Heatcheck: Week 10

Week 10 of Heatcheck Wednesday, a permanent feature here at Ballpark Frankness. The idea behind this post is to track the past week's Rays home games and wonder how tolerable they would have been, had they been played outdoors.

Two home games since last Wednesday. Temperature was never really a problem, but there were a few scattered showers Monday and Tuesday night. So after 45 homes games, here are our up-to-date standings:

How you feeling? Hot. Hot. Hot. ---- 1

Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure. ---- 5

Take me out the ball game. ---- 39

Rain delay (Rain plays a minor factor) ---- 2

Rain out (Rain plays a major factor) ---- 1

Week 10 of Heatcheck Wednesday, a permanent feature here at Ballpark Frankness. The idea behind this post is to track the past week's Rays home games and wonder how tolerable they would have been, had they been played outdoors.

Two home games since last Wednesday. Temperature was never really a problem, but there were a few scattered showers Monday and Tuesday night. So after 45 homes games, here are our up-to-date standings:

How you feeling? Hot. Hot. Hot. ---- 1

Hot, but nothing a cold beverage couldn't cure. ---- 5

Take me out the ball game. ---- 39

Rain delay (Rain plays a minor factor) ---- 2

Rain out (Rain plays a major factor) ---- 1

Comments

[Wha????]

Scattered showers? There was a severe thunder/lightning storm throughout the 2nd half of the Monday night game that would have been called for lightning.

Pay attention, Cristina.

[Rick K]

Wha???? is incorrect.

The stadium proposal put forth by the Rays for the AL Lang site would not have games cancelled for Lightning OR rain.

[Ray F]

2 things-

First- If wha??? has been paying attention, I think the new column labeled "Rain Out" has a 1 next to it to account for Monday's game.

Second- The game wouldn't have been rained out. The heavy stuff started coming down in the 6th inning and we were already ahead and we would've won anyway because it only has to get through the 5th to count.

Personally, i would've preferred that over Percy getting hurt.

[John]

Rick K is incorrect. So is Ray F.

You can be damn sure if that same storm hit the sailboat the game would have been called for lighning.

And Ray F, that 1 in the rain out column has been there for a few weeks. Who's paying attention??

[Rick K]

John knows not what he is talking about. The proposed stadium design concept included built in lightning protection.

John feels the need (as the ANTI's often do) to MAKE THINGS UP in order to scare people.

We aren't scared, John.

[John]

Really, Rick. And what exact kind of lightning protection is that?

Seems to me 30,000 fans sitting under a piece of cloth supported by stainless steel cables attached to a giant 300' tall lightning rod isn't exactly "lightning protection"...

You get more absurd with each post, Rick.

And guess what Rick, it's not gonna get built at AL Lang.

[Rick K]

John, just keep reciting that mantra to yourself, if it helps you cope. I know some crazy old guys who keep saying the same thing about Raymond James, the Ice Palace, and the Crosstown expressway.

Keep trying to convince yourself that your block of like-minded obstructionists will be able to stop the overwhelming majority of people in this community who will, in time, pause to consider which future we prefer for the city and region. But like the crazies who STILL think they are going to stop progress and growth at every turn, you will be left muttering on the fringes, where this latest political decision by the Rays has firmly placed you.

You can also IMAGINE that the stadium design did not a have lightning control system as a basic building feature, but your IMAGINATION is not the same as reality.

You will truly grasp at any straw, no matter how paranoid and desperate it makes you seem.

[John]

Rick, please elaborate your new invention that the Rays can now control lightning from striking the sailboat!!

Don't change the subject or obfuscate with nonsense. I want to know how they plan to protect fans sitting outdoors from lightning!!

Raymond James? Seriously? Football isn't played during our peak lightning season, Ricky, you know that. Baseball is. You meatwhistle.

[Demetrios]

Seems to me that the fans at the Trop ARE covered by a piece of cloth supported by steel cables so why wasn't the game cancelled or postponed? I don't know the height of the dome but can't imagine that would make much of a difference. The only difference between the two is that the proposed stadium is not completely enclosed.

I don't understand how the rain delay or rain outs apply to this subject. Let's keep it to how tolerable it would be without a/c. Lightning and rain should not be issues.

[John]

Well Demetrios, lightning may not be an issue to you but you can damn sure bet some family of four is not going to take their kids to sit outside during a lightning storm. Much less walk 10 blocks in one to get there.

I did a lot of people watching last night at the game. I would guesstimate at least half the crowd was over 40. Maybe 10-15% of the other half were kids.

I don't know what planet you're from, but most people in the second half of their life have no desire to sit in our famous stifling heat & humidity for 3 hours, sitting next to a whiny kid who's cranky from the heat. And have to walk 20 blocks round-trip to "enjoy the experience"....

If it wasn't part of the problem, why aren't we getting ready for a referendum?

We aren't, because there will be NO NEW WATERFRONT STADIUM!

In fact, I'm gonna bring my red sign to the game tonight.

[Bobby Fenton]

John, honestly, you're the one who sounds absurd. Do you honestly think the design plans for this multi-million dollar stadium wouldn't include provisions for weather? I asked several people this question personally. The simple answer is, rain and lightning would not hinder the playing of games. At the very least, in EXTREMELY SEVERE LIGHTNING CONDITIONS, there could be a delay while it clears, which is never long as anyone who lives here knows. Again, we're talking lightning, not rain, which isn't a problem either way. That's me saying that, not the Rays. But still, dude, c'mon. Find another sticking point because this isn't one.

[Demetrios]

Please tell me the difference between the Trop and the ex-proposed new stadium as far as cables and the teflon roof? Why would it be more dangerous than the Top is now? This was my point. There is no reason to get uptight over it. I'm not trying to be confrontational. You can argue the heat, parking or whatever you want, but the lightning issue is ridiculous. The Trop is full of cables and teflon too. I have two young kids and would have NO problem going to either site.

I'm not going to argue about the heat. I understand that is an issue although I grew up at Al Lang and went to hundreds of games and did not feel that it was uncomfortable. Granted, though, I was a kid!

As far as the red sign, I encourage you to take to the game. I wished I could make it too. Then we both can take it and smack the hell out of some Red Sox fans! You see, we come from the same planet. we just disagree on a few things. Have fun!

[John]

Hey Bobby,

We are the severe lightning capitol of the world.

Let me ask you, since you stated "At the very least, in EXTREMELY SEVERE LIGHTNING CONDITIONS, there could be a delay while it clears"....where exactly do you expect 34,000 people to run for cover during that EXTREMELY SEVERE LIGHTNING CONDITION?? The concourses won't hold everyone at once. Do you suggest the "women and children first" methodology?

During a gust-front, winds reach upwards of 60mph. Do you know what that would do to a sail the size of the one they proposed? LOL it would shred it.

Actually it wouldn't be shredded, because they couldn't deploy it during those conditions to begin with so by the time the gust front ended and the downpour/lightning portion of the t-storm hit, everyone would be soaked anyways.

[Mal]

Cristina, If you think monday night was scattered showers I'd hate to see your thunderstorms.

[Mal]

Actually it would be interesting to see the max wind condition for the sail and the lightning protection afforded the fans. No I don't mean Rick K's opinion but real engineering facts.

[ugh]

I'm sure all the engineers that would be designing the new stadium would read John's posts and say.. Wow! I've never thought of that.. Thank you John for being the smartest guy in St. Pete.

[Bobby Fenton]

Exactly, ugh. Great post. And John, your argument could apply to any outdoor stadium, anywhere, ever.

How does Raymond James handle it when 65,000 people are there and it starts to crackle overhead? Wait a second, seriously, where DO all of those people go? The concourse simply can't hold them all! Oh, my god, the horror! I just realized it now, and I think the answer is obvious. We need to put a roof on Raymond James immediately.

John, you're an idiot.

[Bobby Fenton]

Okay too harsh. You're not an idiot, John. It's an isolated opinion on one thing. Your opinion on this matter is, however, ridiculous. I shouldn't resort to name calling.

[John]

Bobby, last time I checked, the Bucs play 8 games a year and none of them are during peak lightning seaon.

LOL nice try. Go back to the TBO blogs. You don't even live here.

[Kyle]

Rick- you mean the DEAD stadium proposal
wouldn't have games cancelled for lightning or rain? Dude, you kill me with your ignorant comments.

[If you want a sail, then join the sailing center!]

Sold out at that horrible Tropicana field tonight. Yeah, the fans are just staying away in droves because they hate it so much.

Big t-storms on the way too. Glad it'll be nice and cool and dry inside.

Go Rays!!! SuuuuuuWEEEEEP!!!

[Bobby Fenton]

Okay on second thought, you are an idiot. I understand when peak lightning season is and isn't, but you act like the very possibility doesn't even exist and that this only applies to the baseball stadium. That is nothing short of asinine on your part (never mind the fact that early season and preseason games still fall during storm season). Oh and you also neglect to acknowledge that Bucs games aren''t the only things that go on at RJS. I can't believe how stupid you sound. The point is that ligntning concerns exist everywhere. It doesn't mean you scrap an entire plan.

Oh and our newspapers aren't confined to each side of the bay. People from Tampa are allowed to read the Times, people in Pinellas are allowed to read the Trib. God, you are a shortsighted, narrowminded numbskull. People like you are exactly the reason people like me live in Tampa instead of your little bizarro community over there.

[LOL @ Bobby Fenton]

Poor Bobby. He's all bent outta shape because he's not getting what little bobby wants....awwwww. And now he's sunk to name calling.

Perhaps you should be more concerned with your own city's problems and stop worrying about ours.

You know, like your ridiculous road conditions, insane traffic jams, waste-deep flooding every time it sprinkles out. Urban sprawl that has stretched in every direction up-to bordering counties. That's some model city you got there.

There's a reason Tampa's been called "The Next Great City" for the last 30 years...it never made it to the list.

[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, and the people they are now schmoozing behind closed doors, aren't in a position to do the same thing, only with THEM having to pony up, orborrow the money against the "securitized income streams" they already said they planned to mortgage under Plan A.

[Kyle]

Christina- Tonight is what is called a rainout. That's right a rainout in Florida in July. Who would have thought it? By the national TV audience is probably glad they are watching this great game take place. I bet 34000 people are glad it is in a dome tonight.

[make a deal]

The stadium, if built on the waterfront or in Toytown, will be subsidized by tax dollars. And if not by Pinellas dollars then some other county or city.

So, to make sure we are getting the HIGHEST RETURN on our tax monies, waterfront is the undisputed winner.

If you disagree, then let me ask you this. "Do you want to own a $450 million stadium on an old dump site or on the beautiful downtown St. Pete waterfront"?
Or better of a question, would you rather buy a $450 million home on an old dump site or on St. Pete's downtown waterfront"?

[since1962]

Stupid questions "monty lets make a deal"

The citizens have spoken:
NOT ON THE WATERFRONT

Ammendment 1
Also stated voter opinion
ADAMANTLY regarding taxpayer funds.

Viable location AND
SUBSTANTIALLY increased Rays contribution
Are the only questions left.

The sooner Rays and fans move away from the waterfront idea and embrace paying more, the sooner a new stadium can be built.

[Liars Win]

Kyle - Why build a roof if it would not protect fans from the rain and prevent rainouts. OF COURSE games in the waterfront ballpark would not have been delayed due to weather. The only functional difference between it and the Trop is there would be two open sides.

Congrats POWW - Your fear mongering, lies, and intimidation won the day. Are you going to protect your wallets from the demolition cost of Al Lang?

[Ben Dover]

Non waterfront sites will cost tens of millions more. Cost of remediation, construction premiums, new on/off ramps, parking garages will drive cost through the roof. That's why the Chamber study embraced the waterfront site and praised the use of existing infrastructure.

Rays will not pay more. Since no other sites need a referrendum, that means taxpayers will. Nice job nay-sayers.

[Bobby Fenton]

To LOL @ Bobby Fenton, we've heard you're tired routine before about Tampa. All I can say is "ouch". The ravings of a lunatic malcontent really do cut right to the core. Please don't say those awful things about my city you meanies!

I am not "bent out of shape" to begin with because nothing has even been settled yet, number one. Number two, this isn't "St. Pete's problem". In fact, the stadium issue shouldn't be treated as a problem at all. We're all trying, or at least should be trying, to do what's best for this area and its baseball team. We are many years from the endgame and this is all just beginning. It's hunorous that you believe this is only a St. Pete issue. Thank god it isn't, because you guys could screw up a cup of coffee with idiots like you running your mouths.

As for tonight being a rainout, which that other guy said. Um, nooooo. I can't believe we still have to go through this, but any and all stadium plans, and I'm sure they have more than one, all contain some sort of covering, if not the sail then an all-out retractable roof. I hear this misinformation spouted off by uninformed people so often that I actually have to blame the Rays on this one. They have done an extremely poor job of communicating information like this and conveying the fact that games would not be rained out even in heavy rains. Too many people are getting it wrong, and while many of those weighing in are stupid, as these comments reflect, everybody can't be this stupid.

Now I must paddle back to my South Tampa home. Apparently it floods here constantly from what they say, even though I've lived here for years and have seen a foot of water or so at the specific corner of Dale Mabry and Neptune like two or three times.

You've got me. Oh St. Pete we wish we were you!

Idiots.

[since1962]

Rays WILL pay more

Or get the F out

[Rick K]

1962 gets more delusional, the later the hour.

The citizens have not yet spoken.

There has not yet been an election.

When there is, THEN it will be factually correct to say the citizens have spoken.

All that has happened so far is that the POWW people convinced our elected officials to build a stronger coalition of elected officials and business leaders before moving farther.

[since1962]

And the Rays RAN off the field BEFORE the game was over because?

They are unaware or you are...

The latter is why I don't think you work for the Rays...
They have a FULL lineup of unaware incompetents.

[Kyle]

Liars win/Rick K- So MLB is going to enforce having 15-20 million dollar cornerstone, face recognizable, athletes take the field in the middle of downpours and lightning storms because the building has a phulcing piece of sail over it? You are a total ignorant jackizass.

[Ray F]

Soooo...

The Sonics are leaving for Oklahoma City.

Hmmmm... so much for unbreakable leases huh?

[Rick K]

Kyle, you have taken straw man arguments to an extreme level.

No one has made the claims you are attempting to counter.

Of course there will be some rainouts or delays in an outdoor stadium. These things happen in EVERY outdoor stadium. Heck, a game was once canceled in the Huston Astrodome because it rained so much that they couldn't get the doors open!

Rainouts are no reason to not build an outdoor stadium.

Maybe you've failed to notice that lots of teams in MLB and minor league ball have outdoor stadiums?

Simply put, Kyle, your 7:05 am post is worthless.

[mrclean]

Ray F - The lease wasn't broken. The parties involved came to another agreement. The contract probably had a clause to allow for other considerations. This whole sage does point to the fact that team owners have no respect or regard for the city or fans of the host city.

[Rick K]

MrClean seems to miss the point in his effort to fight about minutae.

Several pro teams have relocated to other cities and states, breaking "unbreakable" leases in the process.

I don't think the situation with the Rays is necessarily at the point that people should be concerned about them leaving any day soon. However, it is utter nonsense to insist that the "lease" for the Trop would keep the Rays in Florida if the team and MLB wanted the team to move.

It's really simple. And again, I don't think we are at this point. But imagine the following:

Baseball is not an equipment capital enterprise. Everything game related in the clubhouse (uniforms, bats, balls, cleats, and such) collectively only costs a few thousand dollars.

A team could simply leave EVERYTHING sitting in the Trop. They could move to some other City in another state and announce that they are now the "Other City Rays."

The team has ALREADY moved. It's done.

The City's response might be to go to state and Federal court seeking an injunction to compell the Rays to return to St. Pete to play games here.

No state court in Florida has the authority to order a business in another state to do that.

No Federal Court will step in and say that the Rays cannot play games in Other City (because there is no basis in federal law for doing so - not that a few federal judges have been kept from trying, only to be overruled by higher courts).

A lawsuit commences, and damages are determined, then paid.

The team has moved.

No court can bring them back.

It doesn't work that way.

[John]

What does any of that blather have to do with weather, Ricky?

It's not happening at Al Lang

Get over it.

And where's my $1000 for the bet you lost for the Red Cross ya meatwhistle??

Oh and where's your "proof" that the Rays and HOK Sports have invented a way to protect your fantasy sailboat from lightning????

[Rick K]

John:

1. My name is not Ricky. I have never posted under that name. Your failure to understand this is indicative of your general problems with simple facts.

2. Your claim about what is not happening at Al Lang is hopeful wishingk, at best. It is not a statement of fact.

3. I did not lose a bet to you. We did not bet with you taking the proposition that the Rays would withdraw this deal, and I said they would not. If we had done that, we would have made a valid bet. Our bet was on something else entirely. Your failure to work out simple logic situations like this is indicative of why you are so often confused about stadium issues.

4. John, I have not presented proof about the lightning protection. I also have not presented proof that my home has lightning protection, that I have a bank account, or that Dali actually painted the paintings in the museum that bears his name. If you want proof, go find it.

What I will do is stand in the way of disinformation and distortion.

[John]

Can't find anything about it, Rick K, because it doesn't exist.

Just like every opinion you post is not fact at all, just more obduscation, lies, distortions and utter nonsense to further your fantasy that was taken away from you by the very people you support so mindlessly.

Get the broom from last night and go dust off your waterfront sailboat and paired redevelopment proposals on that shelf, because that shelf is where they shall remain.

The rest of us have moved on, Rick. It's time you did too.

[Rick K]

That original remark under my name at 12:38 on July 2 was not made by me. I came to this thread and responded to something John said at 12:43, without noticing that the post he was replying to had my name on it.

I want to be clear about this.

There will be occasional rainouts or delays from rain/lightning in the newly proposed waterfront stadium.

However, that stadium will also have numerous protections from lightning and rain, both to increase spectator safety, and to minimize playing delays from weather.

[mrclean]

John - I believe with the lightning issue, they will use lightning rods at the highest points. It still would be dangers to stand in an open field all the same. It is good science until proven wrong.

I wonder if St Elmo's Fire would dance across the tent guy-wire during a severe lightning storm? That would be an attraction by itself.

[Rick K to John]

John, when will you misinformation blokes get it.

A link does not equate to unequivocal proof.

I have no interest in spoon feeding you links which prove things I know to be true.

A few months back I was surfing the net for information about HOK, and I stumbled upon a discussion about the type of lightning supression system that would be incorporated in the stadium design in St. Pete.

I know it's true. I have no need to reprove it to myself. And I have even less interest in wasting my time trying to prove something that is true to you, because you don't care anyway.

No sooner than something is proved, and you move on to the next absurd lie, distortion, deception, or paranoid fabrication.

It doesn't matter. I don't feel the need to prove to you ANTI's that I am not "looking for love," that I reside where I reside, that I have the experience I have, or anything else that will not advance the debate.

It's not like you are a reasonable person who says, "Thank you for setting me straight," before moving on to the next relevant topic.

John, you MADE UP a fantasy about people in a stadium (like the one proposed) being at great peril from lightning strikes. If you want to believe your unprovable fantasy, that is par for the course.

[Mal]

Rick K, What do your house and checkbook have to do with this? You very clearly said "The proposed stadium design concept included built in lightning protection".You posted that in reference to John's concern about games being called not just protecting a structure. What now that statement was a wild guess?

[John]

It won't matter, Rick. It's not going to be built at Al Lang and it won't have a sail. So you're right, it's a non-issue.

Join the rest of us as we begin to explore OTHER OPTIONS for a new ballpark down the road a few years.

We have plenty of time.

If it was going to be at Al Lang, there would have been no reason to stop the referendum process, since all it was about was Al Lang's future use. Nothing to do with fiancing, etc.

The Rays could have EASILY said "Hey, we really want the ballpark at Al Lang, but we're not there on the numbers yet. Let's keep moving forward on the referendum and settle the Al Lang issue 1st, and if approved, we can really start crunching numbers instead of wasting our time putting all this together, only to have our prime location voted down in Nov."

Sounds more reasonable to me, Rick K, but that's not what happened, is it?

So put Al Lang out of your mind and help your Rays find a more suitable alternative, like the rest of us.

[Rick K]

John, I actually suspect we have more in common than you might imagine. Especially if you actually attend Rays games and want a more vibrant, dynamic downtown.

I fully intend to join the community process whereby we figure out what is best for the Rays and our City.

Unlike you, I am not so sure that we won't be returning to the Waterfront as the best possible scenario.

I have an open mind about other better options (Odds are there will be one or more), but that doesn't mean I haven't already analyzed the plusses and minuses of an Al Lang site versus the Trop site or the landfill.

[John]

You may be right, Rick. But I will always vehemently oppose, at any cost, putting that ridiculous looking monstrosity on our waterfront.

Again..4th gen St Pete native here. I am not against the rebirth of downtown St. Pete. I am not against development of the Trop property. I am not against feasability studies for Toytown. I am not against the Rays or Archstone.

There are other options and there is no rush. We're not stupid enough to let the Rays run off to another market. We worked too hard to get them in the first place. That doesn't mean were also stupid enough to know when a proposal stinks. And we'll oppose it like rabid dogs. As you may have noticed.

[Rick K to Mal]

Mal, it seems obvious that you have not followed or been part of all the threads that I have seen on these blogs.

Your question is simple, but important.

A fact is either true or not, completely regardless of whether you or I believe it or can sufficiently "prove" a fact.

You can't really prove facts. Facts are facts. All you can do is provide evidence which convinces someone else to believe or accept the fact.

And that is where my resistance comes in.

You see, Mal, for the ardent ANTI's on this site deal in a strange world of fringes.

While I certainally read about HOK's lightning suppression features that would be incorporated into the waterfront stadium design, I have to make a decision about how much time I want to spend trying to "prove" my claim, and what return I would have gotten on that expenditure of time.

First, there is the possibility that it might take me much longer to find the information than I wanted to spend in the pursuit. Second, there is the reality that all I could probably provide is a link to a web citation somewhere quoting someone with HOK or the Rays saying that lightning suppression was incorporated in the design.

If past behavior is any guide (and it is all I have that I find reliable), the ANTI's would respond to such a post with new claims or new attacks.

"Of course the guy said that, he is getting PAID by the Rays."

"I find it funny that Architect X says this NOW, when nothing in the Rays' documents to City Hall mentions this so called lightning suppression system."

And so on.

This ridiculousness would continue, as is the ANTI's intent, until everyone lost interest and went away.

I used my house and my checkbook and the Dali art as examples that illustrate the point. The truth is the truth, regardless of who believes it.

My statement about lightning suppression wasn't a wild guess, it was based on something I read which conformed with my knowledge of modern construction in Florida.

While you might wish that I waste my time in a pursuit that does nothing to advance the cause, I am a more jealous protector of my time. As I said, it's not like someone "proves" something here and the ANTI's come onboard and say, "Thank you for setting me straight on that, lets move to the next noteworthy topic."

What happens here is quite the opposite of that.

Yesterday, some person alleged in these threads that there are more people employed in Feather Sound and Carrillon Park than there are in downtown St. Pete. I started thinking about it. There are certainally a lot of employees in the Feather Sound, and plenty of large visible employers have offices there. But there are plenty of people working in downtown St. Pete, as well.

As part of my normal life, I have access to a subscription demographic service used millions of times weekly, mostly by people in the business of developing or financing commerical real estate.

The usage is simple. Type in an address or define a specific area (by going to the interactive map and clicking on the streets you want, to select the boundaries of the target area), click GO, and a few seconds later a report comes back.

7 pages.

It includes residetial population, broken down about 50 ways. It includes information about jobs, payroll, payroll taxes, job categories, education levels, duration in current positions, breakdown by employer size, and all sorts of things.

It also includes information about total income, total spending, and all various subcategories thereof.

Because I wondered about the truth of the claim someone made about Feather Sound having more jobs than downtown, I went to the computer and got reports for both areas.

The website was tied up, so it asked me to try again in a few minutes. I picked up the phone and made a couple of calls. Then I got the computer reports.

The computer reports indicated that downtown has far more employees, more payroll dollars, and more payroll taxes than does Feather Sound and Carrillon Park. My phone calls were returned by knowledgable government employees.

At this point, I was interested to know if the government employees would say the same thing that my demographic reports said.

They did.

So I am quite sure that downtown has more employees than Feather Sound and Carrillon Park.

Can I "prove" it?

No.

The best I could do is provide referals to other sources, who the ANTI's would then turn around and dismiss as being unreliable, for an endless number of reasons.

That kind of battle is not worth my time.

And it serves no good purpose.

MAL, I understand that the ANTI's want me to engage in that sort of nonsense.

But I decline.

[Thomas]

Wow, this guy is still at it...

Rick - it's over. The Rays pulled the plan because it was not feasible. No matter how many 10,000 word essays you post the proposal will still be dead.

You are a nutty pro-stadium extremist and your posts reflect your delusional view of this topic.

The proposal sucked. Hence, it was overwhelmingly rejected.

[Rick K]

John,

I welcome the chance to take more time also, even as I oppossed what I regarded as the "scorched earth" approach of the ANTI's prior to the Rays withdrawing their time table propelling us toward a November ballot question.

It does not suprise me that we disagree.

But unless some new proposal we haven't heard before comes out (and that very likely could happen), I think the result of the community process will be a majority of people concluding that the Waterfront Stadium is our best bet.

It is only about 10 times better than Toytown or the Trop site.

[Rick K]

Thomas, the logic of your 12:12 post is faulty.

First, you mischaracterize what happened.

The Rays' stadium proposal was not overwhelmingly rejected. IT wasn't rejected anywhere in any forum that mattered.

What happened is that the proposal generated enough support from elected politicos and key business players who requested more time to work the process.

The proposal didn't die. It wasn't rejected.

There is merely a pause.

That is not to say I am certain we will end up with a waterfront stadium.

But what I know so far convinces me that a community analysis will lead to the same conclusions the Rays and the City came up with - the Waterfront makes the most sense.

If the process comes to that location, we'll have some public votes.

[Thomas]

Whatever symantics make you happy Bro.

Bottom line: That proposal was garbage so it got put in the trash.

[John]

We will continue to disagree then.

The waterfront requires a referendum.

You, being from Ohio, have no idea how long-time residents think about destroying our waterfront. That's why we made it part of the city charter to require a referendum in the first place!

Until you fully realize how vehemently opposed citizens really are to this kind of development on Al Lang, you'll continue living a fantasy.

And please spare us the nonsense that "A ballpark has been there for decades"...there has been an airport there for decades as well, but do we want TIA to close up and move to Albert Whitted? It's just as ludicrous an argument. It's all about scale. And that ugly P.O.S. doesn't fit. Period.

[Mal]

No Rick throwing out statments as fact rather than assumption is nonsense.

[Rick K]

John, my having once lived in Ohio has little to do with it.

Your worldview and life experience have convinced you that you best know how a majority of voters will react if given plenty of time to examine this issue from all sides.

I am not at all certain about how a vote would come out.

But I do think we are headed towards one, eventually.

[Rick K to Mal]

Mal, please be mature and reasonable.

What you said appears to make no sense.

Please clarify what you meant, if you think it will add to the discussion.

If, on the other hand, your objective was baseless personal attack, please use a little more imagination.

[Demetrios]

Let's see what this "coalition" comes up with before anyone throws out the waterfront proposal. My feeling is the coalition will come up with three or four options to choose from. Two will probably be discarded right away and then we will be looking at Toytown and Al Lang again. Toytown will no doubt cost more but spare the waterfront. We all know pros and cons of the Al Lang location. The Rays can look at both proposals, gauge the publics' response and go from there. Will we see the cost of Toytown and think that Al Lang is not such a bad idea or will we be prepared to spend a lot more money to put it in Toytown?

My guess is that they still want the waterfront location and feel that when it is all said and done and the coalition presents their numbers, The Rays will possibly risk going through a referendum to get their waterfront stadium. I'm not saying they are right or wrong or that it would pass a vote. I just think if an "independent coalition" presents a case for the waterfront, they can say that due diligence was provided and with that, try to convince those who are on the fence.

My point is that, right or wrong, the waterfront is most likely not dead. For those who think that delaying the vote is a victory are wrong. If it went to a vote in Nov. it would have been dead.

Just an opinion.

[mrclean]

Rick K 12:01 - A fact is always true. You are confusing and equating the word 'fact' with the word 'opinion = conjecture.' If I hold a rock in my out-stretched hand and let it go, it will always hit the ground. That is a fact.

Why it hits the ground is another story. Most people say, 'because of gravity' and let it go at that. The reason (fact = truth) is a matter of conjecture (opinion ; ie; curvature of space. gravitons. dimentions, etc.).

By your understanding of the word 'fact'; if you said, 'I was the first man on the moon,' to you that would be a fact, even though the statement is not true and never will be true. By your definition, it would be up to me to disprove your statement as fact. The fact is you being 'the first man on the moon' will never be a fact because it isn't true and never will be true.

[Ray F]

...and still the Sonics have left the building.

Keep it up people.

Keep bickering and arguing.

The Sonics have left Seattle.

The Sonics, whose owners had a lease in the KeyArena, somehow will be playing in Oklahoma City next year.

I could care less about basketball, but as a baseball fan, I could only imagine if the Rays left and I was powerless over what happened.

...but keep arguing; that helps.

[Rick K to unclean]

MrClean, what on earth are you talking about? I am not the least bit confused, but you are acting extremely so. I am not confusing fact with opinion or conjecture, and I haven't done so since I was a teen.

It is you who are confused about facts. Your prediction about the rock's future movement is a prediction, predicated on what you believe to be a fact which is always true. A future prediction is never a fact, it is merely a prediction.

(True, some predictions are more likely to be correct than others, because there are certain "laws" of science which explain how objects and matter behave).

Your perception of the rock is flawed for many reasons, none of which have anything to do with my explanation that preceeded your post.

You completely bungle what I have clearly explained is my understanding of fact. If I said I was the first man on the moon, that would never be a fact, no matter who believed it, because I was NOT the first man on the moon. It is not a fact, regardless of who believes it to be true. When people believe something that is not a fact, they are either embracing superstition, believing fantasy, or being delusional.

On the other hand, as far as we know, Neal Armstrong WAS the first man on the Moon. That fact is either true or false (it happens to be true, as far as we can tell), regardless of whether you believe it or not, and regardless of whether I can prove it or not.

The truth of a fact exists completely independent of your or my perception, awareness or belief of the fact.

It happens to be a fact HOK's design for the Stadium incorporates a lightning suppression/protection system. That fact is true.

It is true even if you don't believe it.

It is true even if I fail to provide a link that the ANTI's would simply dispute.

The main reasons the ANTI's aren't able to persaude anyone with reason is because you refuse to acknowledge facts and prefer to swim in the pool of uncertainty, paranoia, distortion, and delusion.

Go to the POWW website, or go back and read the threads in these blogs from April to now. Or take a look at the article the Times publised about the willingness of POWW to try anything to win the debate, no matter what.

Each page of the POWW website includes more distortions, false implications, distractions, and outright deceptions than one will find on just about any website.

So, Unclean, keep right on pretending that I don't know what a fact is. All the while, your fellow ANTI's post here every day, providing loads of evidence for all to see that it is your side that does not understand the meaning of FACT.

[John]

Rick K said:

"The main reasons the ANTI's aren't able to persaude anyone..."

Well, Rick, it sure as heck seems like us "ANTI's" persuaded the Rays to shelve their sailboat, and the referendum, and Archstone's plans, and the TDC vote, and the BOCC vote, etc.

So...what were you saying again?

Oh by the way, I "accidently" smacked a BoSux fan in the head with my red sign last night. Priceless!

[YESvillages at gateway fields]

NO MORE Rrrrrrrrickettes

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

The Villages at Gateway Fields

[Rick's example of POWW deceptions, part 1]

I have been asked what drew me to come off the sidelines and begin actively posting in these blogs. The answer is very simple. While I was following developments related to the paired redevelopment proposals, I was unaware of this Blog. I was reading a story at the Times website and discovered a link to this blog. I clicked it, and came here. I couldn't believe what I found.

I found evidence of an organized campaign to distort, distract, deceive, and delay. Whether the posters on this Blog were involved with the POWW group or not, they were all playing from the same song book. There's was a campaign of seemingly endless false claims, straw man arguments, deceiving implications, exaggerations, distractions, fantasies disguised as facts, and a whole host of other less-than-completely honest presentations.

As a contrast to the extremely deceitful POWW website and posts here by various committed oppositionists, I found the Fans for Waterfront Stadium group to be measured, truthful, and respectful of competing viewpoints.

The statements of the two groups stand in stark contrast to one another. Fans for Waterfront Stadium have named themself with a label that clearly communicates what they are about.

POWW has intentionally selected a name for their group that does NOT clearly communicate what the group is about. The claim to be about preserving our wallets, yet they are oppossed to plans which will grow the local economy, increase government collections, add jobs, and grow businesses. They aren't about preserving our wallets, but about restricting and reducing our individual and collective wealth.

The POWW group claims to be about Waterfront preservation. There is no law or theory of economics which says that preservation is free! Thus, there is no way they can preserve our wallets and our waterfront!

Why didn't POWW name itself, Citizens opposed to the Ray's proposals? Because that would be a more truthful name which would clearly communicate what the group is actually about.

Why did POWW's Hal Freedman tell The Times' Aaron Sharockman that POWW is "trying to derail it (stadium proposal) anyway we can?" but NOT put that claim on their website.

Why does POWW claim that the environmental cleanup of the Trop site will cost MILLIONS Of DOLLARs, without any evidence at all to support that claim?

Why does POWW claim that the customary and legally appropriate non-public negotiations between the Rays and the City represents a "secret deal has been struck" without any evidence of such a deal?

Why did POWW claim that the San Francisco Giants' stadium naming rights were sold for $600 Million (a figure which is more than 1000% higher than the actual figure)?

Why did POWW make false claims about the Rays payments of parking fees, under their lease agreement with the City?

Why does POWW's website include links to articles in the Times which parrot concerns raised by POWW which were later disproven or satisfcatorily addressed? For example, their website has links to stories in the Times about vague and large environmental problems at the Trop property, but there are no links to articles in the Times quoting experts with intimate knowledge of the environmental conditions at the Trop saying that the known problems are managable and only about $100 K to fix?

Why does POWW imply that the funding sources which had been proposed to finance a new stadium on the waterfront are coming from the same budget sources that fund firefighters, police, and programs for disadvantaged children?

It seems to me that the answers to these questions are obvious.

[mrclean]

Rick K. - You wear me out,-Fact. I thought we were having a civil philosophical discussion and you dis me. I will counter your gibberish and be done with you.

The rock hitting the ground is a fact because of its predictability. That's what makes it a fact.

Armstrong being the first man on the moon is a historical fact. A fact is always true. If you thought you were the first man on the moon as a fact you would be wrong on two counts. 1- It isn't a fact and 2- it never was or would be a fact because it isn't true.

By your thinking, dinosaurs living at the center of the earth are a fact but it may not be true.

Rick, The fact is you don't know what a fact is, and that's true ya'all!

[Rick's example of POWW deceptions, part 1]

Mr Clean, I didn't mean to dis you.

I meant to playfully tease you, without undermining the respect you are due.

I apologize for my social mistake and also for offending you. I also curse the limitation of this medium that prevented you from seeing that I was gently teasing.

Let me make this simple for you.

I have never been confused in these threads about what a fact is. And you won't find any post here that suggests otherwise.

I don't know you or your posting history very well, Mr. Clean.

I may have been hastey in grouping you in with so many of the ANTI's whose regular approach is to present fantasies as fact, confuse unprovable opinions with irrefutable proof, etc.

In one memorable but agonizing thread, a few ANTI's argued that even though there was no proof of a principle claim they kept linking to repeatedly, those of us who pointed out that there claim had not been proven fell short because we couldn't prove that their claim had never been proven.

This, Mr. Clean, is the silliness and delusion and deception in which the most ardent anti's who post at this site deal on a regular basis.

They confuse facts with things that are not facts.

Like you seem to be doing with the rock. Before the rock falls to earth it is not a FACT that it will fall. As it falls, or after it has fallen, its fall is a fact.

There are, of course, instances when rocks have not fallen, but instead have been propelled upward, by winds, and other physical forces. Facts are things that actually happened or are actually real, whether anyone is aware of the fact, acknowledges or accepts the fact.

For a good example of something that is NOT a fact, consider the last sentence in your 4:39 pm post. You claim it is a fact that I don't know what a fact is.

Your claim is not a fact. It is fantasy. At best, it is a baseless claim (without reliable evidence to support it). At worst, it is intentionally contrived to misrepresent the truth.

See, Clean, that is what ANTI's do.

They supplant fantasy and lies with actual facts, and call the former the latter, all the while hoping that people who are undecided and here searching for information just go away.

[Pella]

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

[John]

Poor Rick K.

POWW really got to you huh?

They apparently got to the Rays, the BOCC and TDC as well, didn't they.

A grass-roots, non-political, loosely organized bunch of citizens with NOTHING to gain in terms of financial wealth or political favor.

Why did they do it, Rick? Why did they mess up your plans?

What was their motivation, Rick?

If not monetary greed or political favor, or fame, then why?

Have you asked yourself that question, Rick? Why?

I'll tell you why. They care about the city they love. They don't want to see a vision layed out by our forefathers trampled on by greedy businessmen. And they don't want to pay out of pocket to assist them in doing so. That's why.

And that is why you can't beat them, Rick. Never could, never will. Because of what they stand for.

Enjoy your holiday weekend. And GO RAYS!

[YESvillages at gateway fields]

NO MORE Rrrrrrrrrickettes

Eliminate the slavish, unquestioning, unquestionable parroting of this hack.

The Villages at Gateway Fields

[Rick K to John]

John, the full quote, in context is,

"The main reasons the ANTI's aren't able to persaude anyone with reason is because you refuse to acknowledge facts and prefer to swim in the pool of uncertainty, paranoia, distortion, and delusion."

I stand by my statement.

Notice how you tried to parce it to make it seem like I was saying something other than I was actually saying.

[YESvillages at gateway fields]

No MORE Rrrrrrrickettes

THE VILLAGES AT GATEWAY FIELDS

[John]

Doesn't matter what the full quote is, Rick. You lose. You lost.

You keep forgetting something Rick. This hasn't been about civilized debate since your first attack on an "ANTI".

No. From that day on, it's been guerilla warfare. Any tactic, by any legal means necassary to POWW!!!

I'm signing up for POWW, to help them any way I can, going forward.

To protect that little slice of waterfront for my kids, and their kids free enjoyment, any time they wish to use it.

And POWW has Rick K to thank for signing up new members.

[Rick K]

John.

Try as you might to elevate Rick K to mythical status. The REAL Rick K is content to deal with the forces he has convinced on both sides of these issues.

John, you can claim to not have been aligned with POWW until now, but the very first post I found from you in these threads was filled with the very same sorts of strained attempts you now make to distract, deceive, distort and deny.

You are a fitting member for POWW. They ought to make you their poster boy.

[Don Mott]

It has nothing to do with the Rays since they have not threatened to leave but some facts must be explained with the Sonics move. First of all a court of law did not allow it. The owners agreed to pay $45 million to Seattle so in turn the city dropped the lawsuit. They also agreed that if the city put $75 million into remodeling their arena and did not secure a new or existing team they would pay another $30 million to the city. So that would tell me the owners were not so sure of their legal status and decided to buy out. So quit harping about a lease that the city agreed to waive which the owners payed a ton of money to get out of. The courts never ruled!!

[since1962]

Back to the GOD complex

Rrrrrickettes?

When ALL else fails

Turn (in)TO Jesus

[John]

I'm ok with being their poster-boy Rick

They do stand for what I stand for. To a point.

I do beleive some subsidy is necassary to keep the Rays here. I am not, like you lump everyone together as, an idiot.

Your vitrol for POWW is tangible, Rick. They really got to you.

Citizens coming together around a common goal just bugs the heck out of you, doesn't it?

No? OK, only when it interferes with your opinions? YES? OK

I'm trying to keep the facist label at bay, Rick. But you sound more and more like one each day.

Support the companies and their paid-off representatives in Govt', they will do us no wrong!!!

[Rick K]

Don Mott, you actually make the case those who suggest the Rays could leave would make.

MONEY would make the City shut the heck up.

This is simple. There is no federal law which permits a federal judge to stop a pro sports team from moving from one state to another.

None.

There is no federal law which says that a state court can reach into another state and order a team which has already moved to return to the state over which the court has jurisdiction and resume business operations there.

The laws speak to damages!

I am not saying the Rays will be leaving anytime soon. However it is obvious that they could just pick up and leave. All that would remain at that point would be transfer of monies.

There is no law that says the Rays would have to stay.

In fact, the law says parties can break contracts. The laws anticipates it.

There has NEVER been a case of a Federal court that was upheld in stopping a pro sports team from moving. Never.

There have been cases when a government stadium owner could see it was going to lose, so it increased incentives to keep the team/drop the suit, or it accepted cash settlement and discontinued the fight.

The law supports teams who want to move.

The State Courts of California were (on several occasions) enjoined by the Federal courts from preventing the Oakland/LA/Oakland Raiders from moving WITHING the state of California.

There are dozens of other examples of teams leaving and breaking their leases.

There are some examples where lawsuits ended in settlement.

But there are no examples where a team was prevented from moving by a court order that stood up!

[Rick K to JOhn]

John, you crack me up.

You claim I think everyone is an idiot. Anyone who reads my posts here can see that I have used the idiot label in less than 3% of all my posts.

POWW does not get to me.

Since no one else, other than Aaron's one article in the Times, has undertaken to expose POWW, I find it to be a worthy pursuit.

I have no "vitrol" for POWW.

I am just determined to add truth to this public debate.

Your final two assertions/claims at 5:31 are over the top, John.

The world's history with the most powerful Facists taught us that they were people who believed that there should be a master race who would rule over all the others. People with impure genes should be exterminated by the state!

There is nothing in these debates that suggests anything along those lines.

Your eagerness to use the term Facist is telling.

Pathetic desperation, it is.

As is this doozy, "Support the companies and their paid-off representatives in Govt', they will do us no wrong."

No one has made that claim here. And it isn't even close to what we who like the paired redevelopment proposals believe.

[Thomas]

Rick K is talking out his back end as usual.

The city of Seattle presented 81 pages of case law to support their case. The Sonics presented none.

The Sonics settlement offer before the trial was $26M. After the trial the settlement offer jumped up to $75M.

Seattle had won the case. Specific Performance clauses in sports franchise leases are clearly enforceable.

The mayor decided to take the cash instead of two lame-duck season. The was the decision, but the case was won by Seattle.

If the lease does not contain a specific performance clause, it probably could be broken. Or as in the case of the Raiders, if it's an Anti-Trust case, not a lease case, it can be won.

The attorneys for Seattle won their case. The City Attorney of St. Pete says he could win his case. History and case law supports him.

[YESthe villages at gateway fields]

You ARE debating a slavish sycophant folks.

Grassroot efforts have won against this extortion attempt

Unfortunatly the community may react vindictivly and eliminate ANY reasonable compromise.

[Thomas]

Dude, no one is debating Rick.

He's a fringe extremist. A hypocrite. Etc.

He's never going to admit defeat or error.

That's part of his unique charm. After resounding defeat, he'll still proclaim victory.

It's stupid. It's baseless. But damn, it's amusing.

[since1962]

Enjoy the circle jerk

[Rick K to about unbreakable leases]

So... the facts say that the team actually left Seattle, and forked over money to get Seattle to stop hasseling them in court.

Which is what happens in every lawsuit like this. There has yet to be a team who moved and was issued a valid court order to return.

Which is clear proof that those who say the very same thing could happen with the Rays are dead on.

Of course the Rays could move to some other city and haggle over the amount of a settlement later.

Of course they could.

There is no law that would permit a judge to say to the Rays, now playing in another City in another state, "Hey, you have to go back to the Trop and play games there."

And that has NEVER happened.

Nor will it ever happened.

All the other attempts to spin what happened with the Sonics is just bull.

They cannot be stopped from moving.

They can only be forced to pay damages, or convinced to settle, whichever they deem to be the better solution to concluding the financial costs of relocating to another state.

[YES the villages at gateway fields]

Then they and you SHOULD leave

BLOG BLOATING

SLAVISH

SYCOPHANT

[Rick K to Professional Booster]

Hey "Yes" to Toytown,

Neither I nor the Rays need to leave.

Thanks to POWW, a critical core of key political and business leaders have now seen their support of a new stadium crystalized.

The Rays will get a nice new stadium.

If it is in Pinellas, we will be better for that effort. Again, thanks to POWW.

If the new stadium is in the City, that will be EVEN better.

If it is on the waterfont, that will be YET EVEN MORE better.

P.S. Your bullying and name calling does not scare me.

[Don Mott]

" There has yet to be a team who moved and was issued a valid court order to return." Excuse me RRRick the team hadn't moved. "Of course the Rays could move to some other city and haggle over the amount of a settlement later." Excuse me RRRick why didn't the Sonics do that then? And amidst all of your other accomplishments are you an attorney too? "They cannot be stopped from moving". Excuse me RRRick but as I said the court never decided and if they had a chance of winning why did they agree to pay possibly $75 million? Keep spinning RRRick.

[Rick K to about settlement]

Don:

What are you saying, exactly?

You seem to be splitting hairs while granting my basic point.

There is nothing "legal" to stop the Rays from relocating to another city in another state.

Period.

Agree, or disagree?

[YES the villages at gateway fields]

Rrrrrrrickets

just when we were making progress

back to
BLOG BLOATING

always
SLAVISH

always
SYCOPHANT

[Frank]

Are you kidding about the rain-outs??

The entire Bosox series would have been called if it had been in the Rays’ proposed new sail stadium! Terrific thunder, lighting etc and none of that showed up on tv... just nice beach ads by the CVB!

But, how about those Rays!!!

[YES the villages at gateway fields]

Now if they could translate that ability to the executive offices we might be able to dig ourselves out of this stadium hole the execs dug.

[kyle]

Rick- you really are a jackizass obviously. Who repays our city for the money they spent on this preconceived, calculated manuever? Dude, your hopeful plan failed. Get over it. Move on. Go away till next time.

[The REAL Rick K]

Kyle.

Nice try with the name calling and the attempt to bully me into silence.

If these topics bore you, you don't have to come here. But you should know that you do not scare me and I will not be intimidated.

[since1962]

Kyle the Rays have done a great SERVICE for Pinellas exposing government waste and energizing the voters.

Partial repayment will come next election cycle when the perpetrators of this extortion attempt are removed from office along with staff.

[Clear Direction]

Oooohhhhh Riccckkkkyyy!

Jewww gottt some splainin to do!

Please show me where a single member of P.O.W.W. has ever stated that it will "cost millions of dollars" to clean up the Trop Site.

I believe that when P.O.W.W. held their press conference regarding the Trop site environmental situation their whole point was that No one knows what the cost to remediate the site might cost.

and that the City's record of estimating the possible cost of remediation was not stellar ( last time the estimate was $68,000.00 and the actual cost was $5,200,000.00)

in addition their has been little if any testing of the site west of Booker Creek.

I know you wouldn't be acusing Poww of distortions and lies if you didn't have the documentation to prove your position.

What say Ricky?

[Rick K to Clear Direction]

Thank you for your direct question Clear Direction. It will be interesting to see how you and other POWWers respond to my delineation of the many different POWW assertions that I find to be deceptive.

To your first question, check out this article by Aaron Sharockman, published in the St. Pete Times (both online and the print versions). The article is headlined, "Foes relentless in quest to shut out Tampa Bay Rays' stadium plans" (Times, April 13, 2008)

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/article454550.ece

Quoting the article, "Toxic dirt is sitting under the 86 acres that surround Tropicana Field. Dirt left over from an old municipal gas manufacturing plant.

Dirt so contaminated that it could cost millions of dollars, at least, to remove or clean. Dirt the city cannot afford to touch.

Have you heard this yet?

The dire warning isn't coming from the city, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or area scientists.

It is the work of POWW . . ."

Aaron shares this direct quotation,

" 'We're trying to derail it anyway we can,' said Hal Freedman, a leader of the group. "

Deeper in the same article Aaron reports,

"... city officials and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection say it is clear what's under Tropicana Field.

Kalt says the back and forth is another example of POWW stretching the truth.

Extensive testing during the original dome construction revealed an area of contaminated soil just east of Booker Creek, city and state officials say.

City internal services administrator Mike Connors said the contamination was so modest that regulators allowed the city to leave it soil in place, but the city decided to haul it away.

"A very modest amount of material remains there and is being monitored," Connors said.

The DEP agreed to the plan with the understanding the land would be covered with asphalt, spokeswoman Ana Gibbs said, and would not necessarily take a different view if the asphalt lots became concrete buildings. In general, though, a residential use is treated differently than a commercial one, she said.

In any case, Connors said, the city will insist to developers the city's potential liability is capped. A deal is unlikely if a developer doesn't agree, he said.

If true, it would effectively end Margeson's contention that the city could be left with a bill for millions of dollars.

But likely not her argument. "

NOW, before you try to pretend that POWW was merely raising legitimate questions, I caution you twice.

First, there are eleven separate posts in THESE very forums where POWW supporters or members have alleged that the cost of cleaning up the Trop will be millions.

Secondly, it is one thing (completely legitimate) to say that "We are not sure how much it will cost to clean up the Trop."

It is another thing to go from that assertion to baseless speculation, adding, "The cleanup could cost millions of dollars."

If there is no reasonable basis for such a claim (which there is not in this case, because the City was saying the figure was around $100 K), inserting fictional "millions" into the assertion is designed to do something very different from the first, more solid claim.

The first claim is intended to raise the issue of uncertainty. By attempting to quantify the uncertainty with no basis in fact, the group is practicing deception.

I have also pointed out that POWW's website includes links to newspaper articles repeating their hysterical fiction about the Trop site cleanup. But there are NO Links to articles which indicate the experts expect the clean up to cost around $100 K.

POWW could have posted on their website saying, "We are hopeful that the $108,000 figure for expected environmental cleanup at the Trop Field site is correct, even as we remain somewhat worried about unforseen contamination or costs that might be several times that amount."

Something along those lines would be a truthful and accurate portrayal of the evoloution of public knowledge on the environmental issue.

But that is not the route POWW opted to pursue. They opt to paint a picture that is contrary to the known facts, based entirely on speculation, hysterical, and designed to incite irrational fear.

FURTHER, in THIS thread
(http://blogs.tampabay.com/ballpark/2008/05/city-response-t.html#comments), POWW member Steve Lange says, "For the city to continue to hide from this issue, to sherk its responsibility, is no different than what they have done at Raytheon. They are hiding, blocking and minimizing our public safety and welfare, AGAIN."

Were these forums a court of law, Mr. Lange would not be allowed to make those baseless untrue accusations, and if he did utter them, he would face sanctions.

But this isn't a court of law. It is an open forum where POWW members have come for the past three months to distort, distract, deceive and delay.

A couple of posts after that gem from Steve Lange of POWW, Steve follows up with this tidbit, "My take is they (City) are hiding results, do not want to publicly document the contamination for fear of future land dealings, such as selling or developing the Trop land."

These allegations lack foundation. They are fictitious fantasies dreamt up and promogulated by POWW's membership.

In THIS thread (http://blogs.tampabay.com/ballpark/2008/05/sneak-peak-wedn.html#comments), POWW members offer more distortion, deception and exageration.

One says, "It was POWW I believe which brought to the public's attention that a deed restriction has been asked for by the FDEP since 2000 of the City of St. Petersburg.

The City of St. Pete has stonewalled the FDEP, a state agency, for over eight years on this matter.

How does the city get away with this?"

Then adds, "Talk about your state agency hiding from the public that they are sworn to protect.

What is going on here with this project.

Just who is getting paid off?"

Again, these statements would not be allowed in a court room, because they are untrue, without foundation, and highly prejudicial. That means they will have the effect of improperly influencing anyone who reads the words.

Another poster says, "You and the Times best come to your senses to save at least a modicum of credibility. The new stadium scheme is 100% public financing, period. The environemtal permits take months past the referendum, and finally the presumptiousness of the Rays and Council that the people can be fooled all the time is finally proving untrue. If the Council does not stop this in it's tracks now, we will all pay dearly for decades to come"

There is not an ounce of truth in that entire bit.

Again Clear Direction, you may wish to present a Bill Clinton defense where you try to parse and shimmy your way to freedom.

There are simply too many examples of attempts by POWW and their members to distort, deceive, distract and delay.

I have about 50 different issues. I have been downloading copies of POWW Webpages for weeks now.

If POWW were on trial for being deceptive, the overall assesment would easily be established that POWW intentionally strives to NOT present a full and accurate accounting of known facts, together with their suspicions and questions. They instead present things in a manner which HINDERS, rather than helps the truth.

[YES villages at gateway fields]

Rrricky
Rrrrrrrrickettes

Even you hedged your bets earlier
"no human being alive KNOWS...
tropicana contamination"

Vast areas of that site are UNEXAMINED.

The Republican controlled State DEP didn't insist on monitering and DEED RESTRICTIONS on a harmless "bit" of dirt.

I know; trust Mike Connors.

SLAVISH,SYCOPHANTIC,RAMBLINGS will not uncover the truth nor will Mike Connors.

[More from Rick K about POWW deceptions]

So, keeping a running tab now about POWW's multiple deceptions, distractions, distortions, straw man arguments, and other dishonorable tactics.

1. The name of their group is deceitful.

2. The Times recognizes that POWW is "relentless in quest to shut out Tampa Bay Rays' stadium plans attempts"

3. POWW's Hal Freedman admitted to The Times' that POWW is "trying to derail it (stadium proposal) anyway we can?"

4. POWW intentionally exagerated and fabricated claims about potential environmental problems at the Trop site.

5. POWW repeatedly attacks the motives, conduct, and propriety of professional public services, with no foundation.

6. POWW claims that the customary and legally appropriate non-public negotiations between the Rays and the City represents a "secret deal has been struck" without any evidence of such a deal.

7. POWW claims that the San Francisco Giants' stadium naming rights were sold for $600 Million (a figure which is more than 1000% higher than the actual figure).

8. POWW made false claims about the Rays payments of parking fees, under their lease agreement with the City?

9. POWW's website (filled with deception) includes links to articles in the Times which parrot concerns raised by POWW which were later disproven or satisfcatorily addressed.

10. POWW implies that the funding sources which had been proposed to finance a new stadium on the waterfront are coming from the same budget sources that fund firefighters, police, and programs for disadvantaged children.

11. POWW claims, "A common misconception is that a new downtown stadium is that a new downtown stadium would somehow be good for local business. In fact, a new waterfront ballpark combined with a huge retail center where the Trop is now would have a negative impact on downtown businesses, many of them already struggling," which is such an utter abomination of known economics principles to absolutely stun me.

12. Nowhere in the above (or in ANY public statements by POWW) does POWW indicate that majorities of downtown businesses they are concerned about are IN FAVOR of the Rays proposals.

13. Nowhere in any POWW statements or website does POWW point out that a study undertaken by one of the World's most credible professonal accounting firms (PriceWaterhouse Coopers) has found that the Rays have an economic impact totaling about $112 million per year.

14. POWW's website says, "To fit the giant stadium where Al Lang is now,"

Which is intentionally deceptive. First, the stadium will be the smallest stadium in Major League Baseball. Second, the stadium will be MUCH smaller than the Trop. Third, the stadium proposal would not only take Al Lang stadium's footprint, but also the horrendously ugly and eco-unfriendly acres of surface parking lots to the North of the new ballpark. These parking lots would be partially replaced with openly accessible public parklands that would INCREASE the amount of usuable parkspace on the Waterfront.

15. POWW's website says, "the Rays plan to dredge and fill the Bay to make more room."

This is still on the website, despite the fact that the Rays have released revised plans which call for minimal dredge and fill, replaced with a system of concrete pillars.

16. POWW's website says, "They (Rays) plan to dump the equivalent of 1 foot concrete blocks stacked over 25 miles high into the Bay right near a freshwater spring that supports federally endangered manatee and seagrass beds."

The 25 mile figure is fictitious garbage which greatly exagerates the amount of actual concrete to be placed in the bay. POWW mentions "federally endangered manatee and seagrass beds" to invoke irrational fear. POWW knows that the Rays commissioned a study of the impact their design would have on Marine life and the preliminary professional analysis of the experts indicates no appreciable harm to manatees.

17. POWW's website says, "This will take .6 acres of the Bay and turn it into land."

Which, of course, is untrue. The Rays current design calls for essentially building a bridge like structure where the road would extend OVER the surface of the water, resting on concrete pillars sunk into the floor of the bay. It is actually likely that this construction will IMPROVE marine habitat.

18. POWW's website says, "Because the Basin is too shallow for the thousands of cubic yards of dirt to be barged in, expect to see hundreds of dump trucks driving through our downtown City streets for months."

The amount of dirt AND concrete involved could be moved in a few days, not months.

There are many more, of course...

[YES villages at gateway fields]

Rrrrrrickettes

You have NO respect for
GRASSROOTS OPPOSITION

You have NO respect for our
POLITICAL SYSTEM

You have NO respect for our
ECOLOGY

You have NO respect for our
ECONOMY

You have NO respect for
TAXPAYERS

[Kyle]

Edith, er, Rick-
Ever watch All in the Family. Dude, you are Edith.

[Rick K]

Kyle, I have been scratching my head for awhile. I can't think of ANY connection between my conduct in these forums and the character Edith Bunker.

I am not mostly quiet and dominated by my husband, or anyone else in these forums. It's possible that you meant the remark either as a compliment or as some pure observation without intent to compliment or criticize, but I still don't see it.

It doesn't hurt my feelings, I just don't GET how I am Edith.

The Villages at Gateway Fields
will be an ideal location

1)VIABLE LOCATION

2)REASONABLE TIMELINE

3)POLITICAL SUPPORT

The three missing elements from last proposal according to BOCC Chair Bob Stewart and
78% polled.

The reclaimed site being developed by experts in THAT field...
Trumps the dubious LEED claims of the former proposal
and will combine TWO GREEN COMMUNITIES at ST Petersburgs GATEWAY accsssible to surrounding counties.

The timeline will allow gestation of and FULL community involvment in the proposal.

Bed Tax funding is complex as the Rays discovered TOO late.
Many communities collect it and have SOME say in its dispersal.Understanding and RESPECTING our LONG RUNNING ECONOMIC ENGINE OUTSIDE OF BASEBALL and baseballs RELATIVE importance will build the political support NECESSARY among politcans. The damage may be irreparable with the voters on whom those politicans depend.

Following up to yesterday's posts wherein I was presenting a running tabulation of POWW's multiple deceptions, distractions, distortions, straw man arguments, and other dishonorable tactics.

#19 - POWW's website dishonestly says, POWW " is a group of concerned St Petersburg residents from all walks of life (and from all parts of town) who have decided to work together to provide the community with information regarding the proposed development of the Tropicana site and new baseball stadium at the current Al Lang Field."

This Intro makes it sound like the group sees it's primary mission as providing as much information as possible to the public, so that everyone will be well informed of issues related to the stadium. Of course, the real objective of POWW was and is to PREVENT the stadium from being built at Al Lang field. Their group's aim isn't to provide information to help the public, it is to distort and shape SOME information, while intentionally hiding other information, with the intent of DECEIVING the public.

20 - POWW's website says, "Development on the Trop site might indeed benefit the taxpayers in the long term."

If that is true, (Which it is, in the estimation of everyone capable of adding numbers), then how on earth does opposing the stadium and it's long term benefits "preserve the wallets" of St Pete citizens?

21 - POWW's website says, "Further, any property tax revenue generated from such development (0f the Trop Site) will not come immediately, if at all.

This is false. If a private developer were to purchase the Tropicana Field property (say for $70 million dollars), property taxes are now due on that site, according to the schedule for collection of property taxes. AND, the taxes will be assessed on $70 million dollars, which is the market value of the land, as evidenced by the fact that the sophisticated developers just paid that amount for the land.

In telling this lie, POWW is being extremely dishonest. POWW's leadership includes attorneys, former City Council members, Architects, and Realtors. ALL of these people KNOW that property taxes are due on privately owned land, beginning when the land becomes privately owned. If they don't know, then they are incompetent to serve in those professional capacities.

22 - POWW's website says, " . . . giving away what is possibly the most valuable piece of property the City owns?"

Which is an intentional distortion. The proposal did not call for the land to be given to the Rays. Instead, it would be retained by the public. As to the value of the land, there is no way that 14 acres is as valuable as the 50 plus acres at Albert Whited, which most all of POWW's leaders did not want to see developed.

The Rays proposal called for replacing the outdated, insiginificant, grossly underutilized Al Lang field, together with several acres of ugly, environmentally horrendous asphalt parking lots and ugly single story offices (housing Minor League Baseball operations), with a new ballpark, new office and retail space, underground parking, and usable public park lands which will increas the amount of publicly usable park space on the City's downtown waterfront.

POWW intentionally tries to pretend that the land at Al Lang will be given to the Rays, as compared to the actual proposal wherein the public retains ownership of the land.

23, 24, 24 - POWW's website says, "the financial impact, abuse of the process, and loss of our fantastic, public waterfront are most troubling."

(23) The financial impact of the proposals, to start, would have caused a billion dollars to be spent in downtown on construction projects ($450 Million at the new waterfront stadium, and $550 Million in gauranteed phase I of the Trop Site redevelopment project). So the "financial impact" of the Rays proposals would be a huge plus for the city and it's merchants, workers, and taxpayers.

(24) There has been no "abuse of process."
Were there abuse of process, members of POWW would be able to trigger an investigation or efforts to remove from office those who violated the law. POWW pretends their was abuse of process, knowing full well that Florida Law eanticipates and authorizes negotiations between the city and the Rays to be conducted outside of public view.

(25) The Rays' did not propose anything that could reasonably be described as "destroying" the public waterfront. There will not be LESS waterfront when the Rays stadium is built. In fact, there will be MORE publicly usable parkland on the waterfront, and MORE valued community amentities which are destined to bring MORE people to the city's waterfront to enjoy it.

26, 27 - POWW's website says, "There is likely to be some long-term benefit to the City in redeveloping the Trop site, in total or in part. However, the taxpayers won't see those benefits for several decades."

(26) Just one or two paragraphs previous to this admission, POWW's website says, "Development on the Trop site might indeed benefit the taxpayers in the long term." About 100 words later, POWW changes their tune, admitting that the prospects of the City seeing benefits from the project "IS LIKELY."

This suggests two things. People who are intentionally promogulating things that they KNOW are not true find it very difficult to lie consistently, and usually slip up and let out what they know to be the truth. Secondly, this admission means that POWW's objective will not result in "preservation of Wallets."

By opposing the stadium, POWW aims to deprive the City of the benefits that are likely to come from the project.

(27) The "several decades" deception is one of the most aegregious lies promoted by POWW. First, the Rays proposal called for $450,000,000 (or more) to be spent on a waterfront stadium, beginning in 2009, and continuing until 2013. Large portions of the money will be spent to employ construction workers who will be building the stadium. These people will be working at the site, eating meals in St. Pete, buying drinks downtown, paying taxes, and adding to the local economy. Those benefits come to the City commencing immediately when construction starts. In addition to the Waterfront Stadium, Another $550 million or so in construction activity will take place just a few blocks to the West, at the Tropicana field site. POWW lies in saying that $1 BILLION in construction activity in downtown will not generate benefits for "several decades."

28, 29, 30 - POWW's website says, "All the sales proceeds, and perhaps more of the City's money, will go into environmental clean-up of the Trop site, demolition of the old Dome, and utilities infrastructure"

(28) Again, POWW is making claims that do not accurately reflect the proposals put forth by the Rays and City staff. City Staff has said, publicly that they expect environmental cleanup of the Trop to cost around $110,000, and they know of no other existing areas of significant contamination on the 86 acre Trop Field site.

(29) The Trop Field site developer proposed paying for demolition of the dome.

(30) And NO STUDY produced by anyone has indicated that the City would be required to spend $70 Million dollars on infrastructure.

POWW simply fabricated a lie from whole cloth and put it out there.

31, 32 - POWW's website says, "Any funds left over will be part of the City's $300,000,000 contribution to construction of the new stadium"

(31) In the PREVIOUS SENTENCE, they informed us that "all the sale proceeds, and perhaps more City money" will go to all these other things. Now, POWW says there will be funds left over.

(32) POWW also says that the City's contribution to the new stadium will be $300,000,000. That is an absolute lie. The financing plan proposed by the Rays, and presented by City Staff to the City Council as an outline of the likely deal, showed that the City's contribution to a new stadium would be NOWHERE near $300 Million.

33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - POWW's website says, "the rest of (new stadium) construction will be funded by $150,000,000 from the Rays, which is actually a pre-payment of 30 years rent -- our money -- and debt.

(33) The Rays proposed contributing $150,000,000 towards the capital costs of stadium construction

(34) AND the Rays proposed gauranteeing that they would pay for any additional construction costs over $450 Million. POWW deliberately hides this detail, because it sheds positive light on the Rays and removes much of the public risk of the project.

(35) The Rays have said repeatedly, notably in public testimony before the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners, that their $150,000,000 contribution to construction and the construction cost cap are NOT PAYMENTS in Lieu of rent. POWW perpetuates this lie intentionally to deceive.

(36) POWW pretends that Rent the Rays would volunteer to pay, over and above what the Team currently pays at the Trop somehow belongs to POWW or the citizens of St. Pete. The Rays and the City both said they expected a lease agreement for the new stadium to closely resemble the existing lease for the Trop, and that the $150,000,000 contribution and construction cost cap gaurantee is money the Rays are voluntarily paying as their contribution to the costs of building the new stadium.

(37) By slipping in the "debt" portion the way they did, POWW seeks to deceive. Nearly ALL of the City's contribution to the Stadium construction will be paid from the proceeds of debt instruments which the City will pay back over time. This is precisely the mechanism by which nearly every commerical or public real estate development in the country is funded. Further, if POWW gave the "debt" concept more prominence, this would serve to COUNTER their false argument that City Budgets will be immediatley squeezed because of the New Stadium project.

38 to 47 - POWW's website says, "All of the City's share of property tax and sales tax revenues generated by redevelopment of the Trop site will go to pay off that debt for decades to come"

(38) There has been no analysis made public which says that ALL of the City's tax revenues from the Trop Field redevelopment will be needed for debt service. IN actual fact, every study or set of projections which has been presented publicly indicates that the City will receive ADDITIONAL tax revenues, beyond their projected debt service costs.

(39) This state