Bill Foster concerned about baseball coalition

Former City Council Member Bill Foster, who is considering running for mayor in 2009, expressed some concerns about Jeff Lyash's baseball coalition this week.

Here is Foster's letter, unedited:

Let me begin by thanking the Rays for pulling their bid for a new waterfront stadium, and allowing the community to take part in their quest for a new facility before the expiration of their existing lease agreement.  I believe that many citizens recognize that the Rays and MLB are significant economic partners with St. Petersburg and Pinellas County, and many more 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.  The beef with the original proposal was not in the concept of a new stadium per se, but the major objections involved location, design, funding share, timing of new construction, and the secretive nature of the process.  With the advent of this new coalition headed by Jeff Lyash, we now have adequate time to address all of these issues, and hopefully a plan will be formed to the delight and support of the entire community.  One thing is certain - If we don’t do something before 2027, the Rays will leave St. Petersburg, and our City’s one hundred year history with major league baseball will be just that - history.

That being said, I have some concern with the direction of this new coalition process, and I pray that these issues will be addressed in the near future.  The coalition needs to consist of the best and brightest from all stakeholders, including, but not limited to, the Rays, City, County, CVB, city and regional Chambers and Partnerships, those with experience in hotel / convention development and event promotions, neighborhoods, etc., and the coalition needs to have a single 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.  If this can be accomplished with nine people,  great, but I did hope that selection approval would ultimately come from Council and the Board of County Commissioners.  Who is going to select membership?

Next, assuming that public lands and public funding is involved, the process must be open to the public.  The coalition may be well intended, but if the public isn’t allowed to view the process, then it will be an exercise in futility.  The biggest faux pas of the last proposal was the scheduling of a “community visioning process” after the vision had already been formed and presented by the Rays.  Community support can only come from a community vision, and if the community is barred from viewing the process, then there is no vision - no support.  If we have learned anything from our history it is: 1) you don’t commit hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars without a referendum, and 2) you don’t accomplish the people’s work behind closed doors.  This isn’t Washington or Tallahassee.  This is where decisions made by local officials have profound affects on a daily basis, and is why government is the sunshine is most important.  No more secrecy please.  If this process is not performed in the sunshine, then public lands and public funding should be off the table.

I respect Jeff Lyash immensely for taking on this challenge, and I know that he is the right person for the job.  Please heed my warnings.  We have a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate to the world  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 St. Petersburg, and we are a little more thoughtful when it comes to the preservation of our unique assets and quality of life, and inviting the people to the table has served this community well.  I wish you the best of luck.

Bill Foster

Comments

[Rick K]

An interesting letter. I think the bulk of his concerns have already been planned for. I think a couple of Foster's points diverge from the majority of County residents.

Not to worry though.

This is an interesting question. If some guy writes to Aaron saying he might run for Mayor, will that guy get equal time for the airing of his letters?

[Thomas]

Bill Foster's resume includes a bit more than simply suggesting he may run for mayor.

[Don in St. Pete]

Well spoken Thomas. Bill Foster doesn't totally agree the the facts as recognized by Rick, I guess making him another one of us "whining malcontents".

[Clear Direction]

Dear Rick K,

I hope you feeling more up beat than you seemed to be a couple of week ago.

I would be interested in knowing which "couple of Foster's point diverge from the majority of County residents"?

I would also humbley, call into question your ability to accurately gauge this community's feelings on this particular issue.

Best,

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Bill's letter is certainly well intentioned but I'm afraid he is not being very realistic.

There is nothing wrong with ABC other than acting as if it speaks for the community. It speaks for a very specific segment of the community and contains NO diversity. It's nothing more than another advocacy PACC not to be confused with a TRUE community organization like CONA.

In fact my only problem with this group is the disrespect shown to Kenny Locke.

This is nothing more than Fans for a (Waterfront-still on the table but no longer a limitation) Stadium. The only difference is instead of Kenny having to loan over a grand of his own money, the Ray's PACC can now enjoy the far deeper pockets of Jeff Lyash and Progress Energy.

Still...and I am being totally sincere..after watching Kenny spend his money..Tracey work hard in creating a first class website(even their opponents give them a lot of credit for their efforts and their website)..and then watching both of them work their rear ends off speaking all over town on behalf of the Rays...surely they should reap something from this new group...How about a highly paid seat on the "coalition". Kenny did the hard work, spent his own money, and now Lyash comes in to try to reap the credit.

[mrclean]

Foster is asking Lyash to expand the committee so it would appear to be more consensus building and more fair. If Lyash expands the committee it would be more like the chamber scenario. All groups would go on their merry way and report back in a year with their findings.

Foster's plan buys the politicians who are running for office, time. The politician wouldn't have to come out 'for or against' a new stadium. They can say they are for the stadium if it's a fair process and the taxpayer doesn't get screwed.

It is something for Lyash to consider.

[since1962]

Random House Unabridged Defines;

1.co-a-li-tion.
an alliance of
FACTIONS

2.dis-cus-sion.
consideration
or examination by
ARGUMENT

917,437 - 15,000 Rays Fans =

902,437
ANGRY
EXCLUDED
PINELLANS

Obfuscate definitions and arithmetic...

OUR Baseball tradition existed long before the Rays eviscerated Al Lang field for their waterfront scheme and we WILL be INcluded in economic decisions of this magnitude....

I do not care for Mr Fosters politics but share opinion on this..

See...

coalition
alliance,
Factions
Argument

SOLUTION!

[TRICKY DICKS]

Rick Dodge, Rick Mussett, Rick Baker. NO MORE DICKING AROUND!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Tricky Dicks,

That is HILARIOUS!!!

if that small trio of devious dicks were our only problem...

a business supplicant city staff dispensing tax revenue as if it were their own...

Joe 'blow' Kubicki is $ingularly re$onpo$ible for ever changing $treet lighting , parking meter$,
new traffic/pede$trian $ignal$, pede$trian warning lightS$, two way street conversion$, and traffic studie$ supportive of waterfront stadium.

[get-smart]

atrulyconcernedcitizen -

I feel your pain. If the ABC did anything for the Locke's in the form of a financial reward, that would prove the Locke's were the stooges of the Rays. It would lead me and many others to believe that they were ingenuous and liars. It would make them paid shills of Mikey & Matt (aka m&m). It would give the 'antis' bullets. There will be no workers on the committee. The committee will not be televised. All work will be handled by underlings.

Foster: The beer from Downunder.

-

[Rick K]

I never meant to suggest Foster is unserious, or that his letter was not worthy. I was merely asking a hypothetical about others who might wish to make similar "detached" declarations. I welcome and applaud Mr. Foster's contributions to this public policy issue.

In the main, I like the thrust of Mr. Foster's letter. I think that the ABC Coalition ought to work to find the best solution for the Rays and the community. I think if the coalition produces a proposal that generates majority support, that will be good. I do not think the objective should be the unattainable "support of the entire community." However, that might just be a matter of semantics or definitions. I think there is a portion of people who will oppose any proposal. And the goal need not be convincing those people.

Further, I disagree with Foster's clear objective, "the coalition needs to have a single 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."

If there are little tax implications on the citizenry, I think the multi-use component should go by the wayside. While any ballpark will be available for multiple uses, it is very clear that MLB prefers a baseball-specific facility. Again, this disagreement might be mostly about semantics, because a baseball park like the one the Rays proposed for the waterfront would have multiple uses.

Additionally, the "tax" consequences of public support for a new stadium, (if their are in fact public subsidies in the final proposal) need simply be clearly spelled out. If the Coalition produces credible work, for example, that indicates a public subsidy around, say $15 million a year, with likely positive impact in taxes and other economic benefits which exceed that (let's say it comes to $100 Million a year), it will be fine, as long as the coalition spells out their work and leaves it open to public srutiny.

Foster's letter is cleverly crafted. It straddles the fence while taking a strong stand. It's a good letter.

And, in the end, it will be one of many voices which influence this issue.

[Thomas]

If you think a new stadium is going to provide more economic benefit than it takes in subsidies you should be looking to build it in FantasyLand.

[Sue]

Regardless of what Foster says now, PLEASE DO NOT FORGET, he was part of these secret stadium meetings back when he was on city council. He stands no chance whatsoever of being elected mayor with the help of my family or many, many others. We are sick to death of Rick Baker and his clones.

[Rick K]

I cannot build it in fantasy land. For GetSmart, DonMott, Chris Jenkins, and all the POWWians live there.

And they will not support the team in sufficient numbers.

In the real world, however, when the Team generates more than $100 Million a year in economic benefits, while costing the public a mere fraction of that amount, sane people call it a good deal!

[Residento]

Well at least he didn't reference Hitler in this letter. The last one he wrote was a doozy.

[Thomas]

I figured out what the K is for.

Rick Kool Aid.

Teams dont generate anywhere close to their subsidy demands. It was cute to see the Marlins and Sonics have to stand in a court room and discuss economic value.

In case you missed it Kool Aid - there was no significant economic benefit.

I anxiously await your lengthy response about all your "experience" in "economics" and your assertions that the court testimony of those teams was inaccurate.

[Paul]

'Kool Aid', haha, now that's funny.

[Rick K]

Yes Thomas, you are right. Seattle sued the Sonics because there were no economic benefits. City governments always try to block teams from leaving, instead of just accepting a cash buyout of the lease, because there are no economic benefits beyond direct lease payments.

Thomas, unlike you, who have a preconceived notion supported by only a small sliver of selectively-interpreted facts, most of us are able to read and sift though stuff without a preconcieved bias. Most of us know, for example, that there have been two formal studies done by professionals seeking to answer the question, "What is the economic impact of the Rays?"

The first study is interesting. Because, before its presence was publicized in the Times, people like Thomas twisted themselves in knots with false assertions. Before it was known that the Pinellas Tourism Development Council had commissioned a study to measure the economic impact of the (then) Devil Rays, many like Thomas loudly yelled in these blogs that the TDC would not and did not favor using bed tax monies for the Rays, because there were no benefits to tourism from the Rays.

Then, when it became known that the TDC had commissioned it owns study which indicated there is a significant contribution to tourism from the Rays, the critics spun 180 degrees and immediately proclaimed that the study was not to be believed, because, obviously, the TDC had an interest in claiming that the Rays impact tourism.

The Other professional study which is widely known is the one peformed by one of the world's leading accounting and consulting firms, PriceWaterhouse Coopers, very recently. Governed by complex laws and industry ethics requirements which require "economic impact" studies to be performed in an unbiased manner using generally accepted accounting principles and clearly avoiding myriad conflicts of interest, PWC's report represents a full, independent, professional effort to accurately measure the size (positive or negative) of the economic impact from the Tampa Bay Rays.

PWC's group that performed the economic impact study has over 30 years of experience in both the public and private sectors. They have performed studies of the following:
Angel Stadium, Citizens Bank park, Nationals Ballpark, New Yankee Stadium, Comerica Park, Coors Field, Dolphin Stadium, Fenway Park, Hubert Humphrey Metrodome, Jabobs Field, King Dome, McAfee Coliseum, Miller Park, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, PNC Park, Qualcomm Stadium, Rangers Ballpark at Arlington, Rogers Center, Tropicana Field, Turner Field, US Cellular Field, (old) Yankee Stadium, (all of the above in MLB), and more than 300 other sports facilities, universities, museums, concert halls, marinas, roadways, military installations and government financed projects.

PWC is prohibited, by law, ethics and business demands, from making untrue and unsupportable claims in their work. There has not been, yet, a court of law that rejected the findings of a PWC economic impact study of a sports facility in the United States. Every time PWC work has been introduced as expert testimony in a US Court (when the other side offered competing experts), the courts have found PWC's work to be the more credible.

So PWC put their credible professionals to the task. They analyzed Game attendance figures and expenditures, stadium revenues, ancillary revenue, operating budgets, operating costs, financing arrangements, development costs, and economic and fiscal impacts.

PWC didn't care what the answer to the question was. Their interest was in being as accurate as possible, to preserve their 30 year impecable record of credibility, preserve their believability in courts of law, and ensure that others seek them out for their ability to accurate measure economic impact.

A summary of their study of the economic impact of the Tampa Rays can be found here:
(http://business.stpete.com/Resources/files/RaysEconomicFiscalImpacts.pdf)

Using EXTREMELY conservative assumptions and adjustments, PriceWaterhouse Coopers estimated that the economic impact from the Rays in St. Petersburg exceeds $100 million per year, or SEVERAL TIMES the amount the public subsidizes the Rays each year.

Those are the facts.

[Don Mott]

You are right Thomas, the Sonics management stated quite bluntly that their franchise DID NOT provide economic benefits to Seattle! In sworn testimony! But what do they know? They aren't anonymous keystrokers who claim to be economic geniuses. Or then again maybe baseball is different.

[Rick K]

Here comes Don Mott with let his latest installment of "misinformation and blantant fabrications."

What Don asserts is untrue. It also makes no sense.

Clay Bennett became chairman of the Sonics in September, 2007. Days later, he issued a demand for abritration to have an arbiter decide how much the Sonics would pay to the City of Seattle. Bennett sought to break the lease and pay the entire amount due to the City under the lease.

If there were no economic benefits from the Sonics playing in KeyArena, the City would have taken the money. Instead, the City sued the Sonics, seeking a court order to FORCE the Sonics to play home games at KeyArena.

It wasn't about money. It was about the economic benefits, taxes, and jobs involved in the Sonics playing home games in the Arena. The ENTIRE public point of the Lawsuit was to force the Sonics to pay more than the rent payments they owed the City, to compensate for OTHER ECONOMIC LOSSES!

It turns out that the testimony of City officials under oath at trial revealed that the City was REALLY engaged in a secret effort to use litigation to bleed Bennett's ownership group to the point that they would be forced to sell the Team to a group of Seattle investors who would keep the team in Seattle. The point behind this scheme, revealed at trial, was to KEEP THE TEAM IN SEATTLE so that Seattle would continue to realize the ECONOMIC BENEFITS from the team.

Those are the most relevant facts, folks. Not the lies Mott puts out.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008010010_sonitrial21.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008001532_sonics17m.html

[since1962]

The inevitable Stadium subsidies including direct monetary and/or infrastructure contributions REQUIRE FULL PUBLIC DEBATE AND PARTICIPATION.

These subsidies may be extracted from OUR TOURISM economy at a recessionary time.

How far will Pennies for Pinellas stretch in downturn?:

The length of HIGH MAINTENANCE Pinellas Trail?

A few feet of beach sand VITAL to our TOURISM economy during inevitable Federal cutbacks?

International/National Tourism advertising VITAL to our economy?

A recession will cause these PENNY funds to diminish and just like other subsidies the big fish are trying to gorge themselves as public outrage grows and the pond dries.

[Rick K]

I knew Don Mott was lying again.

I have just read the City of Seattle's initial lawsuit against the Seattle Supersonics, along with the SuperSonics' answer to the initial lawsuit.

In Paragraph 6 of the Plantiff (City of Seattle's lawsuit) under "Facts," the City alleged that in addition to rent payments due under the lease, the Team paid other taxes and made other expenditures which had direct economic benefits to the City of Seattle and/or other local businesses.

The city sought damages for those lost economic benefits.

It was the TEAM which denied meaningful economic benefits. In their answer to paragraph 6 in the facts, they said that the team's spending does not generate net economic benefits for the city and/or local businesses.

Mott busted with a fabrication, again.

http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/documents/Sonics%20Case/document%207.pdf

[Don Mott]

Yeah right RRRick. I guess you are telling us the Sonics management/ownership never said the team provided "no economic benefits" to the city. Repeat those words RRRick and I will go find the quote. Your spin was totally unrelated to my comment. Irregardless of the tit for tat court hearings the statement was made, prove me wrong!

[Thomas]

"I anxiously await your lengthy response about all your "experience" in "economics" - 3.53pm.

I didn't have to wait long did I - Predictable Rick.

Also humorous is the .pdf he links assumes the team will always be competitive and uses invalid multipliers.

Nice work Kool-Aid.

Your "study" is total bunk, just like you.

[Rick K]

More about Don Mott's attempts to lie about the Seattle case.

In the City of Seattle's Trial Brief, prepared for the US District Court judge who tried the case, the City says the following important things:

(On page 2, line 8 and 9): "Here the City seeks to obtain the benefits, economic and intangible . . . "

(On page 4, lines 6-10): "The Benefit of the Parties' Bargain Includes Both Economic and Intangible benefits, which the city will lose if PBC breaches the lease. PBC's performance under the lease provides the City broad economic benefits...If PBC is allowed to breach....the City will lose the benefit of its bargain."

Immediately under the above passage (which is Section C under Part II - Factual Background of the plantiff's Trial Brief), there is a sub section called C(1), (at lines 11 thru 18, on page 4), which says:

"The Sonics provide the City substantial economic benefits, but those benefits are difficult to quantify with reasonable precision."

It continues, "The City derives substantial economic benefits from the Sonics. In addition to rent, revenue sharing and taxes, the Sonics spend $30 million annually in the City (exclusive of player salaries), creating approximately 150 jobs. The Sonics also bring substantial game-related spending to the Seattle from outside the City. Third parties, including the NBA, the mayor of Oklahoma City, and the President of the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce have all acknowledged that NBA teams provide broad economic benefits in which they play. If the Sonics are permitted to leave before the expiration of the Lease, the City will lose two full years of these economic benefits."

Still later, in Section III of the Plantiff's Trial Brief (for the CIty of Seattle), in B (2) (b), (on page 12, beginning with line 9), the City states:

"The City's Broad economic benefits are real and merit protection, but are difficult to measure. PBC is expected to argue that the City's economic damages only emcompass rent, its share of KeyArena revenues, and possible direct taxes, all of which it suggests can be measured with reasonable certainty. This argument fails ...."

Later in the same sub section, the City cites a standing precedent in Washington State Supreme Court Case (Clean v State, 1996) in which the Court held "public provision of a venue for professional sports franchises serves a public purpose in that the presence in a community of a professional sports franchise orovides jobs, recreation for citizens and promotes economic development and tourism."

(the above can be found on page 13, lines 1 thru 5)

The City of Seattle goes on to cite other court cases finding that pro sports teams bring economic benefits beyond rent, revenue sharing and taxes. They also cite a US Court case involving the Minessota Twins which also found substantial economic benefits.

This next part is the final bullet for Don Mott's Lie...

After indicating they planned to call Andrew Zimbalist to the stand to try to quantify intangible benefits, the City states, beginning at page 17, line 19): Lon Hatamiya, another expert for the City, will testify that the Sonics generate between $183 million and $193 million in aggregate economic impact, 940 to 985 jobs, and an additional $25.3 to $26.3 million a year in additional household income (exclusive of player and staff salaries) in the Seattle Metropolitan Area."

----

Ladies and Gentleman of the Ballpark Frankness Blog... Thomas and Don Mott have been lying through their teeth!

http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/documents/Sonics%20Case/document103.pdf

[Rick K on Thomas]

Folks, this is why Thomas is not a credible commentator when he tries to assert facts about the reliability of studies undetaken to measure the economic impact of the Rays and similar teams/statiums.

I presented a clear, reasoned explanation of the only two widely known studies to have ever been conducted, which attempted to measure the size (positive or negative) of the economic impact of the Rays upon this area. (at 4:35 pm, above)

Thomas' reply, offered at 6:13 pm (above) is a glib, feeble, non reply.

Thomas points out that "the .pdf (file) I linked to assumes the team will always be competitive"

Actually, the Summary of the professional Economic Impact study uses attendance figures from the 2006 season, when the team won 61 games.

Thomas also says that the professional Economic Impact study "uses invalid multipliers."

In fact, the file I linked to uses the most conservative multipliers available from the most widely used local mutlipier statistical data set. It is not possible to use more conservative multipliers. Thomas labors under the illusion, because he once read a quote from an economist criticizing a particular grouping of reports with rosey multipliers, that multipliers are not real.

Thomas alone believes this. Economists and those engaged in measuring economic impact know better.

Thomas says, "Nice work Kool-Aid."

A childish ad hominem attack. Which is about what we can expect from Thomas.

Finally, Thomas concludes, "Your 'study' is total bunk, just like you."

That is how Thomas responds to a reasoned presentation of factual evidence. Look folks, there might be competing or contrary facts which disagree with the findings of the PriceWaterhouse Coopers Economic Impact Study.

But these ANTI folks and contrarians who post in these blogs have not presented those facts. Instead, they do as Thomas did here. They offer ignorant dismissal of established principles of applied economics, lie about the facts, mix in ad hominem attacks, and offer general conclusions which are not supported by any evidence at all.

This wasn't even hard today.

[Rick K to Don Mott]

Don Mott, my claim is very precise. See if you dispute it, instead of focusing on some silly game.

The BASIS of the Seattle lawsuit, the very reason they were suing the Sonics, was to KEEP the team in Seattle because they did not want to lose the ECONOMIC and intangible benefits from the Sonics.

The City put a witness on the stand who testified to Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in economic benefits and Millions atop millions in intangible benefits.

You might be able to find an internet qoute somewhere that proves whatever you claimed, but the fact is, the City did not argue in Court that there are no economic benefits from the Sonics. They argued EXACTLY the oppposite Don.

You are trying to deceive people by playing some silly game, Don.

Stop lying.

Admit the truth.

[Thomas]

Hey Rick - Your reading is not so good.

From your PDF Page 4:

"Proposed new ballpark estimates are reasonable assuming the team is competitive on the field."

"Tropicana Field figures were based on the 2006 season when the team finished 61-101"

They use Trop numbers from a horrible season then compare them to a new stadium season that assumes the team is competitive to artificially inflate "incremental" increases.

Hey Kool-Aid - Did you want to revise your statements in light of the actual facts?

I think we all know the answer to that!

Boom - Outta Here !

[Thomas]

Rick is a LIAR!

Rick knows the study uses bad assumptions to arrive at inflated impact totals but he attempts to DISTORT the truth!

Kool-Aid busted with a FABRICATION, again!

Rick is trying to DECEIVE the message board!

[Don Mott]

RRRick I am sure you would agree that each side of a lawsuit will provide testimony to assure a favorable ruling in their favor. I DID NOT LIE. The Sonics at one time said that they provided no economic benefit. As I said it turned out to be a tit for tat argument in a multi million dollar lawsuit that has since been settled. What I said was not a lie! Here is one I found quickly. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sonics/2004131860_sonics18m.html

[Rick K to Don Mott (#2)]

Don Mott, I just now noticed that you are talking about the Sonics ownership. I do NOT deny that the SONICS ownership said under oath that there are no economic benefits beyond the direct payments under the lease, revenue sharing and direct taxes.

But no reasonable person believes that assertions, which was only offered so that the Sonics ownership wouldn't have to compensate the City of Seattle for those economic benefits.

As the City pointed out in their lawsuit, the NBA (which certainally knows more about it than the guy who bought the Sonics and has an interest in lying) claims there are substantial economic benefits.

The Mayor of Oklahoma City (where the Sonics are moving) admits there are substantial economic benefits also.

As does the President of the Oklahmoa City Chamber of Commerce.

Don, the actual fact is, nearly no one of intelligence honestly disputes that the Sonics generated positive ecnomic impact beyond their rent payments. The City of Seattle hired an expert who pegged the economic benefits at more than $200 Million a year.

So what are you going to do Don, show me video of OJ saying he is "100 % not guilty" to justify your claim that this proves he is not guilty?

Of course the Sonics lied about economic benefits. Duh!

[since1962]

BOYS!

Does anyone dispute a PROPORTIONATE MLB benefit in THIS area?

All this antipodean verbosity regarding MLB in another city will not move the issue HERE! OUR economy will not be reduced to a MLB triva contest.Save it for game night

OUR issues regarding TOURISM are somewhat unique in that it is our PRIMARY source of REVENUE and that MUST be understood and respected by those requesting subsidies AND THOSE ENGAGING IN THIS DEBATE.

The issues of subsidies and TOURISM in other cities are obfuscation.

[Don Mott]

Okee dokey RRRick so does that mean the city didn't lie, DUH!

[Thomas]

Or maybe it was the City of Seattle lying, or Oklahoma City was lying...

Funny that in Kool-Aid's mind only the Sonics are capable of lying.

Kool-Aid is presenting ASSUMPTIONS as FACTS.

Rick is a LIAR!

[Rick K to Don Mott (#3)]

Obviously, my reply above, at 7:11 was made concurrently while Don was posting his 7:10 reply....

Don, what is your assertion, apart from what the Sonics lied about?

Are you alleging that there no economic benefits from the Sonics? Are you right, and the Cities of Seattle and Oklahoma City are both wrong?

[Rick K to Thomas]

What assumption have I presented as fact Thomas... this should be easy for you, because it is your MO

I believe I have stated factually what others claimed.

Wherein lies the assumptions presented as fact?

And is that the best you can do?

I shred your bogus contention to pieces, and you call me names?

[Don Mott]

"Don Mott, I just now noticed that you are talking about the Sonics ownership." Wow RRRick you are slow I clearly stated in several posts that it was Seattle management/ownership that stated this. Spin on brotherman.

[Thomas]

Chew on this Kool-Aid

"Of course the Sonics lied about economic benefits. Duh!"

ASSUMPTION or FACT?

"Proposed new ballpark estimates are reasonable assuming the team is competitive on the field."

"Tropicana Field figures were based on the 2006 season when the team finished 61-101"

They use Trop numbers from a horrible season then compare them to a new stadium season that assumes the team is competitive to artificially inflate "incremental" increases

KOOL-AID is owned again!

BOOM! (you know the rest)

[Don Mott]

No RRRick what I am saying is that you assert the Sonics lied without any proof. I assert the city lied without any proof. So we're even.

[since1962]

Seattle And Oklahoma City
are NOT PINELLAS COUNTY!

DO you people know ANYTHING re: OUR economy?

[Don Mott]

BTW RRRick to answer your question @ 7:23 YES

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

I think everybody agrees the Rays have some value to our community. The debate is really revolving around "how much". Some hucksters like the Rick's...K. Baker and Mussett toss out absurd figures that are not supported by anything other than studies commissioned and paid for by entities hoping to continue the corporate welfare game..to include the Chamber of Commerce.

You can google Heartland Stop the Madness to get a complete primer on how this lunacy works.

But here is another link for those who wish to see how others view us. This will take you to America's most livable cities. We are listed and surprise surprise...MLB is NOT EVEN MENTIONED as one of the great things that make St. Petersburg liveable.
http://www.mostlivable.org/general/st.-petersburg-the-colors-of-st.-pete.html
Check this out if you want to know what really makes our city great. This should give Rick K. some more exercise in trying to debunk the observations. Baseball is important to baseball fan(atics). That's it!!!!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

BTW...if you check out the list of liveable cities you'll notice that Tampa nor any other Florida city makes the cut.

Perhaps now the Tampons can stop invading this blog with insults about St. Pete!!!

[get-smart]

Artesian Wells and Manatees

The other day in my 'Way Back Machine' I may have discovered the use of the abandoned artesian well in the bay.

Where Demen's Landing now sits was the original Railroad Pier of the 1890's:

"Center of social activity was the bathing-dancing pavilion built on the pier... It was built in 1890 and featured fresh water showers from an artesian well..."
('Yesterday's St. Petersburg', Dunn 1973)

I just wonder!

[since1962]

Truly
Walkscore.com also ranks St.Pete @ 82 score out of 100 which is just below the top two! We're just comfortably not populated enough to make the top 40 rankings!

[since1962]

Reasonably accurate, proportional assesments of RAYS economic contribution to THIS REGION from NEW INDEPENDENT sources will be the only RATIONAL starting point.

Comparative analysis of OTHER DISSIMILAR REGIONS, "dusting off" old Klages studies and Rays produced studies
ARE WORTHLESS!

1.A fair analysis of our UNIQUE TOURISM DEPENDENT ECONOMY

2.A fair contribution from the RAYS

3.A fair land, infrastructure or monetary extraction from OUR ECONOMY

[Cathy Wilson]

The only acceptable PUBLIC process for debating the future of MLB in St. Petersburg is one that includes ALL stakeholders. The ABC does not and is not longer claiming to be a PUBLIC process.

Our Mayor and City Council need to get on it and get one going so the public is able to weigh in on what us ordinary simpletons want done and what we suckers are willing to pay for. Don't be too shocked if the answer comes back as "not a new stadium" and "no public dollars". People out here in the real world are tired of being shills for anyone who wants to use OPM (Other People's Money) to enrich themselves while the rest of us struggle to pay our bills. Taxpayers here didn't vote to decrease taxes so we could pay Jabil OR the Rays with what's left.

Rick K. - Culture and the arts contribute as least as much to our economy here in St. Petersburg as the Rays do and the city is CUTTING funding for those programs along with funding for youth programs and jobs training. I think it's time the Rays join the de-revenue sharing with the rest of our economic "partners". If that means saying good-bye to the Rays then so be it. True fans will drive to watch them play in Orlando while the rest of us sontinue to spend our dollars locally. The Rays and MLB have only to buy out of their contract to hit the road and ALL of us know it.

[since1962]

WHEN a new stadium is needed...

OUR land (tropicana or toytown) + RAYS and CORPORATE sponsorship contributions seems a reasonable compromise and GENEROUS TAXPAYER contribution in this lean era in this BUILT OUT COUNTY...

I am not a 'rabid' fan but urge compromise so that OUR long baseball tradition continues without extortion and veiled relocation threats. STAY RAYS!

[Rick K about Cathy]

I am sorry to be the one to speak out about the elephant in the living room, but the Poster (Cathy Wilson?) at 2:25 PM (above) is not being truthful.

The poster says, "Rick K. - Culture and the arts contribute as least as much to our economy here in St. Petersburg as the Rays do."

That is a factual assertion without reasonable evidence to back it up. This is a classic POWW tactic. There has been a study, recently concluded by the Independent, professional public Accounting and Consulting Company, PriceWaterhouse Coopers, which attempted to measure the actual economic impact of the Rays to the City. That study indicates that the Rays contribute at least $100 MILLION per year to the local economy. There has been no credible study which estimates that "culture and the arts" contribute $100 million annually. Cathy Wilson's claim, then, is a wish presented as fact.

Personally, I will grant the point that the Arts and Culture (whatever "culture" is supposed to mean here) are valuable, irreplaceable parts of the City. Unlike Cathy Wilson, apparently, I happen to believe the Rays are in the same category.

I believe that all the public and private amenities make St. Pete a more desirable place to live, work, visit, and play in. I believe nature, parks, marinas, the bay, beaches, musuems, libraries, concert venues, the Pier, public art, the Rays, golf courses, tennis courts, shuffleboard venues, bike paths, hiking trails, cultural festivals, and a wide variety of businesses which offer entertainment, recreation, education and comfort ALL are important components that make St. Pete special and contribute to retaini
ng residents, attracting new residents, and attracting tourists.

Cathy Wilson's post says, "and the city is CUTTING funding for those programs along with funding for youth programs and jobs training."

That is another intentional misrepresentation. While SOME budget areas have been cut, the TOTAL that will be spent this year for each of those areas EXCEEDS the amount spent last year. That means funding for those things has been INCREASED, not CUT.

Cathy Wilson must be getting her information from the POWW Website, which intentionally distorts the City's Budget picture to paint the false impression that the City significantly reduced its budget this year.

Anyone interested in a reasoned critique of close to 100 intentional deceptions promogulated by the group calling itself POWW, you are invited to check out this thread.

http://blogs.tampabay.com/ballpark/2008/07/heatcheck-week.html#comment-121187042

In particular, my 6:48 pm post on July 4, Posted by: Rick K, TITLED: about POWW deceptions #3

In that post, I disect the intentional deceptions of POWW regarding the City's budget. POWW intentionaly tries to deceive people into not noticing that the current City budget is $21,000,000 larger than the previous year's budget. What POWW has done is to selectively pick some line items off the City's massive budget (More than 460 pages with total funds equaling $678,000,000) to intentionaly misrepresent the state of the City budget in St. Pete. Clearly, their aim is to distort, deceive and distract.

This appears to be Cathy's basis for incorrectly asserting that the City is cutting funding for arts and culture. Because while some line items in the budget have, in fact, been cut, total funding for the Arts and Culture increased.

So Cathy is not being truthful.

Cathy goes on to say, "I think it's time the Rays join the de-revenue sharing with the rest of our economic 'partners'. If that means saying good-bye to the Rays then so be it. True fans will drive to watch them play in Orlando while the rest of us continue to spend our dollars locally. The Rays and MLB have only to buy out of their contract to hit the road and ALL of us know it. "

Sadly, the above paragraph by Cathy Wilson contains lies, distortions, mistakes, ignorance, and a glimpse of her REAL agenda.

The most telling part is when she says that she thinks it would be fine if the Rays left town.

That is HER real agenda, and it trumps everything else Cathy Wilson says on this site (if in fact that post was made by Cathy Wilson, which it might not have been).

Again folks, competent, professional, independent economic analysts have conducted a thorough unbiased study which determined that the Rays contribute more than $100 MILLION per YEAR to the local economy. Cathy wants the Rays to leave town, and offers no plan to replace that money.

She is free to thing that, and to advocate for such a proposal. I think she has little chance of persauding a majority that this would be best for the City, County and region.

It is also important to note that Cathy, in what appears to be a rare moment of honesty for her (again, judging only by the posts in these threads signed "Cathy Wilson," as I understand that some of those posts may not have been made by Cathy) admits, "The Rays and MLB have only to buy out of their contract to hit the road and ALL of us know it."

Up til now, most of POWW and the ANTI's have taken the ridiculous position that the Rays will NOT be able to buy out their contract. Cathy, momentarily forgetting about POWW's devotion to not admitting obvious facts which might be used to argue in favor of a stadium for the Rays, slipped up.

Of course the Rays can leave anytime they want. All that would be left is for a negotiated or court-ordered payment to compensate those who were harmed. Personally, I happen to think it would be interesting, if the Rays did end up leaving, to sue POWW and people like Cathy Wilson for the billions of dollars in economic benefits we would lose, and let a COURT of law sort out how much that is worth. (Hint, the court won't find that there are no economic benefits from the Rays).

Anyway, here is the bottom line about Cathy Wilson and those like her, in POWW. These people think that THEY (and they alone) should be able to decide which public amenities receive public support, and in which amounts.

They do not think the voters of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County should be allowed to decide. They detest the notion that the people might vote for a different mix of public subsidies than THEY would put in place.

These people are thoroughly undemocratic. They sought to block, by any means necessary, a public ballot question which would have permitted the citizens of St. Petersburg to decide if we want a stadium to replace Al Lang field and it's ugly parking lots. Now they seek, through a variety of avenues, to force undemocratic decisions upon the electorate.

THEY want to decide how much public tax money is spent on musuems, concert venues, the Pier, and public parks. THEY don't want us ALL to decide. THEY want to decide for us. THEY want to decide how to spend OUR money. THEY don't want us to be able to support a baseball stadium, even if we want to.

THEIRS is a position that is sad, pathetic, and selfish. AND it will not prevail.

[Rick K about economic impact]

A Follow up to the various postings by Don Mott in this thread about the recent US District Court case, in which the City of Seattle sued the ownership of the Seattle SuperSonics NBA Team, to keep the team from leaving the City.

Two things are relevant about this topic, before I post a follow up to some of Don's sillier, more baseless contentions.

First, Don Mott and Thomas, in particular, are two very committed serial posters who continually assert two things that are completely untrue. They assert that there are no net positive economic benefits from pro sports teams. And they also insist that pro sports teams are not able, if their facility lease has a "specific performance clause" to break their lease and relocate, paying cash to the departing City to compensate them.

The first allegation is ludicrous and has never been credibly proven. It defies the known facts for each of several dozen cases, and also is contrary to the facts of this case Don Mott singled out as an example (that being the Seattle SuperSonics NBA team). The second allegation is equally false. There has not yet been a federal court case in the US in which a Federal court forced a team to NOT move. In fact, every single court case has resulted in the team leaving, except in the cases when the public sector PAID the team not to leave.

Turning our attention to the specifics of the Seattle SuperSonics NBA team.

Don Mott insists that since the Ownership of the Seattle SuperSonics NBA team argued in court that the Seattle Community receives NO economic benefits from the team's operations in Seattle (beyond rent payments, direct revenue sharing and direct taxes paid by the team) this is PROOF that the Seattle SuperSonics do not create positive economic benefits for the Seattle Community.

This what Don Mott wants people to believe.

BUT, to believe Don Mott, we would have to ignore all of the following:

1) Although the Seattle SuperSonics ownership group did base their court argument, in part, on the notion that the team did not create economic benefits for the Seattle Community, there is no reasonable evidence that anyone believed them. There hasn't been a US District court case yet wherein the court accepted such an argument.

2) Before the Trial Court reached a decision in the case, the Seattle SuperSonics negotiated a settlement with the City of Seattle which included payments to compensate the City for lost economic benefits. The City agreed to drop the lawsuit and permit the Team to relocate to Oklahoma City, in exchange for cash payments from the Team which exceed the amount the Team would have paid for rent, revenue sharing and taxes. This point alone offers compelling evidence that the Seattle SuperSonics recognize their are economic benefits, but were asserting that there are NO benefits as a legal strategy, to avoid having to compensate the City for those other benefits.

3) The National Basketball Association (NBA), who supported the SuperSonics in their desire to leave Seattle, disagreed with the team's contention that their are no economic benefits.

4) The Mayor and City Staff of Oklahoma City, OK, where the team is relocating, disagreed with the Team's contention that there are no economic benefits.

5) The President of the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, where the team is relocating, disagreed with the Team's contention that there are no economic benefits.

6) Seattle's main newspaper, and all it's TV stations took the editorial position that the Team was obviously lying in their contention that the Team produced no positive economic benefits.

7) Lon Hatamiya, who was formerly the State of California's Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency and who also served as Chairman of the Board of the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank, and is now an internationally respected Economics Consultant, testified under oath that the Seattle SuperSonics produce positive economic benefits to the area exceeding $200 million per year.

(end list)

Only two parties offered testimony at trial alleging that the SuperSonics created no economic benefits for the area (beyond rent, etc). One was the ownership of the team (which has, since testifying, agreed to compensate Seattle for part of their loss of economic benefits). The other was Professor Brad Humphries, who is the most widely discredited economic crack who has based his ENTIRE career on trying to convince people that pro sports teams do not create positive economic benefits.

At this point, there are a few dozen people who embrace this unsupportable, unproven claim peddled by Brad Humphries. Humphries believes it (presumably). Don Mott believes it. And so does Thomas.

There are a few dozen economists and academics who also believe it. None of them have ever prodced a credible study that proves their contention. But they believe it, all the same.

No Federal Court, and no State Supreme Court, in more than 100 cases involving public subsidies of sports facilities and sports teams, has EVER examined the claims of Humphries (and like minded peddlers of economics quackery) and concluded that public subsidies produce no positive economic benefits.

In other words, these "quacks" write studies that do not prove their claim. When called as "expert" witnesses in courts, the courts consistently reject their testimony and reach the opposite conclusions presented by these quacks.

For this repitive devotion to quackery, the Don Motts and Thomas' of the world applaud and exalt the Brad Humphries of the world.

Which I think tells us much.

[Don Mott]

WOW! And you call me delusional?

[Don Mott]

Once again RRRick I will call you out. Prove that I ever said that a pro team could not break a lease by buying out of it. I've known that for quite some time. Just one more lie from the great bloviating economist who knows more than PhDs and college professors. For someone who gets their panties in a wad when they are accused of posting under different names you seem to have no problem hinting and insinuating that Cathy did not post under her name. You are a joke!

[Don Mott]

Oh BTW, one of the several questions you NEVER answered. What happened to all of those academic creds you had on your website. They suddenly disappeared once the site was discovered. Were you ashamed of them or were you lying?

[Rick K to Don Mott]

Don Mott, after my private family webspace URL was published without my permission in these blogs, I made several dozen changes to the information on those pages to keep certain information private. For a time, I had the pages set to block all views except from people I auuthorized. Then I decided I would not be held hostage by dishonorable thugs so hell bent on "winning" internet arguments that they would invade my privacy and attempt to involve innocent people who have never been to this site and who did not ask to be dragged into anything connected with our petty arguments here. Among other things, idiots began cyber attacks against my friends and members of my family, including minor children to whom I am related. That is a sad and pathetic episode that is behind us, thankfully. My aim is to make arguments in these spaces and have people respond to my arguments. I do not use any information from that page you refer to as arguments in these spaces. Personal attacks that do not focus on the arguments made in these forums are undesirable.

While I have no problems attacking arguments here, and I am prone to offer negative characterizations of a person's postings here, I do not believe it is appropriate to attack the person's life away from these forums. For example, Don, I think it is wrong when people tracked down where you lived and tried to make an issue of that. I don't think it makes one bit of difference where you live, because you never made that a point of any of your posts. The people who did that were engaging in a sad and sorry activity.

The point of these Times blog forums is to allow us to debate stories in the news and respond to each other's posts. I do not think it is appropriate that some confused people wish to escalate petty internet arguments into something far more personal and intrusive.

While I have been slowly restoring much of the information which was once visible on that space that has nothing to do with this space, I issue a respectful request for all reasonable people to keep the arguments in these blogs confined to these blogs.

Don, on another topic. I will take you at your word when you contend that you have not, as Thomas has, contended that teams cannot move and then settle financially. I apologize for lumping you in with Thomas on that particular issue. I regret my error and hope that is has not caused you any real hardship.

[since1962]

Go back to your Maaumee.....

Ohio

Your fantasy arithmetic aside,the Dali Museum ALONE with 2006 income of $11,844,659 and 250,000 visitors contributes exponentialy in that 6 out of 10 patrons are international.

Add the multitude of galleries and other museums then even a hick from Maumee should be able to cypher...

OUR PREFRENCE

[Rick K more to Don Mott]

Don Mott, your emotion sometimes gets the better of you. I have not ever hinted that Cathy has posted under another name. I have allowed for the possibility that some of the posts made using her name were, in fact, not made by her.

It is possible that people wishing to discredit Cathy Wilson have posed as her, without her permission. Unlike you, Don, I am fully aware that it is impossible for a visitors to this website(other than those at the Times with certain non-public information) to know who actually posted what.

Whereas you, Don Mott, (or someone using your name) routinely make claims in these blogs alleging that I have come to this site and used a name other than Rick K to make posts. Your assertions are baseless and untrue. They are untrue because each claim by you that a post under some name other than mine was really made by me, has, in fact, been posted by someone other than me. In about 90% of the cases when you have incorrectly asserted that I am posting in disguise, I did not know the person who made the post you were addressing.

That is actually the basis for my claim that some of your posts are delusions. When you assert as fact something which is untrue and for which you have absolutely no supporting evidence, you are offering delusions in place of anything of value.

It amused me the other day, Don, when you apologized to Trox for offensive behavior, but you are not enough of a man to take responsibility for the many false accusations you have offered in these spaces without any proof. It actually sincerely disappoints me, because you are one of my favorite debate opponents. More so than most, you have a good memory about what others have written, and you try to be consistent and as accurate as you can.

That you continue to persist with your fantasies that you have "caught" me posing as others, when in fact all you have done is claim others are me, is sad and shameful. You can be better than that, Don Mott.

'watering' contests from small 'spigots' growing nothing!

0¿0

[Cathy Wilson]

The Rays CAN buy out of a contract just as anyone else can, PROVIDED the other parties to it agree on the terms and the cash. If POWW (or anyone else, for that matter) doesn't think so, they need only to consult with any lawyer worth their salt. I've not heard anyone from POWW speak to the question so I don't know if that's an opinion of the writer or if there's actually an official POWW statement to that effect.

I use my name, MY WHOLE NAME, when I post because I say what I believe and have no problem OWNING my remarks - on this blog and elsewhere. I am a neighborhood/community activist of long standing here. I am NOT on the POWW steering committee and, though I know many of those who are, I don't consider myself a member of that group nor do I claim to represent their platform here. I DO agree, however, with several of their points concerning public funding of private enterprise AND appropriate use of our waterfront.

A recent study by the Tampa Bay Business Committee for the Arts, Inc. found that over 5.5 million visits were made to non-profit arts and cultural institutions in the Bay area in a single year. Contrast that with 3.5 million visits for all area sports teams combined. The Dali museum alone accounts as a MAJOR draw for U.S. and foreign tourists alike. The out of state/country people who visit the Dali and some of our other cultural events/institutions come and stay for a week or more spending their money at our hotels, restaurants and shops the entire time.

Unless they're here from out of town for an unusual event like a Final Four or a Super Bowl, the average sports fan here is relatively local - driving to a stadium or other sports venue, spending all their money inside and driving home again.

Do the Rays contribute to the vibe here in St. Pete? Of course they do. Is their contribution seriously WORTH multiple millions of our tax dollars? Not in my opinion.

I also think that we'd all be better informed if a few of us could act more like mature adults and conduct a rational discussion on this blog and elsewhere. Spewing invective, calling others liars (or worse), insinuating that people are blogging under assumed names are all more like Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh's bully-boy tactics designed to cow or silence viewpoints the writer disagrees with. Distasteful to say the least and certainly NOT conducive to the constructive dialogue needed to find our way through to the other side of the situation with the Rays. How 'bout we kick it up a notch in the dignity and respect categories, huh?

[since1962]

A little(?) slow here but think I have uncovered the secret of these Times blogs and new Pay/Benefits Package.

Staffers are now piece workers!

PAID BY THE CHARACTER

10 Cents a Dance...

Toiling in the bowels of Times catacombs creating bloviate inducing copy for the reactionary lemmings.

Stop the EMPTY recipricatory verbosity...

Aaron brought his lunch today

[Jon McPhee]

POINT

This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism

BY NATHAN ECKERT

March 26, 2003, 2003, 2003, 2003, 2003 | Issue 39•11

George W. Bush may think that a war against Iraq is the solution to our problems, but the reality is, it will only serve to create far more.

This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher. It will not end the threat of weapons of mass destruction; it will make possible their further proliferation. And it will not lay the groundwork for the flourishing of democracy throughout the Mideast; it will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence.
If you thought Osama bin Laden was bad, just wait until the countless children who become orphaned by U.S. bombs in the coming weeks are all grown up. Do you think they will forget what country dropped the bombs that killed their parents? In 10 or 15 years, we will look back fondly on the days when there were only a few thousand Middle Easterners dedicated to destroying the U.S. and willing to die for the fundamentalist cause. From this war, a million bin Ladens will bloom.

And what exactly is our endgame here?

Do we really believe that we can install Gen. Tommy Franks as the ruler of Iraq? Is our arrogance and hubris so great that we actually believe that a U.S. provisional military regime will be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqi people? Democracy cannot possibly thrive under coercion. To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy. And it is doomed to fail.

A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster.

COUNTERPOINT

NO IT WON'T

BY BOB SHEFFER

No it won't.

It just won't. None of that will happen.

You're getting worked up over nothing.

Everything is going to be fine. So just relax, okay? You're really overreacting.

"This war will not put an end to anti-Americanism; it will fan the flames of hatred even higher"?

It won't.

"It will harden the resolve of Arab states to drive out all Western (i.e. U.S.) influence"?

Not really.

"A war against Iraq is not only morally wrong, it will be an unmitigated disaster"?

Sorry, no, I disagree.

"To take over a country and impose one's own system of government without regard for the people of that country is the very antithesis of democracy"?

You are completely wrong.

Trust me, it's all going to work out perfect. Nothing bad is going to happen. It's all under control.

Why do you keep saying these things? I can tell when there's trouble looming, and I really don't sense that right now. We're in control of this situation, and we know what we're doing. So stop being so pessimistic.
Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking. You've had your say already. Be quiet, okay? Everything's fine.

You're wrong.

http://www.theonion.com/content/point/this_war_will_destabilize_the?utm_source=EMTF_Onion

(Dave, I'm feeling much better now. Please stop, Dave.)

Sounds like Don (and others), and Rick, don’t it?

Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.

[since1962]

Who's on first...

funny if above were not true

but seriously folks

tighten it up a bit and and make suggestions relevent to OUR economy because big brother, the 'G9', city council,BOCC are watching.

One member will attempt to distill public opinion/desires....

I Respect Lorraines opinion regarding 'validity' of 'coalition and wonder female representation on coalition vs %county but in the cliche riddled world of baseball ....

this trains commin down the track....

it is what it is...

the above cliches should give SOME clue to the 'professors' as to how to proceed.

distill..........

LOCAL fermentation PLEASE

[Clear Direction]

Dear Rick,

Had you bothered to look you would have realized that Cathy Wilson's assertions that the Arts and Culture bring more economic benefit to the area ($159,000,000.00 annually) than the Ray's do are backed up by a study at: www.pinellasarts.org/pdf/prosperity.pfd
This study was commissioned and prepared by the same municipal and county professions to whom you always encourage the rest of us to trust because they are after all professions and we are but mere amatures. After all these professionals would not risk there credibility and careers by producing a result that is not accurate.

Therefore, I am sure that you will not dispute the veracity of this study.

Best,

[Purveyor of the Obvious]

Any point that was remotely close to holding water was COMPLETELY lost when he quoted The Onion! BUHAHAHAHA

Jon McPhee ... the cure-all for insomnia

[Don Mott]

Purveyor, I would disagree. Jon was IMO just being satirical. And he was right. I have let things become too personal and will refrain from doing so in the future. Jon, I just wonder one thing. Am I Point or Counterpoint? LOL

[Rick K]

A Clear Direction. You may have set a record for the most incorrect assumptions combined with the poorest reading performance.

I am familiar with the study Cathy cites. And it does NOT, as she suggests, conclude that "Culture and the arts contribute as least as much to our economy here in St. Petersburg as the Rays do."

They study fiends nothing remotely of the sort.

Your assertion, again, is incorrect. You are either uninformed, or trying to deceive. As is Cathy's incorrect assertion that "the city is CUTTING funding for those programs along with funding for youth programs and jobs training."

If you folks do not know your claims are false, then you are ignorant. If you do know they are false, you are lying.

Pretty simple.

But apart from all that, MOST everyone who supports the notion of using public monies to subsidize a baseball stadium ALSO supports public subsidies for culture and the Arts. We are the more progressive and open minded participants in this debate. We believe that it is a GOOD idea to invest in a wide range of publicly-supported amenities which are likely to attract and retain residents, employers, and tourists. That's what we seek!

We do not attempt, as Cathy and you seem to be doing, to force narrow tastes upon the rest of us.

We believe one need not be a baseball fan or even care about a stadium to be able to see its economic and cultural contributions to the City/County/Region. Ditto for the Arts, and marinas, parks, libraries, public colleges, museums, trails, beaches, the Pier, the airports, and all the rest of it.

People like Cathy seem to believe that THEY should get to decide what the rest of us receive.

I am getting pretty sick of unelected people advocating over and over for undemocratic processes.

It's just icky!

[Rick K]

Clear Direction, at 3:20 PM, makes various assertions which are incorrect.

In fairness to others, I thought I would spend a few minutes offering a little more detail to support my assertion that Clear Direction's claim is off base.

Cathy asserted that "Culture and the arts contribute as least as much to our economy here in St. Petersburg as the Rays do."

I say, there is no study that comes close to asserting what Cathy claims.

Clear Direction begs to differ with me.

He says that this study

http://www.pinellasarts.org/pdf/prosperity1.pdf

Backs up Cathy.

The truth is, that study does NOT back up Cathy.

There are several problems with Cathy's claim, and Clear Directions' attempts to shore up Cathy's claims.

For starters, the study Clear Direction links to claims to measure the impact of the Arts and culture in all of Pinellas County, not just in St. Petersburg. About half of the 48 "non profit" arts and cultural groups used to estimate the economic impact of the Arts in Pinellas County are outside the City of St. Pete.

The study does not attempt to separate the impact of the Arts on St. Pete, isolated from other parts of the County.

SO it is simply wrong to say that the study ClearDirection likes proves Cathy's contention.

Additionally, reading the study is interesting, because it employs a very aggressive or optimistic array of estimation tools and assumptions. If we compare this Arts study with the recent Economic Impact study undertaken to estimate the impact the Rays have on the City of St. Pete, we see two very different approaches to measuring economic impact.

The study which was done to estimate the economic impact of the Rays can be found here.

http://business.stpete.com/Resources/files/RaysEconomicFiscalImpacts.pdf

That study was performed by INDEPENDENT, professional Economists working for the worlds' most respected Accounting and Consulting company, Pricewaterhouse Coopers. It was unbiased, as the authors were commissioned to figure out what the economic impact is. The point of the study was to determine what economic impact is.

The ARTS study, on the other hand, which was performed by people whose objective includes promoting the Arts, was designed for a specific purpose. It was commissioned in order to assist arts and cultural organizations in their efforts to justify and lobby for more support for non profits arts organizations.

The manner in which the studies were conducted shows a stark contrast, as well.

The baseball economic impact study, for example, uses a whole series of extremely conservative assumptions. For example, it assumes that every dollar spent by St. Pete City residents to attend Rays games would, absent the Rays, be spent (100%) in St. Pete. Thus, it does not count these expenditures as being part of the economic impact from the Rays. The author's intent is to come up with a very conservative estimate of economic impact.

The Arts study, on the other hand, seeking to maximize the economic impact it measures, does not fail to count any expenditures by local residents on the arts and culture. The study assumes, aggressively, that any dollar local residents did not spend on the arts would leave (100%) the Bay Area. In other words, the Arts study says that any money that a Pinellas resident spends on the Arts would, absent the arts, be used to buy $1 worth of something that has no local economic impact.

That is exactly the sort of exaggerated claim that makes economic impact studies suspect. While an argument can be made that each expenditure of disposable income could easily be spent outside the County, most reasonable economic impact studies reject the "all or nothing" approach.

The Arts study also uses a much larger multiplier than does the Baseball study.

And the Arts study includes all sorts of estimated "related" income that is not included in the Baseball study.

As an example, the Arts study includes monies spent on babysitters by people who attend Arts events.

IN summary, the Arts study provides valuable insight and gives us a general picture of the contributions non profit Arts and culture contribute to the county. The study does not, as Clear Direction insists, provide support for a claim that people spend more money (even with multipliers) on the Arts and Culture in St Pete than is spent on Rays Baseball.

While I would not be quick to dismiss the Arts study out of hand, it is important to note what the ANTI-baseball folks will do in the ongoing debate.

Confronted with an Arts study prepared by a biased organization using questionable methodology and suspect assumptions, we get a picture of the contribution to the local economy from non profit Arts organizations. The ANTI baseball folks will ignore the bias of the report's authors and gloss over the overly-agressive financial assumptions in the ARTS report.

Yet, they will turn around and levy the very charges that do not concern them with the Arts report against the Rays Report, which is actually more resistant to criticism, because of it's unbiased authors and more conservative approach to measuring the economic impact of Rays baseball.

Stated differently, the very criticisms the ANTI's will hurl against the Rays economic impact study don't apply to the Rays report. The criticisms they will use ACTUALLY apply more aptly to the Arts report. But the ANTI's will not criticize the Arts report.

Because their objective is not to be reasonable and try to help the community sift through information to find the truth, so that everyone can make personal judgements based on full understanding of the facts. Their objective is to obfuscate, distract, distort, exxagerate, and deceive.

http://www.pinellasarts.org/pdf/prosperity1.pdf

[Thomas]

Rick is LYING. He is trying to DISTORT the truth.

The Rays impact study uses Tropicana Field numbers from a 100 loss season and compares it to a "competitive team" in a new stadium.

If Rick does not know the study uses bad assumptions to artificially inflate the impact, then you he is ignorant. If he does know they are inaccurate assumptinos, he is lying!

Kool-Aid is trying to obfuscate, distract, distort, exxagerate, and deceive

[Rick K]

Thomas, as usual, is being idiotic with his lies.

The Rays impact study uses attendance figures from a 100 loss season, period.

[Thomas]

"Proposed new ballpark estimates are reasonable assuming the team is competitive on the field." (Page 4 of .pdf)

They use Trop numbers from a horrible season then compare them to a new stadium season that assumes the team is competitive to artificially inflate "incremental" increases and boost the impact.

Oh SNAP - Kool Aid

[Rick K]

Thomas assertion at 3:26 is a bald-faced lie. There is no claim anywhere in the summary of the Economic Impact statement (which has been made available to the public) that indicates what Thomas is saying. Thomas made that up, hoping to fool people with his lie.

While the Study's authors do discuss their assumption that the team remains competitive, they did not inflate attendance figures at all. They actually used attendance figures from 2006 and add incremental price increases to reflect historical averages increases in direct stadium expenditures.

The study's authors WOULD have been justified in inflating attendance figures over the 2006 season (when the Rays record was 61 wins and 101 losses), but they did NOT.

In fact, the experts at PriceWatershouse Coopers actually REMOVED the "attendance" bump that the Rays would get from a new stadium, in their analysis.

Thomas, as usual, is fabricating lies out of whole cloth.

For anyone in

[Rick K about the Rays impact]

It occurs to me, in reading Thomas' blatantly false assertion in his 3:26 pm post above, that there might be some who have not taken the time to read the Economic Impact study prepared for the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce by the world's most competent sports impact economists. For this reason, I have decided to spend a few minutes preparing a fair summary of that work.

The Study was performed by the Independent Accounting and Consulting experts at PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PWC), who have performed more economic impact studies related to sports and stadiums than any other organization in the world. PWC's work has been accepted and validated by more courts of law in the United States than has the work of any other organization or individual engaged in the business of measuring economic impact.

The PWC experts applied reliable economic methods with have been rigorously tested, together with generally accepted accounting principles and standards to analyze loads of real data from local businesses. Their objective was to reasonably measure the Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Tampa Bay Rays (MLB) Franchise, along with the Economic and Fiscal Impact of the proposed redevelopment of Tropicana Field.

The laws which govern the type of work PWC performs make it illegal for PWC to violate their obligations of independence. In short, if PWC is caught providing a "pre determined" outcome for a client, people can be fined, barred from their profession, and, in some instances, sent to jail.

In the 8 page overview of the Study’s findings made available by the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, PriceWaterhouse Coopers (PWC) outlined how they went about measuring Economic and Fiscal Impacts.

The experts identified three categories of direct spending, (In-Stadium, Out of Stadium, and Team Related spending), five categories of indirect spending (in the Transportation, Hospitality, Food & Beverage, Manufacturing, and other industries), and they also gauged induced spending, which comes in the form of increased household income levels and household spending.

"In Stadium" spending includes all monies spent on game tickets, parking, merchandise and souvenirs, and food and drinks, purchased at the stadium. Importantly, the experts at PriceWaterhouse Coopers ONLY counted “in stadium” spending from people who do not live in St. Petersburg. To intentionally give their study a conservative bias (meaning, they intend to UNDER ESTIMATE the true impact of the Rays), the study’s authors did not count any money spent by St. Pete city residents at Rays games.

In calculating total “non-stadium” spending, PWC’s professionals counted up all spending by non local residents and visiting teams. They added up spending on hotels, food and beverages away from the stadium, merchandise, transportation, entertainment, and other spending. In order to make extra sure their study had a conservative bias, the authors again subtracted some of the spending from this total pot of money. Money spent by Pinellas County residents for food and beverages, transportation and merchandise outside the City was excluded from the study. For people who live outside Pinellas County, the authors counted all their spending, on the reasonable theory that none of this spending would have happened in Pinellas if the non-county residents had come here to attend Rays games.

The authors applied their ultra-conservative “local displacement” factor to two pools of money. If a Rays game attendee lives in St. Pete, the authors made the conservative assumption that the city resident would, absent the Rays, opt to spend 100% of the money on St. Pete entertainment options. For County residents who maybe stopped at a store in Clearwater to buy Rays T-Shirts on their way to the stadium, and stopped for dinner and drinks on the way home from the game, None of that “out of stadium” spending was counted, if it was outside the city, because the authors applied the same displacement theory, saying, in essence, that Seminole residents who spent $100 apart from the costs of the game, would, absent the Rays, still probably spend $100 in the county.

Importantly, the study excluded all income associated with non baseball events at the Trop. Boat Shows, the NCAA football bowl game, and all other non-MLB events were excluded, since the authors were trying to gauge the impact of the Rays on the local economy, and not the impact of the stadium.

To calculate “team related” spending and revenue, the experts added up revenues that are new to the City and County from Major League Baseball’s revenue sharing, Rays advertising revenues, suite premium income, club memberships, and other forms of revenue.

So the three categories of “in stadium,” “out of stadium” and “team related” spending were added together, conservatively, to come up with total direct spending annually, as a direct result of the Rays continuing operations in St. Pete. The study’s authors excluded any calculations related to spring training, and even made the additional ultra-conservative assumption of using the Ray’s actual attendance figures from the Rays 2006 season, when the team’s record was 61 wins and 101 losses. In other words, as long as the team is at least that competitive (as they were in 2006), the study's numbers should provide a good “floor” for estimating the minimal annual impact the Rays have on the local economy. The study even disregards temporary increases in Rays game attendance, either because of the novelty of a new stadium, or because of sudden upsurges in team popularity.

Since no competent economic impact study is finished until a reasonable multiplier is applied to “new” income, the PWC pro’s again chose the most conservative available local multiplier. The study’s authors actually used the widely-embraced IMPLAN modeling system, which produces separate multipliers for each of 500 separate sectors of the economy, at the City, County, Region and State levels. By applying each conservative multiplier to the applicable portion of new income generated by the Rays, the study’s authors ended up applying a multiplier that is less than .36 %. In other words, each new dollar of spending attracted by the Rays results, when that dollar has been spent over and over again locally, generates an additional 36 cents of spending locally.

This extremely conservative multiplier is significant. Because stadium critics frequently seek to dismiss the use of “multipliers” in economic impact studies. There is actually a good reason for their skepticism. Less competent producers of economic impact studies used to make no efforts to exclude locally displaced spending, and they would often pull multipliers out of thin air, or misapply larger multipliers. Economic impact studies sometimes suggest that a new dollar locally is multiplied by a factor of two or three hundred percent. There is little scientific basis for such wild claims. Wisely, the PWC professionals have applied a very detailed, widely tested set of industry specific multipliers to their data.

The experts at PriceWaterhouse Coopers concluded that the Rays are responsible, under their ultra-conservative assumptions, for generating about $92 million per year in new spending in St Pete, and another $20 million per year in new spending in the county, outside the city.

I, for one, applaud the professional experts at PWC, and I thank the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce for commissioning this valuable study, which lays waste to the unsupportable claim that the Rays do not contribute to the local economy.

[Thomas]

He Kool Aid - how about some of these concerns:

The study offers no explanation on how it arrives at it's estimate of how many non-locals attend games. Given they base it on a season where the team only averaged 16k per game, it would be interesting to see how many they claim are "non-local"

The study does, for some reason, include Property Tax on the $450M stadium - as if the team would give up the property tax shield they currently enjoy through "county ownership".

The study also completely omits the other side of the ledge - how much the Rays take out of the economy from debt servicing to the administrative costs of additional police, etc.

Those are just some of the gaps in the study that you seem so so proud of.

[GW, AL & RR:]

Jon McPhee:

Kuwait, Afganistan, Irag, Yeman among others are free and if not democratic in most regards are very much democratic leaning with elections, free economies, etc.

For this we can thank Presidents Bush one and two.

President Bush appears to have successfully negociated North Korea out of nuclear proliferation where Clinton and M. Albright failed, miserably.

President Reagan was able to get Libya to stop its nuclear program. Carter could not.

President Reagan was responsible for getting the American hostages out of Iran in 79'. Carter failed at this, miserably.

The mideast, by strong American foreign policy, is moving towards a moderate and democratic future thanks to republican backbone and ideals and in spite of the liberal left leaning traitors that call themselves democrats in this country. Let me repeat that, in spite of the democrats in this country. Give us a few more years and we republicans will quash Iran and bring it back into the family of nations yearning to be free and independent.

Remember, it is always peace which creates the problems and leads to war.

It is war which resolves the problems once and for all and brings the peace.

So, lets not be so quick to invoke the mantra "Give peace a chance", I say give war a chance in Iran and let's free em up.

[Don Mott]

WOW!

[since1962]

You left out HONEST Abe....

Rrrrrrrrrick

MMMMMMMMmmmmmmmm?

ONE out of three aint bad if Y'ALL claimed him!

[Rick K]

it As usual, Thomas is off base. The "points" he enumerates are not flaws in the work of PriceWaterhouse Coopers. They are flaws in Thomas' understanding of the economic impact study.

While it is true that the 7 page summary of the findings of the Economic Impact study peformed by PWC does not provide details about how the numbers in the summary were determined to be valid numbers, it is not true that the study does not explain where the data comes from. What is true is that it doesn't matter to Thomas, because Thomas is one of the .000000000000001 % of the population who belive the fantasy.

HINT for the REST of you. Most people who buy tickets to Rays games provide their home zip codes to the Rays, online, in the mail, and at the ticket window. This data is also cross matched with three other data sets. One is home address zipcodes associated with personal credit cards and debit cards used to purchase tickets, another is interviews with game attendees.

The summary of professional economic impact study by PWC does not include property taxes from the new stadium, which it assumes will not pay real estate property taxes. Thomas is confusing the study's computations regarding property taxes from the redevelopment of the Trop field property.

The study does not fail to consider the public's contributions to continuing operations. However, the study did not attempt to peform detailed analysis of the sort of thing Thomas now raises (after previously saying all sorts of fales and baseless things about economic impact studies like this one).

The study proves conclusively that the Rays do not "take" out of the economy. They put back.

As to police, the Rays pay millions of dollars in overtime to local police agencies. This is for off duty police work which enhances, rather than harms the community. There are no studies, to date, which indicate that the Rays provide a negative strain on government services.

Thomas tries an immature and unserious criticism of the study. Before the summary of the study waout any was released, Thomas insisted, without any reasonable basis, that the Rays do not have a positive economic impact on the City and County. Now that the independent work of PWC's professinals has been released to the public, Thomas now tries to attack the work any way he can imagine, valid or not, without acknowledging what is now glaringly obvious - his previous contention was incorrect.

[Thomas]

More fun with Rick K:

"HINT for the REST of you. Most people who buy tickets to Rays games provide their home zip codes to the Rays, online, in the mail, and at the ticket window."
And there are no such thing as Ticket Vendors or Craigslist, so everyone who buys a ticket is ultimately the person who ends up using it. This is the type of variable logic that goes into these studies.

Rick likes to think this study is conclusive proof, because it is in line with his warped opinion. When presented with any number of other reports that show that pro sports teams are a net zero or negative effect on the economy, he dismisses those studies.

Basically Rick is a hack.

[Rick K]

Yes Thomas, Rick is a hack.

Sure.

There have been at least two actual attempts by experienced professionals to objectively measure the economic impact of the Rays.

Both those have come to a particular conclusion, which is easily supported both by evidence and casual observation. The laws of economics ALSO inform us that public subsidies of sports stadiums return benefits to the citizenry in excess of their cost.

There have been no competent studies done of the Rays in St. Pete that have come to the conclusion that the Rays cost the City more than their presence benefits the City.

Given all those facts, Thomas, who has had nearly every assertion he has made in these spaces thouroughly discredited, wants to cling to his unsupportable fantasy belief that the Rays do not generate more than $100 million a year in benefits to the local economy, which far outstrips the public's subsidy of the team/stadium.

Because Thomas really, really wants to believe his fantasy, he does two other things. First, he seeks out comfort from like minded irrational nutjobs who share his crazy delusions. Next, he pretends that his embrace of fantasy has values to others, outside the community of delusional goofs with whom Thomas draws comfort and support.

Of course, the REST of us view Thomas as the saddest sort of case.

He not only suffers, but he suffers in his soul!

[Don Mott]

Go Rays