Times ed board: Nurse muddies waters

Karl Nurse, who was appointed to the St. Petersburg City Council less than two months ago, has wasted no time becoming a divisive force. On the eve of an important council vote — one that could help determine Major League Baseball's future in the city — Nurse has insulted his more experienced colleagues by trying to undermine their debate today on a ballot question proposed by the Tampa Bay Rays to build a new waterfront stadium.

The council is to take a vote to start the procedures to schedule a November referendum so voters could decide if a $450-million stadium should be built on the site of Al Lang Field. As part of that plan, the Tropicana Field site would be sold for residential and retail development and returned to the tax rolls. This is just the first step in a multistep referendum process, and it is a reasonable move to enable negotiations to continue to progress over the summer. Council members have until August to make a final decision on putting the stadium question on the November ballot, and there is no reason to prematurely end the discussion now.

Now Nurse wants to muddy the waters and confuse voters. He said he would introduce a competing, and potentially conflicting, referendum question today. Nurse is acting at the urging of former council member Virginia Littrell, a vehement stadium opponent who lost her 2005 re-election bid. She wants to rezone the Al Lang site, which has been used for baseball for decades, and restrict development on it.

Read the rest of the blistering editorial here.

Comments

[Keep baseball in St. Pete]

Nurse shows true colors. Tell the voters one thing, get elected, and then do the opposite.

I guess he is a true politician.

[Ray F]

That's a stiff article. Great to see the Times still has a set.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

This is simply pathetic. The Times thinks it's fine for New York Investment Bankers to get their issue on the ballot...but screw the citizens!!!
And why not we've been screwed before but at least Rick Mussett tried to offer a little vaseline with his BS remark about "glitch" ordinances etc. 68% are against this from the Times own poll. I can tell you when New York Carpetbaggers invade and try to scam us there are going to be plenty of hard feelings. Goodbye Wengay..Duds..and the St. Pete Times.

[Rick K]

ATrulyConcerned needs to get a grip.

It makes no difference to any sane person where the Ray's ownership comes from. His rants about New York remind me of Captain McQeeg's insane rants about "strawberries!"

What the Times poll demonstrated is that if asked a leading question that doesn't properly frame the key issues, 68% of those surveyed will say "yep!"

I am surprised the number who agreed with that slanted question wasn't higher.

[Kevin]

Karl Nurse is no more of an upstart than the SP Times. This was an insulting article to a decent public servant and to the community than helped get him appointed. Unfortunately for the Times, too little and too late. They missed their opportunity to prevent his appointment.

[Rick K]

I respectfully disagree with Kevin's remarks.

If the story reported in the Times is true about Councilman Nurse's attempt to introduce that other ballot question, and I allow for the possibility that the story here might not be exactly right, but if the story is right, then I find myself in rare agreeement with the Times editorial board.

The point behind this second ballot question was to frustrate the process and confuse the results.

Aaron did some reporting a few weeks back in which (I think) he quoted some of the POWW folks as admitting to him that they will try "whatever" to defeat these proposals.

That's all the other ballot question was. It was an attempt to derail something beautiful.

We have before us a very rare opportunity. We have a chance for the citizens of St. Pete to vote directly upon the question of major, transformative change to their city.

Yes or no.

It's beautiful.

That some will try anything and everything to interfere with this beauty speaks volumes.