Group gets okay for Toytown development

The Pinellas County Commission today signed an agreement with a development consortium looking to build big mixed use project at the old Toytown Landfill. The agreement gives the group a year to do geological testing and another three years to get the needed regulatory approvals.

The Toytown site, at the corner of I-275 and Roosevelt Blvd., has been mentioned as an alternative site for a new Tampa Bay Rays ball park.

Matt Daniels, president of Bear Creek Capital, part of the development group, told the commission that he's had no discussions with the Rays about Toytown as a ball park site. But, he said, if the state, city or county voiced an interest, Daniels is more than willing to consider the idea.

"We would be very open and excited about doing that," he said.

Comments

[Next Round]

Where do I sign up for the luxury box view of the incinerator.

3 years of permitting and sixty feet of garbage.
Genius, that will be a cheap stadium answer. Maybe they can just use old barges and float on top of the diapers.

AL LANG II

[Get Smarter]

Keep the stadium somewhere, anywhere downtown St. Pete. Fill in Mirror Lake if you have to.

[Grant]

The Toytown site includes a lot more land than just the former landfill itself. My guess is that the stadium, if built at the Toytown site, would be constructed away from where the landfill was located. Anything built on a part of the former landfill would likely include little more than perhaps a parking lot or a multi-level parking structure.

Regardless, any construction on top of the old landfill itself would require a great deal of land-alteration prior to the beginning of construction. After that, federal pollution control guidelines come into play and those would restrict construction to uses which do not endanger human beings from possible exposure to toxic waste.

All of these factors would apply to anything that might be constructed at that site, including but not limited to a baseball stadium. Also included in this would be C-1 uses, such as office buildings, for example.

Obviously, developers are more than well aware of these issues and so are government officials. This was not always the case in the past. Decades ago, there was little restriction in place for land uses on hazardous waste sites or "brown fields," as they are commonly called. But that was many decades ago. Since then, the guidelines have become quite strict and would apply in this instance.

[Jahi98]

I think this would be a great location for the new stadium. It's more central to the entire region, it would still be connected with a retail/entertainment complex, it's close to all of the major corporate headquarters, it's highly visible, and it will likely have direct rail access in the future. Athletic fields are already planned as part of the redevelopment. So those can be moved or replaced with the new stadium for the Rays. A new stadium in Toytown would still allow the current Tropicana Field site to be redeveloped, and hopefully a new set of proposals will be taken that will include a new convention center, transit hub and more intense development than that currently proposed for the site.

[chris]

Come to Country Legends Cafe and get a free appetizer to all Rays fans who bring in a ticket stub from a game or mention our new websitesite.
Tropicanafield.com

[Jim]

The new stadium should be on the waterfront! Let's continue the great tradition of Al Lang Field and showcase the city. Toytown is a boring area.

WATERFRONT STADIUM!

[John]

Imagine driving across the Howard Frankenstein bridge fromt Tampa, seeing a magificently lit up, retractable-roof ballpark just across the bridge. Imagine Brighthouse, Progress Energy, Raymond James, Franklin Templeton, Mercury Insurance, et al get their employees involved in the Rays, a mile down the road @ "Toytown"....

Toytown was a "planned community" in the early 60's, much like the Gas Plant neighborhood was years before...but it became a landfill instead of a couple of gas stations and a mini-refinery.

Corporate support for lux boxes, season tix and naming rights make a big difference in the scheme of things. And a central location doesn't suck, either.

[since1962]

Should we leave this testament to our overconsumption and wastefulness undeveloped?

Bear Creek Capital will create a huge development at toytown as is done across America with similar sites.

A large recreational component is included in the plans with ample space for a stadium, willing developer and growing political support. Add increased financial contribution from the Rays and popular support will grow too.

[Purple]

Since 1962: You may over consume and are wasteful but do not include me in your "our" mantra. You want to live in sad guilt go right ahead. Most of the entire world pollutes in uncontrolled draconian ways compared to this country. The United States is leading the way in terms of capturing energy from old landfields, moving away from landfields, reducing the quantities of packing, etc. and is on the leading edge of figuring out how to deal with refuse and reclaiming these lands to new uses. You do not see this in China ?, India ? Russia ? etc. etc. etc. Why must you deamonize your own country when making your point? Can you say lefty?

[make a deal]

I'm having a hard time understanding why there is an interest from our community to put a stadium in area's where little urban life exist.
A destination where we would all have to get into our own cars and drive to the stadium. Don't we want to get away from our dependence on our automobiles?
People work in the "Toytown" area, but they don't live there! And the Rays are wanting a stadium to increase their value. Why would they want the same thing they have at the Trop, but somewhere else??

Toytown HAS THE WORST SMELL ALL DAY LONG!! And the name sounds like the land of eternal elves...

Put the stadium on the waterfront, where people live, work, and play without having to go more than 5 miles from home. Next to established neighborhoods like our own Old SE,Old NE, Snell Isle, etc., that have existed for as long as Al Lang field (close to 100 years) and the Rays and the City of St. Pete will continue to grow together in a successful, rooted way.

The future of a downtown waterfront stadium is one of "where you want to be"!
The place to go close deals. The place to go to fall in love. Where you go to see and be seen.

A ballpark that reflects the spice and character of downtown St. Pete. Commission songwriters to compose our own "NY NY" or "Sweet Caroline" kind of song that will be played at the end of every game.

The waterfront stadium has the potential of being more than a theme park destination...it has the ability to be our city's heartbeat. That is worth investing our tax dollars in. Because it has such a favorable return for us, even in ways that are not monetary.

And the Rays want the waterfront. It's their first (and probably only) choice.
We have an 15 acres of an old waterfront baseball field that's available...
So we have negotiating powers.
Start there. They proposed to us what they were most comfortable with, so now we tell them what we think works. Negotiate financing, architectural design, and what we get back for providing financing and a waterfront location.

Florida is known for transplants...our cities don't often reflect a rooted communities.
The City of St. Petersburg can! We are an old established city that has grown to almost 250,000 residents. A stadium holding 34,000 of us is expected at this point in our history.

Get the waterfront stadium - or die trying!!

[No Deal]

The only smell that Toytown has is the smell of grass. The garbage is several dozen yards below the grass, soil and sediment. But your post stinks, make a deal, that much is true!

[Rick K]

It's hilarious when people who haven't been to ToyTown in years join with those who are not truly knowledgable about the challenges and logistics of building on that site to form a chourus which loudly sings a song that sounds like, "Yes, Yes, ANYWHERE but the waterfront!"

It's a silly song, and wouldn't be in the best interests of our City.

Dividing folks into groups,
1) there are those who don't want the Rays here and would just as soon they leave;
2) There are some who say they would like to see the Rays somewhere, but claim they are opposed to the public subsidy for a new stadium;
3) There are the segment of those whose views place them in the extreme fringes of opinion, who are best ignored;
4) Then there are those, like me, who think we should do what we can to see about building the Rays a new stadium, through a combination of public and private efforts;
5) There are those who don't necessarily care if the Rays do or do not get a new stadium, as long as it is not on the waterfront.

The sum of the people in group 1 and 3 do not amount to a large enough number to give them a major role in this important public debate. So, groups 2, 4 and 5 will sort all this out, in all liklihood.

Realistically, nothing will change the minds of people in Group 5.

But, fortunately, this group is comprised of a fixed and measureable portion of the electorate. I am not sure if these ANTI WATERFRONT Development types comprise 5%, 10%, or 15% of likely voters, but their numbers are not likely to change.

Politically, one of the objectives for anyone who hopes for a waterfront stadium is to reduce the influence of the ANTI WATERFRONT crowd to the point where they are not able to scare or bamboozle others into opposing a proposed waterfront stadium for what amount to irrational reasons, fear, or reliance upon faulty assumptions.

That is what happened so far. The ANTI WATERFRONT group managed to scare politicos into thinking the proposed waterfront stadium would fail if put to a vote.

The key, then, ignoring that tragedy for a moment, is to see if enough people exist in group 2 and 4 to form a sizable political force that will influence a deal being made.

Since it looks like a vote will not be needed for any location away from the downtown waterfront, the "deal", if one is attainable, will be struck between those in groups 2 and 4.

While I understand the appeal of a watered down compromise which gives up many of the advantages of an optimal location, I am not at all sure that is where the people of Pinellas and St. Pete will end up.

Regarding the constituencies:

The Rays seek, first, the optimal location and stadium design. Of course, they will probably except a sub-optimal plan as long as they get the major things they desire and the whole deal makes sense for them.

The City of St. Pete (by which I mean the City staff and elected Council) want to see the Rays remain in St. Pete. Their first preference would also be for the optimal location. But they would be willing to give up some optimal features to have the team remain in the City.

The County commissioners want to see the Rays remain in the County. If one accepts the reality that the BOCC could make their own decision that the Rays and a new stadium are worthy of capital support from the fourth cent hotel bed tax on tourists, then the MOST logical prediction is an outcome whereby any new stadium is the optimal one for attracting tourism dollars.

Considering all of the above convinces me that where we are likely to end up is with some version of a redeveloped Al Lang site.

From what we know so far, no other proposed or likely site offers all the advantages that will come from building a stadium to replace Al Lang on the City's waterfront.

The key question is, can enough people be found in groups 2 and 4 to create a political majority that outnumbers the other groups.

[since1962]

Grady Pridgin and Bear Creek Capital are creating TWO seperate developments on either side of 275 which will transform St Petersburg and Pinellas. Unlike the rest of Pinellas, these will be TWO live, work,play communities WITH access to surrounding counties.

The fantasy of people walking to the downtown stadium is defeated by the emphasis on parking and traffic issues Rrricky. People WILL drive and a LARGER stadium in a central location serves the needs of both Pinellas and INCREASING numbers of fans most efficently

[John]

Rrrick, it's time to wake up from your fantasy. It's not gonna happen at Al Lang.

No matter how much you spin it. No matter how much you wish it to be true.

It's not gonna happen at Al Lang..

Get yourself in front of a mirror and repeat the above statement over and over.

It's not gonna happen at Al Lang.

[J]

No deal,
The land fill has a clay cap sealing the landfill which is probably closer to 6-10 feet deep not several dozen yards unless you are referring to the measure of dirt in cubic yards, probably not.

The posts supporting toy town basically reference that there will be a new entertainment district built from scratch adjacent to the stadium. So instead of energizing downtown with these same functions we are now building a complex that competes with downtown.

This type of suburban mindset is why people protest Walmart in many parts of the country. If you consolidate so many functions in a remote area it takes business away from the downtown core. The malls originally contributed to the decline of retail in downtown. I would hate to see a toy town channel side take energy away from St. Pete's downtown entertainment especially now that these functions have come back to the downtown.

[Rick K]

John, 1962, and all your closed-minded minions and colleagues....

The reality you cannot see is that the Al Lang site actually offers the greatest combination of benefits, compared to any other site in Pinellas County (that has been discussed publicly, thus far).

If you understand, as most of us do, that the City and County want to keep the Rays by building them a new stadium, then you will see that the most likely outcome is a majority in the community coming to support the optimal location for a new stadium.

I am not convinced yet that there are no other possible sites in Pinellas which will "beat" Al Lang. There very well could be.

But what we know about Al Lang and also about Toy Town convinces me that Toy Town is a greatly inferior site.

The biggest negative of the existing Trop, from a perspective of attracting tourism dollars and providing other spillover benefits, is the fact that it is a suburban design which does not create natural spillover in entertainment dollars. Also the Trop does very little to market the area's natural strengths to potential tourists.

I know that you ANTI Waterfront people (who are now basically no longer a factor in this debate, because the political calculation now is determining if enough votes can be gathtered to override your opposition) want to believe that tourists in other states and countries will drool over a suburban stadium built atop a landfill, surrounded by little that is distinct or attractive.

But that is unlikely, times 59.

[since1962]

"surrounded by little that is distinct or attractive"

Rick THOSE two paired developments on either side of 275 ARE unique and distinct.

Grady Pridgen is developing the ONLY green certified community FROM SCRATCH in Pinellas.LEED cert WAS a selling point ad nauseum for waterfront site.
Redevelopment of a former dump trumps LEED certification certainly.

If Pinellas has no attraction to you and you do not respect our right to prioritize and protect our distinct and unique attributes then it is time to pack up and once again relocate as you have so frequently.

[John]

Rick K..

All I can say is why aren't we still on the road to a referendum, buddy?

That's right, the Rays realized they'd never get a yes from the voters at Al Lang....how soon you forget.

It's not happening at Al Lang, Rick K. Get over it.

[Rick K]

1962 and John, you continue to see things thru ANTI-tinged glasses.

The Rays did not withdraw because they were convinced the proposal would fail. They withdrew because POWW and their ilk succeeded in scaring a sufficient number of elected politicos.

That is it, simply put.

The waterfront stadium proposal is not dead. It has not even been wounded. All that has happened is the key political decisions have been postponed.

Fool yourselves if you want, but, in my view, there is NO WAY a majority of elected members of the St. Pete City Council and the Pinellas County Commission fail to support the optimal ball park location.

This "new" process is brilliant, because it will INCREASE buy in for the waterfront site and give sufficient political justification to elected pols to favor moving forward.

The extra time will also allow more sunshine to flow into the dark shadows cast by POWW and other oppositionists. As time moves along and people in this community sit down to sort through all the details, the appeal of the original paired redevelopment proposals will only grow.

[John]

You keep telling yourself that Ricky, and you and only you will continue to believe it.

I still see all those red signs, Rick. People aren't taking them down. Why is that?

Al Lang isn't happening Ricky. You know it and I know it. It will NEVER get past the voters who will ALWAYS protect out waterfront. There is no way around the referendum, Rick, capiche'?

It's funny to watch though, you're like a cheerleader without a team.

[Jon McPhee]

Hey, what’s the big deal about building on a landfill? Ask any archaeologist how villages and towns and cities rose in the past, on the middens laid down by earlier inhabitants of the area.

Granted, they didn’t have Pampers and pesticides and Twinkies and Wonder Bread back in the day – those items that will delight or puzzle the intelligences that follow us humans. But building on trash has a long and honorable past.

Maybe it’s even appropriate for a stadium for the Rays, since for nearly a decade they team fielded by past owners was pretty trashy. Build on the past! It’s the Gateway of the Future!

And keep it up, Rick! Court jesters are always in short supply! Thanks for doing your part! A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds!

[John]

Toytown is looking like the spot.

The timeline for Bear Creek is in-line with a reasonable schedule to sort out financing for the Rays.

Plenty of room for a retractable-roof, air conditioned multi-use facility designed primarily for baseball.

Central location, with several major arteries nearby.

Close to almost all of the largest employers in the county, with the most potential for major corporate support. Brighthouse, Raymond James, Mercury Insurance, Allstate, Aegon, PSCU, Home Shopping, Jabil, Franklin Templeton, FADV, etc are all within a mile of the proposed site.

Will not disrupt downtown's future growth.

Leaves the Trop site available for a major redevelopment, increasing tax revenues.

Protects St. Petersburg's downtown waterfront park system.

Will attract more fans from further away because the "hassle" of going all the way to downtown St. Pete, then looking for parking, will be eliminated.

Much broader political support. Especially if a convention component is included. Ken Welch & Bob Stewart of the BOCC are already on board.

[Rick K]

Okay John, Jon, and 1962, let's try to have a serious discussion for a few minutes.

I assert that the waterfront ballpark proposal is not dead, but merely being retimed. Obviously, I think I am right. You want me to be wrong. And only time will tell.

However, consider the following.

From Aaron's interview with Matt Silverman . . . (which you can find here)

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article649945.ece

1. Silverman said, "that plan is on the shelf." This indicates he and the Rays stand prepared to take the plan off the shelf. He did not say he considers the plan in the graveyard or trash container.

2. Further, Silverman said, "But we're very encouraged by the show of support and the unified voice with which the political and the business community spoke on Wednesday."

This is one of the reasons I believe that there was and is a solid majority of business leaders and elected politicos who support the Rays original proposals. I think it is clear that these people convinced the Rays that more time will permit the development of a larger and more organized "pro-proposal" group spanning this community.

3. Silverman also said, "No, the last seven months were necessary to help crystallize the issue that community support is required for us to take this big step forward and make sure the Rays will thrive here in St. Pete and Tampa Bay over the long term. "

I think this means the Rays have been told by City Council and Commissioners that a new publicly subsidized stadium acceptable to the Rays WILL happen.

4. He said, "I do wish that we had been communicating more closely with the county earlier in this process, and we're encouraged by the county's support of this new direction for the effort."

I think this means that the Rays are convinced the County will support using tourism taxes to help pay for a new stadium, but they were concerned about the way they were treated. I think this tells us that the politicos were uncomfortable with the amount of cover they had from the shortened time table.

5. IN response to a question about the impact of the ANTI's, Silverman said, "I don't think that was the largest hurdle the proposal faced."

(So y'all can pat yourselves on the back, but many of us disagree that you have achieved victory here).

6. He also said, "We're even more optimistic about the ballclub and its long term prospects. …We're very encouraged about the Rays' viability and vitality in Tampa Bay. Stu (team owner Stuart Sternberg) decided to pursue the Rays in great part because of his faith and confidence in Tampa Bay as a place where baseball can flourish. There is a recognition today that a community effort is going to be needed to provide that fitting home for Major League Baseball. "

I think this statement says a couple of things. I think it indicates that other areas outside Tampa Bay are possibly in play. I think it says that the Rays will not be in the position of vetoing any proposals from the Bay Area that they find to be "not fitting."

So that is where the Rays stand.

We can add to this understanding the truth that the post-postponent news has informed us all that many elected officials are committed to finding something that works for the Rays, on a longer timetable with broader imput into the decision.

The economic impact study came back indicating the Rays generate millions atop millions in economic benefits for the City and County.

We now know that most of the players and coaches on the Rays were rooting for the new waterfront ballpark.

And, perhaps most importantly, so far, none of the alternative Pinellas locations that have been made public come anywhere near the Waterfront location, when measuring all the positive benefits.

So, while I am not certain, at this juncture, that another better location won't come up. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the waterfront stadium is still very much in the mix.

I say this UNDERSTANDING that it would require a vote, and the dug-in oppositionists would have to be outvoted.

But I think y'all's celebration that the Waterfront ballpark proposal is forever dead are a bit premature.

Wishful thinking aside, do you recognize that this battle may not yet be over?

[Rick K]

CORRECTION to my previous post (above at 1:59)

In the second paragraph under point 6, the word "not" should be "now."

I meant to say I think the Rays now are in the position of vetoing proposals (any and all) that they don't like.

And I think it will be hard to make a case that ToyTown is better than the Waterfront stadium.

[John]

Regardless of what you THINK he meant, Rick, the fact is we're not headed to a referendum, are we?

Recognize this Rick. The Rays, from Stu right down the list of executives have been BEGGING for more corporate support. Why haven't the big employers stepped up, Rick?

I'll tell you why. Downtown St. Pete is morphing. If you don't see it, I'm sorry for you. Downtown is no longer the corporate hub. It is fast becoming a residential downtown and arts district.

All the big boys except Progress Energy have moved, where, Rick K??

That's right, they've all moved out to Gateway and Carillon.

The majority of baseball fans have jobs, Rick. They work at those big employers in Carillon and Gateway, Westshore and the Roosevelt corridor, NOT downtown, Rick. This is the Rays target demographic, Ricky.

Think of how many employees there are out there right now working at Xerox, Val-Pack, Equifax, Danka, Jabil, Allstate, Raymond James, Franklin Templeton, FADV, Brighthouse, Aegon, Home Shopping, PSCU, on and on and on. Enough to fill a stadium several times over. All with disposable incomes.

Compare that to a rapidly changing downtown with retirees in condos, the less fortunate folks to the south, and quiet residential to the north.

I don't see Bayfront Tower empty out for a Rays home game, do you?

Toytown's access is there, the fans (employees) are there, the corporations are there, there's already several hotels in place, it's centrally located for ALL fans, and it could also become a major player off season with conventions, since once again, all the major players already live in the neighborhood.

So yes, Rick. Get the Pledge out because all you'll be doing with the sailboat idea is dusting it while it remains on the shelf for perpituity.

[J]

1962

Your statement "these will be TWO live, work,play communities" These are not new urbanism developments such as a celebration or Seaside but even if they were both are unsuccessful in balancing those three aspects, mainly work.

The idea that you can re-create a whole self sufficient city/downtown ecosystem in a new 40 acre development and then stamp this formula over and over doesn't create the utopia advertised. Mainly because you need a larger variety of work options.

This already exists downtown and should be built upon. I would rather build ever empty or underutilized lot downtown before de-centralizing our downtown with any Toytown development or Grady's development for that matter. Toytown unfortunately is a county project that gets rid of their Toytown maintenance operating budget but is not sensitive to St. Petersburg's downtown future.

I think St. Pete still holds the trump card in these suburban sites because of the lease. Baker has already said that he wants it somewhere downtown and they shouldn't allow them out of a lease otherwise in my opinion.

[Rick K]

John, you greatly overestimate the differences in jobs at Carrilon Park and in downtown.

And you also misassume who the Rays' fan base is.

While I grant you that it MIGHT be possible that for each current downtown worker who would not go to an afterwork game at Toytown would be replaced by a person who works at Carrilon or Feather Sound (or in Toy Town's new offices, to be built), you misundertand a couple of things.

You are claiming to know more about what is best for the Rays than the Rays themselves know. As you are not in the business of operating a Major League Baseball franchise and have never seen the league's marketing research, I think we should all put more weight on the Ray's marketing information, instead of listening to a rabidly committed ANTI-waterfront devotee who has demonstrated a willingness to twist and distort any set of facts into an arrangement he finds most soothing to his ego.

You are simply NUTS if you think ALL the major players live in the neighborhood of Toy Town.

While all of us who read your posts can clearly see that your intent, John, is to preserve downtown for you and others who live downtown now and liked it when downtown was far less active, that isn't the overriding concern for most of us.

Our objective is to find a site which works for the Rays and which is best for the entire community.

Which is why we'll probably be going to games at the new waterfront stadium in a few years!

[jahi98]

J, downtown St. Pete is not the corporate hub of St. Pete anymore. As has been said, it is becoming more of a residential, arts district (and to some extent education and research) and is developing its own nightlife that may one day provide a viable option to Ybor and SoHo. There will be more office development there, but it won't be the focus. DT St. Pete is likely to follow the Vancouver, BC model and become more dominated with high-rise residential than office space. Therefore, DT St. Pete is and will become more of a draw on its own with or without the Rays as there is and will be no other place in Tampa Bay quite like it.

What these developers are creating in Gateway are places for new and/or expanding corporations coming into the area, and places where those NEW employees can live close to their jobs. People already live up there in the numerous apartments and condos along 4th, MLK and Gandy. These developments will help accomodate the FUTURE growth that is bound to come, and channels it into the city's new employment hub. Additionally, St. Pete and Pinellas County as a whole are highly underserved in the retail as it is, so these new developments will help fill a void as well as serve increased demand from NEW residents.

I thought the waterfront stadium was great, but I doubt it's going to happen. The Rays want a location that serves the entire region and expands its fanbase. I think Toytown serves those purposes.

It would also provide a great gateway into St. Pete -- a new 102nd overpass (as proposed by Bear Creek) over I-275 with "St. Petersburg" enscribed (and lighting up at night), and two new "semi-urban" complexes on either side of I-275, one with a new, gleaming, retractable roof stadium next to the interstate. This is the "new" St. Petersburg.

[John]

Imagine crossing the Howard Franklin bridge, and immediately you see this beautiful new development of offices, hotels, convention space, major corporations all have their campuses nearby, and a shiny new multi-use ballpark right near the entrance to our city.

I think what the poster @ 2:54 meant was extending 118th ave across 275, along the southern border of Toytown, and connect it with 102nd ave where it dead ends near 16th St. With an interchange for easy access to games.

Shuttle service or perhaps a street car system from points within Gateway, Feather Sound and Carillon shuttle workers and residents to & from the games so they can leave their cars at home or work and not even have to drive.

Toytown would also easily incorporate into a light rail or other mass transit option in the future.

This nonsense from Rick K about knowing what the Rays want in terms of having options for fans outside the ballpark is ludicrous. Rick K does not build stadiums and he's stated repeatedly he doesn't work for the Rays so his opinion is no more important or "right" than anyone elses.

Bottom line: The Rays want you to spend as much money as possible within their building. PERIOD.

They don't care what you do outside their self-contained city.

They need MORE luxury boxes and corporations to sell them to. Those big corporations are conveniently nestled all around Toytown. That's where there money is. Not on some fantasy outdoor downtown waterfront ballpark with no parking and difficult (at best) access from the entire region to draw fans from.

[Rick K]

Some thoughts:

J's post at 2:24 includes a very important point that completely negates, in my view, the posts by Jahi98 and John, which follow it.

It is NOT in the City's best interest to let the Rays move into a stadium at ToyTown.

So why on earth are we even talking about that?

( I don't mean why won't the committee look at it, they should look at every idea)

What possible positive reason is there for the City of St. Pete to cooperate in a scheme to let the Rays out of their lease at the Trop to move to ToyTown?

[John]

The same positive reason they would have done it for a sailboat, Ricky, the Rays want a new stadium. At least at Toytown they'd get much more corporate support. You know, the kind they keep complaining they don't have enough of?

[Reason]

"What possible positive reason is there for the City of St. Pete to cooperate in a scheme to let the Rays out of their lease at the Trop to move to ToyTown?"

RickK, to answer your query:

1) The Rays will need a new ballfield.
2) The St. Pete waterfront will never be approved by the citizens of St. Pete.
3) The County prefers the Toytown location
4) The County/TDC will be asked to extend the bed tax
5) Toytown is in St. Petersburg, and won't have the parking or waterfront issues that the Al Lang site has.
6) Toytown is closer to Tampa/Orlando/Lakeland (by only 10-15 minutes) but closer nonetheless.
7) Big corporations, and Grady Pridgen's project, are a stone's throw away from Toytown.

Lottsa reasons Rickk.

[Rick K]

Hey, um , "Reason"...

Your list (at 3:54 pm) doesn't include a single reason why the City (staff and City Coundil) would be likely to support breaking the lease at the Trop and moving the team to ToyTown.

Your reasons might be reasons the County would give for the move. But none of them seem to me to be reasons the City would support the move.

And I know there MIGHT be some reasons the City would support such a move. But since you haven't given any, I still have yet to learn of even one reason the City would willingly do this.

[Rick K]

John, no.

[Bobby Fenton]

Toytown's Advantages:

1) Closer to Tampa
2) Easily acquired land
3) There's a giant interstate there
4) Nothing else

The site is boring. The site offers nothing in the way of vibrance or scenery or of a place you'd want to bring people into to play, work, or even live. These are things a ballpark should strive for, in my opinion. I guess no one in St. Pete actually cares about that though, given the astoundingly negative response by so many to a pretty good waterfront plan.

So like I said, Toytown would be alright. The stadium itself is going to be nice no matter where it gets put, and the site would bring conveneince to a greater portion of the population than south St. Pete. Still, we could do a lot better than that. This area has to much beauty to put a ballpark at a crappy site like that. Try a little harder, St. Pete, or quit holding this back. That guy above who made the Wal-Mart comparison was right. Urban sprawl sux.

[John]

Hey Bobby where do you live again? As in what city/part of town?

[Rays Mike]

I thought Toytown was within St. Pete city limits....

[John]

Toytown is within the city of St. Petersburg.

[Bobby Fenton]

I live in South Tampa, and I currently work near the intrsection of Gandy and 4th St.

[Bobby Fenton]

And for the record, I don't grant the premise that this is it, it's gonna be Toytown. This is far from being settled.

[Rays Mike]

I know these are basic questions, but is the lease with the Trop, or the city? Or is it an agreement between MLB and the city, as it was interpreted to me by a SP Times reporter..

[Kyle]

The city of stpete is going to see that the stadium stays central in its city- meaning waterfront or Trop site. They aren't going to send the $$$$ closer to Tampa or Clearwater.

[POWW Member]

I am proposing moving any landfill junk found at the Toytown site over to Al Lang. This would give Downtown a mountainy feel.

[Fans For A Waterfront Stadium...in Calcutta]

I propose moving any toxic waste found at the Trop to Rick K's house.

It may straighten out his "logic".

[Lars]

Hey Bobby Fenton, you work @ Gandy & 4th?

I always wondered what that panhandler guy did in his spare time.

Hope you scored enough cash to see the game tonight. Just don't expect a walk-up ticket, since it's sold out.

What were the Rays saying about needing a new ballpark to increase attendence again? Yeah...right.

[Jon McPhee]

Did anyone else read all the way to the last few paragraphs of Gary Shelton's 6/26 article about the "Pause" not being the "end" of a new stadium? Where he wrote:

"Let's face it. There has never been an owner who wanted a new stadium and then, when he found out he couldn't get one, simply shrugged and stayed put. From the moment Sternberg said his team desired a new home, the choice was clear.

"Eventually, this will be about building a ballpark, or it will be about losing a ball club.
"Me? I say they get it built. Near Toytown. By opening day, 2013. With a retractable roof.

"And, as happened with Miami's new stadium, without a vote."

I especially like the last clause, "without a vote."

Voters and taxpayers, are you paying attention?

Rick, are you writing or calling this heretic to tell him how wrong he is about location, and the virtues of the Two Towers?

And as to owners and shrugs and movement, post-subsidy demand, well...

Well, almost never. What's that thing about Magowan, who owns the SF Giants franchise, being told TWICE by the America-hating liberals of San Francisco, which is a you-know-what Evil City, that they weren't interested in taxing themselves, say, half a billion bucks, so Magowan tried the scam in two other cities that also said NO, and then lo and behold, Magowan and the various business interests that believed they would benefit from a new stadium PAID FOR AND BUILT THEIR OWN, AT PRIVATE EXPENSE, AND IT ONLY COST A LITTLE OVER $300 MILLION! Other than that the "enemy" here is those crotchety Blue Hairs driving Oldsmobiles from Green Benchto Green Bench, what's the diff?

It's not like the franchise owners here aren't in a position to do the same thing, only with THEM having to borrow the money against the "securitized income streams" they already said they planned to mortgage under Plan A?

[Kathleen]

The City has a lease with the Club until 2027. Lots of debt still left. RE: Toytown-that is where the dump trucks took the gas plant contaminated dirt for dumping after the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation ordered the City to clean up the site now known as the Trop.
The City "sold" the Trop to the County in 2002 (to avoid the tax liability) and is supposed to notify the County of anything impacting the property-like the demand for a deed restriction re further development of the site. We shall see.

[mrclean]

ToyTown Has its challenges. All the p/t jobs that the R-owners promised will be tough to fulfill. It is hard to imagine spending $10 in gas to go to and from a $6/hr job for 4 hours. The bus schedules won't work in most cases. I guess the R-owners could use the homeless and bus them over from their 49th St. sanctuary. Then again, they could work with the non-profits. The non-prof volunteers would look at the trans cost as part of their donation. Just a labor consideration.

[Rick K]

Kathleen, you haven't been paying attention with respect to the environmental issues at the Trop.

Plus, the county is completely aware of every bit of information related to environmental remediation and contamination at the Trop Field property.

There is no need to distort.

[since1962]

Rick wrong again

Unmet state requirements by the city were just the tip of the iceberg and perhaps a major reason the Rays pulled the plug on these noxious "paired" proposals with strong PLEADING from city council.The county was in the dark as was city council and of course the Times downplayed with obliging quotes from city staff that YOU now regurgitate.

[Rick K]

This will surprise no one. But Jon McPhee makes many inaccurate/incorrect statements of fact in his 6:38 post.

First Jon, let me reply to your personal inquiry. I am NOT writing to Gary Shelton about this matter. I do not believe that would be worth my time, and I do not regard Gary Shelton as the supreme source on matters related to stadium issues. I have, however, written to Mr. Shelton in the past on other issues.

Putting that bit aside, where it belongs, let me tell you, Jon, that your history about MLB's San Francisco Giants is lacking.

For a really good treatment of what actually happened in the broad picture, check out Tampa Bay writer Bob Andelman's great book, "Stadium For Rent - Tampa Bay's Quest fir Major League Baseball." It's a great read.

Anyway, the ballot issues (four, not two) happened when a man name Bob Lurie owned the Giants. Frustrated with ownership for a number of reasons (one of which was the horrible condition of Candlstick Park, which was widely regarded as the worst ballpark in the bigs)the, Lurie began soliciting buyers for the Giants as far back as 1984. Not wanting the team to leave, then San Francisco Mayor (now US Senator) Diane Fienstien developed plans to improve Candlestick and put a dome on it. Peter Stocker, who owned Pacific Union Company, planned to buy the team and build them a new stadium (to replace Candlestick Park) in a section of the City called Rincon Hill. That deal fell through because the stadium project was too expensive (adjusted to today's price, it would be almost $900 Million).

In 1986, the Giants explored moving to Denver on a temporary basis, to accomodate a major overhaul of the Stick. The plan was to just make arrangements to move, to force the City of San Francisco's hand in fixing up the Stick. As Andleman points out, "Over a five year period, from 1987 to 1992, Bob Lurie watched four new stadium initiatives go down in ignominious defeat before the public."

Among the ideas: a downtown stadium, a suburban stadium, a floating stadium, and sharing space in Oakland with the A's.

Although 1989's Proposition P to build a new ball park in China Basin failed by about 2000 votes, the voters did approve Proposition V, which was the public renovation of Candlestick. Then the earthquake struck, creating serious damage to the stadium. Now things were getting much more desperate.

Santa Clara County sponsored an initiative in 1990 to build a county owned stadium on a suburban landfill site. While the issue failed countywide, a majority of the voters in San Jose approved the measure at the same time they elected a new Mayor (Susan Hammer). Hammer made a serious play to convince the Giants to move to San Jose (which would be like the Rays moving from St. Pete to Spring Hill. Meanwhile, back in San Fran, Mayor Art Agnos was putting together a plan to build a new public stadium without a ballot vote.

The San Jose ballot issue was similar to the Community Investment Tax in Hillsborough which financed (100%) the construction of Raymond James stadium. This proposal also lost.

Then a group of investors from St. Pete made a serious offer to buy the Giants and move them to what is now the Trop. The St. Pete group actually had a signed contract to buy the team. A few major players in San Fran (one being Leigh Steinberg) did not want the team to leave. Wayne Huizenga also didn't want an established MLB team moving into St Pete the same year his Marlins were getting set to kick off their inagural MLB season. The San Fran group recruited Charlotte's George Shinn to head a group to buy the Giants and keep them in San Francisco. He turned out to be unsupportable by the other MLB owners, so he went away. Again, the St. Pete group had a contract to buy the Giants. The Giants worked out terms of a lease for what is now the Trop.

Finally, at the eleventh hour, desperate to keep the team in San Francisco (because, obviously, MLB teams cause their home regions to lose money, ha!), Peter Magowan, who had been a Giants board member, took over the helm of the San Francisco group. Baseball owners, who had just signed a multi million dollar distribution deal with one of Huizenga's other companies, and who feared dilution of Television revenues if they excluded the San Francisco market, stepped into to nullify the deal between Lurie and the Tampa Bay group.

Magowan had a stake in the team worth $6.6 Million in 1992.

As a result of the immense pressure in San Francisco from the pending deal to move the team to Tampa Bay, government agencies and private parties rolled out the red carpet to the Magowan-led investment group that would keep the team in the San Fran area. They were able to buy land at below market rates. They were able to get finacing at rates below the prevailing market rates. And the City and County contributed tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements to make the project feasible.

Some reporters in California have estimated actual public subsidy of the project at over $100 million dollars.

So, I am not sure how valuable any of this story is to our situation. I think the Rays ownership could build a stadium on their own, but I do not believe that would be best for this community and region. I think the best possible stadium design and location (from all that I have heard so far), would be a waterfront stadium that is developed with a combination of private and public funds (since the public benefits considerably from the stadium and the team), but with the public retaining ownership of the stadium and surrounding land.

And THAT, my friends, is where we are likely to end up.

[Rick K]

1962, I can't be wrong again, if I wasn't wrong the first time. I have yet to post "wrong" in these threads, with the exception of the one or two times when I was obviously joking.

But as for your fantasy about environmental issues, you are very mistaken.

And you are relying upon paranoid fantasy to scare people who don't know better. At this time, there is no human being who has knowledge of contamination at the Trop property, beyond some continuing, contained, naturally correcting soil contamination which would cost about $100,000 to clean up.

There was no unmet state requirement. The state's request for a deed restriction would have resulted in a less effective solution to the knwon contamination at the Trop Property. And the City staff and County staff have known about the problem and been monitoring since before the Dome was even built.

You can fantasize all you want, 1962, but the rest of us do not live on the island with Mr Roark and Tatoo.

[since1962]

"Y'all" are funny
In a "funny" sort of way.

Repeating "paired proposals" ad nauseum didn't work well but perhaps your maniacal misdirection and cultlike belief in staff quotes will offer some comfort as the voters exact revenge for this extortion attempt.
Ammendment 1.5

[since1962]

regarding 70s refrences:

If you can't
DAZZLE THEM WITH BRILLIANCE

BAFFLE THEM WITH BULLS?@T

A fitting inscription for the Rick K sculpture at the waterfront sculpture park at Al Lang.
HENCE FORTH
ONLY Rational,Truthful,ORIGINAL arguments(sans 70s refrences) allowed as opposed to your earlier suggestion that only PRO stadium bloggers be allowed to participate.

[since1962]

read the article

Bear Creek Capital HAS expertise and experience in landfill reclamation.
The federal,state AND local govts will be overseeing so naysayers can relax.

they are "more than willing"
"open and excited"

These are EXACTLY the RAYS FANS St Pete is soliciting!
Corp. Sponsorship folks?

GO Villages At Gateway Fields!
(much better than toytown or gasplant and weren't THEY EASY to forget?)

[Jon McPhee]

I know it doesn't go well with Cap'n Rick's "paired development" proposals, but guess what? The Pinellas area is still looking at the same kind of Byzantine elephant dance that the folks in San Francisco slogged through. Given your subject matter and approach, I guess one might call your exegesis on the San Francisco MLB experience a "Sit-Spin."

Thanks for the seemingly semi-cut-and-paste book report, Rick -- I haven't run across your source yet, but I'm sure it will make an interesting read. As to the, excuse the expression, "fundamentals of baseball" as they apply here and now, it's hard to see any quibble about the basic facts. Voters in SF, San Jose and Santa Clara were given the opportunity that you used to scream about so loudly about in your "Let Us Vote!" days (and isn't it interesting that all those blue "Let Us Vote" signs have now completely disappeared?). And the voters there and then said some variation of "Thanks, but no thanks" to a grab for the subsidy-funded blank check, payable to one tentacle of the antitrust-exempt "business" known as MLB. And if you've been paying any attention, all the other times I've mentioned the "very revealing" parallels between the situations and experiences of both Cities by the Bay, I've pointed out that there were "(four, not two)" referenda in that other Bay Area, each one telling the MLB to pound sand on a subsidy.

And then, wonder of wonders, after the voters locked the public cash drawer, some "immense pressure," derived from Wayne Huizenga's not wanting to move and the boosterism of certain elected officials and maybe from the cupidity of certain businesspeople, somehow Magowan was able to gin up the high finance needed to build a stadium with private money. The estimates of public infrastructure involved are probably as hard to pin down as the once, present and future costs of the Trop -- consensus seems closer to $80 million. But the bulk of it was mass-transit-related -- in a community where there is generally a strong tradition and an excellent way of saving gas by riding the bus system or BART or other public transit, a public need that the people who have made decisions on behalf of the public here have simply ignored in favor of "development," suburban sprawl and promotion of private automobile traffic. And the SF transit improvements were of actual benefit to people other than baseball fans and team owners.

Now we have the apparent return to behind-the-scenes "screwsterism," where our betters, in their paternalistic and plutocratic wisdom, will tell us what's best for us, and how much we will have to pay in taxes to get "bested." Those paragons of civic virtue, the local senior business leaders and our Mayor and other elected officials, will sit down and reason together, out of the daylight, and out will come their "deus ex machina," the "final word" on where, when and how much the public share will be, without a vote if they're lucky.

We all know that there's likely a new stadium on the horizon. We should at least thank the current franchise owners for not doing, so far, like so many other MLB team owners have done, selling off talent for a huge profit like the "hostile takeover" corporate raiders have done to so many other big businesses in the past. Rooting for the "home team" probably has some psychic value for the community, and it's always nice to be backing a winner (unless you're the kind of perverse personality that stuck with rooting for the Cubs through all those long years when the season was over in June.) But if San Franciscans, by saying a loud "No Way!" to MLB, were able to keep the public share of putting a stadium in place to $80 or even $100 million of general-benefit improvements, and make MLB find a way to fund their own damn ballpark (which I see you don't contest is making the Giants owner a lot of money), there ain't no reason why an awakened community can't compel a much fairer result than the "paired reamings" you are fixated on. Even $100 million is, according to many economists, less than $half a billion or $1 billion.

We taxpayers can pray that these main men will come up with some deal that is actually beneficial to the entire community. Those of us who pray a lot know that either we usually don't get what we pray for, or we get something else altogether. Maybe they will figure out a way to let the franchise owners buy some property and borrow money at "below market rates." That's exactly what they were hoping to do with the now-visible scam in your pays-for-itself, "paired development" first round -- free land from the public trust, and free money from the public debt and operating budget. That's certainly "below market rates" by any rational understanding, although from your economist's wisdom I am sure you would argue that since "ALL" (footnote 1: almost) MLB-blessed areas GIVE land and money to MLB subsidy grabbers, FREE LAND AND MONEY ARE "the market rates." Although I note your little concession to reality above: Sez Rick, "I think the Rays ownership could build a stadium on their own, but I do not believe that would be best for this community and region." Good for you! Sorry if most folks around here don't agree with that last part.

When I started your post on the SF experience, I wondered if maybe I had missed something. Gotta say, even with your filling in of a few bits of the paint-by-numbers picture with your own shade of pea-green, it still looks like a duck.

[YESvillages at gateway fields]

The Rays contribute SUBSTANTIALLY more$

The County GIVES sufficient land AND Bed tax money

The State contribute$ too

A community AND stadium are born.The labor was painful but a community AND stadium are born.

The villages at Gateway Fields

[Rick K]

Actually, I see this in fairly straightforward economic terms. The intangible contributions of a team to the local culture or civic pride are real, but unworthy of sizeable public subsidy.

The simplest reason which supports public subsidy of pro sports stadiums and teams is because those subsidies provide an exceptional return on investment.

With respect to the Rays, for example. If the total cost of all public subsidies to the Rays are $20 million annually (which they are not), then that LOOKS like a good deal for the taxpayers, because the benefits from that subsidy is far more than $20 million.

Some kooks and charlatans in the devoted "anti-stadium" movement claim otherwise. But these claims are not scientifically valid, nor are they taken serious by anyone of consequence.

It's easy then. If we are going to spend tourism tax dollars in order to expose possible tourists to the Bay Area / Pinellas County, we have a few good choices:

A) We can send ambassadors from the Bay Area far and wide to work with travel agents and meeting planners and try to land "big" events in the bay area.
B) We can purchase various types and quantities of advertising all over the country/world, in the hopes that tourists in our target audience will see the advertising and that it will be effective.
C) We can invest money and other resources into activities and events which will generate "free" media coverage, in the hopes that this will also attract tourists.

A reasonable approach to tourism, most everyone would agree, incorporates all three primary options above.

So it seems clear to me that it is entirely appropriate, nay, desirable and smart, to invest some of our tourism marketing budget into option C.

Further, it seems to me that it is entirely appropriate for all levels of government to engage in activities designed to increase awareness of amentities and programs funded by the government. Building a park or library and not telling anyone about it would surely result in a few users, but that isn't a very reasonable way for government to behave.

Putting it all together now....

I believe intelligent and reasonable people agree that the proposed waterfront stadium and public park, if built, would provide all of the following:

1. A significant economic impact from the construction project itself. (If the project cost $450 Million, and the most conservative possible local multiplier is 2, that is nearly a billion and a half in economic benefits just from stadium construction).

2. A significant boost to the City's efforts to draw more people to the downtown waterfront.

3. A significant boost to the City's/County's/Regions efforts to attract more tourists, both from in state and from places farther away.

4. A significant continuing positive impact on the local economy. If the Rays economic impact is $60 million per year, in 20 years we are talking about more than a billion dollars (to which we do NOT apply the local multiplier, because that was already applied in determing the 60 million figure)

5. If the economic impact from an All Star game is $75 million, and we get from $3 to 15 million dollar in free media exposure from it, this is another nice pay off to the citizens of St. Pete.

6. Because the stadium/park complex would also include a public park and the stadium itself would be available for other events besides MLB games, the public would also receive these benefits.

Therefore, since the public receives substantial benefits from the stadium/team, the public should help pay for these benefits.

And the ratios in the most recent financial outline presented by the Rays seem to be to be just about right.

[John]

Rick K you keep forgetting one tiny detail.

It's not happening at Al Lang.

If it were, we'd still be on the road to a referendum and your ridiculous "paired redevelopment proposals" would still be alive.

They are not.

Toytown or The Trop...deal with it.

[Rick K]

John:

We are as much (probably more) on a road to a new stadium at Al Lang than we have been at any point.

[John]

Keep drinkin that bay water and calling it Kool-Aid, Rick.

The voters have a big election next year. Guess what one of the top issues will be when people go to vote???

Bobbleheads like Wengay Newton, Kennedy, etc are on their way out to be replaced with PRO waterfront protectionists and more fiscally responsible leadership.

It's too bad you're not only the minority here, but you're what we sensible folks call a "fringe extremist"...much like some POWW members, just on the other side of the issue.

Not gonna happen at Al Lang Rrrrrrick.

[Rick K]

We'll see, John, we'll see.

My attraction to the waterfront stadium proposal is natural. It stems from an instinctive response, buttressed by reasoned analysis, that the the proposed waterfront stadium is the best possible deal for the team and the people of St Pete/Pinellas/Tampa Bay.

I am not about maximizing the Rays revenues or drawing more fans from Hillsborough. I am about finding a stadium that the Rays will happily accept that gives the City and region the most bang for our buck!

[John]

Well then Rick, even the Rays don't agree with you if that is your wish.

You must feel lonely, knowing even the team you're trying to help doesn't agree with your selfish, nonsensical fantasy.

[Rick K to]

John, the available evidence indicates that the Rays do agree with me.

The Rays have not stated that there objective is to make as much money as possible with as little of their own investment as possible.

They have in fact stated otherwise.

And demonstrated otherwise.

The Rays have never said, nor will they, that their objective is to maximize attendance from Hillsborough, regardless of what that may cost.

In short, John, the Rays and I have similar objectives, but not goals that are completely aligned.

While I accept that there aim is to do what they believe to be in the best long term interest of the business, I am confident that they recognize the value of compromise and shared investment/shared costs.

My objective is really the same objective of the entire region. We want the Rays to get a stadium they find acceptable. Given that reality, we want the stadium that gives the public the best possible return on its investment.

Nothing nonsensical or selfish about it.

It's what all reasonable people who want the Rays to stay here want.

[Jon McPhee]

Rick often gets accused, right or wrong, of assuming multiple personalities. I gotta say that his single-minded tenacity in holding to his belief that the notions he has mastered and internalized about the Two Towers is not only impressive but also "very revealing."

I think I typed something quite a while ago about this, but I grow more and more convinced that Rick K is really a POWW plant. A numerologist I know fiddled with his monicker and by some prestidigitation I won't pretend to understand, showed that "Rick K" can be processed and transposed into "POWW 2."

By apparently cleaving unto his persistent repetitions of how it's all supposed to happen on the waterfront and the Trop property, he's just trying to annoy and activate people to support a more rational, fairer approach to the MLB Gorilla in our midst, in simple reaction to his yadayadayada.

Go Rays! Go Rick! Thanks for all the fish!

[Rick K to Jon]

Jon, would you kindly email me the name of whatever you are taking and where you get it.

I want some.

[Lunesta & Ambien]

Hey folks,
No need for the two of us ... not as long as Jon McPhee still has library access to a computer and a link to these blogs!

[YESvillages at gateway fields]

NO MORE Rrrricketts

Eliminate the slavishness,
unquestioning and unquestionable parroting of this hack,

The Villages at Gateway Fields

[YESvillages at gateway fields]

"more than willing"

"open and EXCITED"

Bear Creek Capital is EXACTLY the fanbase and corporate sponsorship the Rays and St Pete have been soliciting.

Free reclaimed land in a vibrant, NEW, accesible development corridor is not debatable in this ammendment 1 era.

The Villages at Gateway Fields

[Pella]

User fees! Let the baseball fans pay for the new stadium themselves. End of the dilema!

[Rick K]

Pella, what dilema is that?

You aren't paying attention. Most of the ANTI's are saying that the dilmea is about building the stadium on the waterfront, and they won't favor that, no matter what.

As for financing, user fees accessed against those who use the stadium were going to be the single largest source of funds for the new stadium.

Additionally, because the new stadium will serve as a major tourism attractor, some tourism taxes that are set aside to promote tourism were going to also be used to contribute to the stadium.

Lastly, a small portion of the city's share of collected sales tax (which was sure to increase from the additional spending at the newly developed waterfront site/surrounding businesses and the redeveloped Trop Field site) would also be used to continue the City's ongoing contribution to debt service on the development, just as excise taxes are used to pay for the debt on any number of publicly subsidized community amenities.

The great news about the Rays paired redevelopment proposals was that it wasn't going to cost any St. Pete citizen (other than stadium attendees) one additional dime for at least the next nine years, at which time, the City would merely commit to continuing to subsidize the debt service obligations on the Rays stadium, which they would surely do in ANY case.

[Don Mott]

"As for financing, user fees accessed against those who use the stadium were going to be the single largest source of funds for the new stadium." RRRRick do you care to back up one more lie with proof. The County bed tax was to be the largest source. So does that mean all of the tourists were going to use the stadium?

[Rick K to Don Mott about finances]

Don, I actually respect you more than most who disagree with me here. Try, this time, to use a little reason and see if my claims don't make sense.

Let's assume, as you seem to be willing to do for the sake of this argument, that the financing deal would have looked like the outline proposed by the Rays.

$150,000,000 would have come from the Rays. All that money would REALLY have come from people who attend Rays games.

$55,000,000 was to come from some scheme that would have attempted to assess additional parking surcharges on people who parked downtown to attend Rays games (ostensibly, without imposing this fee on others who live and work downtown).

The City's primary contribution was to come from their portion of of the county portion of collected Sales Taxes. I could be mistaken, but I believe that sales taxes collected at Rays games would account for a reasonable portion of this total amount. Again, these are taxes paid by people who attend Rays games, which eventually would find themselves back to contributing to the stadium debt service.

Although I once scribbled this out on an envelope somewhere, I do not remember the specific estimate I used, and I cannot find the notes right this second. In redoing the thumbnail sketch again, I come up with around $17,000,000 in contributions from people who attend Rays games.

[Quick analysis: 2 million fans, times an average of $50 in stadium purchases (tickets, beer, food, etc) is $100 Million per year. Times 30 years is 3 Billion Dollars, times one half of one percent, then discounted backwards comes to around 17.1 Million]

As to the bed tax, I have been told by someone familiar with PWC's economic impact study that the Chamber's Study put a figure on how many dollars in hotel stays the Rays create. I was pleased that there figure was close to mine. Since I have been asked not to publish their specific figure, I can tell you how I came up with mine in a manner similar to that I described previously to you.

This indicated that about $5,000,000 in hotel taxes would come from the combined effects of the paired construction projects, ongoing Rays operations, and the All Star game.

But you don't even need these last two categories to see that my larger point is most likely correct.

If the $150,000,000 from the Rays comes out of their bank account, which does not get any appreciable income from someone in Largo who does not attend games, that money ALL comes from people who attend Rays games.

Add the $55,000,000 in parking, and you now have $205,000,000, almost all of which comes from people who attend Rays games.

SOME portion of the City's contribution of excise taxes will also come from Rays' game attendees. As will SOME portion of the Tourism Tax.

Those four sums added together make Rays game attendees contributions the largest single source of contributions to the project.

Don, we can disagree on a lot of things, but I am thinking you have to agree that THIS presentation I have just offered is valid.

[YES the villages at gateway fields]

BLOG BLOATING

SLAVISH

SYCOPHANT

What part of NO is confusing?

The Villages at Gateway Fields

[Rick K to Don Mott]

Sorry, Don, my 6:19 post was compromised by my FFS (Fat finger syndrome).

The correct figure I calculated for the Rays game attendees contributions to City Sales Tax revenues was $ 11.7 million in 2007 dollars, not 17 MM.

The correct Hotel Figure is just under the $5 Mil, but that was derived using a multiplier which would proportionately increase hotel expenditures over the current rate.

It is probably easier to forget about those two components, and just add up the $150 and $55 to get $205, which is larger than any other single funding source.

[YES the villages at gateway fields]

Seek Help

Arithmetic Boy

Perhaps you DO work for Rays

[Don Mott]

"[Quick analysis: 2 million fans, times an average of $50 in stadium purchases (tickets, beer, food, etc) is $100 Million per year. Times 30 years is 3 Billion Dollars, times one half of one percent, then discounted backwards comes to around 17.1 Million]" RRRick can you break that down further as to what percentage goes to the Rays and NOT the stadium? "This indicated that about $5,000,000 in hotel taxes would come from the combined effects of the paired construction projects, ongoing Rays operations, and the All Star game." Guesses not borne by fact. "$150,000,000 would have come from the Rays. All that money would REALLY have come from people who attend Rays games" It's in lieu of rent payments that would have been paid either way. Doesn't count!
"Add the $55,000,000 in parking, and you now have $205,000,000, almost all of which comes from people who attend Rays games." Even with all of that your about $50 plus million short of majority. Not to mention they never have worked out those fancy parking numbers.

[YES the villages at gateway fields]

Rrrrrrrricketts

Arithmetic boy has detention!

All these irksome challenges

It's Hard Out Here FOR A

SLAVISH

SYCOPHANT

[Rick K to Don Mott]

Don, glad to have a dialogue for a change.

I said, "As for financing, user fees accessed against those who use the stadium were going to be the single largest source of funds for the new stadium"

So I was saying the user fees would be the single largest source of funding. I was not trying to say that user fees would be more than half the whole ball of wax.

Adding 150 million and 55 million gets us to 205, which dwarfs any other single source and makes my contention probably true.

The $3 billion in game-related stadium purchases was used as a tool to calculate the straight sales tax on that total volume of taxable transactions. We'd have to know a lot more about the lease terms and what other entities were going to be allowed to share in-stadium revenues before I could break it down further with any reliable accuracy.

A more interesting way of getting to what I think you are seeking is to come up with some net profit margin to the Rays and multiply it times the 3 billion.

My rudimentary analysis (which we economists call "enveloping" and many accountants call "napkining") excluded any specific additional surcharges imposed on tickets or in-stadium purchases. It also intentionally excludes local portions of beer and liquor taxes, payroll taxes paid by the Rays, sales taxes paid by the Rays organization and employees, local portions of fuel excise taxes paid by the Rays organization, employees, and game attendees for their additional fuel consumed in traveling to and from the stadium, and similar taxes.

Since most local expenditures by the Rays can be regarded as coming directly out of the pockets of game attendees, we can equate these, logically, with User fees imposed on game attendees.

Don, you insist my educated estimates are not supported by fact. Since I am unwilling to explain how I know otherwise, you are free to proceed with your assumption.

Don, you are also incorrect in asserting that which has been refuted by the Rays and by the Times over and over. The Rays did not say that the 150 million would be in lieu of rent. And even if it was, it is still money from the Rays, which they get from game attendees.

My analysis intentionally ignored rent or other annual or per-user fees the Rays might have paid towareds stadium operating costs, because the City explained that there expectation was that the lease would probably be similar to the current lease for the Trop, where the Rays' "rent" payments are used to cover some of the city's expenses related to operating and maintaining the dome, and replace depreciated items (like those millions of dollars worth of air conditioners)

As to the parking numbers, what is most significant there is that the City's parking expert and City staff both thought the $55 Million was a reasonably competent estimate.

Shave a few million off, and you are still left with this conclusion.

Of all the different funding sources that would go into a new stadium, the party who would pay the largest contribution of those costs are people who attend Rays games.

[YES the villages at gateway fields]

BREAKING NEWS
Rrrrrickets admits
"we'd have to know a LOT more about the lease terms...before I could break it down further with any accuracy.

"rudimentrary analysis"
"expectation" "probably"
"similar" etc...
Are NOT components of a reassuring measurable proposal.

If even the SLAVISH SYCOPHANT needs more time and info to sell this extortion scheme why should the hoi poloi bother with EXTORTION 2.0?

[kyle]

Jon- challenge for you. You can type as long as you can hold your breathe. Otherwise no one will read your post.

[kyle]

Rick should follow the same principle.

[The REAL Rick K]

Kyle, I still don't understand why you come here if you hate what is in these threads so much . . . .

[YES villages at gateway fields]

Rrrrrrrreallly
Rrrrrrrrickettes

Perhaps Kyle is searching for concise,coherent,pertinent analysis of reality as opposed to:

BLOG BLOATING DIATRIBES
YOU SLAVISH SYCOPHANT

[Pella]

Rick K: Enough already.

You did not answer the user fee issue. Simply saying that by buying current or future tickets the fans are paying for a new stadium is BS. Ray's management has never designated any portion of the ticket revenues or any other revenues towards a new stadium. Additionally, the upfront $150,000,000 was simply rent for thirty years paid up front. The Ray's, hinted, but never put a dollar amount on the table for the rent they hinted that they might pay. What BS.

As for your "most of the anti's are concerned about the waterfront not financing, etc." you are wrong again. Our name speaks to waterfront and wallets. We focused on the waterfront and now it is time to really focus on the wallet. So do not misconstue our mission. We know what the tasks are and in which order they must be addressed.

Right now the focus has shifted to money. If they build a convention center type stadium, with a retractable roof at Toytown (or wherever) it will cost twice as much maybe more. Let's say a billion bucks. The current funding sources (three or four years from now)will not cover this new bigger better stadium. No way. So unless the baseball fans pay substantial user fees, and big corporate sponsors pony up some big bucks and unless the naming rights fees are used in total, a new stadium ain't going to happen. At least not on my watch. A billion bucks is a lot of money and it is not going to be paid with taxpayer money.

Not now, not ever.

We are working on this financial issue as we speak. So Rick, get ready to cry again.

[YESvillages at gateway fields]

"we would be very open and excited"
"more than willing"

Bear Creek Capital is EXACTLY the corprate sponsor AND developer with EXPERTISE AND ENTHUSIASM the county AND THE RAYS should be ENTHUSIASTICLY ENGAGING.

The Rays will have to shoulder their fair share of the cost. THE VILLAGES AT GATEWAY FIELDS will result in both a superior stadium and accessible site without excessive taxpayer subsidy.

[Rick K]

Pella:

With all due respect.

I most certainally DID answer your question. You didn't like my answer, maybe. But your EMOTION about something is not the same as facts.

Although, now that you have identified yourself as a member of POWW, it is easy to see why you so readily confuse your emotional/irrational feelings with actual facts, reason, or opinions which differ from yours.

I did answer you Pella. I answered you in four of the five places you posted your latest POWW-inspired attempt to distract, distort, deceive, and delay.

First, Pella, I told you that adding a designated USER FEE to tickets at the new waterfront stadium is an interesting idea which should be explored. I will add that such an idea will probably be included as part of a final financing package for a stadium, wherever one is built.

My explanation wherein I demonstrated that Rays game attendees would pay the single largest percentage of the new stadium funding (under the Rays proposed financial framework) was not BS, Pella. I know that you folks in POWW have a VERY DIFFICULT time with basic math and simple economics.

But $150 Million plus $55 Million plus a few million more from the tourism tax and city excise taxes, when added together, exceeds the amount which would be contributed from any other source.

You make a silly mistake when you ask everyone to pretend that a check written by the Tampa Bay Rays is somehow "public" money.

Only a handful of fools will believe that. It is akin to politicians who tell us that tax money belongs to the government, instead of belonging to us.

It might play well at the parties where y'all plot to have "dead manatee" rallies or hold press confrences alleging that Hines has already been awarded a contract in "secret" negotiations, but the public is never going to buy your fantasy.

It's really very simple.

You POWW folks are committed.

Nothing wrong with that.

You are willing to do ANYTHING to win this fight you picked.

There are problems with this, but it is your legal right.

The problem is, you guys think everyone will sit back and give you a free pass to lie, distort, distract, and deceive. Many of you are so absorbed in that mode that you have convinced yourself that lies are truths.

Here is an example, your post says, "Additionally, the upfront $150,000,000 was simply rent for thirty years paid up front."

That is a lie.

The St Pete Times has reported it is not true.

So has the Trib.

Bay News 9 has also reported that.

Anyone who wants to can go online and look at the streaming video footage of the Rays appearances before the St Pete City Council or the Pinellas County Commission and see for themselves that POWW is intentionally LYING about what the Rays have said.

You will not win by lying, Pella.

Pella, you also confuse my use of the term "most of the ANTI's" with those of you in POWW who plot your devious dishonest plans to deceive.

The only DETAILED public opinion survey that was administered (HINT: IT wasn't the one promoted in this Blog) indicated clearly that the most common reason people oppossed the stadium was the waterfront location.

Now, it is interesting that you have openly declared POWW's plan to try to lie, distort, steal, and cheat in terms of framing the public discussion about how a new stadium will be financed.

Your POWW website contends, in three separate places, the following:

"The stadium proposal will cost half a billion dollars with no economic benefits"

"The Tropicana Field redevelopment may produce economic benefits, but only decades from now"

"The Tropicana Field redevelopment WILL produce economic benefits, but only decades from now."

Besides being inconsistent, all three of those claims are complete lies.

They aren't just hopeful (or pessimistice) interpretations of economic forecasts, they are lies. They are lies because of what you use to support the claims.

POWW is confused about much, in their public statements. Whether it is falesly claiming that property tax payments on the Trop property won't flow in until years after the property is sold, or repeating the silly myth that teams and stadiums do not have positive ecnomic impacts.

POWW's lies will be exposed.

Despite the exposure, Y'all may still ulitmately prevail.

We'll see.

[Rick K to Pella]

Pella, I have not cried about this.

Unlike POWW's membership. I am not delusional. I do not suffer from confusing my emotions with reason.

The Rays do not want a "convention center" stadium. And we are unlikely to end up with such a thing.

A duplicate of the Trop site location, with a suburban design of a stadium surrounded by acres and acres of parking, is not what the team or the region needs.

There would be NO reason to build a less desirable stadium for twice the money at a less desirable location.

POWW may think that the waterfront has been taken off the table. But the rest of us know better.

POWW can foam "Not now, not ever."

But the rest of us still have a voice.

All POWW's opposition has done so far is to help crystalize a core group of key players who will now get this deal done for the Rays and the Region.

POWW's fantasies notwithstanding, the community will be engaged, and we will vie for the opitmal stadium at the optimal location.

[Rick K to reality]

....which will be a retractable-roof, multiple-use facility at Toytown or the current Trop site.

[Susie Q]

POWW wooped them on the waterfront location and now its on to the finances. Good for you POWW.

[Don Mott]

"But $150 Million plus $55 Million plus a few million more from the tourism tax and city excise taxes, when added together, exceeds the amount which would be contributed from any other source." RRRick you certainly are becoming delusional. First the $55 million was never shown to be a viable 'estimate' by Rays management. It is to come from parking according to them but their own numbers on parking revenue as I recall were only about $25 million. That was one of their MANY we'll get back to you on that moments. A few million from the tourism tax? How about $100 million according to Rays management. A few million from excise taxes? How about the remainder which comes to $145 million. And that's if they could have come up with the $55 million which they didn't and haven't. Keep spinning RRRick cause you're getting dizzier by the day.

[Rick K]

The 10:32 AM post is not from me, obviously. I do not believe that we will end up with a multi use facitily at ToyTown.

I will keep an open mind, however.

And Susie's 1:25 is hilarious. Susie Q is POWW. Who does she think she is kidding?

[Rick K to Don]

Don. Calm down and reread what I wrote.

We start with the fact that I was discussing the PROPOSED FINANCING. My assertion is that the single largest source of funds in the PROPOSED FINANCING framework would come from monies collected from Rays game attendees.

What we have to do is figure out which funds will come from whom.

R) Start with the $150,000,000 check the Rays planned to write. This is merely a cost of doing business for the Rays, and it will be a component of their pricing structure everafter they write the check.

O) Add, for good measure, in overruns in construction of the stadium.

P) Add, further, the $59 million from parking. Or use $50 million, it doesn't matter. Remember, I was talking about the PROPOSED FINANCING framework.

Add, further, some PORTION of the Tourism Tax the County would contribute over time, instead of writing a single check.

(Call the tourism Tax = T, and call the Portion of that which would be paid TO the County directly by people staying in Hotels in connection with their attendance at Rays games = Hr)

The County would collect and payout T, but HR (a portion of T) would come directly from Rays game attendees.

Lastly, add whatever portion of the excise taxesthe City will collect and use to pay for their percentage of the debt service, that actually comes from taxable sales at Rays games.

Call the total of Excise Taxes = E, and the portion of E which comes directly from sales at the stadium = St

So the County would contribute
T - Hr
The City wold contribute
E - St

People who attend Rays games and other events in the stadium and shop at the retail stores in the stadium would contribute

R + O + P + Hr + St

And when you add all THAT up, you find the amount is greater than any other source of contributing funds.

[Don Mott]

Like I said keep spinning.

[since1962]

E
+
X
+
T
+
O
+
R
+
T
+
I
+
O
+
N
= failed plan a

give it up professor k
Rays need less bs for round 2

[Kyle]

POWW better start printing those new bumper stickers- "1/2 billion dollars to move a stadium 1 city block". The new TROP will look great with downtown and the water plus Tampa skyline showing. Except a retractable roof will cost more.

[mrclean]

since1962 - You don't need to worry. After reading Cristina's article:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article659654.ece

I don't think anything will ever get done. Just break out the 'Thing & Do' books, non-toxic glue and blunt nose scissors.

[since1962re everyone wants a voice]

Yes mr clean
The Rays as "not the drivers of this debate"
sure have a lot to say regarding objectives, timelines and members.
They have proved to be astoundingly incompetent in ALL these areas and of fundamental Pinellas political/economic reality.
Rays need to shut up, accept the findings and the financial impact plan B will have on them

[mrclean]

since1962 - By appointing Jeff Lyash the R-owners and mayor lost control of the committee. Corp Exec normally give orders. So now the pressure is on to include the community, ie CONA and POWW. There is no hope for any coalition. CONA has sway over the vote in the neighborhoods. CONA is part of the chamber task force, so I would think they would have a seat. POWW already has a network. These two groups have more sway than Lyash, the mayor and the chamber combined. The city council is independent and their vote really counts. Next week the city council should vote to put Al Lang in the park system. That takes it off the table and it will make the committee less contentious.

[since1962re everyone wants a voice]

I believe the BOCC weilding the power of the bed tax revenue will play a very large role and move the team from tropicana to toytown.. er the villages at gateway fields.

[Susie Q]

POWW is very organized. Mr. Lyash and Mayor Baker should not underestimate them again.

Not only should POWW be in the coalition it deserves several seats at the table because of its reach and capabilities.

Please visit Tropicanafield.com to help a local business and cast your vote on where the Rays should call home!!
In a slow economy we all need all the su