What's going to happen on Thursday?

Reminder!!!

So we're less than 48 hours from a City Council vote on the Rays' plans. Knowing what you do, how do you think the council will vote? I think I should be able to get some Times swag for the winner. Here's what you need to do:

List in the comments below how you think each council member will vote (Polson, Kennedy, Curran, Dudley, Bennett, Nurse, Newtown, Danner). A yes vote moves the referendum process to a second vote (scheduled July 17). A no vote stops things where we are, and ends the stadium discussion at least for this year. As a TIEBRAKER, please also list how many minutes you think the council discussion will last.

You MUST list your name and e-mail if you want to win. If you don't want to give away your identities, you can also provide all the information, including your prediction, in an email to me at asharockman@sptimes.com

Deadline is Wednesday at 4 p.m., at which time I'll post my guesses.

Good luck!

Comments

[Rick K]

I will have to let others compete for the St Pete Times gear.

I don't know enough about the individual members of council to predict how they will vote.

Realizing that I will be inelgible for the prizes because I cannot predict what Aaron is asking for, I will predict that a majority of Council vote to keep the question alive (YES).

[John]

I do know the citizens are watching very closely. Our fine councilwoman Leslie Curran has her eye on Baker's seat. We're watching you Leslie. We know how much time you've wasted on this nonsense already. And we won't forget come next election. End it now before the BOCC makes you all look like a bunch of fools. Be the heroes of the majority that have spoken up at your meetings, in the poles, etc. and end this charade now.

If you put this city through another Albert Whitted nightmare, your chances of becoming mayor are about as good as the chances of the Rays getting their new stadium. ZERO.

[NO NEW STADIUM]

Just ignore Rrrrrrick K, he's not even from St. Pete, he's from Ohio.

[LC1]

Leslie can do whatever the hell she wants, go it?

[O. Northeast]

Actually, the majority stated (in the poles) they want the process to continue. Most are against the stadium, but want the referendum.

Even CONA clearly stated they support the referendum, provided all the facts are in. Allowing the process to continue allows time for that goal to be met - or not. In which case the process can be aborted later.

[O. Northeast]

Keyword: aborted.

[Jerry]

Polson- NO
Kennedy-YES
Curran-NO
Dudley-YES
Bennett-YES
Nurse-NO
Newtown-NO
Danner-YES

It's all a policitcal game. This deal has been dead for weeks.

[Kyle]

Voting is the democratic way. If they don't allow the vote, will they be viewed as not being democratic? If the numbers say that the people will vote it down, shouldn't they move forward to award citizens that chance? If the numbers say the citizens want the stadium, wouldn't they have to allow the vote?

[Colorado Snowbird]

My prediction is every City Council member votes YES. Some will cite the Times poll as their reason, "the people want to vote on this."

After questions to staff, when it is time for the City Council to speechify, comments from Council will last 33 minutes.

[gary grooms]

I think Jerry is about right - except I think Wengay Newton will vote yes. But, I am almost always wrong in picking who I think will win American Idol.

A couple of people have suggested that the Mayor and /or the Council should kill this thing now because of potential civil unrest.

If it was within the power of the Council to put a stadium on the waterfront without a referendum would the same people want them to just vote now --- if it appeared that they would vote to build the stadium -- just to avoid anymore bickering??

Besides, the lack of civility some people have displayed (on both sides) is not anyone’s fault but theirs. We may not all agree on what should be done, but we are all involved in this because we want the best possible outcome for our little City. Regardless of how this turns out, we are all neighbors in a City that we care about. Why would anyone want to alienate their neighbors by failing to conduct themselves professionally and politely?

[Beach Hotel Owner]

5+ months before November, several stories by Aaron, and this blog has disintegrated into the same exact vitrol and mindless bickering that took place when Albert Whitted went up for a vote. Sadly, it's only going to get uglier, and we have the Rays and Mayor Baker to thank for that.

Mr. Stewart, Ken Welch, and other distinguished members of the Board of County Commissioners and Tourist Development Council, I urge you to put a stop to this by voting NOT to extend the bed tax to benefit the Rays. I will see you at the next meeting.

[Colorado Snowbird]

I want to offer Mr. Stewart, Mr Wlech, and other distinguished members of the County Commission and our Tourist Development Council an opinon that differes from the one posted above by

BEACH HOTEL OWNER.

I am a Pinellas resident who leaves this area several times a year to spend time in other locales. The Rays draw my family here during the baseball season and cause us to spend money here. We own rental condos on the beaches that we regularly rent to people who have traveled here to watch MLB baseball games.

My family is excited by these proposals. We would love to shop downtown instead of going to Westshore or International Mall. We would love to have more reasons to come here in the summer months and stay longer.

Now is the BEST possible time to consider these proposals.

[Kyle]

I would like the council to hold their meeting on the infield of Al Lang on Thursday. The results might change.

[Colorado Snowbird]

I am with Kyle.

If the City Council held their meeting at Al Lang, they would probably say to themselves, "How the hell are we letting this terrific property go to waste by only using it 15 days each year? The downtown waterfront is St. Pete's most easily marketed asset, so why on earth haven't we been using it as the point of our marketing spear?

[Not everyone is a baseball fan]

My prediction of the Nov referendum.

86% against

14% for

All you have to do is look at the Rays cumulative attendence average of 18,000 fans to know who supports this and who does not.

And please, just because they've had 1/3 of ONE good season does not change the overall lack of concern market-wide about this team over the past 10 years.

[Sometimes the obvious is invisible]

Bring downtown to the Trop, not the other way around, stupid!!

Why not expand downtown westward, since that's where the remaining area open for new development is!!!!

We have an under-utilized Trop, no hotel nearby, what the heck do you people expect?

Have Hines or Archstone build a quality hotel on the Trop site and businesses that support it will follow.

Everyone is right about saying the team needs more time to build it's fan base/attendence, and the same rings true for expanding downtown towards the Trop!!!!

[get-smart]

Kyle -

Your Fuhrer has voted for you last year. It is voting by proxy. Look it up.

[Kyle]

Hey Maxwell- Your assigned Fuhrer to me may not be the one that I support. Look it up.

[Kyle]

Sometimes- Don't big developments need big parking lots? Does international plaza have a big parking lot? Where do large hotels put their guests vehicles?

[Sometimes the obvious is invisible]

Well Kyle, if you're dismissing my offer of a solution based on a possible hotel's parking challenges, then how can you support putting another 5-10 thousand cars in our downtown lots/garages for a baseball stadium we don't need?? LOL c'mon.

At least I'm offering realistic solutions/suggestions based on what is realistic on the ground in downtown St. Pete.

[Kyle]

I'm not. I'm saying there really isn't 86 acres to develop.

[Rick K]

Kyle, yes there is.

The total acreage of the property comes to 86 acres. Out of that 86 acres, the developer will carve out streets, parklands, setbacks, and other open spaces.

No one here imagined that every inch of the 86 acres would be covered with buildings.

[Kyle]

A parking lot replacing a parking lot is not development or is it?

[Sometimes the obvious is invisible]

No, Kyle.

I'm suggesting we "finish" what the Trop was supposed to be and do for that area. Realisticly. With the citizens behind it.

Put a hotel on the NE corner of the Trop property..15-20 stories tall. A convention-center-quality hotel (Marriott?) Build a parking deck to the south of it to handle guests parking.

In the meantime, have the city work with the Rays in actually MARKETING the Trop for more non-baseball events. We have 284 days a year that it would otherwise sit empty. With a convention-style hotel on board, we can do a lot better than tractor-pulls and boat shows. How about "The St. Pete Thunder" NBA team??

All this activity, combined with further marketing of the Rays themselves, and hopefully a continued competetive product on the field will bring more "Fergs" and "Moon Under Waters", restaraunts & shops to support the action. There's no room in the downtown core left BUT to head west. And condos, shops, etc have NO choice but to move in that direction. All the while preserving our waterfront for those who are so adament about preserving it.

If we put the ballpark on the water, we'll still have a giant "hole" between downtown's core and the redeveloped "Trop" which could be put to better use if you look at the long-term future growth of this city.

If you open up your minds, there are endless possibilities. The Rays current proposal is just that, a proposal. Kalt has said that himself.

[Kyle]

I am not saying I am not with you. I am just saying 86 acres to me is questionable. Especially considering a successful (if) downtown stadium would need some of the Trops current Lots.

[Rick K]

Sometimes at 6:27,

What you are advocating is not on the table.

You might want it to be, but it isn't.

Further, looking at REALITY. I can see no possibility that an NBA team would located in St. Pete anytime soon. Ditto for 20 story high-end hotel on the corner of the existing trop site, without the other sorts of development uses that are part of the proposals to redevelop the entire 86 acre site, supported by the arts, entertainment, recreational and MLB opportunities provided downtown and on the waterfront (including by the redeveloped Al Lang site).

Without the "rest" of these paired redevelopment proposals, what makes you think an investor would want to plunk a 20 story hotel on the site of the existing U-Haul storage building?

[Sometimes the obvious is invisible]

The same reasoning that makes you think home buyers en-mass are going to plunk down 200-600K on a townhouse 3 blocks from crack-town, Rick.

The same reason the city built the Trop on a hope and a prayer of landing MLB.

Keep up with the closed-mind, we'll see where that gets you.

[Will Ferrell]

The entire city council will come down with a fever. The prescription? More cowbell.

[LOL @ Rick K]

Well we all know why Rick K is a single dad...would YOU want to live with someone who thinks/acts like this???

Jesus, dude, you're unbearable.

[Danny Boy]

Is this not simple a vote to determine if talks are worth continuing? My guess is that the members of the council that are already stuck in their ways will vote against moving on, but the brighter of the bunch (the hopeful and the skeptical) will notice that there is a lot more sorting out that needs to be done and will vote to continue such talks.

[Tad]

So if the council votes no on the referenum, will we have no more colorado snowbirds here? How many people on this blog work for the Rays? Be honest....

[Let us vote NO!!]

Tad,

The council will likely vote to continue the discussion, as a political "out", since the Board of County Commisioners has the final say on $100 million chuck of this deal, and they vote in July, and they are going to kill this then. It saves our city council from looking like "the bad guy".

And there's probably several paid shills on here spewing their propoganda, and there will likely be many more before the debate is over.

Just remember, the ONLY motivation of people against this is quality of life in St. Pete. NO financial gains, NO political favors or aspirations, simply they don't want this on their waterfront. Period.

[Rick K]

"There's a lot of red signs out there,'' council Chairman James Bennett said, "and we're seeing them.''

This is just baseless, and silly.

[Thomas]

68% Opposed

"There's a lot of red signs out there," council Chairman James Bennett said, "and we're seeing them."

[Thomas]

What's going to happen on Tuesday.

AL East Roundup.

Tonight figures to be a very intriguing night in the AL East.

At the top of the division, the Rays return to Fenway to visit the Red Sox for their third series of the year. In the previous meetings the home team has swept. Both teams will be playing short handed as David Ortiz and Carl Crawford figure to miss extended time. Tonight's match up is a pair of young righties. Matt Garza will take the bump for Tampa looking to continue his recent streak of strong starts. The road has not been kind to Garza and the Sox line up, even without Ortiz, is a formidable match up. Garza is 2-0 in 3 previous starts against the Sox.
For Boston, young phenom Justin Masterson gets the nod. In his two big league starts, Masterson has shown a devistating sinker allowing only 5 hits in over 12 innings of work.

A few hours down I-95 the locals will get what they wanted: Joba Chamberlian's first start. He has his work cut out for him as he'll be opposed by Cy Young Winner Roy Halladay.

Also, Baltimore is probably playing somewhere.

[Clear Direction]

All,

I beleive that the City Council is going vote to place the Rays question on the ballot on June 5th. The council has said, and rightly so, that they are looking for "clear direction" from the citizens as to their wishes.

I mean from the council's view, it is difficult to argue with the idea of allowing their constituants the opportunity to give the council "clear direction" on how the voters want to proceed.

Anytime the citizens speak at the polls, whatever the issue, it is a positive.

So let's all give the Council "clear direction" on what is wanted!

[Save the Waterfront]

Clear Direction, Could not agree more!

That's why everyone should support the council's consideration of a Waterfront Preservation Ballot question, which has been added to their agenda for Thursday's meeting.

The ballot consideration will hold Al Lang at the current intensity of use or less intensity of use. It will keep the Al Lang site in the public domain and it will retain the site within the Waterfront Park System. It will prevent using the site for a hotel, private condo development, a municipal services/city hall, MLB stadium, or anything that would be more intensive than what's there now. It would allow Al Lang Baseball Park to remain and the surrounding land to be put to pedestrian friendly uses.

Voters saying No to the stadium only tells the story for this one land grab. Letting the voters have a voice on the future of the Al Lang site is much more important and long range issue.

So, I would echo the cries for voting and say, LET US VOTE!

[Jon McPhee]

Re Mr. Grooms on civility and neighbors: There will be an endpoint to this set of issues, just as there pretty much was with the Trop (with some notable exceptions.) But you know that humans can't do much better than we residents are doing now.

We like to know which tribe we belong to, and we like having an enemy to help us define ourselves as "different and better than those two-legged animals in the next valley over."

Chuck's and Rick's approach to creative chaos is a lot closer to what we really are than any invocation of "Can't we all just get along?"

[Rick K]

I am laughing very hard at 7:07 pm.

He PRETENDS to argue in favor of "clear direction," while proposing to try to hopelessly confuse voters by putting two contradictory ballot questions pertaining to the same parcel of land on the ballot.

A clear direction would be voting for ONE thing or NOT.

Voting for two differently worded questions which might overlap some but actually are mutually exclusive will not add clairty to the issue.

A more CLEAR direction would be to incorporate the desired wording of the second question into a single ballot question. Something like this:

Question: Do you approve authorizing City Council to enter into a 30 year lease agreement with the Tampa Bay Rays Major League Baseball team which would require the city to demolish the existing baseball stadium known as Al Lang Field, together with the adjacent surface parking lots and other structures on the property, and replace them with a brand new open air baseball stadium, offices, and public parklands, which would then be occupied by the Tampa Bay Rays, OR, do you prefer the City NOT build a new ballpark, and instead demolish Al Lang field and make it into a public park?

Vote here for a NEW STADIUM
Vote here for a PARK instead of a STADIUM.

[Kyle]

I vote "here".

[Al Lang is not and has not ever been a park]

Save our waterfront, AKA demolish Al Lang and baseball as quick as possible.

What land grab switching 100 acres for 15 acres is land give away. It's Freaking leased out, the public never gives up ownership to the Rays. Stop misleading.

"Lets put pedestrian friendly stuff around the Al Lang". Do you actually propose to keep Al Lang open with no parking lot. My heavens where will the 8000 people attending Shakespeare at the stadium park there Prius.

Baseball is on a site for 100 years and a park has never existed there and you all insist that the site was meant for a park. The view isn't even that good. You look at Demons Landing. Of all the waterfront thats the one spot that it shouldn't matter.

We have miles of waterfront park and your all a sudden tying yourselves on the front of a bulldozer to stop progress. You aren't losing anything your just trading two stadiums for one.

[Rick K]

"your all a sudden tying yourselves on the front of a bulldozer to stop progress"

priceless....