Setting the stage: Hines vs. Archstone

Here's a tale of the tape on each project. You can see more about the projects in an interactive display we created here.

Hines

• Retail --- 790,000 square feet
• Office --- 600,000 square feet
• Residential --- 1,591,296 square feet
• Hotel --- 125,000 square feet
• Phasing --- Six phases over six years
• Purchase price --- $60.64-million ($19.52/sq ft)

Other notes. Hines agrees to pay an additional $20/sq ft. for any construction that occurs beyond what's listed above. Hines will pay $5-million toward demolition of Tropicana Field, and would accept full responsibility if the city could provide additional existing conditions documentation. Hines not willing to guarantee tax revenues or pay for environmental remediation. Developer says project will create 3,172 net new jobs and $4.3-million in new city taxes a year at build out. Hines also wants to purchase city parcel just east of Trop site for an additional $1.57-million.

Archstone-Madison

• Retail --- 1,126,000 square feet
• Office --- 800,000 square feet
• Residential --- 3,162,850 square feet
• Hotel --- 360,000 square feet
• Phasing --- Three phases over 10 to 13 years
• Purchase price --- $65-million ($11.93/sq ft)

Other notes. Will pay $5-million toward Trop demolition. Remainder comes off purchase price. Will not pay environmental remediation. No tax revenue guarantees. Would guarantee up to 1-million square feet of retail construction as part of Phase 1. Developer says project would create 5,574 net new jobs and an additional $7.4-million a year in city taxes at buildout.

Comments

[John]

Aaron, you forgot to mention both developers are asking the city finance the deal in payments.

Neither developer is offering cash up front. So if things with the economy & real estate market get even more sour, what's to stop either developer from defaulting on the purchase, again, leaving the city holding the "bag".

[Aaron Sharockman]

Both projects are willing to guarantee the land purchase price (in phases)

Archstone Madison says their guarantee is based on Phase I financing. Hines says its guarantee is subject to the approval of something called a private investment committee.

But remember, it doesn't really matter. The key here is can the payments cover the debt at the Trop as the Rays and city say it must. Neither offer, as of yet, covers the entire debt. But the city thinks it can get there. We'll see.

[Rick K]

Aaron thanks again (for not the last time) for doing such excellent work. Kudos to you and all at the Times who have done so much to provide so much valuable information to the public.

[Rick K]

Following up on an observation Gary Grooms offered previously:

If all these ANTI's who are so habitually quick to automatically disbelieve experts on nearly every topic, including subjects that the individual has virtually no expertise in do the same thing in their daily lives, I am confused as to how they function.

I generally believe that full time professional fire fighters know better than I do about how best to put out a fire and so on.

I generally believe that surgeons know more about surgery than I do.

I generally believe that parking experts know more about assessing parking needs downtown than I do.

I generally believe that environemental experts know more about assessing environmental concerns than I do.

I generally believe that people who derive their livelihood from attracting people to Major League Baseball games know more about how best to do that than I know.

I generally believe that professional, real estate developers who have a track record of success and the ability to gather a billion dollars in private investment funds know a few things more about how to determine the value of land and devise a timeline and so on.

I generally believe that about most things. The only times I tend to question expert opinions is when I have a sound knowledge base for doing so, or when there are very obvious facts known to me which seem to contradict the experts.

The latter case often makes me investigate further, whereupon I usually figure out that I was wrong, and the experts were right.

I wonder, seriously, why the ANTI's do not see the world this way. I wonder why their belief system informs them that they are likely to be right and the experts are likely to be wrong, nearly every time.

[Thomas]

I generally believe that Rick is a hack and a fraud.

I generally believe that Rick's posts are best read as comic strips.

I generally believe that there are many decaf brands on the market that are just as tastey as the real thing.

[Clear Direction]

Rick K,

I Generally believe that people who wish to promote a project which will make them millions of dollars that they will retain experts who will fabricate whatever conclusion benefits the entity which commissions the study!

[Rick K]

Clear Direction, say that again, please.

You believe that experts, who will lose their livelihood if they turn out to be wildly wrong, will make false claims about the environmental status of a property?

You believe that parking experts who only derive continuing income as long as they produce credible reports (which are easily checked against actual performance of their predictions) will willingly risk EVERYTHING so that a single client will get rich?

You believe that people who are professionals and who are likely to lose their jobs or find their future earnings severely hampered will happily throw their professional weight behind losing propositions?

Okay.

Just so we know what your clear direction is....

[Clear Direction]

I also gennerally believe that the Rays time table is too short to comprehensivley evaluate a proposal of this magnatude.

I also generally believe, that the Rays srtategy of witholding all subtantive information until the very last possible moment in the hopes that the City & County will " Kick the Can down the Road" will not be successful.

I further generally believe, that the majority of voters will soundly defeat a November ballot question just as they always have.

[Sue]

How about those Uhurus? We haven't stopped laughing since yesterday when we read this about their protest for the police shooting of, apparently, an armed, threatening teenager: The notice says the ballpark plans and the shooting are "part of efforts to gentrify and disperse the historically African community and turn St. Petersburg into an enclave for wealthy white people." Omali says NO NEW WATERFRONT $TADIUM. Bet that kind of bites Mayor Ricky in the butt.

[Clear Direction]

Rick k,

I DO for clarification beleive that almost any position is able to be justified with a study.

I beleive my point can be illistrated by all of the studies (many of which you site) showing "stadia" benefit the comminities in which they are built. And an equal or prehaps larger number which conclude the opposite.

[Rick K]

To the person posting at 2:20 pm as "Sue."

Please take your odd racist rants to a different blog where people enjoy reading about you laughing at "those Uhurus."

[Rick K]

Clear Direction:

Two things amuse me about your assertion at 2:22 pm.

The first is that you ignore my principle question, which is what are the odds that ALL the experts would be wrong and laymen are right on practically EVERY issue?

The second thing that amuses me is your contention that "an equal or prehaps larger number which conclude the opposite."

That assertion is not supported by the actual facts.

Would one of you people who keeps telling this lie PLEASE do some ACTUAL fresh research.

Don't quote ANYONE who claims that stadiums don't make money. Don't believe anyone I point you to who says the opposite.

Instead, do this.

Go online, find the list of Professors in the Economics department at UF, FSU, Miami, or MIT.

Send them each a brief email asking them if the following statement is true or false:

"There is near unanimity among economists that public investment in pro sports facilities nearly always produce net negative economic costs in excess of their benefits."

Ask about 12 or 25 professors at one or two colleges (but don't start at the ones on your list, choose a respected school about whom you know nothing in regards to what the faculty think on this issue).

Do that research, then come back here and report.

Because what you are going to find is that the single biggest lie in this debate is that there are "an equal or prehaps larger number which conclude the opposite."

[John]

Rick K, we have learned one thing in this whole experiment, if nothing else.

You have no life. ;)

[Paul]

I have a little stadium blog riddle for you:

Q - What weight more? A pound of Rick K's brain or a pound of dog poo?

A - Neither. Their both a pound of doo.

[Ray F]

Clear,

Ask any Bostonian what Fenway means to them. Ask anyone from Chicago what Wrigley means to them. Ask Yankees fans what the House that Ruth built means to them.

Busch Stadium in St Louis. The Astro Dome. Old Comiskey Park. The Polo Grounds.

Sometimes the benefit isn't measurable in dollars and cents. You can't put a price tag on how much your mother means to you. Even though to somebody else, she may be just another recipient of a middle finger on US19.

Ballparks can tie a community together. Even if you are a casual fan (1-5 games a year), if Carl Crawford legs out a first inning RBI Triple, chances are the guy next to you or behind you will give you a high five.

When was the last time you were walking in a park and someone gave you a high five because they painted the beches??? You'd probably pepperspray the freak.

[Thomas]

Rick,

Here's my report:

All independent research and university economists agree that stadiums don't make money. In fact, quite often then end up in the red.

The only reports that claim economic gain are prepared by MLB or by firms retained by MLB.

[Clear Direction]

All,

I understand all of the arguments being made for the staduim.

However, I do not share your excitement for the proposal.

For me it comes down to this.

Not on the Waterfront.

Not with 67% Public Funds (I consider the sale of public assets to be a public contribution)

I enjoy games as much as the next guy.

I don't want the team to go. Mr. Sternberg has promised that they they won't. and I choose to beleive he is a man of his word.

[Ray F]

Clear,

If they do build the new park on the waterfront, would you go to opening day???

Would you go to any games???

Would you never buy another shred of Rays gear???

Would you never watch a telecast???

Would building the stadium make the team any less than your hometown team???

[Will Ferrell]

COWBELL BREAK! Let's all take a second and admire the Cowbell for what it represents.

Okay.

Now back to our petty bickering....

[John]

Ray F

If your question is open for anyone to respond, I'll go for it.

No, I would not go to any games. I do now, roughly 15-20 a year.

No, no more gear for my kids. You know why? I will no longer see the Rays organization as a role model for my kids, by raping public coffers to enrich themselves. That is not a character trait I wish to instill in my kids.

No, I would not watch it on TV. Let's be honest, watching baseball on TV is about as exciting as watching shuffleboard.

The Rays do not define nor brand St. Petersburg and the entire area. The city's character, beautifull waterfront and beaches do. And they always will.

(and Rick K, I don't care to hear your 3000 word, 14 paragraph response to my opinion or motives)

[Thomas]

My name is Thomas, and I'm a petty bickering addict.

I have tried to do more productive things with my time, but I always find myself drifting back to petty bickering.

Can Petty Bickering Anonymous help me?

Please PBA - I have a problem.

[Ray F]

John,

When was the last time you went for a swim at the pier beach??? Or spa beach???

If recently, what do you usually wear to games??? I'd rather not touch you with a high-five.

Maybe a lot of you don't realize that the water in Tampa Bay is nasty. I wouldn't jump in it if I was on fire.

I don't think the Rays are raping public funds. How is the public benefitting from them taking up 85 acres of land when they can be down the road taking up 15 on a plot of land you couldn't walk across today anyway???

[Ray F]

Thomas,

We at PBA can help.

With our extensive rehabilitation program, you can be agreeing with people from all walks of life in no time.

Here at the PBA we put the utmost emphasis on one-to-one consultations and therapy sessions.

Our therapists are trained in the art of passive argument techniques.

Some of our clientelle that have chosen to participate in our yearly symposiums include:

Mikael Gorbachev
Tina Turner
R Kelly

The list is far too long for somebody like me who doesn't get bothered by specifics...

[Thomas]

John,

I saw a disk land completely within the small triangular tip zone without touching any part of the borders of the triangle, it was worth 10 big points for the shooter!

Then the next shuffle went completely within the trapezoidal second tier of the triangle, it was worth another 8 points!

SHUFFLEBOARD EXTRA FRAMES on DirecTV in HD is madhouse fun! You'll pay for your whole seat --- but you only need the edge!

[John]

Ray F

It's too bad you think our water is so toxic. That's unfortunate.

Yes, I have a boat and go to the Bayou Grande sandbar almost every weekend. Maybe you've never heard of it, but every weekend over 100 boaters bring their dogs, their kids, etc and play in those toxic Tampa Bay waters.

How many cities have a beach on their downtown Ray? How many have a giant pool, open to the public, right on the water, Ray?

The Rays are not the end-all thing to do in this town. You're obviously not a native, like myself.

And no, neither me, my kids or any of my neighbors have ever gotten green hair or violent illnesses from swimming in our bay.

[Thomas]

You boat over Macho Grande ?!

Striker! Striker!

[Ray F]

On the contrary John,

I am from here and maybe that's why I have enough common sense no to go in the Bay.

I will go into the Gulf, but you can keep Tampa Bay all for yourself and your 100 friends. Read Below.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/04/north-shore-bea.html

http://www.surfrider.org/stateofthebeach/05-sr/state.asp?zone=SE&state=fl&cat=wq

http://www.tbnweekly.com/content_articles/083007_fpg-01.txt

[Chris Jenkins]

Hate to break it to you, Ray, but if that's the measure by which we decide if the water is safe to swim in or not, then you might as well not go to the beach again. According to the monitoring agencies, more than half of the beaches on our coast exceed FC counts. I didn't hear you calling any of the other beaches unswimmable...

http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/sumflo.pdf

[Thomas]

John has never been the same since the raid at Macho Grande.

Looks like he picked the wrong week to quit drinking Bay water.

[Ray F]

Hey Chris,

I hate to break it to you buddy, but last I checked, looking from the water towards any of the St Pete waterfront looks nothing like the tropical oasis that most antis are making it out to be.

Do you know what fecal bacteria is???

The same beach was closed twice in 7 months because of intolerable levels of human defacation.

It just so happens to be in shouting distance from the pristine manatee habitat that people are whining about.

Get back to me when you can find any scientific study that says it's completely normal to swim in toilet water.

[Chris Jenkins]

Yes, I know what Fecal Coliform is, Ray, which is why I linked the 2007 report on monitoring levels for Florida. Obviously, you didn't bother to read it, or you wouldn't have made this response.

Back up to my last post, click the link, and see exactly how many beaches in Florida exceeded FC levels last year, Ray. Give you a hint... it's a lot...maybe even most.

If that's your test of whether or not to swim, then you shouldn't really be swimming at all around here, my friend.

[Chris Jenkins]

Just to make it easy for you, here's the Pinellas section. The last column is the percent by which the beach tested exceeded the levels allowed:

Pinellas Courtney Campbell Causeway 1 1/wk 63 21%
Pinellas Mobbly Bayou Preserve 1/wk 59 12%
Pinellas North Shore Beach 1/wk 59 12%
Pinellas Fred Howard Beach 1/wk 58 10%
Pinellas Pass-A-Grille Beach 1/wk 57 9%
Pinellas Belleair Causeway-Intercoastal 1/wk 55 5%
Pinellas Treasure Island Beach 1/wk 55 5%
Pinellas Gandy Boulevard 1/wk 54 4%
Pinellas Indian Rocks Beach 1/wk 54 4%
Pinellas Indian Shores Beach 1/wk 54 4%
Pinellas Madeira Beach 1/wk 54 4%
Pinellas Sand Key 1/wk 53 2%
Pinellas Fort Desoto North Beach 1/wk 52 0%
Pinellas Honeymoon Island Beach 1/wk 52 0%

[Chris Jenkins]

(P.S. I guess that makes it ALL toilet water, eh Ray?)

[Paul]

Spa Beach (the pier beach) is fine to swim in... and on occasion does get closed. In fact, that is the swim start for a 1 mile open water swim, of the St Anthony's triathlon which just had its 25th year of racing. So looks like 4500 athletes, including top pro's, find it ok to swim in for a race.

Not sure what the heck that has to do with the stadium, but there ya go.

Ohh, and there's Northshore beach, which you find regularly packed with people... and its FREE! to park at and use. I do recall it being closed a few times, but the Gulf gets wiped out by red tide at times too. Just don't swim when its not safe. They put up signs that let you know the current swim conditions.

[Mal]

Weird, the bay isn't fit to be near yet it's perfect for a ball park? Won't those kayakers get the plague plucking balls out of that soup?

[Thomas]

Maybe the Bed Tax should be used to clean the contamination instead of needlessly being applied to a new stadium.

[Raymond The Ray Mascot]

I'm Trop bound & I'm taking my lil' friend, "say hello to my little friend; all we have this world is our bells & our words, so don't f_ _k with us".

Go Rays, eat some fish!

[Chris Jenkins]

"Get back to me when you can find any scientific study that says it's completely normal to swim in toilet water."

Ray, I believe I met this request. Care to amend your position, as I have in the past, when presented with information which proves a previous assertation false?

[Or]

Or, in place of coming out and saying that a previous post was wrong, sometimes, Chris just said his prior post was "tongue in cheek."

[Ray F]

Chris,

Maybe you didn't read my post right. I said I would swim in the gulf, but not the bay.

With the exception of Ft Desoto N Beach, all the bay waqters were over 10% contamination.

...so to appease you, I did say I would swim in the water, but not the water in downtown St Pete.

[CharlieRay]

I stand on the season ticket holders line every home game and almost every season ticket holder I talk to says they will not buy another season ticket to an open stadium. Also almost 40% of the people going to the games are seniors and can't take sitting in the heat for 3 hours. If you eliminate them are all you pro guys going to buy A season ticket at 3 time the rate they are now to make up for the lost revenue. I doubt it, it's just talk and a pipe dream to believe "If You Build It They Will Come"

[CharlieRay]

Anyone think, what if this happened to us?
Yanks seek another $350M for new stadium

NEW YORK (AP) -- State lawmakers and fiscal watchdog groups cried foul Thursday over the Yankees' bid for another $350 million in public financing for their new stadium, saying it could soak up funds needed for parks and transportation

[Rick K]

Charlie Ray: I trust the Rays' business managers to attract sufficient numbers of fans to make the new location more beneficial to the team than the current location.

You might live in a world where people standing in line have more insight into the specific market decisions of Tens of Millions of customers than the people who are paid to collect and analyze marketing data, but I don't.

If past local response is any guide, we should see a HUGE upsurge in season ticket (and other partial season ticket packages) sales in the months following the election, if this ballot initiative succeeds.

[Rick K]

CharlieRay:

Yes, we've thought about the possibility that all sorts of things might happen "to us."

We've considered every single one of the ANTI arguments, distractions, distortions, and lies.

Still, we favor moving forward.

Go figure.

Notice who ISN't coming out AGAINST these proposals.

Captains of Industry, Great local entrepreneuers, insipring leaders of men...

So far, the ANTI forces, as represented in this blog, blogs like it, and local media efforts, come off as the sort of group that no majority is going to naturally agree with. They are fringe folks, for the most part. Normally, they pride themselves on NOT being part of a majority.

Hence their efforts to try to get this issue "decided" with less than full participation or less than honest debate.

These people are praying for a skewed debate and less than honest election in which their small minority of the population will manage to eek out a victory at the polls.

This isn't to say that many decent normal people aren't opposed to the stadium proposal. I am merely using the words others use to characterize the public perception of POWW.

Few people are as interested in these topics at this stage as are those of us who regularly visit and contribute to these blogs. When I have conversations with people who only pay a little bit of attention to all this, the perceptions are neraly unanimous. The ANTI forces seem to be little more than a band of oddballs, grumps, misfits and malcontents.

Sure there are reasonable people who are not liking these deals. But we haven't really heard from them yet.

In fact, I wonder how much the public activities of the creepiest elements in the ANTI movement will repell would-be no voters.

[since1962]

This is supposed to be a public forum on the stadium/tropicana redevelopment. Can you pinheads focus your attention on the issue and stop wasting time on personal attacks unless your argument is that weak? No wonder some people oppose the stadium crowd ANYWHERE NEAR them.

[Rick K]

No.

Since1962, you don't really get it, do you.

One of the specific, clear objectives of the organized ANTI movement is to try ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to undermine anything that would create enthusiasm in the populace for these paired redevelopment proposals.

To accomplish that objective, one of the tactics they are using is to try to make these public forums STINK, so that most will run screaming from the computer screen, never to return.

The CHIEF reason we cannot focus on the issues is because the organized ANTI movement (and their willing accomplices in these blogs) create a never-ending series of tangents, straw man arguments, false claims, distortions, and distractions.

The ANTI's regularly bring up Yankee stadium, the fact that the Ray's principals are not from here, and all sorts of other things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the merits of these paired redevelopment proposals. The ANTI's personally attack people, calling them facists.

Of course, the ANTI's who post here are inept. Their attempts at personal attacks always miss the mark. As a target of many of these attacks, I am never stung by them. Instead, I often shake my head and laugh.

But, Seriously, 1962. One of the KEY ISSUES confronting the City of St Pete is the ongoing efforts by the organized ANTI's to hijack this public debate.

That happens to be a relevant topic, and it is intimately tied to all discussions of the various sub-topics under the umbrella of this Blog.

[John]

Rick K...the "Anti-Anti"...you're not even promoting your cause anymore.

You're on the defense, resigned to attacking anyone who opposes this project in any way.

Sad sad man.

[John]

Oh and Ray F?

I just recently (on Earth Day) was an Escort boat captain for a world famous swimmer that came here from around the world, to swim in our "toxic" Tampa Bay waters...to swim 24 miles from the Holiday Inn down by the Skyway to Ben T Davis beach. 24 miles!!! In 8 hours!! Almost 150 competitors. But of course, they're all dead now from swimming in our toxic estuary. But they survived the English Channel and the Hudson River. And nobody got eaten by a bull shark, either....shocker!!

www.distancematters.com

Please do a little better with the arguments instead of posting your phobias.

[Rick K to John's 8:17]

John:

Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?

I am actively engaged, far beyond the boundaries of this BLOG, in the ongoing process of spreading the word about these paired redevelopment proposals.

A tiny part of my effort involves bringing people to these forums to check out relevant information (very, very little of which is located in the comment threads).

John, a reasonable person cannot read my post in which I said that normal reasonable people might oppose these proposals and conclude what you pretend to conclude yourself.

Truth is John, I will be fine.

I post here for my own purposes. I do not need you to understand them in order to feel like I am spending my time in a worthwile pursuit.

Here is the absolute truth, John.

While I am certain (without doubt) that sane, reasonable, mature people can oppose these proposals, I have yet to encounter any of the above characteristics in these forums, as represented by the ANTI posts.

It's fine to say, "I just don't want this (period)."

But almost no one who posts here with an ANTI view says that. Notice that most of us who post in favor do not pretend that their are conclusive, irrefutable facts that point to only one possible conclusion - in favor of these proposals. Instead, we admit that we LIKE these proposals. We admit that we believe their are facts which help to convince us that these proposals will be good for the City.

We don't claim that the facts can only take us to one conclusion. Instead, we admit that people will make an emotional decision and take comfort in the facts that support how they feel.

John, what the ANTI's do, for the most part, is something completely different. They claim (over and over and over) that ALL FACTS prove conclusively that these proposals will be a disaster for the city!

If you read through these threads over the last 30 days, you find the following from ANTI's:

-- all manner of distractions, from calling the Rays ownership group "carpet baggers," to trying to get us to read bogus irrelevant studies, to personally attacking the City Council and mayor, and personally attacking the posters who add comments here in support of moving forward with these paired redevelopment proposals.

-- all manner of straw man arguments, fake concerns, exagerations, mischaracterizations, distortions, fabrications, deceptions, lies, and attempts to PREVENT people from using this BLOG as a tool to become informed about the FACTS related to these proposals.

John, you can pretend if you want. No one would come to these threads and read the comments by the ANTI's and come away thinking that their objective, as a group, is to let the TRUTH shine through. Think of all the lies and fake concerns.

While we all understand that people can be irrational and react emotionally, that doesn't do much to persaude people who are more detached.

A) We've been told that these paired redevelopment proposals are the result of secret backroom deals.
B) We've been told that public investment in sports stadiums NEVER (or pretty much NEVER) produce positive economic benefits and that there is near unanimity on this point amongst professional economists.
C) We've been told that the Rays are hiding information.
D) We've been told that a voluntary $150,000,000 upfront payment by the Rays is actually public money.
E) We've been told that the Rays want a ballot question at the election with the highest voter turnout because they aim to capitalize upon widespread ignorance
F) We've been told that the Ray's new stadium proposal includes an impossible timeline
G) We've been told that their are red signs everywhere
H) We've been told that the voters of St. Pete previously voted at the ballot box to turn Al Lang into a park
I) We've been told that the Rays have changed thier offer, and this alone is sufficient reason to reject these proposals
J) We've been told the Financing numbers are merely "pie in the sky" projections, instead of numbers created by competent financial professinals familiar with development projects
I) We've been told that public expenditures on the Rays exceed the positive contributions to the local economy
J) We've been told that the Super Bowl in Tampa does not positively impact the region
K) We've been told that everyone who supports these proposals is on the Rays payroll
L) We've been told the new stadium will present unbearable parking nightmares
M) We've been told that any successful urban ballparks elsewhere are not valid comparisons to St. Pete
N) We've been told that we should just blow off the City's baseball partner
O) We've been told that the loss of 15 Spring Training games downtown was a devastating blow to commerce
P) We've been told that we should discuss any number of other ideas, none of which are acceptable to the Rays or the City
Q) We've been told the new stadium will result in the death of countless manatees, acres of valued seagrasses, and unbearable numbers of protected species
R) We've been told that public support of loads of other activites and enterprises is desirable, but baseball is not
S) We've been told that replacing an existing waterfront ballpark, an ugly surface parking lot, and ugly office buildings with a state-of-the-art signature baseball stadium and increased public parklands will RUIN our downtown
T) We've been told that property values near the new stadium will plummet
U) We've been told that Trop Field developers have no idea what they are doing, that they are underpaying for the property, or proposing "pie in the sky" projections
V) We've been told that an outdoor stadium will result in lower attendance
W) We've been told so many lies, and irrelevant claims that I can't even remember them all.

JOHN, you can get worked up all you want.

In the meantime, I will continue, as time permits, to stand in the way of those who would prefer this public debate about an important opportunity for our City become clouded and confused by all sorts of GARBAGE.

[John]

Looks like you're the one worked up, Rick. How long did that take to think-out and type? LOL!!!

[John]

Rick is a hypocrie because???

The ANTI'S!!!! Are "allowed to say"

"It's fine to say, "I just don't want this (period)."

But we're not "allowed" by Rick K to state why.

On the other hand, Rick K, with full permission from himself CAN state WHY he's OK with this....with no debate allowed.

The word simpleton needs to be added to Websters, with a photo of Rrrrrick!

[since1962 re RICK]

So many letters so little info BUT letter P stands out as a exceptional.
Alternatives "not acceptable to the Rays or the city"
I have been watching and listening and hearing PLEAS for alternatives from MANY councilmembers.Even if no other alternative were acceptable to the Rays, IT IS OUR CITY AND WE WILL DECIDE.The petulant attitude of these spoiled "sporstsmen" may deprive this city of a valuable asset.

[Don Mott]

A)Is Fact, B) is fact without your exaggerations, D) is fact no matter how you try to spin it, F) sounds reasonably true, H) lie, I) lie, J) prove that it does, I don't believe you ever answered Johns denial based on tax receipts, K) and how many names and accusations have you thrown at the Antis?, L) no one knows for sure, M) true, O) exaggeration, Q) outright lie, R) lie, S) it might, T) funny I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere, U) they have not met the required payment to offset the debt so this is also true and projections are in fact pie in the sky, V) how do you know it won't. I might add that the hogwash and BS you have spilled over these blogs certainly out weighs what a few misinformed antis have said.

[Micah Mills]

The movement is already underway!

www.movethedome.com

[Bernie]

I generally believe that Thomas is a douche.

[Rick K to Don Mott]

In reply to Don Mott's 9:51 post, above.

Don, you prove my point. Which is weird, because I have often thought of you as one of the more reasonable participants in these discussions.

Let's get to your list. Which, by the way, I thank you for. You actually prove my point for me. I present a list of false "facts" which have been offered by the ANTI side....

A) I said, "We've been told that these paired redevelopment proposals are the result of secret backroom deals."

You say, that is a fact. Yet you cannot prove it. You could not prove it in a court of law. That claim is a fanstasy which is, at the very best, unprovable, at this point. Don't you see, Don, how your confusion of fantasy with facts undermines your other assertions?

B) I say, "We've been told that public investment in sports stadiums NEVER (or pretty much NEVER) produce positive economic benefits and that there is near unanimity on this point amongst professional economists. "

You say, that claim is "fact without your exaggerations."

No, Don, it is NOT a fact. There is NOT unanimity or even near unanimity on this point. In fact, Don, the view that public investment in Sports Stadiums are net losers is a MINORITY view in the profession of economics. How do I know, Don? Simple, I have worked and studied among professional economists for nearly 30 years. I know that most economists don't believe what you think they do. I know that most every graduate ECON department in US universities uses Texts that hold the OPPOSITE view. I know that you can survey the ECON faculty at Florida's great state universities and you will not find 90% or greater agreement that public investment in sports stadiums are net losers. In Florida, you won't even find 50% support. Don, despite the fact that I have tried to help you on this, you stubbornly resist reality. All you can find is lots of cases where the same 30 or 40 people repeat the claim over and over as if it is an established fact. But you can't find the proof for the fact. I provided a long list of books, studies, articles, and reports (maybe a dozen or so lengths from the thousands I could come up with, were I to devote the time) that offer differing opinions. I provided a link to a peer-reviewed critical review of Zimbalist's "work."

The ANTI's replied by posting a link to an article on a blog website by a non-scientist bemoaning that peer review is over rated.

Don, there is not near unanimity. And at the very least, if you can read, you must know that you have not encountered the proof to that claim.

Don, I provided a link to a decision by the Florida Supreme Court, which has, on numerous occasions, considered the question of whether public investment in professional sports facilities produces net positive economic benefits. The Florida Supreme Court, after regarding competing expert testimony offered at trial, concluded that there is no question that public investments in sports stadiums result in NET POSITIVE economic benefits.

You ignore that Don, because you WANT to believe fantasy. You KNOW you cannot prove the "fact" you want to believe, but you cling to it anyway.

D) I say, "We've been told that a voluntary $150,000,000 upfront payment by the Rays is actually public money"

You say, that "is fact no matter how you try to spin it."

Don, it is not fact. "Public money" has a few relevant definitions. One from the dictionary. One from accounting. Another from law. None of those definitions of "public money" classify voluntary contributions from a private business as public money.

Don, you look at a bird and call it a cat. You are adamant that your bird is a cat. But it isn't.

J) I say, "We've been told that the Super Bowl in Tampa does not positively impact the region."

You say, "Prove that it does."

Which brings this to a close. I don't have to prove the opposite of a factual assertion in order for the factual assertion to be false.

I have long acknowledged that these questions cannot be proven with precision, but that there is little doubt, in looking at the relevant numbers, that the Super Bowl produces hundreds of millions of dollars in positive economic benefits.

The Supreme Court agrees.

I have linked to a study of the Miami Super Bowl in 2007.

(http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/05/23/22/2007_SBXLI_Economic_Impact_Investigation_Executive_Summary.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf)

I have offered a lengthy refutation of Thomas' plagiarized attempt to "prove" that the Tamap Super Bowl had greater costs than benefits.

I have quoted the Supreme Court, provided links to an executive summary of a study that not only analyzes the data about a Super Bowl but also mentions multiple other Super Bowl studies. I have offered my own dissection of Thomas' plagiarized numbers.

Yet you still say that because I have not offered proof of the opposite, Thomas' claim must be true.

That is absurd, immature, and unserious.

[Observer: in Re Don MOtt]

I am confused by this:

" H) lie, I) lie, O) exaggeration, Q) outright lie, R) lie"

Is Don Mott telling us those claims Rick identified as false facts which have been asserted here by the "anti rebellion" are actually lies, or is he saying that Rick K is lying when he reports that these are claims which have been made?

Also,
"S) it might, L) no one knows for sure, "

Is that an admission by Don that these assertions by the "anti rebellion" are not factually true?