over the weekend.

I've also read Humphreys stuff. And I've read Ross, Weiler, Noll, Roberts, Szymanski, Siegfried, Sanderson, Marburger, Wetzler, Kaufman, Sommers, Baade, and most everything on this topic put out by the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Freedom Foundation, and a dozen other think tanks and institutes.

I also read the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Quaterly Journal of Economics, Review of Economic Studies, Journal of Political Economy, World Bank Economic Review, Statistical Science, Journal of Law and Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, the Economist, Econometrica, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Economic Inquiry, Regulation, Journal of Urban Economics, Arena Digest, Ballpark Digest, Urban Affairs review, and loads of other journals whenever I get a tip that someone I know or am interested in has been published.

I know USF's Phil Porter and many of the guys at the Sports Economist. I've read their papers. Seen their talks. Seen them defend their theories and conclusions.

I have read their books, as well as the serious criticisms of their work.

So, A Truly Concerned, when I choose to quote Zimbalist to demonstrate the speed with which the ANTI's here abandon him when he says something that paints the Rays in a favorable light, I do not do this from ignorance. I do this from knowledge. I can qoute Zimbalist chapter and verse.

I know where the weaknesses in his work lie (even though this is not that hard for a layman to figure out, just start reading his work and the deficiencies will leap off the page).

Truly Concerned, you don't know that much about Sports Economics. If you did, you would stop parroting the ridiculously absurd lie that these fringe players represent the dominant mainstream in urban economics when it comes to the area of stadium development.

You mention the State of Florida, which is interesting. There have been several court cases in Florida centered around public financing of sports facilities. The Florida Supreme Court has weighed in on several cases. Each time, they have had the views of Zimbalist or his minions in the record, ALONG with testimony from economic experts who hold PRECISELY the OPPOSITE view.

And EVERY TIME the Court has examined the FACTS, they have concluded that the Zimbalist school is not credible. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled, again and again, that their is no question that public investment in sports facilities produce NET POSITIVE ECONOMIC BENEFITS. (Ditto for Super Bowls).

So, you see, ANTI's. Anyone can say anything. But when impartial arbiters examine the competing claims of the two opposite schools of thought, they nearly always determine that the ANTI's are full of crap!

That is relevant.

That is important.

Not 200 links to studies by the same 25 people who all reach conclusions that Courts all over the fruited plain toss out as junk science.

So PLEASE. Stop trying to FOOL people. It's okay to point out that there are economists on your side. But it is not okay to lie and pretend that the guys on your side are widely viewed as being on the right side of the facts. They aren't.

[Anothertrulyconcerned citizen]

Bill Foster, I applaud and support your ideas for a "Plan B". Frankly, it brings this entire discussion back to Earth.

You speak for me, and my family. I am a Rays fan and want them here for generations to come for my grandchildren to enjoy and become fans. I want the Rays to be part of the fabric of this community, forever.

But not there, and not yet.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

Good try but again you fail. "but I believe I have offered several critiques of Zimbalist, including that pathetic op-ed piece in the New York Times which has been proven to be wrong, even as it is built on false premises. Actually Rick there are FACTS in that piece that are a matter of public record. You are amazingly well read sir..does that K stand for Kalt.
Because then you would be able to spin some more and explain why a 135 million projection for park replacement and infrastructure ballooned to 242 million. Or perhaps why the Yankees had to come back last week and ask for another 350 million in bonds. That's real accuracy for you!!!
But Rick you avoid the real question..the basis of your continuing ad hominem attacks about "disenfranchsing" the voters. I give you plenty of credit and you've trained Kenny and the boys well...no matter what...no matter how absurd the deal appears...make sure you STAY ON MESSAGE...LET US VOTE. And I say we can finally agree on something. Rick simply state for the record that if this gets defeated by the VOTERS in November you agree that our waterfront should never again be challenged by you or the Rays. Simply say that we can protect our waterfront or you get you stadium...one or the other...not years of endless attempts and we will have finally reached agreement. LET US VOTE!!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

PS Rick...forgive me if I give people like Ralph Nader...the Holy Cross Economics Department..Cato Institute..Brookings Institute...all more credibility than you. And since you are so up on court cases I'm sure you're fascinated by the Sonics attempt to leave Seattle in which they filed a brief that claimed they represented NO EOCONOMIC BENEFIT to Seattle and therefore leaving would cause no harm. Simply another example of a team saying one thing on the way in...and quite another on the way out.

[Rick K to Truly Concerned]

A Truly Concerned, I think you miss something that is rather obvious to many others about my efforts in these blogs.

My aim is not to persaude you of anything. Anyone who believes the Zimbalist school of thinking is a fool, and unworthy of my efforts to change their minds. Most thinking people can't read more than a few hundred words of Zimbalists without hearing all sorts of alarm bells going off. All these anti-stadium diatribes and thesis suffer from the same problems. They either use holey logic, or they self select improper data to support conclusions.

My posts here aren't to convince those of you who are committed to the ANTI cause of anything.

However, I will, as I have, continue to let everyone know what is wrong with the Zimbalist approach to these questions. In the six weeks I have been posting here, I've received a number of inquiries from people wishing to see for themselves. I have responded with suggested readings and provided other support.

That activity suits me just fine.

I do not aim to convince the unpersuadable.

I aim to serve the truth.

storagegump@yahoo.com

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

Wow...I always wanted to know what you look like and so I just went to the dictionary and found your picture under "supercilious". I suspect I could have also found it under arrogant...obnoxious..afraid..
You describe anyone who dares to disagree with you as a "fool" and state unequivocally that your points are fact.
While I realize this is a blog and encourages some to disemble, resort to name calling, and ad hominmen attacks...how about an attempt to crawl out of the mud Rick K. and try and find your way back to the high road. I'm not certain how your parents raised you to be so incredibly ARROGANT and act literally like some ruler...perhaps the Pharoah. Pharoah Rick...so it is written.so it is said..so shall it be.
Forgive the rest of us mere mortals who are unable to grasp your perfection and infinite wisdom.

[Rick K]

A TRULY CONCERNED, you aren't paying attention if you think I call everyone who disagrees with me a fool. I also do not call my opinions fact. I also attack arguments and claims here, more so than people.

That you see otherwise tells us a lot about you. I am amused by your post at 9:19, because the ANTI's on this site drip with Arrogance. In fact, it is worse here than anywhere. They repeatedly offer ridiculous arguments which would be disallowed in a court of law, relegated to the fringes in civilized discourse, or booed down in gatherings of impartial people. This format gives these conversational thugs a false sense of superiority.

The ANTI's get together with whatever the scheme of the day is (to deceive people or distract them) and they feel emboldened by seeing their own words in print, as if this confers some form of legitimacy upon them and reaffirms their plan to try to trick the people.

As long as they keep doing that, and while I still have the time and interest, I will try to disrupt their nefarious schemes.

Your distorted perception of yet one more reality will not do much to me, really. But I imagine you are entitlted to pick up a special POWW badge or something.

[since1962]

Truly
Rick disputes the fact that the BEACHES (not the rays) are #1 tourist attractor in Pinellas County.
#1 Rated Beach in the WORLD RIGHT HERE RICK.

WE must protect OUR BEACH BASED ECONOMY and sever these "paired" proposals overwhelmingly in NOV.

SUPPORT BLAN B

[Jon McPhee]

It just occurred to me that maybe DNA Rick is actually a closet member of POWW, a sly KOOK masquerade-posting with all the silliness and arrogance and nonsense, just to activate the anti-subsidy crowd, and confirm them in their opposition to gifting public assets and a thousand bucks from every man, woman and child in Pinellas County to a few, possibly-on-the-way-to-jail, sub-prime-security-creating franchise owners. And a developer that will, after getting half a cow for the price of one hoof, be guided by "visions" and "market forces in the future" in the what and when of their "development."

Way To Go, Rick!

[gene]

This is sad. Do you people have nothing better to do than post note after note on the blog. Get a life!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick..Rick..Pharoah Rick,

Read your 9:44 post again an absolutely excellent example of an ad hominem ( 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made) attack. I realize you must be either financially or emotionally or perhaps both connected to the Rays position. But truly for a man of substantial intelligence you are beginning to embarrass yourself. I'm still waiting to find out if it is scurrilous, libelous, or whatever opinated term you wish to apply for concerned citizens to report about Kalt's folly. Yes you can say I should refrain from the word folly perhaps...but really Rick..is it not simply smart business for an investor (we citizens) to be concerned by the fact that a salesman (Mr Kalt) has been so incredibly wrong in his last two projects. Is that really a sky is falling approach or simply a rational concern that if this guy was soooooo wrong before should we not consider at least the POSSIBILITY that he might be wrong again. Is it sooo terrible to say that his huge mistakes cause LEGITIMATE concern and before we invest a half billion we'd like a little more information. Once again Pharoah Rick...POWW'S position is...has always been...let us have AN INFORMED VOTE.

[John]

Take my advice and just ignore Rick and all his dozens of fake names.

He's not interested in a civil debate. He's interested solely in talking in circles to distract everyone from the Hindenburg that's about to crash and burn.

Ignore him, and maybe he'll change his ways, or simply go away.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick...

Perhaps John is correct and you are not interested in civil discourse. I sent the definition of Ad Hominem with my post and I took a couple of years of Latin in high school so perhaps I know a little about latin..although admittedly I have forgotten much.
Now let's get down to brass tacks. Here is a sample of what is Ad Hominem in your attacks..
"They repeatedly offer ridiculous arguments which would be disallowed in a court of law, relegated to the fringes in civilized discourse, or booed down in gatherings of impartial people. This format gives these conversational thugs a false sense of superiority.

The ANTI's get together with whatever the scheme of the day is (to deceive people or distract them) and they feel emboldened by seeing their own words in print, as if this confers some form of legitimacy upon them.

Rick...Rick...Rick..
Kindly list for me the specific arguments...claims...whatever POWW has argued that you term to be a lie or distortion. List them numerically and I'll try to respond intelligently without using words like.."conversational thugs a false sense of superiority."
EXACTLY what has POWW said...very specifically please..that has so enraged you?

[Rick K]

I am not enraged.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick,

I am glad you are not enraged. Then perhaps we can extend the olive branch.

I certainly do not hold YOU responsible for all the PRO post which have been hostile, mean and vindicitive. Some PRO's like Ray's Mike and Demetrios have made a sincere effort to keep it civil.

I simply wish to hold you to the same standard. Just like on your side..there are people against this proposal who are pissed and resort to mean spirited attacks. However you cannot morally lump all of these people together and call them POWW. POWW is simply a grass roots organization that wishes to do exactly what the acronym says Protect Our Wallets and Waterfronts. I understand Rick that you have a different view of our waterfront...perhaps you've only lived here for a few years...and you totally trust Michael Kalt's numbers and so you're not worried about our wallets. Surely you can at least concede that you understand WHY some of us might be concerned and against the proposal. All POWW MEMBERS don't live in Bayfront Towers...ALL are not all old wealthy people...and all the attempts to dismiss POWW have not really succeeded.

[Tim]

The new stadium belongs in St Pete. St Pete is the crown jewel of the Tampa Bay region and the waterfront site is absolutely perfect.

Go Rays!

[Rick K]

A Truly Concerned:

I will give you credit for not abandoning the spinning.

When you offer your theories that I may not have lived here very long or that I am unfamiliar with Kalt's record, you are simply spinning.

And I know that I lump POWW in with the ANTI's who post here. Because, by and large, their objectives and views are the same. I understand that there are some differences and distinctions.

I do not think that "Since1962's" posts are representative of POWW's preferred public relations positions. However, I find little difference between the effect of the two groups.

I judge POWW based on the following:
1. Reviewing their website
2. Watching/listening to public appearances
3. Reading posts by POWW members on this blog and places like it

What I have learned of that group, based on those three large sets of observations, convinces me that POWW is, regardless of what they say, mostly about trying to defeat this stadium proposal at ANY cost.

They attempt to distract, distort, delay and deceive.

I accept that they may be genuine and sincere. They may truly believe that these proposals will lead to the ruination of our City. I respect their right to opinions that differ from mine.

However, I do not respect their right to dominate and dictate to the rest of us.

I do not respect their attempts to delay a vote from this NOVEMBER, because they do not think they have enough answers. I say let the people decide. The people who don't have answers can vote no. The rest of us who think we have enough info can vote yes or no. We'll count up the votes, and the winners will win.

Interestingly, my prediction is that POWW will not give up if they lose in November. They will try a variety of lawsuits to thwart the will of the people.

POWW's position, to me, comes down to an elitist entitlement mentality. Their position (which is reflected in glimmers in your various posts) is that they are somehow more entitled to decide what happens to this City than anyone else. People who only moved here 14 years ago should not have the same vote as someone who has been here "since 1962."

In one famous post, Chris Jenkins, who appears to be a bright and earnest young man, took me to task telling me that since he grew up here his views are more worthy than mine. While Chris was in elementary school, I was spending 20 or more hours per week, every week, studying virtually everything connected with the original dome development project. I read individual property appraisals, negotiator's notes, closing documents, relocation reports, environmental studies, civil engineering plans, permit applications, and on and on.

I do not believe that my knowledge of the history of the Dome project makes my opinions better than Chris'. But Chris has stated openly that his opinion, by virtue of the fact that he was in elementary school when I was working in Urban Redevelopment and studying the dome project intensively, trumps mine.

To hear Chris tell it, and you seem to go along with this. Only those of you who lived here all your lives are TRUE citizens of St. Pete.

The bottom line for POWW is that its membership LIKES the fact that only a relative few people live and visit downtown regularly after business hours. Y'all love that downtown is like a sparesely populated small town with these terrific big city assets, and there is hardly ever a line to wait in!

POWW uses deception, distraction, and distortion.

Their work is a ceaseless stream of attempts to change the topic, divert attention, muddy clear waters, scare people, and overwhelm.

Their objective is to chase people from the debate and to convince people that their is too much left unknown.

This is what POWW's conduct tells us is their objective.

If you review, as I have, the ANTI posts in these blogs, you do not find a series of reasoned arguments about the relevant facts. You do not find attempts to clarify. You do not find apologies and expressions of happiness when past questions are cleared up.

Well, those things do happen occassionaly. Chris Jenkins has offered a few such "I am glad that this is answered" posts.

In the main, POWW's efforts are designed to get people out of the debate, so that their membership is left to decide the fate of our downtown waterfront.

I find that to be undemocratic and rather evil.

[Thomas]

Actually, MLB, Rays, and Supporters are much worst at accuracy than the opposition.

"If you don't build a stadium we'll leave" -- Even though they have a lease through 2027 that is enforceable by injunction.

"New stadium will increase attendance" -- New stadiums do not increase attendance after the first year. Winning does.

"A new stadium will make the team more competitive" -- The team is competitive right now, at the Trop.

"The team needs more revenue" -- The team is already realizing all stadium revenues at the Trop.

"The new stadium will be built with only 40% public money" -- The real price tag is 67% public.

The team still has not clarified if their contribution is just upfront rent payments.

The team still has not explained the parking use fee plan.

The team still has not published a Lease Term Sheet to detail division of naming rights revenue, advertising revenues, etc.

[Chris Jenkins]

Hey Rick,
Just because you're old doesn't mean I'm a little kid. I was in High School when the Dome construction began, not elementary. ;)

P.S. I also didn't say your opinion wasn't worthy. I suggested it didn't carry the weight of experience that actually living here during those times brings. "Worthy" implies a certain moral judgement, which I didn't make in noting that difference in perspective.

You still approach this exactly the same way, Rick, and that's what turns people off to you, even on your own side. You ignore facts. You attack intelligence. You attack any study or research which doesn't support your preconceived notions. That doesn't make you a participant in the conversation; it makes you a diatribic demagogue.

On here, I have adjusted my position accordingly as new information becomes available.

1. There are parking concerns. Gary Grooms puts together a slide show showing unused parking resources which could, with proper logistical support, help allay that concern. I adjust my position to not worry so much about that facet.

2. Part of the construction involves a filling operation in the Bay. The scope of that portion causes some sincere environmental concerns. In revised plans, the scope of that project is sizably reduced. I am now less concerned about that aspect.

Tell me one way in which any of the concerning information we have presented has affected your viewpoint, Rick. Show me one case, one post, one time, you have taken an oppositional mindset seriously, and allowed for it to be factual and true. I challenge you to do so. For all your talk about being "in on the conversation", you simply are not. There is no exchange of ideas with you. It is a one way pipe...endless stream from the mouth, but nothing going in the ears or eyes.

You're not here to talk, Rick. You're here to harrangue, browbeat, attack, distort, spin, and try to "win" on trivial technicalities, and semantic gaming, as though this is all some big board game to you. You're all take and no give, and I do not see anything in any of your posts, even the ones that sound like they were written by a marketing department fresh out of a focus group, that would indicate to me that you have any real concern for the future of this community, and its residents.

So go ahead, Rick, prove me wrong. Drop the link to a thread where you admitted that some of the POWW concerns are legitimate concerns, by people who care about their community.

I dare you.

[Kevin Crawmer]

Rick K -

Fact:

1. Moving the dome is logical and ecomonical. Do your homework at www.movethedome.com.
2. I know Bud Selig personally.
3. My comments are no more childish than yours.
4. You're a zealot with your attempted domineering tactics on this blog. Not everyone agrees or cares what you have to say.

Yours Truly In The Movement,

MoveTheDome.com

[Micah Mills]

Kevin,

Totally agree with your tirade. Rick K is kind of annoying and filibusters with 10,000 word essays that most simply ignore.

I was just on mtd.com and the music is awesome! We were dancing in jubilation! (Maybe it was the fact that someone finally thought of alternatives to the norm? What's next - the end of a two party political system?!)

Support the movement @ movethedome.com.

[Rick K here to fight the LIES!]

It will surprise none of the most regular readers of these blogs that Thomas 12:42 pm post is mostly lies and distortions. Thomas is a distraction artist, who lives to distract.

Most of the proponents of these paired redevelopment proposals have advanced NONE of those arguments Thomas mentions. Although it is true that some of the arguments have been offered by proponents, they are not offered as the principle reasons for supporting these paired redevelopment proposals.

It has been suggested by intelligent, informed, mature adults, on BOTH sides of this issue, that there is a good possibility that the Rays might leave St Pete if their efforts to get a better stadium are rejected. Most reasonable people think this is a realistic consideration, even if, like me, they think it is about the 33rd reason on a list of reasons to support these paired redevelopment proposals.

Thomas persists with the myth that the Lease agreement the City has with the Rays would somehow stop them from moving to another state. Thomas persists with his fantasy because it is what he wants to believe. Even the ANTI hero Zimbalist would acknowledge that there is a chance the Rays could leave town prior to 2027. But not the ever-faithful distraction machine that is Thomas.

Thomas next tries to tell us that people support the stadium because a new stadium will increase attendance. Then he tells us this is not true. He takes a plagiarized idea predicated upon limited past observations, and tries to claim that is conclusive proof of what will happen in the future.

Of course, most of us who support these paired redevelopment proposals offer a different argument: The market and business research available to the Rays and Major League Baseball tell them that the Rays will draw more fans and improve their financial situation in the new ballpark. There is no study that disputes this. That is not even possible, really.

But Thomas the distractor tries anyway.

Thomas comes back with the claim that a new stadium will make the team more competitive, as if anyone on the proponent side thinks it is that simple a formula. Everyone on the proponent side who has argued this (and I am not one) has said that the forumla goes like this: The Rays have data that convinces them that a new stadium will improve their bottom line, which will enable them to elevate and sustain competitiveness.

Most proponents of these paired redevelopment proposals DO NOT CARE even a little bit what happens to the competitiveness of the Rays. We don't think that matters at all. It isn't even on our list.

Still, it stands to reason, if the Rays data is right, (and why wouldn't it be?) improved finances will allow more investment by the team in the resources required to remain competitive.

Most of us who favor these proposals do not think we should build them because the Rays need more revenue. We acknowledge that the Rays want a new ballpark AND the Rays have said that a new ballpark will provide them with more revenue.

Most of us who are proponents don't care about the Rays revenue. (That is something the ANTI's care about though). We think if the Rays want to move, and it can be done in a way that improves the community, we ought to try to work towards that goal. Period.

Thomas crosses over from just distracting to outright deception when he asserts that the Team gets all revenues at the Trop. That is not at all true. First, the Team pays the City fees related to how many cars park at the Trop and how many tickets are sold to games. Second, there are many vendors in the stadium who take wages and profits OUT of the Trop, at the request of the Rays. Third, the Rays and the various vendors in the Trop pay substantial taxes. They pay substantial sales taxes, wage taxes, and personal property taxes.

Additionally, when the Rays give money to the local charities, that money from the stadium is going to community groups.

Thomas next tries to distort by focusing on the percentage of public and private contributions which comprise the proposed financing for a new stadium. He is merely trying to distort. There is little use in arguing with him. Well, I should have said, "no" use.

The more important and more relevant questions are these:

1. How does the Rays' proposed deal for the new stadium compare with the deals the Bucs and Lightning have for their stadiums?
2. How much of the money for the new stadium will come directly out of the pocket of St. Pete citizens?

As for Thomas' last three points, he is partially right.

Of course, the Rays also haven't told us who their opening day starter will be in 2012. That is because they plan to reveal relevent details at the appropriate time.

As Thomas well knows, virtually none of the above are arguments advanced by the proponents of these deals. Nor do they constitute what we proponents regard as the most significant reasons to support these deals.

The things Thomas lists aren't even in our top 10 reasons to support these proposals.

[Chris Jenkins]

Hey Micah,
you guys are cracking me up. Not a bad way to monetize this phenomenon. Email me at cjenkins@flmediasolutions.com

[Kevin Crawmer]

Rick K -

In the time it took to type that essay, how many "productive" things could you have done?

We at MTD.com have already solved this petty dilema and have moved onto more important social issues such as the plight of the homeless, genocide in Darfur, ending the Iraqi/Afghan Wars and asking all pet owners to be responsible...spay or neuter your pets!

Take a breather hoss! To our knowledge there is no cure to carpal tunnel.

[Micah Mills]

Chris -

Trust me, this is a non-profit organization. No one is making a dime. We just saw an obvious solution and want folks to have options, that's all.

[Rick K to Kevin]

Kevin, I still haven't figured out you crazy Move the Dome guys. There has to be an angle I am missing.

As to your concerns about Carpal Tunnel, or what good I might do, you can leave that stuff to me. I got it.

I wish I knew what your move the dome fantasy was really about. Part of me suspects it's just another attempt to distract, but I just don't know.

{Headed out for Chinese lunch now, going to be meeting up with Ray F, Rays Mike, Gary Grooms, Bobby Benton, Observer, Colorado Snowbird, and all the rest of 'em. We'll be talking about moving the dome.}

[Chris Jenkins]

Tell Gary I said hi. That guy's a class act.

You conveniently failed to respond to my post, Rick, responding to posts all around it. I'll accept that as your acquiescence to my challenge.

[Kevin Crawmer]

No angles, just good samaratins trying to make a difference. If you are distracted, I know ADD is treatable with meds.

I'm off to have lunch with Randy McMichael, Rebecca Lobo, Steve Balboni and Bob Barker to strategize our unveiling of spayyourpets.com.

Until we chat again...

Movethedome.com

[Chris Jenkins]

"I'm off to have lunch with Randy McMichael, Rebecca Lobo, Steve Balboni and Bob Barker to strategize our unveiling of spayyourpets.com."

*spraying coffee*

That, my friend, was funny.

[Kevin Crawmer]

Rick K,

Just because the "Build a Ballpark" and "POWW" people have hidden agendas does not mean all options are tainted by special angles. We here at movethedome.com are simply providing a logical solution to a complex problem.

You want a stadium on the water, right? Our movement is for you!

The POWW people don't want to spend money on a new stadium, right? Our movement is for them!

Given the universal appeal of this option, it would easily pass any public vote.

Should you have any additional questions, you can post them here or at www.movethedome.com.

-MTD staff

[Thomas]

Rick, dude, you're a mess.

I'm didn't say the Rays are bound to the Trop through 2027 - the City Attorney said it.

I didn't say the new stadium would increase attendance. Bud Selig said it.

Like everyone else, I stopped reading your insanely long post at that point.

My posts are well respected - you are the butt of jokes.

I am crediable - you are not.

Boom - Outta Here.

[Brian Twar]

Has anybody noticed how the POWW signs have the word "NEW" in all caps.

They are obviously saying that they are only against having a NEW waterfront stadium, meaning that they are open to an OLD waterfront stadium - like the dome! With everybody joining the movement, we could have this solved by the end of June.

[Jim Rome]

Thomas,

Just walk away.

[Thomas is not a Trapper fan]

Tramps like us baby...

(30 pieces of silver)

[Jeff Sampson]

Hey move the dome guys,

Is that an artists rendering of what the dome would look like on the water at www.movethedome.com? That is pretty cool looking....

[Chris Jenkins]

Artist's rendering? *laughing*

Hey, is that a crappy photoshop job of the dome pasted over the top of the rendering of the sail on the waterfront? Why yes, yes it is.

You guys are funny, but your tech skills are lacking. Website is lame. Images are lame. You've got the funny...now go find yourself a geek.

[SUPPORT PLAN B]

Selig has attended ONE game more than MOST Pinellas 930,000 residents and millions of BEACH BOUND tourists EVER will.

[MTD Staff]

Chris,

Perhaps you would like a shirt or a hat:

http://www.cafepress.com/movethedome

or

http://www.cafepress.com/movethedome11

It's not too late to join the movement!

[MoveTheDome.com]

Chris, considering the dome is not yet located on the water, I am not sure how else a small non-profit organization like movethedome.com could provide a picture for the public. Perhaps we could move the dome to the water... take a picture... then move it back. Not sure if that would be in the best interest of the city though. If you have any suggestions to provide a true picture of the dome on the water, we are all ears.

[MoveTheDome.com]

For the record... we used Paint, not photoshop...

[Thomas]

Have you considered a "Float the Dome" plan by attaching it to an amphibious vehicle and anchoring it in the Bay during games?

[MTD Staff]

Thomas,

We have floated that idea, but that would be ridiculous. Do you really think a dome could float?

Thanks for the support,

movethedome.com

[Thomas]

You're right. That was an extremely silly idea. I'll refocus on moving the dome. It is far more practical.

[Mike Kidwell]

Chris Jenkins, wow... some harsh words. Where is YOUR website? I think the MTD.com people are off to a good start here. Every journey starts with one step. This journey would only be 1.1 miles.

[Chris Jenkins]

*cracking up*

You're right. I don't have a website quite like http://movethedome.com

If I did, I probably would be pasting the link every place where people talk about baseball.

Better? :^D

[Thomas]

Can we have Hancock just pick up the Dome and throw it to the waterfront to save some time?

[MTD Staff]

Thomas,

Did you think he crushed it?

Good call with focusing on the realistic, common sense solutions. Better not to get bogged down with fantasies of barging the dome into international waters where we could have strippers and gambling at the stadium.

[Chris Jenkins]

"For the record... we used Paint, not photoshop..."

Well then, that makes perfect sense. And a better design software than Paint has yet to be envisioned. I think given the weed roots (as opposed to grass) nature of your movement, http://movethedome.com is about as good a website as could be expected.