Who will the council pick? Hines or Archstone

Archstone has to be a heavy, heavy favorite, but stranger things have happened.

The City Council is expected to start their weekly meeting in a few minutes, and the Tropicana Field RFP question is pretty high up on the agenda. We know the folks from Archstone will be in the audience. We expect Hines will be represented here, too.

Keep checking back to see what happens.

UPDATE (3:05 p.m.) --- The meeting is just starting. Council member Jeff Danner is reading a proclamation recognizing St. Pete Pride. (For St. Petersburg regulars, the Pride proclamation is one of the very few, if only proclamation in the city that Mayor Rick Baker does not sign).

UPDATE (3:15 p.m.) -- Trop discussion just now getting underway. The city's lead negotiator, Rick Mussett, is on vacation. So economic development director Dave Goodwin is taking the mic. Mayor Rick Baker just also walked in.

UPDATE (3:35 p.m.) -- Council members are now launching into their questions for staff.

UPDATE (3:55 p.m.) -- City Council member Karl Nurse, praising the Archstone selection, and comparing it the failed developers of Bay Plaza: "The strength of Archstone group is like 25 times, 50 times stronger than the Bay Plaza group."

UPDATE (4:20 p.m.) -- The meeting, no offense, is turning into a pretty boring event. A camerawoman with channel 10 is sleeping the front row.

UPDATE (4:30 p.m.) -- Council selects Archstone-Madison 5-1. Herb Polson voted 'yes.' It was Leslie Curran who voted 'no.'

(City Council chairman Jamie Bennett is away on vacation, so vice chairman Jeff Danner is running the meeting).

-- Aaron Sharockman, Times Staff Writer

Comments

[John]

They should pick neither. Since neither have agreed in principal to pay off the Trop debt up front and in full before proceeding with any development.

[Colorado Snowbird]

Any predictions?

I can't see the Council going against City Staff, who has done the work. That is not to say they cannot or would not do so, only that it doesn't seem like their is any legitimate basis for doing what will look like a huge political favor to Hines and the Rays.

[get-smart]

AAron this is a good one.

My moneys on Hines. I haven't yet heard the "Fat Lady" singing.

[The KOOK antidote]

John's position is that the City should refuse to negotiate further with a developer who is only a few million dollars away from the City's target price?

Okey dokey.

[Rick K]

I agree wholeheartedly, KOOK, your post is right on the money.

John and the other ANTI's have no purpose being on here messing up our circle-jerk for the Rays and their paired redevelopment proposals.

[Colorado Snowbird]

The post at 3:36 pm is a fake, made by a child who is impersonating Rick K in an attempt to deceive others.

[since1962]

GOD told Baker not to sign proclmation Aaron. He leaves the chamber too. Cooties or proclmation paper cuts I think.The economic impact or mix DOES have its limits as CLEARLY refleced in this blog.
Limits EXCLUDING the relativly few baseball fans compared to the MILLIONS of countywide tourists paying bed tax and the the 250,000 inhabitants of Pinellas.

[Colorado Snowbird]

Text from Rick K (at 3:30) just received: City Council now questioning Trop development, Aaron is here

[Losers With No Life]

Not sure what I'm doing down here among the journalists & politicians ... I can see why they're down here. I guess since I don't have a job or a social life I'll go down and listen to the City Council meeting!

[Right]

Because only a loser pays attention to these issues, attends City Counil meetings, or posts on blogs like this.

Can you make any more self-defeating points?

[Watching City Council]

City staff just laid waste to the myth that these redevelopment proposals are not interdependent and linked.

[since1962]

An approval of a "concept" as part of referendum not yet voted on that has divided the city and diverted important staff resources.

Jackasses before the cart.

The Rays dont have time or answers yet taxpayer funded stafftime is freely abused.

[Unspinning 1962]

The 4:21 PM poster is, as usual, off.

This Ordinance City Council is considering is times precisely right. The answers will be forthcoming in due course. Why do those who will not vote for this stadium insist on managing how those who have not similarly made up their minds to oppose this go about doing that?

City Council is voting now.

[since1962]

CART BEFORE THE JACKASSES

[since1962]

The manipulation continues.

Legal has exposed the reason for todays vote and the referendum language which WILL include the purty trop PROPOSAL, WATERFRONT STADIUM and not require 6 votes as in past substantial change issues.

[since1962]

Now Council will change rules for PUBLIC comment as a result of THIS issue.

The RAYS have won the circumvention of the DEMOCRATIC process.

RECALL
RECALL
RECALL

[Ray F]

Is it just me or was council member Curran being pretty obnoxious with her comments and chuckles???

I get that she is against the new stadium, great. But, Christ, how high on her horse does she have to get???

Talk about being unfit for public service. If she's that good at heckling, maybe she needs to sit in the outfield and razz opposing players.

(or our players, since she obviously doesn't give 2 steamy turds about the Rays)

[since1962]

Questions and analysis are not "razz" .
"RAZZ" is the moronic off subject, juvenile blog bloating postings that do nothing to advance the issue.

[1962]

since1962 - Are you gay?

[John]

Leslie Curran is showing she's Mayor material.

I especially liked Herb Polson's vote:

"Yeah, yeah" (As in yeah, here's my yes vote to a deal that will be dead by August).

[since1962]

Aaron

Sorry that by 4:20 the media found the meeting boring but hope that the legal issue of SINGLE SUBJECT referendum language,required number of council votes for passage as compared to DALI project AND CHANGES to public comment rules as a result of THIS issue ALL DISCUSSED AFTER THE VOTE will be examined and reported by the TIMES.

[get-smart]

The city staff takes the word of the Archstone salesmen who claims there is no connection between Lehman and Archstone.

These guys are liars.

Apparently, the city staff nor the council spent 5 minutes on researching the guys they are giving one billion dollars to.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/06/09/daily18.html

Lehman wants to unload Archstone. The problem is Archstone is wallowing in debt. The mayor, staff and council need to be removed from office.

-PS No Waterfront Stadium!

-

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, Ray F, I wonder -- do you think Dick (Less) Cheney, who thinks it's just cool to tell a senior Senator to "Go f___ yourself," is "unfit for public service"?

And I'm sure it's just cool for every member of the Council who happens to agree with your view of the world and nods a head and smiles at the special-pleader and winks and nudges, is perfectly so fit?

Hey, we're tribal creatures, right? Let's just all kill each other, and let our tribal gods sort us all out.

Other than the worthless trash that fills up the post partum of each thread here, at least we seem to be getting a little bit of the promised stream of 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." Although if Aaron has an "in" on what's going on behind the scenes, as a member of the Fourth Estate I don't see too much of the last part. Who is Ed Armstrong strong-arming and feathering, for instance?

I guess we'll be like earlier inhabitants of this area -- whose dwellings went up on the burial sites of their forebears and the shells of their perfect raw oysters.

[since1962]

~930,000 Pinellas COUNTY residents...

~250,000 St Pete residents...

Millions of NON Rays fan tourists far into the future...

Should NOT be held hostage to the relatively SMALL number of RAYS fans at the expense of OUR ECONOMY.

[The Real Rick K (with DNA to prove it)]

Since 1962's latest line of reasoning has it exactly backwards.

What is at stake here is at least a billion dollars, and probably more, in construction in downtown St. Pete in the next five to ten years, plus the billions in additional taxes and economic growth from these two redeveloped parcels of land.

ANYONE who opposes these paired redevelopment proposals should be required (I would say by law, even) to come up with a reliable plan for replacing the revenues we would lose if we don't pursue these paired proposals.

[The Real Rick K (with DNA to prove it)]

Whoever made the post at 4:58 pm... (at this point, it is impossible to distinguish real posts from fake ones)...

I am referring to the post which says
"Now Council will change rules for PUBLIC comment as a result of THIS issue.

The RAYS have won the circumvention of the DEMOCRATIC process."

There is no greater proof of the fundamental stupidity of many in the ANTI movement.

First, if today's vote was a vote by Council as a step TOWARDS letting the PEOPLE VOTE, that would be a step towards improved democratic participation, not a circumvention thereof.

Second, the reason Council wants to modify the circus atmoshphere that comes at the "public" participation section of Council meetings is because the ANTI movement has turned that into an unbearable circus. Thus it is the ANTI's, not the Rays, who have brought about anti-democratic changes.

Yet, the 4:58 poster looks at what just happened and believes that the EXACT OPPOSITE just transpired. There is no wonder no reasonable person can take the ANTI posters seriously.

They look at a black bird and tell us,with a straight face, that it is a white cat.

[since1962re R]

The inability to distinguish fiction from truth is the root of your problem and this proposals FATAL flaw.

SINGLE ISSUE referendum

PUBLIC input AT COUNCIL

The RELATIVE merits of Rays fans- VS-

930,000 COUNTY residents,

250,00 St Pete residents,

Millions of future NON Rays fan bed tax paying tourists.

Other County needs INCLUDING other stadiums.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

You have reached a new level of absurdity with this argument you keep regurgitating about opponents should have to some up with a plan to replace all this LOST revenue. FIRST AND FOREMOST...THERE IS NO REVENUE DUDE...Just pie in the sky promises that Rays lovers like you wish to believe. Aaron...there are NO GUARANTEES EXCEPT THE MONEY UP FRONT..guarantees of annual payments by a financial entity created specifically for this project...is not worth any more than the paper those guarantees are written on...unless of course the Rays wish to cosign on our note...much as all of the posters have to do on their homes.
If the Rays simply GUARANTEE these great revenue streams that Rick K dissembles as facts when they are projections (can you say guesses) by mortgaging their franchise and putting a lien on everything...then why should we take the word of someone like Kalt who has a clear record of incompetence when it comes to his projections (guesses) ONCE AGAIN RICK K...WE SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO PLACE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST...OR THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION!!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Let's give everybody something to truly debate...should we negotiate with the Rays or simply capitulate...this is long but worth reading. It is a letter and resolution submitted by former councilman and former TDC member Bill Foster to the TDC. Read it and discuss FAIRNESS..
June 18, 2008
The Honorable Robert B. Stewart
Chairman - Board of County Commissioners
315 Court Street
Clearwater, Florida 33756

Re: Waterfront stadium proposal

Greetings:

After reading a great newspaper article by John Romano, and coupled with the comments of Stuart Sternberg and Bud Selig, the time has indeed come to address the elephant in the room. Without a new stadium, the Tampa Bay Rays will leave St. Petersburg, and our City’s one hundred year history with major league baseball will be just that - history.

Last night, I witnessed our beloved Rays defeat the best team in baseball, and while driving home, passing yard signs and billboards, I was brought back to earth by this constant reminder of the polarizing issue facing the community, and a thought came to mind. Why do we have to choose between our affinity for waterfront land and baseball? Why isn’t Plan B on the table for discussion? City / County leaders and newspaper writers have danced around Plan B for the past few weeks, and yet no one is willing to put anything on the table for public discussion. The time has come for a reality check, and for us to make certain admissions which are obvious - thus, Plan B.

You begin with the recognition that the Rays and MLB are significant economic partners with St. Petersburg and Pinellas County, and you realize that the Trop has a shelf life. It wasn’t designed to last forever, and our partners require a new house to remain economically competitive. Says Mr. Sternberg "I know we have to be here at least five years, and I know we can't be here for 20". Next comes the acceptance that the stadium proposal as it exists, in all likelihood, will not pass muster with the citizens of St. Petersburg or Pinellas County. The risk of failure, to the City, to the County, to the Rays, is simply too great, and alienating the most important partner of all - the citizens of St. Petersburg and Pinellas, is not the answer. The Rays have a great many fans, champions and supporters, and we would love to come to their aid, but not this, and not now.

In Plan B, the Rays, either voluntarily or through the appropriate vote by the County, pull their plans for a new “waterfront” stadium. The City and County assemble a task force consisting of the best and brightest from all stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Rays, City, County, CVB, city
June 18, 2008
Page Two

and regional Chambers, Downtown Partnership, neighborhood leaders, hotel planners, etc., with one mission: to design, locate and fund a baseball facility with a multi-use component benefitting the Rays and Pinellas community with economic benefits to all partners, and with minimal tax implications on the citizenry.

Plan B is all about timing, funding, design and location - not in a New York minute, but at a pace conducive to today’s market and environment. Plan B allows the community a moment to breath, and to appreciate the Rays current successes on the field as we roll up our sleeves to begin work as true partners to resolve some of the challenges on all sides. This will certainly work within the original time frame proposed by Mr. Sternberg, and will ensure that neither side, with the exception of the Ray’s fascination with “waterfront”, will be required to make unpalatable concessions. Issues over size, compatibility, parking, transportation, environment, heat, location, tourism, the Arts, etc., become a thing of the past. The Rays could have their offices on site in a multi-use facility geared for baseball, which site could accommodate the private development of convention and hotel facilities. Not only could we get an All Star game, but we could be back in the market for a Final Four or concert tours, and actually compete for events now housed at an ever aging Forum in a sister city. Rolling back the proposed timetable five to eight years allows us to pay off our existing debt, and gives the partners greater funding opportunities in an improving economy with less impact on the taxpayers. This renewed partnership will demonstrate that we are all in this with a common goal, and this process in the sunshine will enhance the buy-in required for all citizens.

This is Pinellas County, and we are a little more thoughtful when it comes to the preservation of our unique assets and quality of life, and moving at a “Pinellas pace” has served this community well. The lack of support for a waterfront stadium is not an indictment of our love affair with baseball or the Rays - it’s just this plan - this location - this timing. There’s no rush. Remember, it took the Rays eleven years to build a winning franchise.

Attached hereto is a sample Resolution for consideration by the TDC. I am no Resolution writer, but perhaps you get the gist, and will consider a few points worthy for discussion.

Please consider this in your deliberations, and if you have any questions, then please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,



DWF:wh Bill Foster
Enclosure
cc. Board of County Commissioners
Members Tourist Development Council




________________________________________________________________________________________



RESOLUTION OF THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
D/B/A ST. PETERSBURG CLEARWATER CONVENTION
AND VISITORS BUREAU
______________________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS, the Tampa Bay Rays and Major League Baseball are significant partners with the City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, and Tourist Development Council, and play an important role in the economic benefits to all partners; and

WHEREAS, all partners have made significant investments in the development of the multi use domed facility known as Tropicana Field, which has played host to the Rays, Lightening, Storm, NCAA Regional and Final Four tournaments, concerts, conventions, home and boat shows, and a myriad of other events which benefitted the Rays, Pinellas community and tourism; and

WHEREAS, while the Rays are contractually obligated remain and maintain the Tropicana site through the year 2027, we acknowledge that in all likelihood, a new multi-use stadium facility
should be considered prior to and in anticipation of the expiration of the present agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Rays have requested that all partners begin this process,

NOW THEREFORE, we, the Tourist Development Council, d/b/a St. Petersburg/Clearwater Convention and Visitors Bureau, do hereby resolve:

1. Recommendation that the Pinellas County Board of County Commission and the City of St. Petersburg, assemble a task force consisting of stakeholders involved in and impacted by the stadium issue, including, but not limited to, the Rays, representatives from Pinellas County, St. Petersburg, CVB, city and regional Chambers, neighborhood and business communities, etc., with one mission: to design, locate and fund a baseball facility with a multi-use component benefitting tourism, the Rays and Pinellas community with economic benefits to all partners, and with minimal tax implications on the citizenry.

2. The facility must be a multi-use domed or retractable roofed facility tailored for baseball, which facility could accommodate other events benefitting the community and tourism, and compete as a concert and convention venue, and further, the surrounding site must be able to accommodate the private development of convention and hotel facilities.

3. In light of the significant contributions by the citizens of St. Petersburg and Pinellas community, past, present and future, it is requested that the name of the team be changed to reflect the home of the Rays, which said name change, we believe would be of significant marketing benefit to tourism and add value to the communities commitment to the Rays and Major League Baseball.

APPROVED this ________ day of ________________________, 2008.



__________________________________________
Chairman

[The Real Rick K]

TRULY CONCERNED, you are truly confused.

If the City council votes to conduct a city wide referendum in November, and subject to the approval by the citizens, negotiation of an acceptable lease, and approval of a satisfactor development agreement for the Trop, a deal is struck,

A) THE CITY WILL BUILD A NEW STADIUM. This stadium construction will cost at least $450,000,000 (probably more);
B) The Developer will financially commit to building PHASE I of their proposed redevelopment project, costing about $550,000,000.

That is money that WILL BE SPENT.

Do you deny this? Are you confusing the uncertainty that comes with the fact that there are contingencies to be worked out, or are you asserting that if the City builds a stadium, they will not spend money in doing so?

I am confused by your repeated claims that if the City and developer spend a billion dollars, they won't be spending a billion dollars.

Further, because we know how construction contracts and gaurantees work, and all reasonable government forecasting is based on the mature expectation that taxpayers will pay their taxes, it is sane and reasonable to expect that a $550,000,000 development (which will pay property taxes on that amount - by law) will pay property taxes. Also, 800,000 sf of retail space will also generate sales taxes.

Why do you keep insisting that their will not be expenditures for construction and that the resultant developments will not generate tax payments?

What am I missing.

I am being serious, please enlighten me.

How is spending a BILLION dollars actually the same as NOT spending a billion dollars?

[The Real Rick K]

In re the 8:26 pm post.

If I may be so bold. While I very much appreciate a former Councilman and a former member of the TDC offering his heartfelt ideas to improve our community, I find this discussion of plan B to be a thinly disguised another attempt to derail, by any means necessary, the process of letting the citizens of St. Pete vote on what to do with Al Lang field this November.

Many in this community agree that the Rays are valuable partners of the City and a very valuable attractor to the County's tourism industries. I think clear majorities agree that it would be a tragedy to send the Rays packing from St. Petersburg.

However, many of us also believe that the downtown waterfront is ridiculously underutilized. We believe not enough people come downtown, and not enough people visit the waterfront. We believe the City doesn't do enough to draw people to the waterfront from outlying parts of the City, the County, surrounding Counties, other states, and other countries. We think that one of St. Petersburg's best assets is our highly unique continous ribbon of public amenities and open spaces on the downtown waterfront. We think that the City and the Rays do not do enough to leverage the City's century-long history with professional baseball.

Many of us do not like the ugly surface parking lot to the north of Al Lang field. Many of us do not like the ugly offices currently occupied by Minor League baseball. Many of us think Al Lang is a neat place for a baseball stadium, but we find the current field to be criminally underutilized.

Many of us welcome the chance to replace this underutilied stadium, ugly surface parking lot, and ugly office buildings with something more modern, more exciting, and more likely to bring MORE people to the City's waterfront.

The Rays want a new home. They have designed an exiciting, iconic structure that will unqiuely brand the home of the Rays on St. Petersburg's downtown waterfront. They have designed an intimate, vibrant, urban stadium which will be the first LEED certified stadium in Major League Baseball. They've proposed a series of street level displays and activities which will serve to better leverage the city's long history with pro baseball.

In short, the Rays proposal presents us with a rare win-win opportunity. We have the very precious chance to build something that is better for the Rays, better for downtown, better for the City, better for tourism, and better for the planet!

EVEN BETTER, we ALSO get, through these paired redevelopment proposals, the nearly impossible to attain opportunity to redevelop 86 acres of contiguous land downtown, only nine or ten blocks from the Waterfront.

Finally, after three decades, the dreams of urban renewal for the Gas Plant neighborhood are attainable. St. Petersburg has the opportunity to do something almost no modern City gets to do - completely redevelop a large tract downtown with contemoporary mixed use improvements which make the city a more exciting and vibrant place to live, work, shop, and play.

Either of these proposals, by themselves, are worthy public projects that we think the citizens would approve at polling places. Together, these paired redevelopment proposals offer us a chance almost no American city has found in this new millenium.

We have a chance to significantly enhance and improve our City, add more than a billion dollars in construction downtown in the next decade, and add more than a billion dollars in increased economic activities and tax collections over the next thirty years.

We understand that some people oppose these plans, for reasons both rational and inane. Which is why we want to vote. This November.

Now is the time.

Please let us vote.

[since1962reFOSTER]

ALTERNATIVES


TIME

MONEY

REASONABLE

[Dave in St Pete]

We need a new yard sign...

Support "Plan B"

It is reasonable and well thought out. It proposes to at least, listen to all concerned and attempt to meet those concerns.

Why should we (citizens of St Pete) be rushed to meet the demands (not requests or negotiations) of the Rays in one year when they have had 11 so far to build a team?

SUPPORT "PLAN B"

[Rays Mike]

So all of the ANTI's who are against "public funding for rich carpetbaggers" are now for a Plan B which wold be MORE expensive, and probably require MORE public funding?

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

Since you are being serious I will try to return your respect. Obviously if the city signs bonds for a 450 million dollar stadium..it most probably will be built..I could argue the point that since Kalt's last baby Yankee stadium has cost New Yorkers AT LEAST an additional 107 million dollars in just infrastructure costs alone and just last week the Yankees asked for an additional 350 MILLION dollars in new tax exempt bonds..the IRS still has to weigh in there..it's not out of the realm of possibility that given Kalts abysmal record with numbers that ground could break and due to horrible financial mismanagement the losses mount and it never gets completed. I concede that is a remote possibility.

It's the Trop redevelopment where I believe with all due respect you are being quite naive. The Archstone VP admitted to the Times editorial board that they were "shooting for the stars" Their shot at the stars is what you are claiming as fact. They conceded they were only talking about 21 million not the 75 or so we owe on the Dome. I have already documented for you the numerous failures of developers in the past...the most recent being the Sembler Corp just across the bay in Ybor City. How much more promising was the Ybor city site which by the way came on line right at the start of a booming economy. The Trop site has been a failure for a long time...unable to be resuscitated by BASEBALL..the panacea you all proscribe. The county is one of only two in all of Florida to lose population. As a commerical real estate broker I can tell you that Tampa is the logical center for destination shopping...doesn't mean we won't have very interesting retail choices when all of the good stuff at the base of those new high rises comes online. And of course there is still the mixed use development approved and waiting to come online when the economy gets better. Well I don't suspect facts impress you much and so I'll resort to the simple childish admonition we all heard as we were growing up..."Don't count your chickens before they're hatched." Even Hines pointed out the flaws in Archstones proposal. The Debartalo group...famous for their expertise in RETAIL..pointed out in their response they didn't view the site as promising for retail. I'm not the only real estate person who has real doubts about the development you keep referring to as a slam dunk.

[The Real Rick K]

Plan B is not reasonable, and you can tell that by who is touting it in this blog.

It is the very same ANTI's.

The objective of Plan B is to DENY the Citizens of St. Pete their right to vote on these proposals this NOVEMBER.

There is no reason to steal the vote or try to block it.

Let the process continue for the next several weeks. Then let the people vote.

Support for Plan B is support for disenfrachising the people of St. Pete!!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

I tried to answer your questions sincerely. Now will you answer one of mine. When the voters crush this in November as EVERY person with any knowledge of this communities pulse realizes...even the biased Times..68-19
When it is crushed will you give it up?

Listen many of we antis as you refer to us are baseball fans. If you simply need to have a vote to let you know how completely lacking in understanding you are of the sentiment in this community...then by all means bring it on. I can tell you however that I personally and many others will be beyond PISSED if we vote this thing down in November and ANYBODY EVER tries to foist this BS on us again.

Bill Foster is making an earnest attempt to save the Rays for this market. If the Rays are SOOOO GREEDY that they need the waterfront to pump up the value of their franchise...then let them return to New York where MLB is happily raping the citizens for ANOTHER 350 MILLION AND ANOTHER 107 MILLION IN INFRASTRUCTURE!!!

[Don in St. Pete]

Rick, You're like a little child who want's his own way. This proposal has the distinct possibility of Bankrupting our City and so should be picked apart with a fine tooth comb as others here have done and even the Times is starting to do. Pie in the sky projections are just that. Let's see some performance guarantees so are city isn't in danger of being left holding the bag. That being said I oppose a new stadium at the Al Lang site.

[Rays Mike]

"SOOOOOO Greedy":
1. The ownership group invested $20M into upgrades to Tropicana Field.

2. They have been very involved in the community through the Rays Baseball Foundation, contributing three grant programs in 2008. This puts dollars directly back into our community, with the most recent example this week of renovating the baseball fields at Azalea Little League.

3. They offered free parking for 2 years (unprecedented in all of professional sports) and allow fans to bring their own snacks/drinks into games.

4. Last year, by opening up concessions stands to volunteer groups to run and administer during games, these organizations were able to generate close to 1 Million dollars in raised funds to help their causes.

5. They have the Rays Community Corner at ballgames to help raise awareness for various non-profit community groups.

6. They said that payroll would increase to put a competitive product on the field. It increased in 2008 from $23M to $42M. The result: one of the best teams in all of Major League baseball and giving St. Petersburg their first ever pennant chase.

7. Investing $150M of their own money into the proposed new waterfront ballpark.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rays Mike,

Great talking points cut and pasted from Kenny's website except for 4. Last year, by opening up concessions stands to volunteer groups to run and administer during games, these organizations were able to generate close to 1 Million dollars in raised funds to help their causes.
This is one of the most creative scams in all of professional sports. However I certainly don't blame it on the Rays.
It is SOP now in all professional sports stadia...it's a very creative way to increase profits and lets poor shills like the Fans claim civic mindedness. Pay a certain percentage of the gross to a charity and guess what...you get to do away with workman's comp insurance..FICA taxes..and of course minimum wage..which is what the majority of jobs generated by stadiums pay.

[1962reR]

The waterfront is NOT for sale at ANY price PARTICULARLY when ALL 930,000 Pinellas residents are being EXTORTED at the expense of THEIR own STADIUM BONDS AND BEACHES.

[get-smart]

I have a question. Will the Rays still pay for all overruns? Is Hines part of control over all phases of construction? So does Archstone kill cost overrun protection?

[Rays Mike]

That is EXACTLY where I cut and pasted it from - I should have given the proper credit to Kenny Locke and Fans for Waterfront Stadium. http://www.fansforwaterfrontstadium.com/ I will reference it EVERY time I see the ownership is called out for being greedy. Do you really think the recepients of the charities care if the team doesn't have to pay FICA? I'm sure you NEVER claim your charitable donations on your income taxes. Your cynicism is clouding your judgement...

[Rays Mike]

And BTW: I worked at the Ice Palace and The Trop in 1998 selling beer and working concession stands. It was all commissions - no salary, no FICA withheld..

[Don Mott]

Trump Tower developer files for bankruptcy. Enough said.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Mike,

So jobs in the stadium are even worse than I had imagined. So now the commissions go to charities instead of working people like your former self. Not to imply that you're not a hard working guy now..simply that at some point in your life that work might have been valuable.

[The Real Rick K]

Truly concerned can call it a scam if he wants. I know a community group where every person worked about eight hours during the season, they staffed every game, and the group netted more than $90,000, none of which they would have been able to collect from Rays game attendees without the Rays making this available. Another group I know worked only 19 games, which required each parent to work one game shift, for which the organization netted close to $4 K (it was a smaller stand).

Truly concerned can try all he want to call this a scam, but the truth is, the Rays helped these local groups turn volunteer hours into cash. Most people who look at it think this volunteer staffing plan by the Rays is preferable to the Club Level at Raymond James, where a bunch of hired laborers from Able Body make minimum wage for four hours (but not including the bus ride to and from the stadium), less bus charges, less rental for their clothes, netting them a nice whopping $26 for the effort.

What you see in Truly Concerned's response is an attempt to paint any sliver of any story that is favorable to the Rays or these proposals in an unfavorable light.

[Rick K about Trump Tower]

Now comes Don Mott, who tells us that a troubled private developer, backed by an underfunded financial company and a high profile publicity hungry partner, trying to build an unquestionably overbuilt product in TAMPA has filed for bankruptcy protection, and this is somehow relevant to THESE paired redevelopment proposals.

Mott takes it one step further. Not only does he find this bankruptcy filing relevant, he finds it to be the DEFINITIVE word on all things related to THESE paired redevelopment proposals.

No further discussion needed. Don Mott has found an irrelevant example!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

If that is truly you I'm still waiting for my answer. I've tried in all earnestness to respond to you without the namecalling or invective that has too often dominated this blog.

So Rick..what's it going to be man. If this thing get's crushed at the polls in November have we protected our waterfront. Since Vision 20/20 and the LDR's have been meaningless to you will you and the Rays truly respect our vote. Will you leave the waterfront alone? If your answer is yes..LET'S VOTE!!!!

[Don Mott]

"Now comes Don Mott, who tells us that a troubled private developer, backed by an underfunded financial company and a high profile publicity hungry partner, trying to build an unquestionably overbuilt product in TAMPA has filed for bankruptcy protection, and this is somehow relevant to THESE paired redevelopment proposals." Hey Ricky. Was the development company in trouble before or after the Trump deal? It was after. If it was an overbuilt product why did it sell out before construction? It is relevant because this is most certainly what could happen with Archstone-Madison with out upfront payments and guarantees.

[Don Mott]

Yeah Ricky I know you don't understand but developers file bankruptcy a lot. Then just go on to reopen shop under a new name. It is not a rare occurrence. In fact it is quite common. And if you knew as much as you profess you would know this. This deal for extended payments is bad, trust me.

[Rick K]

Don, my name is Rick, not Ricky. You must have me confused with someone else.

My point is simple: You are a pessimist. You are convinced in your mind that the chance for failure here is greater than the chance for success.

You seek out information which affirms your pessimistic outlook, and ignore any and all information which undermines your pessimism. You did not, for example, point us to news about the 15 or 20 tremendously successful real estate development ventures. You didn't point us to stories about International Mall, the Rennaisance Hotel, the Marriot Waterside, Riverwalk, Embassy Suites, or the Westin Harbor Island.

Don, you are ignoring the fact that for every failed development along the lines of Trump Tower, there have been five or ten successes!

You haven't mentioned Citrus Park Mall, Brandon Town Center, the newly renovated WestShore Mall. You have talked little of the Ice Palace and Channelside. You haven't mentioned much on the good side, Don.

You didn't point us to news stories about the Sand Pearl Resort, Beach Palms, Lands End, Ultimar, Bella Margarite, Signature Place, Ovation, McNulty Lofts, Parkshore Plaza, 400 Beach Drive.

For that matter, you haven't talked about the successful redevelopment of the Vinoy, the Don Cesar. You don't talk much about USF downtown, or the Dali or Mahaffey.

In short Don, you are a hit man. You have an extreme pessimist's outlook that is not shared by the general population, and your primary contributions to these blogs is to find extreme examples that are not representative of the realistic prospects for these proposals.

Other than that, I like you just fine.

[Rick K to Truly Concerned]

Truly Concerned:

I have never given even a splinter of information in these blogs to indicate that I do not believe in supporting the outcome of a city wide election, if one is held on this issue.

I believe that if the people vote this proposal down, this proposal should be scrapped.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

Just one question sir...if the voters defeat this idea in November will that be enough for you. If the voters say no does that preserve our waterfront from repeated attempts by you and the Rays.
Again sir if you say this is a one time deal to be settled by this vote then we agree...LET US VOTE!!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

With all due respect that was a great political answer. Obviously if the voters turn this down in November "this proposal will be scrapped." That's not my question and I think you know the true thrust of my question but I'll spell it out for you. Obviously the Rays will take on the grassroots effort with their enormous economic advantage. We have volunteers spending hundreds of man hours while Mr. Kalt is making big bucks...OK it's worth it...but if this gets repeated then those involved in coming back for the waterfront after Vision 20/20..the LDR rewrites AND A VOTE ARE TRULY SLIME. And so sir to paraphrase the attorney at the McCarthy hearings...do you have a conscience..do you have any sense of decency. Simply state if we push for your vote you'll push for honoring the result...NOT JUST FOR THIS PROPOSAL but for all the the citizens have already expressed.

[Rick K to Truly Concerned]

I do not believe your question is relevant. I believe it is slanted to play into framing the debate before us in a way that I think is not truthful.

I belive the following, with passion and prejudice.

I believe these proposals to be a bold, highly imaginative set of soultions to many problems confronting the people of St. Petersburg.

I believe that a lot of honest work has gone into these proposals, and much more work will go into them between now and November.

I believe that the process should move forward, with full and honest debate.

I believe their should be a City Wide election to decide on this proposal (or on both proposals - heck I support a County wide ballot question, too).

I believe that if this proposal is passed by the majority, we should hasten to build these projects.

I believe if the people reject these proposals (or just the one proposal, however it works out), we should not persue these proposals.

If the question about Al Lang fails, I would support a subsequent ballot question (but I think it would be best to have it in the next govenor's election, instead of a special election) about forever keeping Al Lang a park, or something like that.

In short, I think the CITIZENS should be allowed to decide.

[Anothertrulyconcernedcitizen]

I differ in opinion in that I continue to hold out hope that our elected officials and their staff will do the job we elected them to do. That includes fiscal responsibility.

This circus should not have gone on this long. It's too bad Hines & Archstone couldn't recover their expenses from the Rays for this gigantic waste of everyone's time. The developers are the real losers, because they're likely to get squat for their efforts. And the taxpayers, for their representatives' time and effort.

If it goes to a vote, well, that's a no-brainer. We still need to demand our city include language in the referendum that states by voting no, you're also agreeing to protect the Al Lang parcel for previously agreed-upon uses.

[Rick K to Truly Concerned]

I disagree on both points, of course.

I think it would be CRIMINAL for any elected official to stop the people from voting.

And I do not think the City should try to confuse people on the ballot. Besides being sure to not pass the "one topic" test, it is better to separate the questions, because some may not want the stadium but also not want to vote to keep the property a park forever, and your idea of a combined question gives that voter no place to go.

[Don Mott]

OK How about RRRick, I have worked on a majority of those projects you mentioned but they have nothing to do with this discussion. The city is proposing to give A-M a free leash to develop at their will and pay when they want for the land they are acquiring. Until there are upfront payments and guarantees this deal should not be approved. Just my opinion.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

We are close to agreement. However not sending this to the ballot is far from CRIMINAL. If council examines this and finds to much risk relative to the investment it is their fidiciary duty to NOT MOVE it along with the referendum. While I realize you disagree with the possible consequences surely you would agree that if city council feared this would bankrupt the city they would then literally be criminally negligent in their fiduciary duties to their constituents. Alas just because Rick K says it's so...doesn't really make it so. Just because you think these pair proposals are the best thing for the city since air conditioning...oops bad comparision since we're talking about dumping the AC..doesn't make it fact and if the council doesn't believe it worthwhile they are actually obligated to stop it.
Your logic mirrors that of Councilman Dudley who alas has the mind of a wrestling coach who has taken one too many hard falls.

[Rick K]

I would agree that if the City finds something that makes these deals unconscionable, they would be justified in killing them.

But I doubt that happens.

Stopping them because POWW wants them to would be CRIMINAL.

[Don Mott]

I don't believe atrulyconcernedcitizen mentioned POWW. Why did you?

[Rick K]

I mentioned POWW Don because I regard them as relevant to this discussion. I do not believe A TRULY CONCERNED is the arbiter of all things worhty of discussion.

I have said this before, Don, but I find POWW's conduct to be reprehensible, anti-democratice, and criminal. Their agenda is to deny the people of St. Pete a vote, period.

I have read nothing from POWW except a pack of lies, distortions, distractions, straw man arguments, and a whole host of other attempts to hijack this debate. I find almost no truth in their claims on their website or in these threads.

But coming back to your 11:55 pm post, Don. Rrrrick is fine. What you describe is neither an accurate description of the conversation at City Council today, nor is it even remotely close to what has been proposed.

What is proposed is the following...

The City will now negotiate an outline of a contingent development agreement which will have the following contingency clauses, among others:
The city works out an agreeable lease with the Rays
The citizens vote to aprove a lease
The public financing components come together
Approvals and permits for the new stadium are attained

If all that (and some other stuff) gets done, Archstone will commit to the entire land purchase price, demolishing the Trop, and also to build the first phase of the project.

Based on what we know right now, this first phase should be around $500 Million worth of construction.

No one, and I mean no one has proposed giving Archstone clear title to the land for a few million and hoping they build something.

The description you posted is one that was crafted by liars who wish to deceive people. Maybe they fooled you, I am not sure. But I was at the Council meeting today, and if you watch the video, you will see that my reporting is more accurate.

[1962reR]

SUPPORT PLAN B

[Don in St. Pete]

Rick K., You obviously have a slippery grasp on the facts at best. Even the Pro Ballpark Times reported that A-M's deal want's half of the Trop site for 25% of the money with no guarantees until that phase is complete. Would you be willing to sell your house for half of the money down with no guaranty you'll get the rest? At least admit the deal is shaky for the taxpayer at best and more likely is highly suspect. I support plan B, as a Rays fan I want them to stay, but I prefer a multi-use facility that can draw upon all the citizens of the County and the Bay Area to support events that could be held there.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K,

Wow...I always wanted to know what you look like and so I just went to the dictionary and found your picture under "supercilious". I suspect I could have also found it under arrogant...obnoxious..afraid..
You describe anyone who dares to disagree with you as a "fool" and state unequivocally that your points are fact.
You stated..."POWW's conduct to be reprehensible, anti-democratice, and criminal. Their agenda is to deny the people of St. Pete a vote, period.

I have read nothing from POWW except a pack of lies, distortions, distractions, straw man arguments, and a whole host of other attempts to hijack this debate. I find almost no truth in their claims on their website or in these threads."
You have just provided a clear example of the "ad hominem" ( 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made) attacks I have pointed out you so frequently rely on.
First of all the first part of your statement is SIMPLY YOUR OPINION..the part about POWW being against a vote is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Because the group is in favor of more due diligence BEFORE the vote...does not make them anti vote. If one side believes that the 2009 election cycle provides more time for an INFORMED vote..while the other side wishes to head to the ballot box armed with numbers from a buffoon like Kalt who so screwed the pooch on the Yankee stadium numbers as to be totally lacking in credibility..it doesn't make those FOR AN INFORMED VOTE anti vote!!!
You have just told a BOLD FACED LIE and if you wish to say you stand corrected and now you realize the TRUTH I will refrain from calling you a liar.
To characterize POWW'S arguments as lies, distortions, straw man arguments,and an attempt to hijack the debate..what does hijack the debate actually mean?...simply screams for a little more specificity. Why don't you list those lies..and distortions and we can counter or perhaps at least agree to disagree. While I realize this is a blog and encourages some to disemble, resort to name calling, and ad hominmen attacks...how about an attempt to crawl out of the mud Rick K. and try and find your way back to the high road. I'm not certain how your parents raised you to be so incredibly ARROGANT and act literally like some ruler...perhaps the Pharoah. Pharoah Rick...so it is written.so it is said..so shall it be.
Forgive the rest of us mere mortals who are unable to grasp your perfection and infinite wisdom.

[Mal]

Rick K
Nice, call your opponent every name in the book and hope something sticks. Poww isn't dening anybody a vote they're just trying to slowdown this out of control train. At this speed there will be a train wreck.

[Rick K]

Mal, you aren't paying attention, or you can't see what is going on. POWW's objective is to prevent this issue from being before the people this November.

You can spin it however you want, with your paranoid vision of train wrecks (as if something like this will result in death and destruction). Your post Mal, emphasizes my point. And if all you can see when you read my post is name calling, you probably aren't the best minion for POWW.

[Mal]

Rick K,
It's a metaphor.

[since1962]

Sobered up yet RICK?
The #1 tourism attractor in Pinellas County is the BEACHES not the rays. WORLDS #1 rated beach right here!

SUPPORT PLAN B

NOT NOW
NOT ON WATERFRONT
LESS TAXPAYER MONEY

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Pharoah Rick,

Can you flesh out some of the so called lies...we have caught you red handed in a lie. You continually repeat that POWW is anti vote. Per your masters you have consistently stayed on message...LET US VOTE!!! I do give you guys credit for party discipline and staying on message. However I don't believe any RATIONAL person can call a group that is PRO an INFORMED vote anti vote. That is simply a LIE on your part. And while you have taken massive amounts of space to cast aspersions on every economist who dares to point out the folly of public subsidies for the uber wealthy franchise owners and their millionaire players, where is your spin on Kalt's folly. Are you rational sir? Is it a distortion, or a lie, for intelligent, rational people to at LEAST QUESTION the numbers of a man whose prior two projects were SO INCREDIBLY OVER BUDGET. Perhaps you can spin it with the 3rd times a charm argument.

[Rick K]

TRULY CONCERNED, you crack me up. Let me tell you just a bit about AD HOMINEM attacks, since you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the term. AD HOMINEM attacks are used by people who are unable to attack a person's argument. Instead of attacking an argument, the attacker attacks the person making the argument, or otherwise appeals to emotion, without attacking the argument.

That isn't what I do here at all. If you want to see an example of AD HOMINEM, see your four postings in different threads where you call me superlicious, arrogant, and a self annoited Pharroah. Those are names that have nothing to do with my arguments. And anyone who can read can see that I post about 20 entries without calling anyone a name for each one where I slip in a personal attack, almost always in reply to one.

It is possible, by the way, to attack and argument AND call someone a name. In the case of POWW, you mistake what are summative statements about their efforts for an AD HOMINEM attack offered in place of reasoned critique.

First of all, if POWW puts forth a bunch of lies and I characterize those as lies, I am satisfying neither of the two definitions you provided

(1) : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
(2) : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

It's simple. If you make a claim that is a lie, and I respond by calling the claim a lie, I have not offered an AD HOMINEM attack. If Bill Clinton says, "I did not have sex with that woman (adding, with practiced hesitancy, as if he didn't even know her name), Miss Lewinsky."

If I reply to that by saying, "President Clinton was lying," I have characterized (accurately) his argument. My technique is acceptable in a Court of Law and in most every form of civil debate. My way saves time. Especially here, when there is so much to read and take in.

And this technique of offering a summary first can be most effective to helping people figure out who stands where. POWW's goal is to drive this issue off this November's ballot. You can spin that however you want, but I see that as attempting to deny a vote. In fact, the dictionary probably agrees with me.

You can say POWW seeks to delay a vote. That is merely spin. It is finding other words to describe what I have described in a way that sounds less bad. The reality is, if we do not vote this November, we will have had the chance to vote this November taken away from us. The definition of "delay" means to NOT do something now, but to do it later.

You take my factual assertion and try to spin it. You add emotion and indignation. You might impress your friends in POWW. But you don't impress me. You said, "buffoon like Kalt who so screwed the pooch on the Yankee stadium numbers"

Hello. You have provided no evidence of Kalt's buffoonery (because there isn't any), and you have offered no evidence of how he screwed the pooch. In place of reasoned analysis or refuation of Kalt's presentations, you offer name calling and emotion.

I, on the other hand, have offered loads of evidence to support my assertion that POWW spews lies and attempts to distort, distract, deceive and delay. Take this latest thinly-veiled attempt at delay and obfuscation, this so called "Plan B."

Because this is America, we all get to assess the situation. My assessment is that this plan is designed to give cover to City Council members who wish to vote to NOT put the stadium question on the Ballot in November. That isn't a stretch, it is obvious to everyone that this is Plan B. Where you and I differ is on our assessment of the motive. You claim I am telling a bold faced lie when I say this Plan is about having us not vote in November. But that is actually what the plan is about.

I have no idea why you have to get all emotional and deny the obvious. We want to vote. You don't want us to.
We want the vote to be held during an election which will have high voter participation for a broad spectrum of issues and candidates, ensuring the largest and most diverse voter participation. POWW wants the vote held in a Special or less attended election when their extreme views are more likely to carry the day. POWW fears the light. POWW fears the truth. POWW fears a widespread vote with maximized voter participation.

Spin it all you want. Call names. Dust off Latin phrases you don't fully understand.

None of that changes anything. This latest desperate attempt to elevate "Plan B" is really "attempt 37" to delay (by any means necessary) a vote this November.

[since1962 re R]

What about the economic impact of BEACH TOURISM VS RAYS. Care to make that insane assertion during the day?

SUPPORT PLAN B
NOT NOW
NOT ON THE WATERFRONT
LESS TAXPAYER MONEY

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick,

Perhaps we have different dictionaries..I did not realize that delay is synomous with stop. I could spin your last argument "POWW wants the vote held in a Special or less attended election when their extreme views are more likely to carry the day." with the corollary the Rays want this on the Presidential election year when they get the largest number of uninformed voters...but you know what I don't need to go there because 68-19 is actually a conservative number. Do you realize however Rick that you have just insulted a significant portion of our citizenry who took the time to be involved in the city they love by attending visioning meetings and charrettes by labeling them EXTREMISTS.

" POWW wants the vote held in a Special or less attended election when their extreme views are more likely to carry the day."

And so Rick are you saying that the next time a city advertises a visioning session open to the citizens that we should not bother because this is for the EXTREMISTS.

Rick I can pay my property taxes beginning in November...they go up each month until the April deadline. If I choose to DELAY paying them until April does that mean I'm anti paying my taxes because I didn't pay for them THIS November?

As for Kalt's folly the newspapers in New York were loaded last week with the news of the additional 350 million dollar request by the Yankees. However here is a little help on the infrastructure and park replacement costs soaring. Please Rick do NOT come back with Ohhh that's the Village Voice...or that's Neil DeMause a noted stadium hater. The numbers in the article are PUBLIC RECORD released by city officials.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0813,as-new-yankee-and-met-stadiums-go-up-so-do-costs-and-disruption,389221,1.html

[Rick K]

Mal:

I understand that it was a metaphor. It is amusing that you arrogantly pretend that wasn't obvious. You intentionally selected a metaphor of catastrophe that invokes mental images of death and widespread destruction. I know what you did. It is page one in the POWW playbook.

ANYTHING to confuse, distort, obfuscate, or change the topic. ANYTHING to delay.

I get it.

Since 1962: I will reply to you as though you are brighter than your posts indicate. I am well aware that far more tourists spend the night in hotels in Pinellas because of our beaches. You need to go back and read what I wrote again. You won't get it, even if I word it differently here. You are better off posting your childish recitation of numbers and thinking that substitutes for substantive contributions to public debate.

Now to a TRULY CONCERNED, who opens his/her 10:19 post with an AD HOMINEM attack. First of all, I don't really get the Pharoah label. I don't see it. All my mind comes up with is images of Steve Martin on the stage of SNL singing King Tut. I am sure you are mixing in some Yule Brenner in your metaphorical symbolism, but I am not seeing how my repeated assertions in these blogs of truth is the same as a bare chested slave owning pharoah in a biblical epic.

You have not caught me in a lie. That claim is untrue and just silly. I have said, time and again, that POWW's objective is to win by any means necessary. This assesment comes from reading their website, watching their public appearances, and reading their posts on this website. I have also read an article in the Times where Aaron comes to nearly the same conclusion as me. He doesn't go as far as I do though.

I say it right out in the open. POWW does not want this stadium. Their first objective is to deny a vote. If they cannot succeed there, they want to try to skew the vote in their favor. They want to delay the vote until a special election cycle that will have lower turnout. They want to cloud the public debate with so many issues that have nothing to do with the fundamental question.

The goals of POWW are to delay, deceive, distract, and distort.

Take some posts in this thread as an example.

Don at 9:17 pm says, "This proposal has the distinct possibility of Bankrupting our City."

That is utter nonesence, without any foundation. There has been no credible financial service, muncipal rating agency, professional accountants, or anyone else who has looked over these numbers and come to that conclusion. Don offers PURE FANTASY as fact.

And Don is an ANTI.

Since 1962 says, "The waterfront is NOT for sale at ANY price"

Which is distortion. The Rays proposal does not call for the Rays to own the waterfront. It calls for public ownership of the land and buildings. It calls for replacing currently publicly-owned baseball stadium, surface parking lots, and ugy offices, with a new baseball stadium, new offices, new retail, and a public park!

Since 1962 also says, " PARTICULARLY when ALL 930,000 Pinellas residents are being EXTORTED"

Which is extreme distortion. No one is being extorted. The Rays are ASKING for this park. The City is going to ask the City residents and the County government to particpate in making the park a reality. There is no extortion here, and attempts to call it that are merely attempts to deceive.

And 1962 is an ANTI.

Don Mott says, above, "The city is proposing to give A-M a free leash to develop at their will and pay when they want for the land they are acquiring."

The city is proposing no such thing. That claim is a distortion of the actual proposal before the city.

And Don Mott is an ANTI.

You, Truly Concerned, say I am lying because I "continually repeat that POWW is anti vote."

You aren't being entirely accurate. And I may share the blame for that. I have long held that POWW does not want a vote THIS NOVEMBER. They do not want a vote this NOVEMBER. That I sometimes leave out the "this november" part (because I have said it over and over and POWW doesn't even deny it) might have led you to conclude that didn't know that POWW says they want a vote at some point.

I know they say that.

To me, the more important information about POWW's goal is that they DO NOT WANT a vote this November.

You talk about my "masters." I have none. You make up fantasy out of whole cloth and present it as fact.

You say I have "taken massive amounts of space to cast aspersions on every economist who dares to point out the folly of public subsidies for the uber wealthy franchise owners and their millionaire players,"

That is more distortion and deception. (Or maybe confusion on your part, I am not sure).

I have taken a fraction of the space that has been consumed by posts about these so called experts who claim that there is near unanimity amongst economists that public investment in sports stadiums create net negative economic benefits. The work of these fringe ecnomists has been held up in these blogs (by the ANTI's) as unassailable proof. Indisputable. I have responded (taking up a fraction of the space made in support in of these fringe players) with evidence that undermines this false attempt to hold up this economic quackery as real science.

You bring a lot of hatred and envy into your argument when you toss around terms like "uber wealthy franchise owners and their millionaire players."

I am not jealous of these people. I do not hate them.

It stands to reason that if the public undertakes public support that will benefit a private enterprise at the same time it benefits the public, people in the private enterprise will make money.

To me that is perfectly okay. People make money off the Dali musuem, USF, the marina, the Pier, the Airport, every library, school and public park.

Unlike you, I do not have a knee jerk reaction to the concept of someone earning money.

Money is a large part of this. I want the City and the region to benefit from the money. Having the Rays here brings a lot of money to town that wouldn't be here without the Rays. Redeveloping the Trop site will bring billions to downtown.

Those are facts.

Not emotion. Not hyperbole. Reasoned judgement.

I could go on, but I must earn a living.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick,

"Having the Rays here brings a lot of money to town that wouldn't be here without the Rays. Redeveloping the Trop site will bring billions to downtown.

Those are facts.

Not emotion. Not hyperbole. Reasoned judgement."

No one...not even you can claim these as unequivical facts!!! Even the developer is not claiming these as FACTS.

Don clearly used the word "possibility"
not a fact of bankruptcy. The very hometown of the Rays ownership had to declare bankruptcy and more recently read about Santa Clara California. So you can argue about probabilities...but you INCORRECTLY characterized Don's statement. That was simply WRONG

You railed at 1962 use of the Rays will own the waterfront as being a lie and that the city will own the waterfront. That is so far beyond DISINGENUOUS or simply misleading that I probably shouldn't deign to dignify it...however as a real estate broker let me acknowledge there is a difference between fee simple ownership and leasehold rights...however the point 1962 was making is still VERY VALID because what we are talking about here is CONTROL of the most valuabl waterfront real estate in all of Tampa Bay until 2050 or is it 2055? Most lay people do not differentiate between fee simple and leasehold rights since control is the issue that concerns them. 1962's point is perfectly valid..control in our lifetime no matter what you call the instrument that enables it.

As for extortion again Rick you are either very naive or again disingenuous!! There has been ample reporting in the press..on this blog..of the veiled threat that we will lose the Rays if we don't cowtow to their "paired proposals"

Rick I understand your extreme frustration since the Rays paired proposals are not going to succeed. But where you've created your frustration is by boxing yourself into ONE POSITION...THE ALL OR NOTHING APPROACH. You have insulted Bill Foster for daring to suggest what the MAJORITY of our citizens would view as a reasoned approach. You continue to insult POWW because they are PRO a different vision for our city than you.

So here is the deal Rick. I will apologize for calling you arrogant. Let's call a truce in the real spirt of the Foster plan. Where else in life have you seen a tenant (the Rays) come to the landlord (we citizens) and categorically stated here is the proposal...You must vote right now...with our terms...and VERY LITTLE NEGOTIATION involved. I am a baseball fan. I do not wish to see the Rays leave. They WILL NOT SUCCEED GETTING THE WATERFRONT APPROVED!!! Therefore if like me you enjoy the Rays at least consider Foster's proposal in the spirit in which it was truly intended.

POWW wants a great St. Peterburg and is very proud of our city's character. We understand you may have a different view. So let's call a truce on the name calling. Supporters of this proposal have destroyed 8 of the large red signs. Supporters on both sides have taken yard signs. People on both sides have engaged in heated debate and name calling. Let's end it now Rick and call for both sides to show a little respect. No more sign stealing or defacing..no more name calling.

[since1962]

Blog bloating diatribes are ONE WAY to distract from reality.
A DAZZLING RETAIL WONDERLAND is another.

A-M is redeveloping a similar site in Anahiem in a parking lot!

The beach based tourism economy will not support THIS plan.

SUPPORT PLAN B

[Paul]

If you're not a registered voter in St Petersburg, should your opinion count less... like, say ohh, if you live in Seminole? Or, perhaps there could be a 1/2 million word limit per day so you're not junking up the blogs with a load of babbling, endless rants.

I really enjoy the days Rick K. doesn't post (which is rare) on the blogs about the stadium. I'm sure most of us feel this way as well.

[SUPPORT PLAN B]

Like the projected dazzling retail at tropicana...

The blog bloating diatribes are intended to distract.

St Pete/Pinellas will get what we deserve.

[Don Mott]

Posted by RRRick, "I have taken a fraction of the space that has been consumed by posts about these so called experts who claim that there is near unanimity amongst economists that public investment in sports stadiums create net negative economic benefits. The work of these fringe economists has been held up in these blogs (by the ANTI's) as unassailable proof. Indisputable. I have responded (taking up a fraction of the space made in support in of these fringe players) with evidence that undermines this false attempt to hold up this economic quackery as real science." That is a lie RRRick. You have provided nothing but YOUR word that all of these economists are wrong and you are right. As I have asked before, show me a peer reviewed report that disagrees with the ones I have linked to. If you don't or can't you are indeed a liar. If you do I will gladly retract my statement.

[Chris Jenkins]

C'mon Don. You're asking the impossible here...kind of like asking the Rays to guarantee the numbers for the deal.

It's true because STONE COLD RICK K SAID SO!

Nuff said. ;)

[Rick K]

You guys really are out there.

Every time I encounter a grown adult in the real world who clings to delusional interpretations of reality, I am a bit shocked. I am surprised because the life I live is filled with mechanisms and interactions which force me to confront actual reality, instead of fantasy.

I imagine some of you are probably normal enough people in every day life. But you've managed to turn yourselfs into characatures on the internet.

I have never offered a fact and said that it is a fact just because I have said so. You guys are pigheaded, or what?

Let's go through all the delusional fantasies that you guys are embracing....

A TRULY CONCERNED. Yes, one of those is a fact. The other is a resaonable expectation of the future. The claim about the Rays bringing money to St Pete is a real, verifiable facts that ANYONE who commits a little bit of time can test on his or her own. You could do it yourself. One suspects that you will not to do it because you would prefer to embrace fantasy instead of facts.

With regard to my prediction for the future revenues, I will allow that this is not a fact. However, it is certainaly a reasonable expectation. It's quite simple really. If the City commits to spending $450,000,000 on the Stadium. And the Rays are going to play in that stadium, those two commitments, if delivered, will bring more than a billion dollars downtown over the next 30 years.

Further, if Archstone spends from $500,000,000 to $1,200,000,000 downtown, that will mean that the two redevelopment projects will have brought billions downtown.

Simple.

I know you WANT sooooo badly to pretend that a billion plus a billion plus billions more in spending, wages, commissions, tips, taxes, and more DOES not equate to BILLIONS of dollars.

But I don't live on Mars. Where I live, one billion plus one billion plus billions more equals billions.

So, TRULY CONCERNED, I concede that my prediction is not a fact (and find it hilarious that this is where I slipped up, because it is what the ANTI's do all the time, especially Thomas). However, it is certainally a fact that the Rays bring loads of money downtown.

I did not incorrectly characterize Don's hysterical fears. Anyone who can read will determine for themselves. It's telling that you ANTI's are so hell bent on "winning" a point with the scary "Rick K" that you will twist and contort any exchange. It's clear that Don's intent was to scare people about bankruptcy.

You commit the same sin again in your mindless defense of 1962. It is clear to most readers that I correctly characterized her fringe position.

You commit the same sin yet again in your juvenile lame attempt to resurrect the use of the word "extortion" to legitimacy. Again, these events aren't even remotely close to extortion, and your defense of Don, 1962 and whoever said extortion only does one thing - it demonstrates how far you will twist the language and distort in order to make yourself feel better and confuse others.

I don't really care how you feel there, buddy. I don't care how you try to twist the langauge.

People can read the thread and decide for themselves. Guess what. None of the POWW people are persauded by me. They aren't persauded by ANYTHING! They have already made up their minds to oppose these proposals when they joined POWW.

My aim is not to convince those fringe extremists. Nor is it to befriend them.

You offer arrogant condescension, when none is needed. I am not even the least bit frustrated. I see liars and scammers and cheats and thugs, and I oppose them. It does not frustrate me that the clueless and misguided are clueless and misguided.

I disagree, completely, with your notion that POWW has a different pro vision for the city. First of all, POWW's vision is to hold the city back and to continue aspects of our city that are undesirable, in my view. Secondly, even if I could respect POWW's view, I cannot respect their tactics.

POWW's tactics, as evidenced by their website, public statements, and postings in these blogs, are to continually try anything and everything to PREVENT the people of ST Pete from voting this November.

They distort, deceive, distract and delay.

About 3/4 of the stuff POWW has "raised" as issues is nonsense that has already been proven wrong or soon will be. The other 1/4 is opinion (such as "the proposed stadium will lack human scale").

Here is the truth, TRULY CONCERNED. If POWW employed honorable methods in their pursuits, I would respect them. As it is, all I see from that group is attempts to hijack this debate through the use of dishonorable tricks.

If POWW joined me in calling for everyone to pitch in and do whatever we can to answer as many questions as possible before November, and backed a November ballot issue, that would be something.

As it is, POWW seeks to deny the citizens of St Pete a vote this November.

Foster's proposal is a sham, designed only to deny the vote this November. I will not support a sham that is anti-democratic while pretending to be just the opposite. If Foster calls for everyone pitching in during the next three months to answer all these questions, I could support that.

Don Mott. I cannot post everything I say to you five or six times. You always come back here and say that I never replied to you, when I did.

The short answer is that first of all, I don't have to prove anything to you. I have provided reasonable support for my claims that your links (all of them) are suspect. I will let OTHERS (who were my intended audience) work that out, without worrying whether or not I convinced you. I didn't think convincing you was possible, really.

Finishing up with Don, I cannot point to a study that proves that there is no study that establishes proof that there is near unanimity amongst economists as Zimbalist and company claim. There is no study proving that your study does not exist. But it does not.

Your request is absurd. You make a claim (over and over and over) without any proof whatsoever. I point out the lack of proof. Instead of finding proof or conceding there is no proof, you say I am obligated to prove that there is no study.

That might make sense to you.

But it does not to me and the rest of the sane popuplation.

Now to Paul.

You definietly aren't paying attention, and you also have bad information. I have responded to this elsewhere, but will do so one more time. I have never been a registered voter in Seminole. I am now a registered voter in St Pete, and have been for some time. You have bought into yet another fantasy.

You cling to fantasy.

That you do so without any reliable supporting evidence just makes you look desperate and foolish.

Lastly, here is some personal advice to all of those among you who are delusional. You all may want to ask yourself why you are so vulnerable to confusing fantasy with fact.

Just because you really WANT something to be true doesn't mean it is.

[Paul]

Holy blog entries, Batman! Rick K actually clarified something! He's a St Pete voter. Amazing. Well there ya go, Rick gets to vote on this.

You sure you didn't forget taking an ad hominem (sp??) spin on anyone? I think the movethedome.com guys had thrown a wrench or two your way and you owe a few answers to a few people... but hey, you're a busy guy, got lots of bloggin to do huh?

This stadium deal is about the worse project I've ever seen run. The Rays owners are quite unprofessional and arrogant in their approach. Perhaps the City should just buy the Rays baseball team and be done with it. I think that would make for a nice Plan C. Then, we all get a piece of the action, and heck, we'll even give Rick K. a few tickets since he's such a big fan.

I say, if you can't beat them, buy them. How much you suppose they want? I'm going to guess about 200 million. Seems like a heck of a deal and the City would get all the concession revenue, all the naming rights and yes, we'd get to stick our name on the team as well. Woo hoo! Plan C all way baby! Keep the Trop, buy the Rays!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick,

That was a truly incredible job of the pot calling the kettle black. You sir are the one who is mired in an untenable, non negotiable position that must fit YOUR schedule or be labeled anti democratic. You are really out there...I mean seriously even if I was Stu Sternberg waiting one more year would not be the end of the world. I grant you your wish to have the vote this year...but to label people and engage in all these ridiculous ad hominem attacks shows the desperation of your opinion. Perhaps Don, 1962, and other will join in taking up a collection to treat your depression when this thing gets absolutely CRUSHED in November...that is if the TDC..BOCC.and City Council move it forward. How you can so mischaracterize Bill Foster's honest attempt at brokering a TRUE negotiation is beyond me...unless you are really Michael Kalt and your contract expires at the end of this year...come to think of it...is that you Michael?

[Thomas]

I'm sorry, I blacked out - were you still talking?

[since1962]

Rick just gave me a sex change!
I think thats a "sin" Rrrick
Are you a pentecostal preacher?
I think I will post "support plan b" equally as often as you post the words God,sin,and paired.

SUPPORT PLAN B

[Rick K]

No. No. No.

Silly rabbits.

Paul, I told you that I clarified the point earlier. Which is another way of saying I informed you that you were posting false information. Funny, I missed your apology or acknowledgement about that. Instead you pretend to mock me as though I am posted false info about you.

What is funny to me is the way you ANTI's all agree with each other in your delusion. Paul, I don't use ad hominem attacks. You obviously don't know what those are. I attack people's claims and arguments here. Occasionally, when someone calls me a name, I will return the courtesy. But I still attack arguments here.

Paul there is even more delusion from you about the Move the Dome silliness. It's merely either a joke or someone's attempts to further distract. The Dome cannot be moved for $40 by AAA, and the Rays DO NOT WANT TO PLAY IN THE DOME.

Paul, you offer an assesment of the way the Rays have put forth these proposals. But let me ask you something important. Why do you think anyone here would care about that assesment from you. Your posts are filled with fales claims. You never acknowledge you are wrong. You are an extreme koolaid drinker. Aren't you the one who gets drunk at night then posts entries sprinkled liberally with the word "turd?"

A TRULY CONCERNED. Say whatever you want. Although I concede that you might be capable of calm mature posts offering rational thoughts, more often, I see the opposite.

I did not set this deadline. It is not my deadline. Everything you are saying is untrue crap.

The Rays asked the City to take a look at a pair of redevelopment proposals devised by the Rays on a timeline devised by the Rays. Because the Rays are an important partner of our City and our Countywide tourism efforts, we are now striving to do as the Rays have asked us.

When November gets here, these plans will have been in public for a year. That is reasonable by every measure I can imagine.

Your claim that there is no negotiation is untrue and undermined by the available facts on this blog. For example, scroll down and see that the Rays have thrice revised their stadium design plans to accomodate requests from the City. Scroll down farther and see that the Rays have hired environmental experts to address the City's environmental concerns. Scroll down and see that the Rays have twice paid for Parking studies in reply to questions from the City.

This entire process is negotiated and it is on a reasonable time schedule.

Several members of POWW, including you, have stated that they believe voting this November stacks the odds too much in favor of these proposals. So, the POWW objective is to push this to a different elections when there will be less participation. That is the very definition of undemocratic.

Pretend otherwise, but your wishing does not make the Easter Bunny real.

Truly Concerned, you make another error over and over. You think I will be crushed if these proposals do not prevail at the ballot box.

You are wrong.

I will rejoice that the people have spoken. I am not like POWW, who fear the people voting based on whatever the people want to vote on. POWW wants only people that it thinks are sufficeintly informed of the topics POWW wants in play to vote.

Bill Foster's ploy is not a move for negotiation. It is a stalling tactic that is also designed to advance his political career.

If Bill Foster wants to impress me, he can form a URGENCY task force to see what can be done to accelerate the answering of questions, and call for a NOVEMBER 2008 referendum on these issues.

That is what the Rays asked for.

It is a reasonable request.

Punks and thugs and thieves be damned! I will do what I can to provide the Rays with the sort of answer a respectable partner deserves.

[Rick K to 1962]

Keep posting whatever you want about the Sham B.

[Don Mott]

Posted by RRRick, "Don Mott. I cannot post everything I say to you five or six times. You always come back here and say that I never replied to you, when I did." I did not and am not asking for a reply, I asked for proof. Your statement that you do not have to prove anything to me leads me to one conclusion YOU HAVE NO PROOF TO BACK YOUR WORDS. Just like I said. Keep on spinning RRRick.

[Rick K Don Mott]

Don Mott, I have offered you much proof. Buy some of what you ask for cannot be granted.

I cannot prove the lack of something completely. That is impossible proof.

You are not serious when you ask for impossible proof.

The analogy is I say that I have knowledge that you are a Gay Man (not that there is anything wrong with that).

You say, "That cannot be true, there is no proof."

I say to you, "Prove that there is no proof."

Silly.

[Don Mott]

No RRRick you are silly with your spinning analogies. I asked for written, peer reviewed proof that the many economists I have cited are wrong as you state. If that "cannot be granted" then you sir are a liar, and that is MY PROOF!

[Rick K to Don Mott]

Don, since you are obviously confused about what constitutes proof and lies, I cannot help you.

Believe whatever it is you koolaid drinkers believe.

[Don Mott]

Thank you for CONFIRMING my statement!

[Paul]

haha, this is getting funnier by the day. Rick K is close to a mental breakdown. Actually, he may have already had one.

This will end one day Rick, and you will be forever known as that 'whacko on the blogs'.

And just for the record, yes, this deal is a turd and you know it. Way to route for the worst deal in the world. Here I even wrote a poem for you:

There once was a man named Rick
Who thought his posts were really slick
He called us all absurd
We told him the deal was a turd
But he couldn't stop laying on his BS really thick

[Rick K]

That is just sad.

Paul thinks he is a white rapper!

[John]

And Rick K thinks he's the mayor...BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

[Paul]

Who said I was white Rick?

[since1962]

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrick

This obsession of yours with gender,race,age, sexual prefrence identificaton,sin and "pairing"
paints a disturbing picture.

The words are overt or leak into your diatribes.
SEEK HELP

[SUPPORT PLAN B]

SUPPORT PLAN B

NOT NOW

NOT ON WATERFRONT

LESS TAXPAYER MONEY

SUPPORT PLAN B

Here is the scenario we have all become accustomed to. RRRRick, caught up in his BS goes into hiding for a while and then comes back after he thinks his lies and BS have been forgotten. See you when you come back RRRick. By the way when you do come back can you bring some proof that those