Everyone wants to have their say

Community leaders are debating whether members of two local political action committees -- POWW and Fans for Waterfront Stadium -- should be allowed on a new baseball coalition. What do you think?

Battling for a voice on stadium
Should members of political action committees be allowed on baseball coalition?
No, PAC members won't approach the stadium debate with an open mind
Yes, anyone who is interested should be included on the coalition
No, there are too many other people who should be on the coalition

Comments

[Clear Direction]

All,

I believe that in order for the Baseball Coalition to have as much efficacy as possible, the Coalition should be inclusive of as many viewpoints as possible.

The only way to build a community consensus on the Stadium Issue is to include representatives from all the dispairit points of view.

The two specific groups mentioned, have a significant number of supporters and therefore should be invited to the table.

[mrclean]

Yes, all groups should be invited. The committee should meet at the Trop on home base and the meetings should start at 7:10pm. The first order of business should be a rendition of Abbott & Costello's, "Who's on First?" R.Baker and B.Stewart should be the first to preform this act at the committee's inaugural meeting. Wine & cheese should be served and dugout brawls encouraged. Steroid use prohibited.

[NO WAY, ESPECIALLY POWW]

There is NO WAY anyone associated with either PAC should be allowed on this committee. NO WAY, NO HOW. POWW has gone on record as calling the Rays ownership "carpetbaggers", "fighting like dogs", "doing anything to derail this". They try to elevate themselves as some sort of community leader. That couldn't be further from the truth. They are a bunch of activists that are always looking for a fight. Sure, they would come in without any bias...

If by not having POWW on the committee, that eliminates the FANS group, than so be it. So neither should be on the committee.

[since1962]

The poll choices are absurd.
PAC members

ANYONE?

TOO MANY

journalists without integrity?

Times advertisers perhaps?

[John]

To the poster @ 5:12

Last time I checked, the members of POWW and FFAWS are all taxpaying citizens of this city and have as much right to a say in this debate going forward as yourself.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think Rick K has a new alias.

[Frank]

If the PAC members are presumed to have a bias, why do we not automatically presume that anyone who has spoken in favor or against the issue also have the same bias? That would eliminate Steve Raymund and several other memebers of the Chamber. It would not be difficult to see who has been quoted in the media with one or the other position, as well as anyone who has spoken at public hearings.
My concern about prohibiting PAC members is that there is a presumption that they could not be unbiased. We expect people serving on juries to put their personal biases aside to render judgments. Would we not also expect people serving on the coalition to do the same?

[Pella]

Yes, anyone and everyone who has the knowledge, the interest, the time and the smarts. Let them on if they want on. As for Rick K., send him packing.

[Tombstone]

Aaron: Why do you always stack the vote?

In this informal survey you have two no vote questions to one yes vote question. This helps to defeat a yes vote, no matter what it is.

Next time, how about a simple yes or no vote. 50-50. Can you handle it?

Obviously you are leaning towards a stacked coalition versus an open one.

[since1962]

Yes do hire an outside disinterested pollster or stop the charade.

This one is beyond transparent.

[John]

I flipped the poll over, and read the label:

"Poll by Rick K & Associates" "Leading the world in obfuscation and deception, one vote at a time"

[Rick K]

The question is not really about bias, all by itself.

Because POSITIVE BIAS is what we need.

The purpose of this committee is to find the best possible solution to the stadium question. We need people on this committee who are committed to finding the best locatin, design, and financing plan for a NEW Rays stadium.

It would be ineffective to put people on the committee who are not committed to that objective.

It would be stupid to for a committee to solve the community's homeless problem and appoint people to the committee who don't think there is a problem or that no community solution is necessary. That person would merely interfere with the committee's work.

It doesn't make sense to put Lenin on a capitalism committee.

Therefore, only DOERS who want to get the Stadium deal done should serve on the committee.

[Anyone but POWW]

I am not Rick K, he is a bit extreme at times, but makes more sense than anyone wants to give credit to. But that is another discussion.

You CANNOT have anyone from POWW on the committee. This is about finding a solution. By POWW's radical statements (ie: the 5:12 post said it best, going on record with terms like "carpetbaggers" and "will do anything to derail" and "fight like dogs") they disqualify themselves.
And this wasn't people who saying these comments that were loosely associated with POWW. They were the founder and two steering committee members.

So they may have succeeded in suspending the waterfront movement for now, but disqualified themselves from this coalition. Neither POWW or FANS should participate in this coalition. Otherwise, we are just continuing the debate from the last 5 months and not coming up with a solution.

[mrclean]

Rick K - I agree that the purpose of the committee is to find the best location for the stadium. Finances need to be considered also. If the county feels that they don't want to commit funds (tax money) beyond the original agreement, a new stadium deal would be dead. If the community groups (POWW,CONA, ect.) put pressure on the city/county and elect representatives in '08 & '09 that promised not to subsidies a new stadium, that also will kill the deal.

The fall back position is to see if Tampa would be willing to subsidies a new stadium.

If the R-ownership wants a new stadium, I would suggest for them to take the free county land in St. Pete. and pay for it themselves.

[since1962]

YES

[Observer]

I have no idea what the "outcome" will be. Maybe the Rays will decide to take free land and build a stadium without significant subisidies. Maybe the Stadium will be built in another county. Maybe the waterfront will be back in play. I welcome the Task Force of private citizens who will devote their energy to trying to find the best financing plan, the best design, and the best location, and make a recommendation. If anyone else wants to parallel the work of the Task Force, do so! Ultimately, if there is not enough support for whatever proposals come out of the Task Force's work, the proposals will die.

[Yoda]

Sounds like POWW Ricky likes not. Sounds like POWW Ricky fears a lot. Sounds like Ricky a Baker he is trying to pull.

See we shall.

Hmmmmmmmm.