Sternberg talks stadium

Rays prinicpal owner Stuart Sternberg was at Tropicana Field for Saturday's game and talked a bit about the stadium situation. Here are some excerpts:

As for the new stadium issue?
"It's been touch-and-go obviously the last couple months. We continue to work really hard and probably have worked too hard on it for the last year, year-and-a-half. And it's still a work in progress.''

As for commissioner Bud Selig's comments that the Rays can't be successful at Tropicana Field?
"Bud has been extraordinarily supportive not just through the process of the stadium but everything we have been doing. He gives a lot of interviews and he speaks about a lot of things and he's been through 25 or 27 new stadium projects so specific to what we have going on here, I don't know that you want to take every word and hang on it. But we've spoken a great deal about it, he understands the situation and knows that we need to have something done within a period of time. I'm very happy with the building. The way the building is playing right now, you get 25,000, 30,000, 35,000 people in here, it's a nice place, a great facility for that. But long-term it doesn't give us the opportunity, mid-term and long-term, to sustain what it is we've begun to build here.''

So what would you do if it fails, and what is Plan B? "You don't throw good money after bad, whatever work and whatever money we've put into it to this point,  and I can sit here and tell you it's substantial, the money has been a quite a bit and most importantly, the organization and the amount of work a number of people have done, has been substantial. So you don't just keep throwing money after it, and more importantly, time and energy, just because of what you've done. As far as Plan B, you're looking at it. It always was. The nice thing is we have a Plan B. Our lease is not up, it's not raining in here. The humidity is fine. It's 72 degrees. We fortunately made the difficult decisions over the last few years to refurbish the place and put a lot of dough into it, because you always sort of need a Plan B.
But for how long? "At least five years and not 15. I'm probably down to at least four years and not 14 at this point. The building itself can't sustain the length of its lease (through 2027) just A) from an upkeep standard and B) what it would do for us to recharge the fan base in addition to what we're doing right now.''

- MARC TOPKIN

Comments

[Xenu]

Xenu needs more cowbell at the Trop.

[since1962]

So Sternberg endorses PLAN B !

WE HAVE 13 years use left in the TROP!

NOT NOW
NOT ON THE WATERFRONT
LESS TAXPAYER MONEY

ENDORSE PLAN B

STERNBERG DOES

[John]

Not on our waterfront, Stu. Sorry.

[get-smart]

Stu's Plan B is really us "anti's" Plan A. I finally got my 'U B Architect 2' software up and running.

Hey Stu, don't worry I can help. I got the software. I can do the pretty pictures too.

Cheers!

[Xenu]

Xenu endorses a "niche Plan B" stadium.
Xenu loves pretty pictures. Xenu loves cowbell in octave B.

[John]

Stu

We have plenty of room for you. But not there. And not yet. We've proven we'll come if you put a quality product on the field. Over 100,000 in the last 4 games. We've also proven the Trop "works" almost perfectly, considering our lack of transit options.

Partner with us to make the Trop (or its retractable-roof alternative you wanted in the first place) a showpiece for not only baseball, but all the other funtions we have, plus conventions, plus trade shows, plus graduations (since Bayfront Arena is gone), plus conventioneers and tourists that accompiany them.

And the business that follows.

We had the right idea the 1st time.

We WILL help you do the responsible thing, as taxpayers.

Bring downtown to the baseball team, not the other way around. Stupid.

Plan B is what you make it.

You don't even need the voters' input, as long as you don't mess with our waterfront.

[Hmmmmm]

Hmmm...

an February open-roof sellout concert of Dave Matthews Band (in the grass) at the "New Trop" with hotel space next-door. And plenty of parking for tailgating. And no "Ford Ampitheatre" noise issues. Turn it up!

A permament home for the (possible open-air?) Saturday Morning Market, which is already nationally acclaimed. And plenty of parking in place.

Budget-conscious convention planners deciding between an employee having to blow a grand or more, to entertain their family @ Disney while they attend a convention, or the same family spending a substantive less but still worthy dollar on downtown St. Pete, and on our completely free beaches. Most every one of them, buying hotel rooms (bed tax?) to stay downtown or the beaches for "said event". They eat here. They drink here. All for a comparable-or-better convention experience than Orlando? And plenty of parking.

LEED certified Trop retactable solar-paneled roof that offsets many of the "green" disadvantages of the Trop (a/c, a necassary evil here).

That's 3 acres of sun drenched orange roof we could be sucking power from.

Hmmmmm

[since1962]

John
While I agree with MOST of your post, I disagree that politicans AND the VOTERS who elect them will NOT be VERY involved in ANY solution NOW that the Rays have divided the community this way.

[get-smart]

I checked out the LEED concept in my new 'U B Architect 2' software.

I asked it, "what is LEED?

It said,"LEED is a third-party certification program and the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings. LEED gives building owners and operators the tools they need to have an immediate and measurable impact on their buildings’ performance. LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality."

To my thinking, by destroying a perfectly functional building, such as the Trop, the energy and pollution expended in that endeavor would soak-up fifty years of any new stadium LEED savings. In fifty years they would want the taxpayers to buy them a new stadium anyway.

My solution for ML Baseball is to build ten stadiums in one location called 'Baseball City.' All the teams are there and all the games are played there. All games are televised. If you are a fan and want to see a game, you go to Baseball City.

In Baseball City, if the owners want a new stadium, they will build it themselves.

Instead of the greedy team owners shaking down and blackmailing the cities (ie Yankees), they will have to market themselves just like Disney does.

- The Waterfront is Off Limits -

[Bill]

I get a real chuckle that the "waterfront is off limits". Like its been "Central Park in NY or Lincoln Park in Chicago". Folks, it has been a baseball stadium for 80 years. IT ALREADY IS A BASEBALL STADIUM.

Lets build the stadium on the waterfront! It will be a wonderful thing for our city for the next 50+ years. Plus, we get to re-develop Tropicana Field, getting all the benefit from that project.

Thank you Stu for your vision.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Bill,

If it's already a baseball stadium and outdoors and on the waterfront..why don't they simply play their games there.
As obvious as the answer may seem, it should be just as obvious that replacing a small, very low profile, 7,000 seat facility, with a huge 34,000 seat stadium with a 350' mast to hold a monstrous sail, is akin to someone who wishes to avoid code considerations on their new 20 story condo stating..but there is already a duplex there. They're both multifamily but hardly comparable!

[Don Mott]

Hi RRRRick

[since1962]

Al Lang WAS a baseball tradition long BEFORE the RAYS moved training in an attempt to steal the profits from the Trop sale AND the waterfront land.(a bit of the bay too).
Now they'll have to settle for LESS than what would have been negotiated originally.
Remember, this city wanted MLB so badly that it built a stadium BEFORE it had a team!

[Xenu]

Bill- Xenu too, like you, appreciates Linkin Park. Xenu loves their music also. Reading your post reminds Xenu of lyrics of theirs. Xenu wants you to sing it with Xenu-
"Shut up when I'm talking to you, shut, up, shut up, shut up, SSSSHHHUUUTTT UUUPP, when I'm talking to you. Everything you say to me, takes me one step closer to the edge and I'm about to break. I need a little room to breathe, cause I'm one step closer to the edge, and I'm about to.......Break."
Xenu could hear the cowbell in the background.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Bill,

Just to add to your chuckle about the "waterfront is off limits". Like its been "Central Park in NY. There is actually a connection between our waterfront and Central Park.

John Nolan was the first city planner ever hired by this city. He came to us from New York and it was his vision that helped others like Snell and Straub realize that a public park system was not something at which to chuckle.

John Nolan originally worked in New York as a disciple of Frederick Law Olmstead...who of course was the man responsible for Central Park.

So your comparison is correct, your conclusion about chuckling may be a bit off however. While Mr. Kalt has demonstrated his skill for taking public parks snatching the popular Macombs Dam and Mullaly parks for his new Yankee stadium..even Mr. Kalt wouldn't haven't gotten away with grabbing some of Central Park...just as he won't get away with grabbing some of our precious waterfront!

[Clear Direction]

Bill,

Years of Vision 20/20 input,
Years of new LDR visioning
City sponsored Visioning sessions at the Mahaffy.

All have told the city that the voters want the Al Lang site preserved as open parkland!

The Voters of St. Pete have NEVER approved a single referrendum to authorize ANY development on city owned waterfront land!

70% voted to keep Albert Whitted.
68% are against this proposal(according to the St. Pete Times/Baynews 9 poll)

Bill do you really think things have changed so much that NOW the voters will embrace this plan?

[Clear Direction]

All,

Herb Polson & Bob Stewart will be speaking about the Ray's proposal today At 11:00 AM on Baynews 9 today.

[Jon McPhee]

Just a thought:

Many of us keep looking for what's promised in the header to this blog:

"the latest from the ongoing debate, focusing on the impact to taxpayers, the evolution of the Rays’ proposal and the politics unfolding behind the scenes."

Other than the overwhelming stink from the pissing contests that have come to dominate discussions, and I use that noun very loosely, there is so very little about what Ed Armstrong and Mayor Rick and Stu and little Mikey are up to that one has to wonder what the "November surprise" is going to look like.

Lots of people object to the waterfront location part of the subsidy grab. But a lot of folks who are drowning in our wonderful "floats all boats, trickle down" economy are put off that the public cost of just the stadium part of this thing would cost every man, woman and child someting between $300 and $3,000 a person. (Say, almost a million of us Pinellans, into either $350 million, or if it goes like the Trop, [$323 million/$90 million actual to claimed cost = 3600% jump], gives you about $1.2 billion, or $1,300 per each and every person at least, not counting debt service, infrastructure etc.)

And we have practically no way of even guessing at the cost of supporting all or some portion of the "paired development" (is this like some Siamese twin, sever the two and both may die?), since everything is still up in the air as far as the public is concerned. We don't even have a fair idea of the value of the public Trop land that would apparently be short-sold to Archstone to maybe start "Phase 1" on.

Any reason we can't have a little Excel spreadsheet work that would give us a running tally of costs of the various parts of all this, reduced to a figure everyone can understand: How much would my personal share of the public cost of all this be?

I know, Ricky, you are sure that there will be "billions and billions in tax revenues and sales," from somewhere. Argue rationally for inclusion of those credit-side numbers too.

The discussion over what inputs, formulae and values ought to go into the model might sharpen the acuity with which we all get to see what's going on and who wins.

There is a large random element in all of this, of course, and as the Archstone folks have made clear there are endless contingencies and branches to the decision/development tree. But does that mean that the voters (who only get to "vote" on a little piece of the puzzle anyway) should be left in ignorance? I know, Ray, you think that's how we all vote anyway.

You know that the Rays owners have far more sophisticated financial tools in use already -- after all, they're the smart guys who created the whole fanciful set of derivative debt repackaging based on sub-prime mortgages that has a lot to do with all the drowning people in the first instance. Have the City or County governments made even tentative steps to even enumerate, evaluate and value all the pieces of this, in a context other than whether they can figure out how to sell bond counsel and bond markets on the viability of the area's taxable future?

Of course, "winning" is the Franchise owners' goal, and for politicians and the subsidy seekers alike, it seems like the more that this all happens in the dark corners, the better for the players, and I don't mean the ones on the field. Plausible deniability, deflection of blame, bullet-ducking at election time, and all that.

If the MLB franchise owners and politicians had produced even as much transparency in the lead-in to all this as a McDonalds franchise owner has to provide for zoning and land use purposes, we would all be in a very different space right now. Pretty pictures will not do it.

How 'bout it, Aaron or Howard? Or maybe some of the smart people at POWW or Lorraine or Don or somebody could take a run at a framework?

[Rick K]

You ANTI's are truly hilarious.

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, Rrricky "not not a politician," "the goal is not to produce the best stadium for the team," here's another laugh for you. Hope you get outside and enjoy the sunshine on our lovely beaches this weekend and don't spend the entire day at your diligent keyboard.

To the Editors of the Times:

You sly dogs!

I just finished Sunday's editorial on "Baseball chief needs to butt out."

Most of us could not agree more, that this buccaneer owner of the Brewers, who has ripped off Wisconsin, and helped other teams to rip off the public in other places, has no place in our little private subsidy war.

But you folks apparently have studied at the Gingrich-Rove School of Staying On Message. What's this little sentence that sneaks into today's fourth paragraph from the Fourth Estate? "Pinellas County commissioners, St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker and City Council members are perfectly capable of creating a viable financing plan for a downtown waterfront stadium, even in these tough economic times."

"Dwontown waterfront stadium?" "Viable financing plan?" Whoa up there, Hoss! I guess that stakes out pretty clearly for all to see the depth to which you have committed your editorial objectivity to pushing the subsidy grab by the franchise owners. And yes, even in these "tough economic times," when huge commitments of present and future public resources ought to be given a very careful public examination and not left to the unbridled and unseen discretion of our elected representatives.

Then you toss in this bit about "the stadium issue mak[ing] it to the November ballot." You know darn well that IF an Al Lang issue gets balloted, the only "stadium issue" it will cover is one little bit of the Al Lang public property's future.

C'mon, be honest at least -- the voters of the Pinellas peninsula simply do not have any opportunity to say yea or nay on the "downtown waterfront stadium." We are supposed to trust our "betters," with their simply stellar track record of pushing past the public many other albatross-around-our-necks projects, up to and including the "was only $86 million, now special priced at $323 million" Trop itself.

You tell Selig, the Captain Hook of MLB, to "[l]et this community wrestle with the issue..." From the little bit the public can see of how this "issue" is being "wrestled," the contest looks more like a Hulk Hogan WWF pre-scripted steroid-enhanced bit of gymnastics, to dazzle and razzle the rest of us before common sense and the public welfare get one-two-three PINNED.

When I lived in Seattle and went to Mariners games in the Dome out there, the good play by the team produced generally huge turnouts and a decibel level of crowd noise that intimidated enemy teams so badly that sports enthusiasts and the team called it "the tenth man on the field." The Trop dome, with its acoustics and now a winning team, is not even amortized yet. Let's recall the relative positions of the parties before knuckling under to the people who brought NY the Yankee mess.

Have you read about that? Does the stuff in this link look awfully familiar? I'm sure your researchers, if the tough economic times have left you any, can turn up lots of other stuff on how "good" these stadium subsidies are or are not.

http://www.goodjobsny.org/lootfinal3.pdf

You can only drain just so much blood out of a person's body before they fall into irreversible shock and die. You folks seem happily poised to help insert the catheters into the community's veins.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

You're back. We're still waiting on that top ten list of SPECIFIC lies you have found on the POWW website. Remember a simple difference of opinion with Rick K is not a lie...simply a subject for debate. I am looking for the SPECIFIC list of LIES that back up all of your ad hominem attacks.

[Tom]

The Rays will be gone for good if St Pete does not get a new stadium. Stu admits to not being there in what could be as soon the next 4 years.

Your vote counts, vote YES for a new, beautiful waterfront ballpark. We'll have an All Star Game and a much needed shopping area.

YES to new stadium!

[Howard Fan]

This had better be a really good deal for Trop site

By Howard Troxler, Times Columnist
In print: Sunday, June 22, 2008

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article637394.ece

-----------------------------------------------------

Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk.

— Joaquin Setanti

(I dunno, some guy)

Between now and early August, St. Petersburg, the Tampa Bay Rays and the city's newly chosen developer for Tropicana Field need to make a really good deal, if the Rays are going to get a new baseball stadium on their first try.

The only things that matter now are the contracts.

This is not about whether St. Petersburg "wants to be a big-league city" or whether poopy old "naysayers" are in the way of "progress" or any other such rhetoric.

If the deal gets better, the idea still has a chance with the voters in November. Otherwise, it is no wonder some people already are talking about Plan B down the road.

At this moment, the city's dealings with the proposed buyer-developer of the Tropicana site, Archstone-Madison, consist of:

(1) Pretty drawings with no guarantees of anything yet.

(2) An offered price that doesn't even pay off the existing Tropicana debt.

Besides these issues, there are a couple of others that bear mentioning. The first of these is liability for tearing down Tropicana Field.

Again, we should not care that the city is "comfortable" that it will cost less than $5-million, which is all the developer will pay. What happens otherwise?

Secondly, despite the city's confident claim that any remaining environmental problems on the Trop site can be fixed for less than $100,000, that has to be nailed down too.

What will the contract say about future problems on the Tropicana site? Most of the site was not tested in the original dome construction in the 1980s, despite its past use for many industrial purposes. Who would pay for testing, cleanup and liability?

Let's say that all of this is routine contract stuff and no problem. We still have other sticking points.

The city ought to hold the Rays to their original rhetoric — that the public's share of the stadium debt will be covered by the new taxes that come from all the neat stuff to be built on the Tropicana site.

Why, then, shouldn't we write that into the contracts, with the other parties guaranteeing any shortfall?

It shouldn't cost them that much, if anything — we can call the difference "rent" — and it might be the magic bullet. The parties could then campaign on the idea that the new stadium will be, in essence, "free" to taxpayers.

Free! We make more than we spend! Now, that is a deal.

That is the big enchilada. After the Rays and/or developer make that major concession, they can then twist Mayor Rick Baker's arm on his demand for more parking, and he can go, ow, ow, okay, uncle.

Then the Rays give Baker some kind of concession on the team name. Not "St. Petersburg Rays," which is too parochial. Maybe "Florida Rays at St. Petersburg," once that team in Miami changes its name. Or something.

An ironclad deal. Guarantees from the developer. Guarantees the public's debt will be covered. Every contingency covered. All tied up with a nice bow.

It might still work.

But anything less, any open-ended risk to the taxpayers, is probably enough to kill a proposal that is already unpopular with most voters.

Good luck negotiating, y'all.

[since1962]

Sternberg endorses PLAN B

NOT NOW

" ...13 yrs useable life left in TROP"

NOT ON THE WATERFRONT

LESS TAXPAYER MONEY/RISK

less TROP debt in 13 years
better market conditions for condos/retail

SUPPORT PLAN B
STERNBERG DOES

[J]

For those proposing development around the Plan B Trop and transforming the the walmart style parking lot into garages and retail/hotel, where will you build the Trop when they do finally have to replace it? The standard practice is to build on the parking lot and then tear the old stadium down to put in new parking. This is what the Bucs did.

It seems very little development if any can occur in this proposal.

Sternberg says the trop is viable for 4-5 years. Thats a short time before we're having this conversation again.

In a interview Silverman responded to a question by Al Ruechel about Stu's statement that they would only do this proposal one time. Silverman responded that when this issue comes up again they will not expend the time and money to be the lead again.

With the risk of the same outcome I wouldn't either. The county or city would have to take up that torch and the negotiation stances will be flipped in favor of the Rays. Just some food for thought.

[since1962]

j

".. at least 4 and not 14"
translates to 13 years life left in the Trop according to Sternberg.

Staging construction is not my specialty but the vast undeveloped tracts surrounding the dome WILL be used under ANY scenario as other lots downtown are used now for staging the "current" boom on much more tightly constricted sites.

[Joe]

It should be apparent after the last week of great baseball and huge crowds that what the Rays needed was pennant
fever. The worst team in baseball threw the least fans. Now that they are winnning, the crowds are building every week.

The Rays will draw at least 500,000 more fans this year than last.

[since1962]

so LESS seats ...

in a location soon to be rejected ...

to replace a stadium with "13" year life...

makes sense ?

[J]

1962, I'm not talking about construction staging.

The question I'm asking is that in 13 years you will need to build a new stadium on the Trop site. In the mean while you can't develop that future stadium portion of the site now.

Also you can't just propose developing parking garages and development without revisiting the Rays Lease because their lease includes the parking.

[get smarter]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/powerranking

Rays are Rated number two in Espn's power ranking..Amazing

At the beginning of this process you heard opponents say the Rays don't deserve a new stadium until they put a decent product on the field....you don't hear that one too often anymore.

[since1962]

j

Again not expert but the chosen developer A-M is doing exactly that type project in Aneheim.Ironicly Rays could play at Al Lang while waiting for new retractable roof stadium AT TROP SITE,their spring training site,other Pinellas outdoor fields?

No the current PROPOSALS would not work but that is just it.. THEY ARE PROPSALS.

Negotiations are occuring now for something about to be DEFEATED by voters.

Rays would have to RE negotiate lease to get LESS than City would have GIVEN at Trop site before voter defeat.

Glad to see admission of 13 yrs to accomplish

[Jon McPhee]

Other than a quote from Giants owner P. Magowan, what else is there that negatives the fact that after San Franciscans (twice,) San Joseans and Santa Clarans, Magowan and other business types somehow managed to scrape together $300 million and build their own bloody stadium? With minimal burden on the public purse? And that they are making a pretty good buck off it? And why, since the investment-sophisticated, professional-securitizer franchise owners could probably (and if I remember right, have acknowledged as much) write a check to cover the whole stadium cost, is the Giants experience not a model for our own fair community, even "in these tough economic times"?

Has anyone at the City or County run down a list of the Rays franchise's income streams that the owners might use to "securitize" the cost of their very own field of dreams? That would still involve the spending of a butt-load of money on demolition, site prep, construction, finishing and all that other stuff in the area, with profit for at least some of us. Maybe on a site that works for the community, after some work to repair the complete breakdown of trust the franchise owners' and city officials' high-handed dealings have managed to mis-manage so far?

What's to keep a more rational and paced process from achieving less-insane development, consistent with all the community planning and team-building that's been done via Vision 2020 and all those other charette-driven exercises in hopefully-not-futility?

I wouldn't trust anything Stuat Sternberg and Michael Kalt have to say these days any farther than I could "move the dome" with my ancient pickup. But is there just a public hint of recognition that the almighty "paired developments" could benefit from a little more thought? Is it even remotely possible that our elected officials and their staffs might be looking a little more carefully at the due-diligence aspects of all this? And maybe they're seeing that there is some backing in the community for them if they want to add the "No" word and "This is not going to float -- let's take another look at the options" to their negotiating vocabularies?

Or are we again to be treated to an Ed Armstrong end-around, short-circuiting the only opportunity to let just one-quarter of the voting Pinellans (those in St. Pete) who have any actual democratic voice and vote on any part of this scheme, actually vote on even the little bit they get a ballot voice on? When ALL the Pinellans, man, woman and child, might be expected to pay out of their emptied pockets hundreds to thousands of dollars EACH, for the taxes and other obligations this year's class of politicians might load their futures down with?

Just asking.

[J]

1962

One huge flaw in your thinking. The Trop needs to be intact during contruction of the new stadium. They can't play two 81 game seasons in a 7000 person Al Lang stadium, as you suggest. That is a impossibility.

Keep trying though.

[since1962]

Their spring training and ALL other Pinellas fields obsolete too I suppose?

[John]

J

It's quite simple, really. In a few years once the economy stabilizes and the Trop payoff is a little more reasonable, we partner with the Rays to replace the Trop on the east end of the property with a 36-40K seat, retractable roof, multiple-purpose LEED certified stadium.

Once the new stadium is built, we tear-down the dome and replace that with parking structures and convention related hotels/shopping/restaraunts, green space, etc.

The city and the Rays could walk hand-in-hand to the TDC and ask for that 4th cent bed tax together, which they'll be MUCH more receptive to, since we're asking for money to promote conventions & tourism, not just a new stadium/multiple-use venue.

We keep the Rays, we keep the current events already held there, we keep the new college bowl game, we solicit additional sporting events (final four, olyimpic tryouts, perhaps our own NBA team "The St. Pete Thunder"??)...We keep the a/c and protection from the elements when we need it. We get an outdoor ballpark when we need that.

Everyone wins.

[since1962]

YES

[John]

To add one more thing. There is no reason, once Stu comes to his senses and calls his press conference to wisely announce abandoning this current proposal "because we couldn't make the numbers work", that the city, the residents & fans, and the team start a planning and visioning process regarding a "Plan B" ASAP to show the Rays we are serious about having them in our city's long-term future.

Lets put a plan into action by starting the day these current proposals are no longer before us.

The Rays slogan "we are one team", should actually mean something for this community instead of we are red signs and we are blue.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

"Heavens to murgatroid"...compromise...negotiations..
could sanity be coming to these blogs?
If the Fans really want to KEEP the team, if Mr. Sternberg really wants a new stadium and is not simply posturing for a move to greener pastures..then it is time to get serious about plan b.
For the clones on this site just know that if Jim Rome heard Bill Foster's proposal I'm sure he'd say, "Rack Him!!!"

[J]

1962 (3:41)

I have no idea what your trying to say. If you think MLB can have a regular season in a spring training facility your crazy.

Those facilities aren't obsolete just incapable of housing ML regular emphasis on (regular season games).

[Jon McPhee]

Looks like we have a new and really virulent category of ANTIs:

ANTI-PLAN B.

What is it with true believers? You'd think Rush Limbaugh Himself had sworn his sacred honor (whatever that might be worth) to achieving the birth of the "Siamese-twin development."

[Rick K]

Idiocy.

[since1962]

j(5:48)

YOU ' RE

intransigent

[J]

No I can compromise but pointing out impossible ideas is part of the debate.

You simply can not hold ML games for two years in a spring training facility. You proposed this and it just can't work. Not the end of the world but you have to be a realist on some things.

Instead of updating your statement or understanding that my earlier statement that discussed the need to keep the current trop parking lot available for the future stadium re-build in plan B, therefore preventing much development around the current site you would rather just say......intransigent.

[John]

Great interview yesterday on Bay News 9 with Bob Stewart & Herb Polson....loved the "life support" and "life preserver" references.

If you have brighthouse, the interview is on channel 342 under politics/political show/june 22.

[Demetrios]

J

Of all the opinions that I read in this blog, you show the most common sense. I really enjoy your input.

I'd like to make a couple of points. One, you could temporarily expand the seating at Al Lang. Obviously there are other issues like costs, lack of premium seating, rain outs and so forth. So the seating issue MAY not be a negative, but overall, I cannot see how we could build next to the present site. If we do, there will be a huge increase in cost as this will need to be a/c'd and have a "true" retractable roof, not a "sail". We are talking 6-700 million in 2008 numbers, not 2012!

[since1962]

j

The 3:53 Pm post is a solution
which addresses your concerns but I suspect that too will be me with INTRANSIGENCE.

The Chairman of the BOCC from whom the CRITICAL 100 million must come said THIS deal is "on life support" yet proponents and Rays still cling to it: THE VERY DEFINITION OF INTRASIGENCE

[Rays Mike]

You all know where I stand, but my question for Sternberg concerning a Plan B would be IF they could average 30K a night EVERY night at the Trop, can they make enough revenue there to keep payroll at a competitive level? 2 of 3 weekend crowds below 20K for a team in it's first ever pennant chase doesn't say much for the drawing power of the Trop...

[Rays Mike]

So all of the ANTI's are OK that John's proposal will cost much more with a retractable roof, not to mention how much more raw materials and labor will be in 5 years? And if the convention center idea is so great, whay aren't any booked for the Trop now? BTW: There are zero NBA teams that play in baseball/football domes. The Pistons, Raptors, Spurs, Sonics all moved out of stadiums into their own arenas..

[John]

Poor Rays Mike has had too much Kool-Aid, he's even using Ricks "ANTI'S" phrase now.

How do YOU know it will cost more Mike? Do you have construction estimates for both sites to compare?

Seems to me the tables have turned on Rays Mike, Ray F and Rick K...and their half-dozen or so made-up names they use to cheerlead each other.

They are now the ANTI'S

ANTI - Common Sense
ANTI - Reality
ANTI - Compromise
ANTI - Fiscal responsibility
ANTI - Intelligent discourse
ANTI - Alternative thought process
ANTI - ANYTHING except a dead turkey
ANTI - Bringing the citizens, the city, the county and the Rays together on this issue, which is the only way it will get past the voters.

Good luck with your head in the sand.

[Rays Mike]

Easy, John. Did I ever say I was AGAINST the Plan B as a PLAN B, if in fact the AL Lang site is not used???? I am pretty positive that a stadium that will require more space, and more materials, not to mention a retractable roof, will cost more than one with a sail (not to mention all of the lost property and sales tax that could have been generated from the Trop site if redeveloped), but if you want numbers, I can give you an example of cost: The Marlins proposed new retractable-roof stadium current budget is $525 million - almost $100 million more than then the current Al Land proposal. Maybe I should use another "A" word besides ANTI to describe you guys...

[kyle]

YES to the new stadium. The rays need it.

[Demetrios]

My guess is that a fixed, retactable roof facility with air conditioning is going to be more expensive than a an open air, retractable teflon roof. I don't have hard numbers but I think it's a safe assumption.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rays Mike and J,

You bring up valid points and concerns about Plan B. Of course those of us who support Plan B would simply reply as the Rays have done since day one...just hang on a bit we'll get back to you. And indeed that is the entire purpose of Plan B. A calm rational approach to whether or not 1.) We need a new stadium? 2.)Location 3.)Expense 4.) How would we pay for it and can we truly afford it? 5.) Is it really a good investment for ALL citizens not just the baseball fans. I will concede a certain amount of subsidy to the baseball fans as we subsidize parks and the arts...but should those subsidies be in scale with the parks and arts or totally dwarf the remaining subsidies as is presently the case.
Only a moron would not concede that the Rays have a HUGE conflict of interest. I'm not calling them carpetbaggers or engaging in any personal attacks simply stating the fact. Doesn't make them bad people it just gives them a strong motivation in this deal that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with what is best for the city. A careful...actually a quick perusal of Kalt's last project..Yankee stadium should be enough to send up dozens of red flags.
Doesn't make him a mean guy or a bad guy...just a guy with a record. Is it libelous or wrong to simply check out that record?

[John]

Rays Mike

Fair enough. Do you also believe Stu when he said a sail was not his first choice? He stated repeatedly that an air conditioned, retractable-roof, multi-purpose facility, designed primarily for MLB was his "wish".

The way I see it, that wish aligns exactly with the fans and citizens. And since Stu has also stated the Al Lang site is not big enough for his wish, and it's quite clear the voters are against using the waterfront, a plan B needs to be discussed, regardless of cost. That is, if we truly do wish to keep the Rays in Pinellas.

The way I see it, the TDC (also known as the CONVENTION AND VISITORS Bureau, would be much more receptive to financial assistance with such a project aimed not only at a new baseball stadium, but a world class showpiece that can attract convention/trade show business away from Tampa and Orlando. IF we actually market it this time around.

Seems to me if you had more people on your team (citizens, city, county, state, TDC, etc etc), the likelyhood of it happening, regardless if it costs a little more, is much greater.

[Rays Mike]

How long has Michael Kalt not been involved with the Yankee Stadium project? Was he ever the Project Manager? I'm not why you continue to cite him for all the woes of that project when he has had nothing to do with it for some time....

[Rays Mike]

I agree with you, John, in that I think that is Stu's wish as well, but I think he is also accessing this market as a baseball town and sees the continued poor attendance when it isn't the Yankees, Sox, or a Saturday Night concert (14K on Friday night, 19K on Sunday), and wonders if the uniqueness of a waterfront stadium is needed as a casual fan/tourist attraction to fill the seats, as opposed to a unitarian, multi-purpose building, not unlike what we have now.

[Thomas]

I think the lesson to take away from the Yankee Stadium deal is that MLB is not the best business partner.

They'll pretty much say anything to get a stadium built.

[Thomas]

"and wonders if the uniqueness of a waterfront stadium is needed as a casual fan/tourist attraction"

He should "wonder" with his own money - not $300M+ of public funds.

Or he should look at every other market/stadium in the country and deduce that winning teams fill stadiums.

The "we need this for attendance" is the lamest argument ever.

[Rays Mike]

Filling stadiums does not guarantee winning teams, but filling stadiums guarantee the revenues needed to have a competitive payroll needed to put you in a consistant position to win.

If winning teams fill stadiums, why were there only 14K on Friday night, and 19K yesterday?

[John]

The first time I went to Chicago for a vacation, the LAST place I, as a tourist and baseball fan went to see is Wrigley Field. Same goes for my trip to Boston. My reasons we simple, I went both times off-season.

There are only 81 home games a year. That sailboat will not be a tourist attraction the other 284 days a year, it will sit empty.

Out-of-state tourists generally don't come here in the summer. In-state tourists do, but they come to cool off and swim/sun on our beaches, not to sit and sweat in a downtown ballpark. Not in the kind of numbers you or Stu thinks they will anyways.

There are only two things that have proven to increase attendence.

1. A winning team

2. Sense of pride within the community for the team.

And the Rays are fast destroying #2 with this rush-job. As if Namoli didn't do enough damage to begin with.

[Rays Mike]

You are arguing that the new stadium would be empty for 284 games a year, but you want Spring Training back, so Al Lang can be empty for 350 days? And if the referednum fails, it will be empty 365 days!!!

[John]

Rays Mike

Did you forget FSL/Grapefruit league.

I think you did.

You've obviously never seen a game at Al Lang...

Honestly I don't even know if you have a point beyond arguing just for the sake of arguing. Are you a lawyer?

Do you have a point?

The Rays aren't getting a waterfront ballpark. In a short time that will be a fact. Archstone isn't getting Eco-Verde, in a short time that too will be fact.

So what is your point?

[Thomas]

"Filling stadiums does not guarantee winning teams, but filling stadiums guarantee the revenues needed to have a competitive payroll needed to put you in a consistant position to win."

It's like you think that building a new stadium means it will automatically be filled for ever and ever.
That is simply not true. See: Washington DC, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc, etc, etc.

If the Rays think they need a new stadium to increase attendance, they are more then welcome to pay for it themselves

[John]

Funny nobody had a problem with Al Lang sitting empty most of the year until just recently. That park has been there since the 70's and NOBODY has EVER said "what a waste of space"...except Rays Mike.

Even the Rays didn't have a problem with Spring Training at Al Lang until they came up with this ridiculous proposal in secret without feeling out how the public would react to it.

But Rays Mike hates Al Lang for some reason.

[Joe]

Hope you enjoy the Rays now, because all of you POWW "fans" won't have a team here in a decade if we don't get a new stadium. And that waterfront property you so desperately love? It'll be condos by 2015, just watch. Las Vegas Rays has a nice ring to it.

[John]

So move to Vegas, Joe.

I hear you can get a steal on thousands of forclosed houses there, too.

[Rays Mike]

Talk about a waste of time and productivity.... Why do YOU spend so much time arguing against something YOU are convinced will never happen?

[John]

Is that your point, Mike?

My reasons are simple. I am passionate about the future of my hometown. For me, and for my kids. I have no vested interest nor do I stand anything to gain by this failing.

What about you?

I'm still waiting for your "point".....

[since1962]

Rays Mike

Vegas too has critical priorites such as severe water shortage and economic meltdown from the housing crash which will not allow this EXTORTION to fare better there.

[Rick K]

The APEX of the ANTI's desperation is when they are posting authoritatively about the prospects of the Rays moving elsewhere....

The ANTI's are not omnipotent beings (despite delusions to the contrary).

There is no way for the ANTI's to know what is going on with every potential private partner and every city, county and state government.

You ANTI's would do yourselves a favor if you stopped pretending that you have defenitive knowledge about what will happen in other cities. You can't even accurately predict what is happening in the City you live in, why on earth would anyone believe you can tell us what is going on Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee, and elsewhere?

[Rick K]

The APEX of the ANTI's desperation is when they are posting authoritatively about the prospects of the Rays moving elsewhere....

The ANTI's are not omnipotent beings (despite delusions to the contrary).

There is no way for the ANTI's to know what is going on with every potential private partner and every city, county and state government.

You ANTI's would do yourselves a favor if you stopped pretending that you have defenitive knowledge about what will happen in other cities. You can't even accurately predict what is happening in the City you live in, why on earth would anyone believe you can tell us what is going on Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee, and elsewhere?

[Rays Mike]

You should have nothing to worry about, then, since it is certain not to pass.

I don't hate Al Lang, and I never said that off season Al Lang was a waste of space, back when the decision was 15 spring training and 15 FSL games vs. zero MLB games. But when the decision is zero spring training and zero FSL games vs. 81 regular season games, I think the choice is obvious. Get this through your ignorant skull: unless you want to commit more of your precious waterfront park to additional spring training fields, spring training is never coming back to St. Pete. And since the Rays have territorial rights to St. Pete, there will also never be another FSL team there, unless the Rays decide to move the Vero Beach team back. THAT is my point. You can have a relic of the past that will not be ulilized again, or you can redevelop the same plot of land that achknoldges and salutes the baseball history of our city.

Since 1962 - When I did I say the Rays were moving to Vegas?

[Thomas]

Joe,

Las Vegas is not a viable market.

The gambling stigma hurts them already, but even more foreboding are the Casino Lobbyists. The Casino groups do not sit back while pro sports petition for a massive public subsidy that the Casinos do not get. Check into what happened after the NBA All-Star game when the Vegas mayor tired to make a case for a publicly funded arena for that sport.

Boom- Outta Here.

[since1962]

The THREAT of Rays leaving was a made by a PROPONENT this time as in NUMEROUS other postings from both sides of the bay.

Knowledge of other cities priorities is EASILY obtained through THIS very tool(internet) as well as print and televised media utilizing resources OTHER than SPORTS insiders.
You have made the point perfectly that the only "worthwhile" news or priority is baseball...
TO PROPONENTS

[Thomas]

The "Threat" of Relocation debunked

1. City Attorney says the Trop lease is enforceable by injunction

2. They don't have a viable market to move to

The Rays are not going anywhere.

So, if they want to make a new stadium deal they are going to have to step up their offer because the city has the leverage. That's how it works in business.

[Rays Mike]

If there was a viable market, the Marlins would have been there already..

[Jon McPhee]

I'm going to tell you a story. Are you sitting comfortably? Right, then I'll begin.
Once upon a time (75 million years ago to be more precise) there was an alien galactic ruler named Xenu. Xenu was in charge of all the planets in this part of the galaxy including our own planet Earth, except in those days it was called Teegeeack.

Now Xenu had a problem. All of the 76 planets he controlled were overpopulated. Each planet had on average 178 billion people. He wanted to get rid of all the overpopulation so he had a plan.

Xenu took over complete control with the help of renegades to defeat the good people and the Loyal Officers. Then with the help of psychiatrists he called in billions of people for income tax inspections where they were instead given injections of alcohol and glycol mixed to paralyse them. Then they were put into space planes that looked exactly like DC8s (except they had rocket motors instead of propellers).

These DC8 space planes then flew to planet Earth where the paralysed people were stacked around the bases of volcanoes in their hundreds of billions. When they had finished stacking them around then H-bombs were lowered into the volcanoes. Xenu then detonated all the H-bombs at the same time and everyone was killed.

The story doesn't end there though. Since everyone has a soul (called a "thetan" in this story) then you have to trick souls into not coming back again. So while the hundreds of billions of souls were being blown around by the nuclear winds he had special electronic traps that caught all the souls in electronic beams (the electronic beams were sticky like fly-paper).

After he had captured all these souls he had them packed into boxes and taken to a few huge cinemas. There all the souls had to spend days watching special 3D motion pictures that told them what life should be like and many confusing things. In this film they were shown false pictures and told they were God, The Devil and Christ. In the story this process is called "implanting".

When the films ended and the souls left the cinema these souls started to stick together because since they had all seen the same film they thought they were the same people. They clustered in groups of a few thousand. Now because there were only a few living bodies left they stayed as clusters and inhabited these bodies.

As for Xenu, the Loyal Officers finally overthrew him and they locked him away in a mountain on one of the planets. He is kept in by a force-field powered by an eternal battery and Xenu is still alive today.

[ReyL]

I am having the hardest time trying to understand what all the opposition is about. Do you, the residents of St. Pete, understand that if you do not approve this stadium, the Rays will be leaving town. I have lived in this county for 25 years and I remember what St. Pete used to be like. You didn't go downtown because it was dangerous and offered nothing. Then baseball came to town and the city was helped in revitalizing downtown. St. Pete became a major league city that people wanted to be a part of. Once the Rays leave, this city will be on the fast track back to nowhere. Please realize that our property tax will not be used for this stadium. The redevelopment of the Trop will add new money to the tax rolls and help to keep up real estate prices, as major league cities attract businesses and jobs. Also, the redevelopement of the Trop will bring in a large influx of outside money and jobs as Archstone works to build the new structures. Once the Rays leave, please don't kid yourselves and think that someone else is going to want to carry through with the current plans. I love to go out in downtown St. Pete and think this would be such a huge boon to the shops, restaurants and business owners that I am dumbfounded that anyone is opposed. I don't know why we don't take this opportunity to work with the Rays and provide all of us with a new stadium that will give everyone in St. Pete and Tampa Bay a beautiful, defining land mark that we can all be proud of for years to come.

[Rick K about relocation]

I would like these people posting about the impossibility of relocation to clarify something.

Are you people asserting with certainty that there is no way private sources will step up to finance a pro baseball stadium in some other location?

Are you saying you are positive this cannot happen?

Because it seems weird that you are saying on the one hand that the Rays would be better off here if they paid 100 % of the development cost, but there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that could happen somewhere else.

[Thomas]

"Do you, the residents of St. Pete, understand that if you do not approve this stadium, the Rays will be leaving town"

Sure they will slugger! Just like the Marlins left Miami after any number of there threats.

Oh wait - they didn't leave. They just made idle threats for 8 years.

[Xenu]

Xenu thinks miami needs more cowbell.
Xenu wants everyone to sing together in peace. Xenu has picked "Come sail away" by STYX. Xenu thinks it is the perfect song- sails, love, spaceships, stars. Xenu wants you to feel free to join in.

[since1962 reRick]

Land has been and will continue to be offered as PART of OUR contribution.

NOT THE WATERFRONT

SOME of our bed tax money WILL be used towards the inevitible new stadium.

Other cities are encountering financial crisis too so the EXTORTION will not fare better with taxpayers elsewhere.

[Put Xenu to bed]

Xenu people, your playing with scientology fire. You know they are tracking down your identities as we speak and putting you on the about to be sued list. Plus I don't know what it has to do with baseball.

[hipocritical since 1962]

What waterfront. Where there's a parking lot now there will be a park. Where theres a stadium now there will be a bigger stadium. It's not even that big. You keep on calling out the top of mast height and that sail will hardly ever be up.

If there were a park there I might understand some nostalgia but I don't think you've been having picnics in the parking lot. The view isn't that great either, it's a channel looking at demons landing. The most parks per capita in the nation and you want to transform a current park into a new one that none of you will even visit.

You had a chance for 60 acres of park at the airport but chose asphalt in that case. Ahhh but where would all those private plane owners go. It's such a drive to St. pete/clearwater airport.

Either you for making new parks with our tax money or not. You know USF would make a great park too.

[amen to hip!]

Amen!

It already is a bsseball stadium!

[J]

Alright lets go back to plan B. John you have a pretty clear suggestion 3:53. Lets just look at the particulars. I actually have said before that I wish the Rays could have proposed multiple solutions prior to assuming this one.

Plan B Pro's, smaller list I realize but big issues for some

-No waterfront argument
-access and parking are easily solved
-Possibly better political/economic environment
-13 years to plan the perfect solution that no one would protest. slight sarcasm
-The lease will be paid down maybe another 35 mil
-soil issues same on both plans
-the final mix of programs can be applied to both schemes
-more multipurpose stadium, although thats why the trop looks this way because they were trying to make it serve everything. The original design was actually a sail too posted in the Times.
-new waterfront park if you don't want to try and attract spring training back. Al Lang will need renovations in that event.
-LEED is a wash (sustainable principles will be achieved on either plan)You can also be sustainable without paying a additional 5% for the LEED stamp but thats another topic
-close access to Jordan Park...OK kidding

Plan B neg's or just cost items, however you want to see it.

-cost to demolish Al Lang and to build a new park plus new city operating budget to maintain.
-new development will be reduced to probably 20-25 acres of buildings and then additional structured parking. (I don't believe in flat parking downtown so this is just a cost item for me)
-this means that for the future we have only added 20-25 acres to the tax rolls and we will only be able to add the sale of 25 acres to this project. In todays dollars lets round up to 25mil from the developer and the revenue each year is down considerably.
-The sale of less property is close to a wash with the lease payback
-For me 13 years is a long time to watch nothing happen on the Trop site because as a architect I think that a project of this size would help the construction industry and related trades get over the hump until the rest of the economy recovers.
-Some would also argue that there is a loss in tax revenue over 13 years that we currently don't see.
-A retractable roof with AC will cost additional for the roof and for the mechanical equipment. Mech can be 25% of a budget.
-operating costs for the AC is increased for the Rays but that their problem
- siting of the new retail/convention programs will be located between the stadium and the interstates. Their only attachment to the rest of the city will be from the north. (the current position would be better but the Rays can't be without a stadium for two years so it needs to be on the east side)
-This proposal will need to be championed by the city because the Rays have already said they will not take point again) This means that the city will have to come up with a financial plan, Architectural master plan etc at their cost
-construction prices rise every years traditionally and exceed regular inflation so the price in 13 years will be compounded.
-Since the revenue from on site taxes are going to be lower I would expect that the bed tax would be tapped more extensively.

This plan can work and would be my plan B as well. I just don't want anyone thinking it's the cheapest solution because it will cost considerably more than whats on the table. I hope that if the current scheme is not approved that you would support this. Downtown baseball and the future development of the Trop site are very important to the continued success/growth of a true viable urban center.

j
the rays too will be required to contribute substantially more.

the attitude that "they will not be in the lead" if they dont get what they want this time, will not serve them well in this OR ANY OTHER CITY.

NOTHING WILL BE TAKEN
NOTHING WILL BE GIVEN

[get-smart]

The time for Baseball City has come. All baseball all the time. Ten stadiums of attraction. 'Open Air Stadium,' 'Desert Stadium, 'Golf Course Stadium,'On the Waves Stadium,' 'Space Stadium' and others. Private enterprise the way it should be. Baseball would have its own cable channels.

It can be built in Arizona overlooking the Grand Canyon. In addition, the Mexicans wouldn't have to travel far to get work.

Cheers

[Discovery]

This thread also has some terrific positive posts. It is good to see proponents coming out.

[John]

It's good to see Rick K coming out to cheerlead himself under yet another assumed name. Good work, chap.

Plan A is dead, but unannounced.

[Don Mott]

"If the Rays are going to pony up nearly 100% of the cost of a new stadium," Can you explain RRRRick?

[Discovery]

I support Plan A