Something new for you to chew on

A somewhat easy-to-understand city matrix explaining the latest thinking on the Tropicana Field development.

Two big pieces of news to share with you guys. But I think you're going to have to wait until tomorrow out of fear that my colleagues at the Tribune read Ballpark Frankness. But I'd buy a copy of the paper tomorrow if I were you.

Or at least come back here.

S

Comments

[That Idiot First Poster Guy]

FIRST!!!!

[get-smart]

Good stuff. Who are you going to pick. Gee! I wish my crystal ball would work with the lottery!

[Let us vote NO!!!]

Lines 10 & 11 say it all...both developers say the remediation of the contaminated portion of the Trop is????? THE CITY's PROBLEM!!! And NO guarantees on tax creation!!! Unreal.

I'm thinking the Rays have spoken in private with members of the TDC, and have gotten an earful.

I'm thinking the Rays may abandon this before they're publicly humiliated and embarrased by the BOCC, the City Council or the voters of this city. I'm thinking they may do that tomorrow. They'd look better walking away. Imagine the ESPN headlines "St. Petersburg residents say NO NO NO to the Rays"...perhaps a "NO NEW WATERFRONT STADIUM SIGN" on the cover of Sports Illustrated??

I'm also thinking that the Rays want to partner with a developer for a piece of the Trop property "pie" that they DO plan to redevelop, leaving the Trop in place for a few years until the markets (real estate & financial) rebound, and they can come at this again from a different angle.

The City Council STILL needs to add the Al Lang issue to a referendum so the voters CAN vote to either protect it as parkland forever, or keep options open. We know how that vote will go!!!

[Will Ferrell]

Maybe this will mean more cowbell for the stadium. If this thread and stadium needs one thing, it's more cowbell. Am I right folks?

[Clear Direction]

Aaron,
I applaud the opportunity to Vote on the Ray's proposal. I also applaud the council's wisdom in considering a ballot item to limit the intensity of use of the Al Lang site to it's current level and allowing the citizens to also express (if desired) a clear direction for the future use of the Al Lang waterfront site if the Ray's plan is not what the majority of the voters want.

Voting is Good. Not just some Voting

I think all side can agree, LET US VOTE!

[Clear Direction]

Aaron,
I applaud the opportunity to Vote on the Ray's proposal. I also applaud the council's wisdom in considering a ballot item to limit the intensity of use of the Al Lang site to it's current level and allowing the citizens to also express (if desired) a clear direction for the future use of the Al Lang waterfront site if the Ray's plan is not what the majority of the voters want.

Voting is Good. Not just some Voting

I think all side can agree, LET US VOTE!

[Save The Waterfront]

A Waterfront Preservation ballot question has been added to the City Council's agenda for this Thursday's meeting. If it is successful the Council will be directed to make all zoning and land use changes to maintain the Al Lang site at its current intensity of use, or less intense use.

A successful ballot vote will retain the site within the Waterfront Park System, and maintain ownership and control of the site within the public domain for all people. It will allow the current ballpark to remain and the surrounding land to be used for many pedestrian friendly activities. Or allow the ballpark to be razed in the future if it can not be adequately maintained.

It will prevent the site from ever being used as a convention center, large hotel, privately development condo, municipal services/city hall, major league baseball stadium, or any other highly intensive use.

Voting NO to the stadium is one thing, but having a voice on the long range use of this site is an entirely different voting issue.

This is NOT a parkland forever issue - this ballot question does NOT limit or require it to be used as a park. It is a broad concept that freezes the use at its current level of intensity.

Thank you city council for realizing the strong support for preserving the waterfront in our community and offering us a real choice.

[Thomas]

By the time we're done with this proposal, you'll all be wearing gold plated diapers baby!

[Tommy Lee]

Will- Dude I effen love the cowbell. You can never have enough.

[Justin Elza]

I hope Council puts an additional referendum item to preserve the intensity of use of Al Lang Field. Seems only fair IN THE INTEREST OF DEMOCRACY (that's what the stadium supporters are arguing on behalf of right, democracy?).

Let Us Vote...On Both!

[John]

I think Mayor Baker, in hopes of not jeapordizing his "legacy", has told Stu point blank "You'll never get this past the voters, not on the waterfront". I'm sure he's educated the Rays about last time someone tried to ruin our waterfront. This isn't even on a ballot yet and the red signs are EVERYWHERE.

This also explains the Al Lang preservation vote being added to the Council's Thursday agenda. This is over, folks.

Rays do a press confrence before Thursday's council meeting stating "we've come to the conclusion that we can not make this deal work". By doing so, they'll save face in the national media, they'll save face with the voters (fans), they'll save face by not putting our Mayor & Councilmembers on the hook. And most importantly, they'll salvage enough cred to come back in a few years and try again, but this time, I assure you, it won't be on our waterfront. (Gandy/Derby Lane is the spot).

Hooray, internets!!

[Justin Elza]

Aaron, can you make available the raw data from the recent Bay News 9 / SPT Stadium Poll?

[CatG]

If our City Council truly wants to find out what the voters want, giving them a yes or no choice on rezoning the land to the current or a less intensive use seems like the best way to go. Those that want to see the Rays build their stadium can vote no and the rest of us can vote YES!

The side benefit when the "YES" vote carries will be that the Rays cannot continue to bring their proposal back again and again over the next several years so we only have to go through this idiocy ONCE. AND then we can get on with the business of finding creative reuses for Al Lang. Shakespeare in the (ball)Park anyone?

This referendum question should go on the ballot REGARDLESS of what the Rays do or don't do about THEIR proposal. Many, many thanks to all who have pushed to get this opportunity for the voters of St. Pete!!!

Poww is incredible. They are now at the 11th hour trying to confuse the issue, b/c every other attempt to "Fight Like Dogs", "Do anything to derail this" has failed.

This is just the latest in the long list of tactics POWW is using to derail this process, by trying to come up with two agenda items.

They didn't want the rfps' issued, they said that only one developer would come back, they want to "vote with all the facts", postpone to 2009 b/c they don't want it in an election year (an elitist point of view).

NOW, in the lastest "HOW CAN WE DERAIL AND FIGHT LIKE DOGS CAMPAIGN" this week, they put out a blast to their supporters to e-mail city council, cutting and pasting a message to "put two items on the ballot". Where was this message when you were trying to kill this in January and February?

The latest segment in the ever changing POWW message.

[Keep Baseball in St. Pete]

Stu has said on New York Radio that if this plan isn't approved they will not try again period. You might as well forget any other site. Baseball is gone for good. Spring training is gone from our downtown too for good.

Shakespeare in the park is really the only use your going to have for Al Lang. Oh that will bring in the tourist and create a real economic engine.

When the people realize that this vote kicked baseball out of town and left two empty stadiums for the tax payers to maintain for the next 10 years they are going to be pissed. Ford will have a hard time running for mayor on that ticket.

Stop saying that your saving park land. Al Lang is a stadium and parking. If your argument is save al lang than your motto should be"save our existing 1977 stadium and parking lot from becoming parkland and a larger stadium".

If your argument is that you want a new park where baseball has been for a 100 years and a park has never existed your motto should be"demolish Al Lang and make sure spring training or MLB never comes back to downtown"

Sometimes even the majority makes a popularity contest decision vote that isn't in the best interest of the community.

[Pro ballpark Sign Stealing update]

8 build the ball park signs were stolen from the Euclid neighborhood this past week 14th and 15th street.

Keep up the win at all costs campaign your getting the pro ballpark people into this fight. Red signs have been up for 4 months. Ballpark signs for 5 weeks. It's not over till it's over

[Let us vote NO!!]

Keep Baseball @ 11:00

To quote Rick K,

"Your point is baseless, without merit, and just plain silly".

The FANS have shown just this past weekend that we're willing to sell out the Trop (which holds more than the fantasy stadium being proposed). As long as they continue to commit to this market and put a quality product on the field, without tax money. Knowing that, how can the Rays argue with selling out the Trop as a reason to look for other markets?? You make zero sense. Put a winning team on the field, and we WILL come (just like the Bucs & Lightning), but NOT on our waterfront.

[Clear Direction]

How is it that this proposed ballot question is "to derail the process".

They are two separate and distinct issues.

1. do you want to build a New Waterfront Stadium ?

2. Would you like to preserve the Al Lange site to it's current intensity or less?

Two very valid clear cut questions.

the one which receives more votes prevails.

Democracy at it's best.

You cannot argue that you want Council to "LET US VOTE!" but only on our issue.

[Clear Direction]

Regarding Sign Stealing,

It is unfortunate that signs on both sides of this issue are being stolen and Defaced.

I,however, do not beleive that either side is encouraging people to engage in this type of activity.

this is unfortunately a reality in any such campaign.

[Vote for preserving the Al Lang concrete oasis]

Al Lang Preservations

What the heck are you preserving. A empty stadium. No Spring training is coming back here anytime soon.

It's not a historic building either. I don't think anything built in the 70's comes close to being worth preservation.

Basically land that will sit useless.
Thanks for your hard work for that.

[Build Ballpark sign stealing]

I haven't read any red sign stealing posted on the blog. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but haven't heard about it.

[Keep Baseball]

Clear Direction,
Since you can't have one question answered without the other they are tied together and one question. Your joking right.

[Steve Lange]

Holy cow! Twenty posts and not one from Rick K.

POWW UPDATE:

I am part of POWW and glad of it.

The Fans and Rays have signs saying let us vote.

POWW is working, hard, to make it possible for all the Ray's fans and the Fan's fans to vote twice.

Twice!!!

What could be better?

A Waterfront Preservation Ballot!!

This could be better?

I am part of POWW and glad of it.

I have put out my fair share of little red signs, spoken to dozens of local groups, gone to more meetings, read more documents, strategized more than you would believe and driven more miles than my checkbook would care to admit.

And yet, this referendum issue is not over.

It could still twist and turn more often than a boa constrictor in heat.

So, we at POWW will keep our eye on the ball. We will keep working and not let up.

We are POWW and I am so darn proud to be a part of it.

Go POWW.

No NEW Waterfront Stadium!

[Let us vote NO!!]

LOL Bud Selig is now threatening St. Pete on behalf of the Rays. CLASSIC!!!

[John]

From Stu's dog & pony show @ The Business Journal's breakfast meeting, to some of the largest employers in this market:

"It's a story that the Rays can't be left to tell ourselves," Silverman said. "The silence from the business community has been noticed."

Who was it, Rick K or Ray F that said, "the overwhelming majority of businesses support this"....really?

Rays are taking their last gasp of breath on this before they resign to drowning.

[Steve Lange is so Proud]

Proud to kill Baseball and send it packing.

Proud to preserve a empty stadium for future generations to watch decay.

Proud to hit Rays Pregnant PR Girl in the head with your red sign.

Proud to accuse the city of illegal bid fixing.

Proud to show false long johns silver signs across the sail.

Proud to go back to the heavens waiting room title.

Proud to keep contractor jobs and future jobs out of our city.

Proud to stop new tax revenue for our schools.

Proud to call UHURU our newest supporter.

You keep being proud Steve. We will remember how proud you are.

[Steve Lange is so Proud]

Forgot one, Proud to Steal blue signs so effectively.

The 7 deadly sins

* 3.1 Lust (Latin, luxuria)
* 3.2 Gluttony (Latin, gula)
* 3.3 Greed (Latin, avaritia)
* 3.4 Sloth (Latin, acedia)
* 3.5 Wrath (Latin, ira)
* 3.6 Envy (Latin, invidia)
* 3.7 Pride (Latin, superbia)

Look Steve I found yours right there at the end

[Sabine]

Dear Build Ballpark sign stealing:

Re: stolen red signs...
Check police reports (there are many); look at defaced sign at 611 South Pasadena; look at posts for stolen large signs on South side of town; look at news report of Rays vans blocking Mr. Risser's sign on his private property.

Stop whining. Red sign people don't. They don't condone it, and they doubt blue babies do either. It is likely a bunch of yahoos who do not understand Democracy means freedom of speech for everyone.

[Steve Lange is wrong]

Both developers have offered to pay for the cost of streets, storm sewers, and public infrastructure within the development.

Steve Lange lied.

[Jon McPhee]

SLIS, maybe I read it wrong and I am sure you and others will gently correct me if so, but I think maybe the developers' shell corporations are reported to be currently suggesting, subject to further negotiation of an actual "Memorandum of Understanding," prior to an actual Developer Agreement, that they would maybe do the initial installation of infrastructure within the developed area. Maybe that's enough of a reason for you to argue that this is a lay-down great deal.

But with all the other open issues and unknowns, starting with market conditions "going forward," and reading that estimated tax revenues might possibly be as much as $4.3 to 7.5 mill a year although this is qualified as an "order of magnitude" estimate only, and that post-installation costs of maintaining infrastructure go to the city along with all to-the-property-line infrastucture costs, there are no impact fees, ongoing city service costs "within the footprint" fall on our public treasury, and of course environmental remediation and future liabilities for any residual contamination and litigation will lie with the city, and all of this stuff will possibly be under construction for 6 to 10 years and maybe a lot longer, lots of people might feel otherwise. However much you may think you have terminally impeached Steve Lange, looks like the general drift of this pre-potential,temporary interim preliminary draft proposal may not really be all that serious.

A recent letter in the Times highlighted one of the things that's bothersome about this whole process. This is an invitation to urban planning via train wreck, rather than intelligent design.

And as to Stu's words on Radio New York, well, he also said his organization was pretty committed to Tampa Bay and would honor the Trop lease and a lot of other things. He wouldn't be much of a poker player or investment banker if he couldn't lie with a straight face, now would he? So was he lying then, or is he lying now?

[Rick K]

Jon McPhee, thank you for that babble.

Now, to everyone sane: There is a pattern developing in this community wide debate. The ANTI side raises any and all possible arguments, including a number of arguments that are complete fantasy.

Many of their arguments fall on their face immediately. Others are mere opinions, and will neither stand up or fall down. Still more will fall flat over time, as more details are revealed.

Most of us are perfectly happy to let the professionals do their jobs. We know it is next to impossible that the amatuers who comprise the public voice of the ANTI movement on this site are right each and every time they contradict the professional experts.

It is amusing to watch. An ANTI makes a claim, based on his assumption of facts not yet in evidence. The facts are revealed, proving that the ANTI's claim was, in fact, without foundation (i.e, pure fantasy). The ANTI's are not bothered by this, they move on quickly to the next false, unsupportable claim, as though their credibility has not been undermined.

The less stable in the ANTI movement not only move on quickly, they actually pretend as though their rhetorical defeat was a victory.

What the ANTI's fail to get is that 90% or more of those who will vote (if it comes to that) will not, in the end, be persauded by lies or distortion or attempts to change the subject. They'll soak up all the information, think about which future St. Pete they desire, and cast their votes.

Simple.

[Sabine]

In the latest summary (have you read it, before crying "liar"?), developers have agreed to pay for on-site infrastructure... this is NEW, as of yesterday. They have also suddenly agreed to pay something toward the demolition of the Dome (excluding any contamination remediation UNDER the dome, an 8+ acre area never tested).

They are still not paying for the UNKNOWN amount of contamination remediation on the rest of the site (can you say: "A-Z-E-L-E-A"), new infrastructure needed outside both sites, and the costs of increased City services needed due to the change in use of both sites... read the summary! The information is available there.

[Justin Elza]

Aaron, can you make available the raw data from the recent Bay News 9 / SPT Stadium Poll?

[Rick K]

Sabine, not only have many of us read the summary, we predicted it's contents with great accuracy.

Of course the developers offered to pay for onsite infrastructure. 99% of all developments work that way. This wasn't a 'sudden' event. The developers ALWAYS thought (as did City staff) that the developers would pay for streets and sidewalks and storm sewers in the development. They never considered any other arrangement. This isn't NEW as of yesterday. What is NEW is that the ANTI's just now discovered that there worries were unfounded.

Of course the developers offered to pay for demolition (with offered caps, which they will happily negotiate upwards). They never considered NOT doing so. This isn't NEW either. How do you people think the Rays came up with their estimate of $70 Million for a purchase price of the Trop site? They asked expert real estate appraisers to determine likely market values, which take into account all positive and negative factors influencing the economics of developing the site.

Of course the developers have included in their offers to date that they want to be 100% free from any responsibility for any existing environmental conditions requiring remediation. This is the case in nearly 100% of all real estate negotiations in America, including every home I've ever bought.

And, of course, so far, the developers have not specifically offered to pay for any environmental remediation, external infrastructure alterations, and increased costs connected with providing municipal services to the property. However, all those items are open for negotiation, according to the matrix. The matrix contains nothing that surprises anyone with any experience in real estate development.

The only thing that surprises most of us when considering these negotiations is the degree to which some of the ANTI's who are completely ignorant have PRETENDED that their ignorance is equal to knowledge and experience.

[Spin it]

Rick K (SuperBlogger)
Please explain to me how this new stadium will be success for the next 20 years?
I am born and raised in St Pete. 20 years ago, we all heard the same arguments about how great baseball would be for St Pete. How much it will do for the community. Historical facts shows that never happened.
Why put a stadium on the waterfront that may not have any value in 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years?

[Dave in St Pete]

Aaron,

I back here. What is the big news for today?

[Aaron Sharockman]

Someone asked about the poll data. We've released what we're going to release, I'm told, which is the results to all of the questions. That information should be a couple of posts down.

The only thing you're not seeing in that is the breakdowns by age, gender and how many games people went to last year.

For instance, those numbers show that the more games people went to in 2007, the more likely they are to support the Rays' plans. And that men are more likely to support the Rays' stadium plans than women. And people 18-54 are more likely to support the plan than people over 55.

Hope that helps.

[Justin Elza]

Where exactly is that data?

[Rick K replying to SPIN It]

Spin It.

I am sorry that you have not had the benefit of posts in other threads where I have fully explained this, but I welcome the chance to offer you fresh information you apparently haven't considered.

First, you should know that most of us who favor these PAIRED redevelopment proposals SHARE your angst that the promises of the Trop development never materialized as much as most people hoped.

I believe the Trop definitely contributed to downtown development and also has been a factor in tourism. Spin, I understand that some disagree with myconclusions, but there is definitely no data that proves my assesment is wrong. The much larger point is that I admit that the neighborhood surrounding the Trop never received the revitalization that many who supported developing the dome hoped for.

There are a couple of simple reasons for this failure, and the less than "could have been" impact of the Trop on tourism:

1. The site was poorly designed. Essentially, they built a suburban stadium in an urban environment. The surface parking lots which surround the Trop create a real barrier between it and the neighborhood which surrounds it. There are virtually no businesses off the property that can be seamlessly integrated with the Trop visitation experience. This is a design flaw that is not correctable at the current site, and it is directly responsible for the failure of the dreams of the "urban renewal" devotees.

2. The Trop is actually a poorly designed stadium for Major League Baseball. We know this because the Devil Rays immediately demanded renovations to the then very new stadium as soon as the MLB franchise was awarded to St Pete, saying the renovations were necessary to make the dome "meet the minimum standards" for big league baseball. The NEW Rays ownership group also assessed the Trop during their takeover of the team, and decided it needed $85 million in additional improvements. Even with those improvements, the Rays' assesment convinced them that the Trop is not suitable for their purposes in the intermediate and long term future. The Rays ownership, who are in the business of luring fans to games and who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the team, reached the conclusion that the TROP will not be conducive to attracting the number and type of fans they need for their business to achieve it's objectives. (The Rays ownership also understands that the current Trop site will not permit the neighborhood revitalization that St. Pete could use). Additionally, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, whose job it is to promote what is best for that business, also believes the Rays and the League would benefit from a new park.

There is loads of other data to support the conclusion that the Trop is not maximizing the team's ability to draw fans.

So, SPIN, it was a fairly simple progression. Once the Rays and other community leaders came to realize that their were built in problems with the existing Trop property that cannot be overcome on that site, they began the process of exploring how best to solve that problem.

They quickly realized that there were several other community problems related to the Trop site, and the existing Al Lang site.

The Trop site, in addition to being incapable of generating the neighborhood revitalization that is desired, generates virtually no tax revenue. The Trop is a very fat environmental negative (what with the HUGE A/C bills, many acres of pavement, and potential undergound contaminants on site).

Bottom line, SPIN, that land could be put to better use. If we were to tear down the Air Conditioned Trop, remove those acres of paved parking, and clean up any contaminants on the land, we'll be better off (and so will the planet). If we can replace that disfunctional, obsolete stadium with a new, vibrant mix of retail shopping (which downtown lacks in sufficient quantities), along with offices, restaurants, residences, and public spaces, all in a cutting edge large scale urban infill project, the City will see thousands of new residents, thousands of new workers, and tens of thousands of new visitors who will spend money in St Pete.

This redevelopment of the Trop site is what excites me most about these paired redevelopment proposals. The beauty is, it allows us to tear down the Trop (something we will have to do at some point), clean up the land, and finally make the neighborhood a thriving center of live/work/play activity.

ALONG with the benefits from THAT, we ALSO get to tackle another couple of issues. First is the greatly underutilized waterfront. Downtown St. Pete has a system of connected waterfront amentities that are unmatched in the USA. From gorgeous restored historical structures, to thriving businesses, to parks, boat marinas, fishing spots, museums, concert halls, educational institutions, diverse architecture, and loads of OPEN space, our "waterfront" ribbon is a unique community asset that is currently underused by the community.

St. Pete as a city also lacks an iconic image that effectively serves to "brand" the city in the minds of tourists. Once known throughout the country as "God's waiting room," or "the city with Green benches," or, "the shuffleboard capital of the universe," the City's various marketing efforts have really lacked a single identifiable feature that consumers can easily remember.

Al Lang is also an empty stadium. When used for Spring Training, the stadium was used for a few hours a day, for about 15 days a year. But for a handful of other events, the stadium sits unused.

What the downtown waterfront could really use is something that draws more people to it.

What the City could really use is a distinctive, memorable image that will create lasting impressions in the minds of would be tourists all over the world.

Realizing all of the above, SPIN It, led the Rays to develop these twin redevlopment proposals.

Redeveloping the Trop Field site will finally correct the shortcomings of the original but flawed plan from your childhood. It will unquestionably lead to billions of dollars in additional tax collections.

There is some disagreement about precisely how many dollars of taxes will be captured in exactly which year, but there is no one who disputes that the site will generate millions on top of millions of taxes. (Some want gaurantees of taxes, but development deals don't come with guarantees).

By building an innovative, state of the art baseball park on the site of the existing underutilized Al Lang field, the Rays get to move to a home that they are convinced will enhance their business, draw more fans, and improve the marketing of the city and region (thru a Major League All-Star game, for example).

We'll reduce the amount of downtown land currently devoted to baseball stadiums (from 100 acres to about 15 acres). Our community will end up with the country's first LEED certified major league stadium. We'll get MORE usuable parklands downtown. We'll add a signature structure to the downtown skyline, and we will greatly enhance our efforts to successfully market St. Petersburg to people outside the City/Region/State/Country.

In short, SPIN it, we who LIKE these paired redevelopment propsoals AGREE that the promises of the Dome never materialized to the extent many people imagined or hoped. We believe that is because of poor decisions made in designing the dome and surrounding site.

This is our chance to FIX that.

[Ray F]

I like the Hines proposal better of the 2. It seems more realistic. I also like that they are bringing retasilers that the area doesn't already have.

Obviously, the comments on this thread have nothing to do with the actual headline story.

Maybe you guys can stick to the story that's presented on each thread.

[soil testing]

Sabine,
On your comment that "the 8 acres actually under the dome was never tested". That is incorrect. That is one area that would have been required to build the original project and was the area were the original unsuitable soil removal occurred.

[Paul]

Does either proposal mention, 'we won't do this if the Rays move out of St Pete'?

I glanced them over, but am not sure how that would/could be worded.

I'm thinking we can do this Trop redevelopment after we give the Rays the boot out of town..... errr, I mean, vote down the deal. If so, sounds great to me. And we get to consider uses for Al Lang that the Citizens actually want, like a multi use park that could hold the Saturday market and maybe even Shakespeare in the park.

Either way, no new waterfront stadium.

Karl Nurse is a hero!

[Aaron Sharockman]

Poll results

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article589128.ece

[Justin Elza]

That isn't the raw data, that's your summary of the raw data.

Why don't you provide the raw data (phone numbers removed)? Hint: It will be in spreadsheet form.

[Rick K]

Just to prove to the ANTI's that we open minded types can disagree...

Ray, I prefer the Archstone plan.

I think that if these unique retaliers without a presence in the Bay Area would lease space from Hines, they will also lease space from Archstone. I like it that Archstone has already received conditional interests from existing area retailers, because this mixes well with unique retailers who are new to the area.

The idea of building a destination mall is sensational. First, there is no mall in Pinellas that comes close to matching the newer malls, International Mall, Citrus Park Mall, and Brandon Town Center.

While I admire Sembler's intelligent approach to building modern malls as clusters of big box retailers (because I used to be a property manager and I love the lack of common area maintenance on the part of the owner), their redesign of the Clearwater and Pinellas Park malls actually subtracted from "destination" shopping in the County.

This helps to explain why Pinellas residents spend hundreds of millions of dollars in Hillsborough each year, and almost none of the reverse pattern takes place.

Archstone, it seems to me, is taking a more agressive, more longterm approach to the project. They forsee a more intense development, but will take longer to build it.

They also have offered to build (at their own expense) a new intermodal transportation facility somewhere in the project. As an intermodal dude, that appeals to me.

[Paul]

I would go with Archstone mostly because it creates more jobs at a projected higher average wage than does the Hines proposal. Although I'd like them to break out the wages... are they averaging the construction jobs' pay in with the net new jobs' pay? (this is shown in Item 12 in the matrix).

[Jon McPhee]

It would be interesting to see if Rick has any data from the developers on what those jobs are, other than the raw numbers of bodies supposedly to be employed. He seems to know all else.

[J]

Paul,
You are a perfect example of the stereotype of POWW members. (Some of which are trying to avoid)

You simply want baseball out and have stopped evaluating the alternatives and negotiations. "After we give the Rays the boot out of town"

You point to activities such as the Saturday Morning market that people already like but that are already existing. That doesn't add any new program/event to the city.

The market receives shade from the southern exposure due to it's current location and that has positive impact on attendance and duration of patrons visits. Moving it could have an adverse effect if not given additional shade structures. They have been offered other locations and have declined in the past.

Demons landing is perfect for Shakespeare in the park with only one check point over the bridge for access. If you have it somewhere else they will need to add fencing to their already slim budget. You might want to talk to them before moving their venue.

It will take quite a sum of money to demolish Al Lang and build a park. The city will then need to maintain the park adding expense to it's operations budget which is currently on the chopping block. If it's not a stadium please look at alternatives that don't replicate existing events. They should also provide a positive impact to business or to attracting visitors. Pioneer park for example is a nice walk but provides no usable program or attraction. It's a in between park. You go there to each lunch or walk somewhere else. I don't think that 15 acres of new park should be treated in this way.

Your also assuming that the best use of Al Lang is to demolish it and not try to attract another spring training team. I believe it would be vacant for some time but I just wanted to clarify your position

Two referendum items that depend on each other is a legal nightmare. If one passes/fails without the other it will not be a clear decision and you will put the decision for interpretation in lawyers hands. You may extend the whole process. I'm not sure that helps either side.

[Walter Fernando]

The referendum on keeping the same footprint is a great idea and, I believe, should begin a dialogue about building a Major League Soccer stadium. Why not? We already have a baseball stadium and a major league ballpark. More youngsters play soccer than any other sport, MLS is growing, we could host the state HS championship and other college tournaments, European exhbitions (i.e. Manchester United and others play at other small MLS stadiums) would fit perfectly with our downtown feel, Latin American teams would pack it in, reintroducing the "Tampa Bay Rowdies" would create an instant following. I say "Build the Waterfront SOCCER Stadium" and keep the existing stadium for another 10-15 years. Anyone feeling me?

[J]

I love soccer, they've tried it twice with the Rowdies and Mutiny but the flaw is was that it was in Ray J where even if the had 30,000 fans the seats looked empty and they had to lease a over sized stadium. Basically they lost money because of their stadium. The Rays even stole the old Mutiny Colors.

Soccer does show a interesting comparison. People said that soccer wouldn't work anywhere in the US but They proved that wrong by building stadiums that were sized to the audience and market. These teams have become profitable.

The first Major League Soccer stadium opened in Columbus in 1999. The Home Depot Center opened in Los Angeles in 2003, with Pizza Hut Park opening two years later outside Dallas. The Chicago Fire's new stadium opened in June, 2006. Almost all of them are sized around 30,000 people.

Thanks for adding a complete tangent to the blog though.

[Paul]

I'm not stereo typical anything. I'm repeating what Bud Selig and that ex-CEO of Tech Data are saying: the Rays need a new stadium or they will leave. Those are not my words. Kalt wont' say and Sternberg won't either. They have people say those things for them which is fine. So the Rays are in effect saying just that, build it or we're gone.

So, once this gets voted down, the Rays will be leaving the Trop and there will be no stadium built at Al Lang for them. Just the way I see it... so they have backed me as a voter into the corner with an ultimatum: vote yes, or we leave. Since my vote has been no all along... then I say 'give them the boot'. That is my opinion, I do not look to a group to decide anything. I am a St Pete resident and I get to vote, so there's 1 for 'no'.

Can anyone answer the question I'd asked earlier? If the Rays do leave town, do the Trop redevelopment proposals still stand? I don't see any language in the document stating them being contingent on the Rays relocating elsewhere in St Pete or not at Al Lang. Perhaps Council should ask for this in their MOU... if those kind of things go into an MOU, not sure.

[Paul]

J, my point is, we can use Al Lang for a host of things... but it was supposed to be yes, another park, until Council went back on their word. I'm open to other ideas... just not a mega stadium. Saturday market is an idea, as is Shakespeare. I heard the market wanted to expand and they'd expressed interest in the Al Lang site. I am not involved with the market in anyway so I'm not speaking on their behalf.

[J]

I'm going to have to disagree with Rick for a moment. There should be nothing that resembles a full scale Mall on the Trop Site. Clearwater and Parkside Mall complexes for designed specifically because of the Largo Malls success and national trends to create "pretend downtowns" Even Tyrone has added some of these features and intends to add more.

This however isn't good enough for St. Pete's downtown to be walker friendly . The grid should be extended and parking hidden by edge buildings or in garages. There should be clear pedestrian and bike access to the front of stores directly from the street, Addition access from parking garages can be made from the rear or connecting to the street. Even treasure island has a new publix were you don't see the parking from the street.

You need to energize the street and minimize sea's of parking. The result should be a dense framework that neighboring sites can continue in the future. You shouldn't be able to tell were the perimeter of this site originally was 10-20 years from now.

The Trop site is vital to St. Pete's downtown future regardless of your stadium position.

[J]

If you move the rays elsewhere in St. Pete you will most likely pay more because additional parking and infrastructure will be required. A parcel that size will most likely need to be purchase from a private entity increasing the price further.

That and it has no impact on the surrounding area. It would become essentially like the Meadowlands where people just go and comeback. St. Pete can't afford to lose all economic benefit and pay more.

If your open to that than is your main objection the waterfront placement?

On the programs I'm just trying to illustrate and make people understand a bit that we will be spending money on that site if it's voted down and I would like to have a plan B that still provides some kind of economic and program incentives.

On the the Rays will leave statements they are just repeating what is obvious and reported on sports radio. If we don't evaluate the vacuum conditions created by the Rays departure and weigh them in here than I think we are being irresponsible and doing a dis-service for future generations and downtown.

[Paul]

Yes, the waterfront is my personal 1st objection. The second is the land grab/corporate welfare banter than has been more than battered around on here.

Isn't the county willing to give land at ToyTown? That is still St Pete, right?

[J]

Paul,
Trust me you don't want toy town. I would rather a private developer have all the fun building on a 30-50' deep landfill.

On the land grab issue, this is a lease, it's really how do we want to lease this out don't you think consolidating 100 acres of baseball on 15 is better(I understand for you if that 15 were a block farther west.)

The result is essentially similar to the city annexing 86 acres back into the city.

Corporate Capitalism versus public is always a balance. The city gave 20 mil to entice the SRI complex to locate downtown. That is a direct example but they will also provide high paying jobs and hopefully attract other similar companies. Why is that issue not under any scrutiny if this is really about public funding of private enterprise.

The Pier, Albert Whitted, Mahathey, Baywalk parking garage and countless other facilities have been built and maintained with entirely public funds but are run and managed by private corporations.

Should we be following the rationale for all projects or is there some type of line in the sand regarding the size of the incentive or project? Should local government way job growth or tax base expansion into such decisions?

Too bad this thread is already old news.

[Rand Moorhead]

Did anyone notice in today's Times' article about the proposed mixed use development of the Trop site? In it was an issue identified as key to the success of the venture...highway access. Right there, the developers have exposed themselves as being behind the times (too bad the "Times" is behind them, too!!!)...Has anyone noticed that our energy futures are
volatile at best?...and that we must finally bite the bullet and update our outdated, car-only, transportation system? The group, the Urban Design Consortium, LLC, is calling for
the southern tier of a regional mass transit system to be the focus of any public expenditure debate. Yankee go home...the Rays' owners, proudly proclaiming their NYC roots, are trying to turn downtown St. Pete into a congested Manhattan during game days.
Don't you get it? We don't want that.
We would much rather be like San Diego than NYC...period. Don't you get it?
Parking WILL be a nightmare at a waterfront stadium...period. Idling cars will be the reality...Go enjoy Manhattan to get your fill of this "excitement"...I'll see you on the pier, enjoying the tranquility and the energy of the sailboats on the bay.
Speaking of San Diego, check out the website...San Diego trolleys. Like Charlotte, NC, they have had tremendous ECONOMIC spinoff success with their authentic streetcar revivals....much better than a waterfront stadium could do to the whole region. Install a water taxi across the bay, connect it to a streetcar along Central and include a Stop At The Trop. Customers could come from Tampa to a Rays game at the Trop without getting into a car.
HELLO....is anyone else out there amazed that our heads are still buried in the sand regarding transportation?

[Rays Mike]

Hmmmm. Don't most New Yorkers take mass transit to Yankee or Shea Stadium? I wish they would bring some of their New York ways down here!