Al Lang off limits?

The City Council has been talking about rezoning Al Lang Field as a protected waterfront park for about a year.

Now Council member Karl Nurse is raising the stakes, suggesting the council reduce the height limit of what can be built at Al Lang. And it seems his colleagues are on board.

At least five council members said they would seriously consider the proposal this week.

"There is obviously a portion of the community that is very avid in wanting it to be parkland and as least developed as possible," said Council member Jim Kennedy.

Only Council member Bill Dudley wants to leave Al Lang as is. The other two council members, Wengay Newton and Herb Polson, could not immediately be reached for comment.

This latest turn of events could be the final death sentence to the Rays' waterfront stadium plan. By approving the measure, the council would be sending a message that Al Lang is off limits to major development.

"This is our unique waterfront," said Council member Jeff Danner, who supports reducing the height limit of about 300 feet to less than 70 feet.

City officials had previously said they would hold off on making any changes to Al Lang until the Rays' plans were more concrete.

On the other hand, no matter what, the Rays could get their waterfront stadium if it is approved in a voter referendum.

And the council won't be making a decision on the height limit any time soon, so waterfront stadium fans have reason to keep hope alive.

The council is set to discuss Al Lang's future Thursday, and will most likely refer the matter to committee without taking any action.

Comments

[Clear Direction]

To me, since City Council has asked staff to take the first step at looking at changing the Al Lang site from DC-3 to DCP (which they voted to do last month)it only makes sense to also take a look at making a change to the Height Map.

The maximum height specified under the DCP zoning is 50' and up to 75' with a variance. It would only make sense to consider ajusting the height map to make it consistant with the new zoning height limits.

If the Height Map was left at it's current 300' limit it would only cause confusion and possible litigation.

Clear

[John]

A little poetic justice that the Rays stole Spring Training from this city for no good reason other than their rushed quest of greed, and are now facing the likelyhood that the site they so desired is about to be taken away from them for good. Karma works.

It's time to tear down Al Lang Field and transform the property into Al Lang Waterfront Park.

Would make a great permanent home for the Sat Morn Market too.

[since1962]

Political Cover does not require a 300 foot mast.

The waterfront parcels were assembled long ago with few intrusions allowed.

The record is clear on what was promised by council and what citizens have demanded with LDR rewrites, VISION 2020 and muliple charrettes!

Protect Al Lang Park from intense development AND REDUCE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT.

[Rick K]

Yes sure. All you ridiculous kool-aid drinking anti's have yet to meet the basic challenge. Come up with a plan to replace the billion dollars in construction and the billions in economic benefits from the waterfront ballpark, and some of us MIGHT take you seriously.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

To All Posters...after reading ALL the posts pointing out the arrogance, ignorance and malicious juvenile attacks perpetrated by Rick K. I realize I am already preaching to the choir. Basically all of St. Petersburg has come to realize what a desperate loser Rick K has morphed into...from the beginning when he tried to present rational disagreements with the prevailing desires of our community (read the St. Pete Times poll) recognize why the Rays pulled Rick's paired proposals...to the present when he can only engage in ad hominem absurd attacks on POWW.

I hate to waste anymore blog space...but forgive me it's just too much fun..Rick is such a joke. Let's examine his past two posts...he said in quotes...

"I will soon find myself without time to post on these blogs. My hope is that some will come here with ignorance, and read back through the many weeks' worth of threads."

Well it is easy to understand why he would hope "some will come here with ignorance"..if he is leaving he must leave somebody just as ignorant to take his place.

Then there is his repeated insults of POWW which ironically enough characterize his own behavior perfectly...

"They were committed to trying to cheat the public. All those who might look to POWW as an honest broker of truth would discover exagerations, distortions, distractions, straw man arguments, and a whole host of other deceptions."

Of course Rick defines himself as an honest broker of truth even though he has lied, prevaricated, and distorted for the past two months..growing even more malicious as he realized he was truly in the minority.

"Not content to merely point out that a relative handful of academics take the unproven position that public subsidies of sports stadia produce negative economic benefits, the POWWians tried to tell everyone that there was near UNIVERSAL agreement amongst economists against public subsidies."

This is an abolute lie combined with his incredibly ignorant misinformation.
POWW never claimed there was near UNIVERSAL agreement...however the group did list well over a dozen hyperlinks(there are literally dozens more)to various INDEPENDENT studies by academics with no motive to manipulate the numbers and with plenty of accreditation to counter Rick's few examples of studies done by MLB and other franchise owners and business boosters like the Chamber of Commerce notorious for producing studies that confirm their predetermined conclusions. Of course Rick K.'s pea brain isn't large enough to grasp the concept of "conflict of interest"

"The list of POWW's deceptions, distractions and distortions numbers in the hundreds"

This is another perfect example of how Rick K. has sacrificed any semblance of an intelligent response with such an exagerrated response. Hyperbole was one gift Rick K. mastered. "numbers in the hundreds" You are a sad joke Rick.

"patently false claims about how many manatees and "vital" sea grasses would be murdered, or repeatedly calling the Rays ownership "carpetbaggers" and "criminals,"

This contains at least one lie and more distortion. Nobody associated with POWW officially ever called Rays ownership "criminals". That's not exagerration but a LIE!!!
As far as "carpetbagger" -any opportunistic or exploitive outsider...that is a subject for legitimate debate. They are certainly outsiders...they are obviously opportunistic..and many feel them to be exploitive! As far as the environment..the Rays had their environmental firm make a presentation to the Bay Area for Water Management in the spring and were chastised for insufficient information and a lack of preparation. In a deferential move the ABC gave the Rays an extension until May to come up with the REAL data. The Rays blew them off and wrote a dismissive letter to a member of city council. The Rays NEVER addressed ANY environmental concerns real or imagined.

"the spark that ignited my passion was the concerted effort by a small band of thugs to cheat the public by hijacking a fair and honest debate."

That's just great Rick. Call people with LEGITIMATE questions and opinions THUGS and CHEATERS...that shows the depth of intelligence in most of your responses. If you don't have enough facts or are simply losing...as you did you loser...engage in ad hominem attacks..your speciality. And as for "small group" we'll add physical blindness to your list of deficiencies unless you never visit St. Petersburg except to see a ballgame. Those thousands of red signs all had POWW on them and hardly were representative of a small band. In fact only a dysfuntional idiot like you would fail to realize WHY the Rays pulled their proposal....why City Council is now finally prepared to honor commitments made in Vision 20/20 and the recent LDR rewrites...why BOCC candidates are against the bed tax going to the Rays.

Rick you moron...you set up POWW as the staw man...you called anybody with an opinion different than your's ANTI..
It wasn't POWW that defeated your idiotic rants about "paired proposals" it was the 69% in that St. Pete Times Poll..it was the thousands of red signs...it was the results of the secret polls the Rays must have surely conducted leading them to pull the deal off the table. RICK YOU POMPOUS, SUPERCILIOUS, LOSER, IT WAS THE CITIZENS OF ST PETERSBURG WHO DID THIS TO YOU NOT POWW!!!

[Paul]

Truly Concerned, nice post. I think that about hits the nail right on the head.

I'm still wondering about the 'glitch ordinance' that Council was supposed to fix sometime last year or so... never did hear what happened to that. How much more do they need to hear from the citizens on making Al Lang a park or something useful to the community, namely a spot for the Saturday Morning Market. Now that would be cool!

[since1962]

Paul
You SHOULD hear 'glitch ord' promised fix discussion at city council today. Chan. 615 Bright House! Political Cover for some and citizenship 101 for others...

If Land Development Regulation rewrites,Vision 2020, multiple charrettes and the hundreds of people who spoke at council didn't send a clear enough message then voters will have to wait for the next election or 'recall' another method...

[Thomas]

Hey Kool Aid,

You might as well say that a new waterfront ballpark will cure cancer, end world hunger, and give puppies to sick children.

After all, that's about as accurate as saying the stadium will generate billions in economic benefits for the city.

Or maybe you weren't paying attention to what the Trop promised versus what it actually delivered.

[since1962]

Nice 'presentation' by Julie Weston at todays council meeting. No action taken just typical duck and cover by council!

56 'emails' opposing Al Lang Park designation and yet ANOTHER workshop required for the Wizards on council to "understand ramifications"
Apparently system not logging the volumes of emails Howard Troxler has mentioned in his columns and the 65000+ POWW site visitors must have formed a knitting club instead!

One of those council clowns asked legal if voter referendum was required to change zoning!

Wengay tried abstaining from workshop vote but when told that was not allowed he snarled his NO!

The rest of council didn't feel it necessary to mention that they had recieved considerably more than 56 emails regarding Al Lang park designation!

I guess they want MORE!

council@stpete.org

[Paul]

So Council is again stalling. No surprise.

[Full Bladder]

Time to dump on the City and City Council for their new stall tactic. This includes Julie Weston.

It is not that they do not understand.

It is that they do understand and they are trying to have it their way.

Time to empty our bladders.

[Rick K about Thomas]

Thomas, you have no idea what you are writing about.

First, silly, the Trop never promised anything.

Second, my goofy friend, when are you going to get this straight. Because YOU choose to embrace an untrue fantasy does not equate to that fantasy suddenly being true.

It's really simple. If the proposed wallfront ballpark was built as proposed, and the Trop field site was redeveloped as outlined, the two projects together would have resulted in more than a BILLION dollars in construction in downtown St. Pete.

That Billion dollars, together with it's multiplied and indirect economic effects, added to the more than $100 million each year the Rays produce in economic benefits, over 30 years, would add up to BILLIONS of dollars in economic benefits.

Thomas, I know you love your fantasy. But the rest of us aren't swayed by the silly stuff that is in your head, especially when it deviates from what we know and can reasonably expect.

Got it?

[since1962]

council@stpete.org

or a resealable ziplock if you MUST take F Bladders advice literally!

ps: Julie Weston IS an administration HACK but DID give a FULL and INFORMATIVE presentation albeit far too late in the process.

[Thomas]

Rick,

You're a loon.

"City officials said the stadium (Tropicana Field) would revitalize the area, attracting businesses and jobs. It never quite happened. City leaders agree that the stadium didn't produce the projected economic benefits"
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/28/Rays/Tropicana_Field_deal_.shtml

This is fun too:
"Secondly, the Rays appear to be acknowledging what a growing number of economists - and voters - are concluding: The days of viewing sports stadiums as economic revitalization machines may be coming to an end. The Rays' front office is refraining from pie-in-the-sky projections about often-cited ripple effects from a new downtown stadium. "We think that stuff will happen, but we're not quantifying it and using it as economic justification for the deal," Kalt said

Even the Rays don't agree with you Kool Aid. The only one clinging to this pipe dream of a stadium being an economic engine is you.

[Rick K about Economic Impact]

A couple of regular posters in these blogs (who call themselves Thomas and Don Mott) repeatedly make ridiculous assertions in these spaces about the economic benefits from pro sports teams and pro sports facilties.

Because I have a few minutes to spare and know a thing or two about this topic, it strikes me that it might be helpful to some readers who will stumble upon this blog weeks or months from now, if I were to use a few minutes to refute these false assertions of Don Mott and Thomas (and others like them) relating to the economic benefits from the Rays MBL team.

First, there are two schools of thought amongst economists and others who engage in the activity of trying to measure economic impact. Roughly 95% to 99% of these professionals embrace the laws of economic and value actual research conducted to test and validate assumptions. These economists (of which I am one) believe that a particular sports team or stadium may or may not produce positive economic benefits. The only way we can answer the questions we have about a specific team or stadium is to actually look at the data.

Competent professionals who assemble and examine data about economic impact come to different conclusions for each and every study they perform. Sometimes it is determined that a team yields $45 million a year in positive ecnomic benefits. A different team may produce $150 million a year in the local economy. A particular stadium deal may return $75 million a year to the local community, while another stadium deal may actually be a LOSING proposition.

This surprises no one even folks who know nothing about economics. In every profession, it makes the most sense to actually examine the specifics of a particular case, if you want to know with any certainty what the facts are in the case. Most economists are no different.

Sadly, though, there are a very small group of economists who dispute the value of examining specifics. These fringe academics (who are regarded by most serious economists as Quacks) also dispute the value of the laws of economics and the scientific method.

More plainly stated, there are a very small relative number of economists and academics who believe that professional sports teams and sports venues always (or nearly always) produce NEGATIVE economice effects in their local economies.

The best way I can describe it to someone who doesn't get excited by reading about economics is to compare it to small number of college professors and scientists who are convinced that Intergallactic Alien beings live on planet earth. You know, the sorts of people who think the Men In Black movies were documentaries. The scientists who write articles and books and show up on the occasional TV or radio program to assert that they have "proof" that George W. Bush is actually from the planet Orgensnick.

In every human endeavor, there are quacks. People who just refuse to believe in verifiable fact and instead commit their lives to believing in unproven fantasy.

The field of economics is no different.

There are a small number of economists (I don't know the total number, it's somewhere between 50 and a couple of hundred, maybe, out of tens of thousands of economists worldwide) who believe that professional sports teams cost their local areas more than they generate or stimulate in the way of spending.

All these quacks feed off each other's "work." One writes a crazy, unsupportable study (which abandons known economic theory and leaves science far behind), and the others rush to applaud it. The next quack authors a different study, referencing the first. This continues in an incestuous manner of repeating cycles, until, eventually, one of the Quacks cites the fact that the Quacks have produced 100 studies as "proof" that the studies are right! If you take time to read the studies, you see that none of them prove their main assertions. They mostly just reference each other's work and pretend that this is the same as actually checking data.

Here are some quick examples.

Economists attempted to measure the economic impact to the City of Cincinnati, Ohio, from an NFL Football team and a Major League Baseball team who both played home games in the City. The economists gathered loads of data, subjected it to scientific analysis, and concluded that the Reds and Bengals both contributed tens of millions of dollars to the City's economy, which, according to the laws of economics, would not have come to the city, if the teams didn't play there.

Now, along came a couple of the quacks. They ignored the work of the economists who had actually measured things like increased hotel expenditures, increased restaurant purchases, and all the rest. Instead, they attempted to measure the overall economic growth rate of the entire metropolitan area surrounding Cincinnati. This metro area included parts of Kentucky, Indiana, and four Ohio counties. Right away, you can see a problem. The first study attempted to measure, among other things, how much the sports teams impacted the City. The second study attempted to measure total economic conditions which were influenced by thousands of factors, for a much larger area than the City.

Even though the Cincy Metro area economy grew during the years examined by the Quacks, and even though there were multiple (nearly countless) factors that impacted overall economic growth in the region, the Quacks compared the Cincy Regional performance to two regions they picked out that didn't have similar sports teams. These two regions selected by the Quacks had little in common with the Cincinnati region (which derived a great deal of it's income from durable goods manufacturing, farming, and agricultural processing). The Quacks pointed out that the other two regions they selected had slighty higher growth rates than the Cincinatti area did. They said that this proved, beyond doubt that the Cincy Tri State area's slightly lower rate of economic growth was the direct result of the pro sports teams in the city. Thus, the quacks said, the pro sports teams actually COST the region more than the team gave back.

Interestingly, the QUACK study made no attempt to calculate how much the team gave back, or how many dollars were attracted to and spent in the region because of the teams. Instead, they pointed to a very small difference in total economic growth and blamed that on the Bengals and Reds. They did this even though Cincinatti was undergoing a transition from an "old" manufacturing economy to a newer, more diversified economy. General Motors had closed automotive plants. General Electric had closed airplane parts plants. The Linder companies had relocated some of their agricultural distribution facilities outside the region, and all these facts were ignored by the Quacks.

Precictably, other quacks rushed out to applaud the second Cincy study. They cheered and they cheered. They said that it proved that the pro sports teams actually HARMED the local economy.

Nearly everyone ignored the quacks. Well, that isn't true. Nearly everyone found no merit in their wild, baseless claims.

The people of Cincinnati found that their claims were meritless. So did the Ohio Legislature, and the courts.

In short, nearly everyone whose judgement mattered dimissed the "conclusions" of the quacks as unsupported claims, as crazy and wild an assertion as that made by the "there are aliens among us" crowd.

And so it has gone, over the years.

Cities, states, counties, business leaders, team owners, newspapers, and academics interested in the topic have all combined their efforts, over the last 30 years or so, to perform hundreds of studies attempting to use the laws of economics to determine how big is the impact from a particular thing. How much does an International Airport contribute to the local economy? How much does the pro Hockey team add to local coffers, if any? How much money does a College Bowl game bring to a local economy, and does that influx of money justify the cost of hosting the game?

Reasonable governments and business groups seek to answer these questions all the time. They engage competent, independent professionals who go to work. These folks present their findings and ask other scientists and professionals to critique them.

There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of these studies in the last three decades. Not every study produces the same answers. Sometimes, professional analysis leads economists to the conclusions that certain entities cost more (in dollars) than they contribute. Always, though, there is a devotion to keeping the analysis within the confines of reasonable application of economics.

Except for the Quacks. The quacks are bound by nothing. Not by economics. Not by science. Not by truth.

The Quacks now make wild, unsupportable claims. NO less than 20 of the "links" the quack lovers in these blogs have posted to so called "studies" all quote the same huge lie. They assert that there is "near universal agreement among economists that public subsidies of sports stadiums do not produce positive economic benefits" for their regions.

Not only has there never been a single study that presented results of surveys of the opinions of economists on this question, the body of work produced by those who have sought to actually measure the economic impact of various individual projects or enterprises prove EXACTLY the opposite of what the Quacks claim.

No one has yet published a survey indicating that they asked 2000 economists familiar with econonmic impact studies, and 1986 of them agreed with the position that sports are losers for their local economies.

Yet the Quacks assert (over and over and over and over) that it is true.

Now, the quack lovers here in St. Pete, who include Don Mott and Thomas, love to say, over and over and over and over, that there are "dozens" (or sometimes, "hundreds") of studies which "prove" that sports (teams or stadiums, or both) cost more than they produce or attract in dollars.

In truth, there has not been a single study which proved anything remotely like that.

There have been studies by the quacks which make the CLAIM. But they do not offer proof. Sometimes, their only proof is to assert that since other Quacks found it to be true, it is true everywhere.

It's time to wrap this up, because I have gone on far longer than I intended. In the case of the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team, which plays home games in St Pete, there have been a couple of studies which attempted to measure the economic impact of the Rays on the City and County.

There have been no known studies of the Rays done by the Quacks.

Both the studies we know about which attempted to measure the economic impact of the Rays indicated (very conservatively) that the Rays are responsible for adding TENS OF MILLIONS of dollars to the local economy each year.

Thomas and Don Mott want everyone to pretend those studies have not been performed. They want to point to various articles and claims by the "Quack Corps" and offer this as "proof" that the Rays actually diminish the local economy.

Obviously, that is silly.

[Rick K about Thomas]

Thomas, no one disputes that the design and location of the Tropicana Dome have made it impossible that the dreamt for urban renewal would be realized in the manner many had hoped.

That happens to be a reason to SUPPORT these paired redevelopment proposals, which would finally correct that horrendous mistake.

Secondly, you are a funny boy. You humorously use the Ray's reluctance to try to build their case for public support mostly on economics (which most citizens do not understand or trust) as "proof" that economics do not justify the community investment.

You do crack me up.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K.

Why do you continue to ignore facts?

FACT: Archstone Madison responded with an enthusiastic yes when asked by Councilperson Leslie Curran if they were interested in doing the redevelopment with the Dome IN PLACE!!!

IN OTHER WORDS RICK IT WAS ONLY YOU AND THE GREEDY RAYS OWNERSHIP WHO INSISTED THESE WERE PAIRED PROPOSALS!!!

We could have the redevelopment and still keep the most valuable piece of waterfront real estate in Tampa Bay for ourselves instead of simply GIVING IT AWAY FREE OF CHARGE.

Now nobody will argue with you that if we wish to develop the waterfront it could produce more tax flow and redevelopment. There are any number of uses for that parcel other than a stadium that could produce even more revenue, without requiring GIVING the property away FREE OF CHARGE!!!

However society sometimes chooses to place value on more than simply "economics" as you point out. Otherwise there would be no such thing as Central Park in New York. The fact that Mr. Kalt has a history of taking parkland from the citizenry in New York...ask Bronx residents how they feel about him..doesn't necessarily make it a great investment!!!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

To Rick K.,

Since my earlier post showed how you exaggerate and distort and you had no answer for my line by line specific points to your gross mistatements...how can you possibly expect us to believe ANYTHING you say.

You call experts..QUACKS...Rick K. you can't simply call yourself an EXPERT economist. You have used sooo much hyperbole you have ruined your credibility...and it's funny you use my old hometown of Cincinnati where they are currently in litigation with the Bengals because of unfulfilled promises...It's a place I visit 2-3 x a year and I walk across the purple bridge and feel sooo saddened by what two stadiums and an arena have done to what was once a beautiful waterfront and what is now simply an ugly wall of stadia!!!

So Rick your earlier posts and rants against POWW..the Anti's..Don and Thomas have destroyed your credibility.
I have done just as much research as you on the subject and can state unequivocally that your claims about the studies being viewed as quackery are simply not true. Is there some disagreement YES..but your hyperbole is
so over the top as to render your opinion useless.

You seem to have no concept of "conflict of interest" and there is a huge difference between studies performed BEFORE the stadium and studies AFTER the fact that examine decades of hard, factual, historical data.

[Thomas]

"First, silly, the Trop never promised anything"

"no one disputes that the design and location of the Tropicana Dome have made it impossible that the dreamt for urban renewal would be realized in the manner many had hoped"

So which is it Kool Aid? Did they not promise the Trop would renew the area -or- was it not realized in the manner many had hoped. It can't be both.

But I do like the way you abandon your original idea and just spin to a new faux rational.

I also like the way keep referring to the "paired redevelopment plan" - you should ammend your phrase though; it should read "the failed idea of a paired redevelopment plan"

[Rick K]

A Truly Concerned, just a recommendation. In the spirit of friendship.....

Chill.

Your venom is probably misplaced here. These proposals were originally paired. They were developed at the same time and presented as being dependent upon one another.

Now the proposals have been split. They are not paired, but they were. Why pretend otherwise? Why pretend the proposals were never paired? The City considered them paired proposals. So did the Times, the Trib, and most adults who were paying attention. Your assertion that only the Rays and I considered the proposals paired is factually incorrect.

I expect better from you.

I grant that the proposals can now proceed independently of each other to a degree that was not originally envisioned.

I ignore no relevant facts, as far as I can tell. Your insistence that these proposals were never paired is not a fact. It is an untruth.

Further, contrary to your incorrect assertion, neither the Rays nor the City staff proposed giving the current Al Lang site away. The proposal was to enhance the site by spending about $500 million there, increasing it's value, economically and in other ways.

My use of the term "enhance" is not factual. It is my opinion. As is your contrary opinion that the proposed waterfront redevelopment would somehow worsen the City. There are two competing opposite viewpoints. Which is why it would have been better if the people had the chance to vote.

And while that vote may still happen someday, you don't do POWW or the ANTI cause any favors by pretending that untruths are facts or asserting that your opinions are "right."

It is likely, Truly Concerned, that the originally paired proposals, if developed simultaenously, would have produced a certain snyergistic outcome not achieveable by splitting the projects into two completely separate pursuits.

It was proposed that the Rays spend at least $150 million up front, and that they continue to spend tens of millions of dollars each and every year to operate the team's business in the ballpark. This is very, very far removed from the lie you are trying to peddle, that the Rays proposed that the site would be given away to them "Free of Charge."

Why lie about it?

Everyone knows you are lying. You gain nothing of value by lying about this. Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year is not transferring ownership "Free of Charge!"

Here is the bottom line, ATrulyConcernedCitizen.

There are differing opinions about whether the proposed ballpark and proposed Tropicana field redevelopment would make the City better or not. There are differing opinions about whether the amount of public investment in these projects was worth the cost, or not. There are differing opinions about whether the economic and non-economic benefits and costs of these various competing proposals are worth it, or not.

We may or may not ever vote on that location. It may be that the ABC Coalition comes up with a better plan for the community and the team, and a majority might like their plan. I don't know.

But apart from that unknowable question, I can't really figure out why you are so hellbent on lying that you get worked up and belt out your lies at the top of your lungs.

All I can figure is that POWWians simply don't know how to tell the full and complete truth when discussing these matters.

I think it is sad and unfortunate, but correctable. All you have to do is come into the light! Trust the truth. It will set you free, my friend.

[Rick K]

Thomas, the stadium never promised anyone anything, which is what you asserted. That is why I called you silly.

There were, without doubt, some who thought that building the Trop with the location and design that they used would create certain benefits which have not come to fruition. However, there were many at that time who believed that the reason the hoped for benefits would not come to be was because of flaws in the stadium design and location.

I was one of those people, Thomas.

And that is the single biggest reason I enthusiastically supported the twin notions of redeveloping the Trop site simultaneously with redeveloping Al Lang field. THOSE design and location decisions would allow us to realize the dreams of urban renewal we all longed for, but which the Trop design made impossible.

[Thomas]

Wait, wait, wait ! This is just too good to ignore:

From the Ricker:

1. "they continue to spend tens of millions of dollars each and every year to operate the team's business in the ballpark."

2. "Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year"

There were never any lease terms published. Kool Aid just made up operation costs and lease payments. Literally, he just conjured them out of the clear blue sky. Then he went on some rant about the truth setting you free. How priceless is that combo.

If the lease is anything like the one the Rays enjoy at the Trop, the team would not be paying much of anything.

[Rick K]

Thomas is so unserious as to be comical.

Is there any reasonable person that anticipates that the Rays will not write checks totalling tens of millions of dollars to operate their team each year for the rest of their existence?

Is Thomas pretending that he thinks the Rays will somehow be able to not spend money to operate their ball club? Does he REALLY expect anyone to believe that?

When Thomas says there were "never" any lease terms published, he is not being truthful. The existing Rays lease for the Trop has been published. And the Rays and City Staff both made numerous public statements that they fully expected the new lease for the proposed ballpark to closely resemble the current lease.

So, if we add the $150 million up front payment which was published, to the tens of millions of dollars the team spends each year (which has been published), for thirty years, we are left with a sum in the billions.

Perhaps Thomas cannot add?

Well, it's worse than that. He seeks to pretend.

He seeks to pretend that the Rays would not spend tens of millions per year in a new ballpark to pay player salaries, compensate the front office, pay ushers and other employees.

Thomas pretends.

The rest of us laugh.

In every group, there is always one guy who hears voices.

[Thomas]

Rick - you're competely mental.

Team and player salaries are completely separate from ballpark operations costs.

The Rays current lease is $1M per year. But somehow you turned that into "Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year".

Then you went on and on about pretending and truth.

It's a really priceless combination. It's too late to try to spin it back the other way now Ricky.

[Rick K]

Yes THOMAS. On the one hand, we have what you wish to PRETEND.

On the other, we have what I actually SAID. Which is that the Rays will spend tens of millions of dollars to operate their team in the new stadium each year. At no time did I try to convince anyone that the Rays would spend tens of millions of dollars in annual rent payments to the City.

ATrulyConcerned offered the ridiculously false claim that the Rays and City staff had proposed GIVING the team the Property "FREE OF CHARGE" (emphasis his).

I countered that the transaction was not Free of Charge.

First, the Rays proposed spending at least $150,000,000 up front.

Do you dispute that this fact, by itself, disproves TrulyConcerned's false assertion?

Secondly, I indicated that the Rays, under the terms of their agreement in the new ballpark, would continue to operate a Major League Baseball club, which would mean that the Rays ownership would spend tens of millions a year as a condition of their lease in the new stadium.

Those are facts.

It is also a fact that the lease terms which were being discussed publicly (contrary to your false assertion that lease terms were not discussed publicly) would call for the Rays getting exclusive control of the stadium for their home games (and probably a few other team events), while the City would retain control and have the ability to rent to other groups or host other events during the rest of the year.

Those are facts.

I am slightly amazed that you aren't the slightest bit embarassed to keep coming here and making your wild claims that are so easily destroyed.

[Thomas]

You really are a psycho.

Posted by: Rick K | August 08, 2008 at 05:41 PM
"Everyone knows you are lying. You gain nothing of value by lying about this. Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year is not transferring ownership "Free of Charge!"

Posted by: Rick K | August 08, 2008 at 06:56 PM
"At no time did I try to convince anyone that the Rays would spend tens of millions of dollars in annual rent payments to the City."

Technically you said it would be "hundreds of millions" not "tens of millions"

Dude, you're caught red handed making stuff up.

There were never any lease terms published for the new stadium. "Discussions" don't mean anything. Yet here you are, just conjuring up lease terms and presenting them as facts.

That's your game though: Make it up, post it, then call everyone else a liar.

Ricky, you ROCK!

[Rick K to Truly Concerned]

A Truly Concerned, in reply to your 5:11 post, I humbly offer, for the greater good, the following response....

You said, "To Rick K. Since my earlier post showed how you exaggerate and distort and you had no answer for my line by line specific points to your gross mistatements...how can you possibly expect us to believe ANYTHING you say."

I say, first, I am not aware of any post by you that shows anything remotely close to what you now describe. Could you possible provide a link or tell me the date and time of this alleged post?

Second, I do NOT expect YOU to conduct yourself based on my factual assertions. I fully expect you (and Don Mott and Thomas and POWW's leadership) to continue to cling to fantasies and to peddle lies as truths.

I clearly stated in my post to which you are responding that I was writing to people who may discover these threads at some point in the future.

I labor under no delusions about my chances of convincing you to give up the fantasies and lies.

You say that I "call experts..'QUACKS'."

I say, I do no such thing. I call quacks 'quacks.' These people are not experts in that their work ignores known economics and hinges upon a whole host of unsupported claims that are actually contrary to observable evidence and established principles of economics.

You say, "Rick K. you can't simply call yourself an EXPERT economist."

I say, first, that I intentionally did not call myself an expert. I called myself an economist who has worked in the specific sub-specialty of measuring economic impact.

Secondly, I may be an expert. You have no idea. I intentionally did not make that part of my presentation because my point is that one need not have expertise in economics to be able to sift through the competing claims.

You say that I "have used sooo much hyperbole you have ruined your credibility."

I say that is a typical claim from you. It is unsupportable, false, and silly. Asserting it undermines your credibility more than it damages mine. But I am quite content to let our future readers sort through whom they think makes claims that are consistent with observable evidence.

You say, "and it's funny you use my old hometown of Cincinnati where they are currently in litigation with the Bengals because of unfulfilled promises...It's a place I visit 2-3 x a year and I walk across the purple bridge and feel sooo saddened by what two stadiums and an arena have done to what was once a beautiful waterfront and what is now simply an ugly wall of stadia!!!"

I say, you say it's funny, but I doubt that you laughed. I point out that there were already a stadium and a coliseum on the Waterfront, and that those old structures were nowhere near as attractive and inviting as the new sports venues in the Queen City.

Your contention about Cincinnati is off point, in any case. I pointed out that there were two very different studies. I invited readers to decide for themselves which was more relevant and reliable.

Your two to three walks across the purple bridge each year don't really have any influence on these two studies.

You say, "So Rick your earlier posts and rants against POWW..the Anti's..Don and Thomas have destroyed your credibility."

I have already addressed your claims about my credibility and need not do it again. However, I believe that I have, on no less than 12 occasions, thoroughly deconstructed allegations and false claims presented by Don Mott, Thomas, you, POWW, and other ANTI's.

One quick example. At your invitation, I presented a detailed accounting of 65 separate instances of what I labeld as distortions, distractions, exagerations, deceptions, lies, straw man arguments and otherwise dishonorable claims by POWW. No one has yet found the courage to reply to that list which you asked me to share in these blogs.

You say you "have done just as much research as you on the subject."

I say, that is a typical claim from you. Baseless. Wild. Untrue.

You have NO EARTHLY idea how many hundreds of hours I have spent for the last 20 years in performing, reading, and critiquing economic impact studies and similar reports. You have ZERO idea, yet you assert a bold claim which is untrue.

AClearDirection, you have not even read the quack studies you guys like so much. If you did, you would stop using them as examples of reasonable proof of the false claim that sports teams do not create positive economic benefits.

You say, you "can state unequivocally that your claims about the studies being viewed as quackery are simply not true."

Oh. That's impressive. An "unequivocal" statement by a known liar who lacks a background and advanced education in economics, particularly dealing with economic impact studies should simply convince everyone.

I think not.

How about this A Truly Concerned, give me the name of five economists whom I could call on the phone tonight and hear them tell me they know you by name and can describe you. If you can't do that, what good is your statement, unequivocal or otherwise?

You say, "Is there some disagreement YES..but your hyperbole is
so over the top as to render your opinion useless."

I say, you cannot produce the original study that proves the claim repeated in at least 20 of the studies and articles linked to by Don Mott and Judy Too ("there is near universal agreement among economists that pro sports teams do not produce net positive economic benefits"). Nor can anyone else. Because no such study has ever been conducted.

It is widely quoted by the Quacks. In fact, that is one of the best ways to determine if a quack is a quack. If they hold that claim to be true, they are a quack.

You say I "seem to have no concept of 'conflict of interest' and there is a huge difference between studies performed BEFORE the stadium and studies AFTER the fact that examine decades of hard, factual, historical data."

I say it is you who misunderstands conflict of interest. Where there is none, you try to imply it.

When there actually is some, you deny it.

I may write more about this final point in the future. But for now, I must go to Gulfport to watch the last Little League Southern Regional championship in the stadium.

I do thank you for the laughs, my friend.

[Don Mott]

"Is there any reasonable person that anticipates that the Rays will not write checks totalling tens of millions of dollars to operate their team each year for the rest of their existence?" So spinmeister please explain how this benefits taxpaying citizens, certainly those who have no interest in MLB. But do have an interest in public safety and infrastructure that would be deprived of their tax dollars. Please explain how average citizens will recoup the benefits of tax dollars spent when the millions are spent "in house"? Spin on!

[Rick K to Thomas]

Thomas, stop drinking the bong water, please!

If you reread my assertions about the Rays expenditures, you will see that both are true. They will spend tens of millions each year, and hundreds of millions (even billions) over 30 years.

No one who can read disputes this.

Secondly, you made the false assertion that "no lease terms have been published."

They have.

Sigh!

[Thomas]

Kool Aid,

You have the published lease terms for the new stadium that is not even planned yet? That's a very impressive claim. I'm sure you won't hesitate to post them.

And it's from those new stadium lease terms that you have surmised that we will have:"Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year"

Even though they only pay $1M annually to lease the Trop. Was it a 100 year lease Ricky?

You're caught Rick. It's time to give it up.

[Thomas]

You even put "LEASE" in all caps.

"Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year"

So we're not talking about how much the Rays pay in player salaries. You specifically said the team would pay "hundreds of millions of monies" to "LEASE" the park.

Yet, there were never any lease terms published for the new stadium - and the team only pays $1M per year at the Trop.

KOOL AID ! “Oh, Yeah!”

[Don Mott]

"I say, you cannot produce the original study that proves the claim repeated in at least 20 of the studies and articles linked to by Don Mott and Judy Too ("there is near universal agreement among economists that pro sports teams do not produce net positive economic benefits"). Nor can anyone else. Because no such study has ever been conducted." Now you want the "original study". Before you wanted peer reviewed studies, which I provided. Faced with that you opted for your "QUACK" attack asking for "original studies". I presented published articles from, A)college professors and B)PhD's in economics. Yet you, with no published credentials call THEM quacks? Look in the mirror when you say quack. Bet you won't see the AFLAC duck! Show us an ORIGINAL STUDY from 20 or so reputable persons or institutions that disprove these claims then you might gain some credence! Until then you are a dream weaver!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Ricky..

At least you've stopped resorting to calling us "Thugs" and "cheaters" and so I deem that an improvement. I'll try to make a brief effort at answering you rationally although I suppose trying to deal with someone who is acting irrationally is also irrational by definition. I plead guilty!

The post on this thread which specifically outlined your ABSOLUTE LIES and other distortions is at 12:04AM 8/7 a couple of dozen above this one.

As far as who is more qualified or who has done more research on this specific subject you're own argument really negates any point either of us could make...

"You have NO EARTHLY idea how many hundreds of hours I have spent for the last 20 years in performing, reading, and critiquing economic impact studies and similar reports. You have ZERO idea, yet you assert a bold claim which is untrue."

Obviously I can make the same claim..and so claims of expertise..accusations of quackery are just nothing more than words. I feel VERY SECURE in the amount and QUALITY
of research I have performed on stadium studies. I will acknowledge that you obviously feel just as secure...which means absolutely nothing. I can also recognize from their posts that Thomas and Don Mott are not shooting from the lip and they too have obviously performed a certain amount of due diligence on stadium deals to inform their opinions. So I could say that's 3 of us and one of you. But what you fail to recognize Rick is that we are talking about the very soul of St. Pete. Will we honor our ancestors and keep the waterfront clear of commercial development...do we want to have similar traffic problems as Tampa...well there are many questions but the obvious conclusion is that you Rick K....right or wrong are simply out of synch with what the vast majority (St. Pete Times survey...1000's of red signs..the fact the Ray pulled their proposal) of our city's residents wish.

There is a person with the city staff right now who has served over 20 years who has some definite ideas on baseball...he is one of the men responsible for getting us in this bind to begin with his far fetched claims about what the Dome would do for us. The truth is while he is a nice man..he is also a dinosaur and doesn't keep up with STATE OF THE ART or the most recent research based on empirical measureable evidence. In addition he has made some HUGE errors that have cost the city literally millions of dollars. He is obviously hell bent on leaning towards any literature that can possibly forward his cause. I suspect you and he have a lot in common.

If nothing else though Rick K at least you have avoided "thugs" and "cheaters" in your recent posts. Check the 12:04AM 8/7 post on this thread if you are wondering what I am talking about.

[Voter 13]

About 90% of the text is Mr. K. Is this his personal blog? Yuk.

[Don Mott]

Factual assertation/quote from Rick K the spinmeister in his own words which he later denied. 2. "Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year" Spin On!

[Don Mott]

"Thomas, the stadium never promised anyone anything, which is what you asserted. That is why I called you silly.

There were, without doubt, some who thought that building the Trop with the location and design that they used would create certain benefits which have not come to fruition. However, there were many at that time who believed that the reason the hoped for benefits would not come to be was because of flaws in the stadium design and location."

"I was one of those people, Thomas." Are you insinuating you were here when the stadium was built? If so that goes against earlier statements you have made saying you weren't. Which is it Rick?

[John]

Perhaps we ask Aaron to change the name of the blog from Ballpark Frankness to "Rick K's Field of Dreams"

Rick K, if you're not a politician or a comedian, then you missed your calling. Which may explain why you have so much time to post on here.

I turned a few of my neighbors on to a thread or two of your inane blather, they just shook their heads in disbelief at your routine...

Funny stuff

[Don Mott]

Oh and yes Rick the Stadium didn't promise anything but the City sure did.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

BTW Rick K.

If you happen to own a piece of prime waterfront real estate...I would like to give you $150,000 so you can build me a $450,000 waterfront restaurant for me. Ohhh and by the way I want you to take care of the property tax for me as well, can you negotiate a legal loophole with the county so I can avoid ANY TAX on your property. Since I only intend to "lease" it for thirty years or so it's still "your" property and I promise to pay my staff and other expenses during the life of my lease.

Of course initially Mr. Kalt claimed the $150,000,000 was in lieu of rent...after much blowback he said he would be amenable to negotiating a lease somewhere along the line of what the city currently enjoys. LMAO

The naming rights were heavily front loaded to give the money to the team...what great staff we have negotiating for us...we have lost money with this lease..and now that more of that annual naming rights cash is due to the city with each passing year since the frontloaded part has passed, the Rays want to void their present lease and move to a new stadium.

Carpetbagger...any exploitive or opportunistic outsider...

Build the Rays a new stadium or they'll leave.

Blackmail-to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats

[John D]

Lots of chat rooms have "Hall of Fame" threads that they sticky so that centuries from now, inquiring minds can read them just for their entertainment value. I nominate this thread! I love this thread.
C'mon, Aaron. Please sticky this thread!

[Paul]

This just in... Rick K's dog ran away due to lack of attention by its owner. Appears that Rick 'Kool Aid' K. spent too many hours at the keyboard and no time playing fetch with Fido.

We wish the best for Fido in finding a new home and owner.

'Oh Yeah!'

[Rick K to Don Mott]

Don, you may be a bright man who plays an ignoramus online. I am not sure.

You call me a spin meister and ask me to explain how the Rays operating their team in St. Pete benefits taxpayers who do not go to Rays games.

First, I have already explained it.
Second, others have explained it as well.
Third, PriceWaterhouse Coopers also explained it.
AND PWC quantified it.

Don Mott, PriceWaterhouse Coopers performed a professional unbiased study to measure the economic impact of the Rays and they condcluded that said impact exceeds (conservatively) $100 million per year.

Not spin.

Credible work of extremely competent professionals.

Accepted by reasonable men.

Dismissed by unreasonable ones.

Lastly, Don, your incredible use of twisted logic defies not just common sense, but basic intelligence.

You link over and over to studies that assert things without ANY proof whatsoever.

I point this out.

You demand that I provide links that prove that your studies do not provide proof.

Dumb.

Your links are the proof.

Read the studies.

Find ONE that proves anything.

Find ONE that doesn't merely repeat unproven claims and pretend they are fact.

Then you might have an ounce of credibility.

[Rick K to Thomas]

Thomas:

After reading your most recent posts in this thread, I am left wondering if you are intentionally faking stupidity, or if you suffer from short term memory loss.

You ask me if I "have the published lease terms for the new stadium"

I already answered this, and you knew the answer before you asked it the first time. The current lease between the Rays and the City/County for Tropicana Field has been published. Both the Rays and the City Staff announced publicly (i.e, they "published") that they fully expected that lease terms for a new stadium (if built) would closely mirror the terms of the existing lease.

I have made my reliance upon those assumptions quite clear. Which you well know. You are now jumping up and down like the kid in elementary school who loses every battle of wits, pretending you have scored some point.

You have not.

Thomas, you foolishly say, "And it's from those new stadium lease terms that you have surmised that we will have:"Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year"

Which is not what I said. Anyone who can read can see that TrulyConcerned asserted two false facts.

First, that the Rays proposal called for the Rays to be GIVEN the stadium, and second, for the Rays to receive this gift "FREE OF CHARGE."

I pointed out, first, that the Rays were proposing to LEASE a stadium (disproving the first claim).

Second, I pointed out that the expected terms of that lease would result in the Rays spending BILLIONS of dollars, which disproves ATruly Concerned's claim that the transaction would be free of charge to the Rays.

The Billions the Rays would spend comes from the following sources, all clearly spelled out by me, above.

1. An upfront payment of at least $150,000,000.
2. The Rays spending tens of millions of dollars each year to operate their team, including playing home games in the stadium.

Neither the Rays, nor the City expected that the Rays would occupy the new stadium without the $150,000,000 up front payment, nor did either expect that the Rays would cease to operate a Major League Baseball franchise that will spend tens of millions of dollars to operate it's business.

Thomas, your posts in this thread are simply idiotic.

You act like you have caught me in some lie or contradiction. You haven't.

It pains me to do this, because you are acting like a fool. But let's clue anybody in who might be confused by your silliness.

You say, "You even put 'LEASE' in all caps."

Yes. No kidding. I put LEASE in all caps because ATrulyConcerned, to whom I was replying, put the word GIVING in all caps. He did this not once, but twice, in his 4:26 pm post. He lied twice. He continues to lie. He says the Rays and City staff were proposing that the Rays be GIVEN the rights to use the stadium FREE OF CHARGE.

Then, Thomas, you offer this quote from me, "Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year."

Then you say, "So we're not talking about how much the Rays pay in player salaries. You specifically said the team would pay 'hundreds of millions of monies' to 'LEASE' the park."

Silly, silly, little Thomas.

Of course that is PRECISELY what I was talking about.

What I actually said in my 5:41 pm post above, was this.

(To TrulyConcerned) . . . "contrary to your incorrect assertion, neither the Rays nor the City staff proposed giving the current Al Lang site away. The proposal was to enhance the site by spending about $500 million there, increasing it's value, economically and in other ways."

Then, a few paragraphs later, I said, "
It was proposed that the Rays spend at least $150 million up front, and that they continue to spend tens of millions of dollars each and every year to operate the team's business in the ballpark. This is very, very far removed from the lie you are trying to peddle, that the Rays proposed that the site would be given away to them 'Free of Charge.'"

So it is obvious I am talking about "operating the team's business in the ballpark," since that is exactly what I said. But then I went on to ask TrulyConcerned,

"Why lie about it?

Everyone knows you are lying. You gain nothing of value by lying about this. Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year is not transferring ownership Free of Charge!"

So now, Thomas, I direct that question at you.

Why lie about it?

[Rick K, also to Don Mott]

Don, you ask where I was when I was thinking that the City was making a mistake in building the Trop the way they did.

I have already mentioned this, but maybe you missed it.

I was working for a City Urban Development department, and was a graduate student studying, specifically, the economic benefits from public infrastructure investments of the type represented by St. Pete's construction of the dome.

Because of the unique nature of the dome project (the City was one of the first to tear down existing neighborhoods and build a professional sports venue without a promise of landing a team as a tenant), nearly every student and urban development professional in America was VERY interested in the St. Pete project.

I actually wrote a Thesis about it. Flew down here several times. Reviewed the HUD files on the property acquisition, civil engineering, enviornmental studies, propery appraisals, negotiation notes, court cases, relocation case files, and on and on.

I spent six months on assignment to the Joint Economics Committee of the US Congress, during which I was a contributing author to a JEC report about the costs and benefits of such projects. In it, we included loads of data and judements about the Florida Suncoast Dome.

Do Don, your weird obsession should be calmed a bit now. I have not changed my story. Instead, I submit to you, that because I did not live here and was not subjected to the irrational passion which infects so many of you, I am probably better informed of the actual facts related to the Dome project than most who lived here in the Bay Area.

Actually, Don, I doubt if there are 12 people on the planet who have read as much as I have about the project. I read nearly every newspaper article, op-ed piece, City Study, competing study, feasibility report, grant application, loan application, city council agenda and minutes, county commission agendas and minutes, property acquisition files, relocation case files, construction progress reports, and on and on.

Probably more than 100,000 pages of stuff.

So while you were living in Largo getting all emotionally worked up. I was informing myself of the facts.

And the interesting thing is this, Don.

Although the information upon which we based our opinons about the Suncoast Dome differed greatly, we had a common view of the project.

You thought it was a pie in the sky promise that wouldn't work out.

I thought it was a supremely poor location and project designed that was certain to fail because of built in obsolesence.

Today, I can look at the two proposals that came out (now on hold or completely dead, depending on what happens) and see that they offered this community the opportunity to correct the design and location problems of the past.

Having worked in urban development for more than 20 years, and having been educated in the field, I know that well designed, properly located projects like this are tremendous contributors to economic growth, prosperity and diversity.

You are still clinging to emotion from your Largo home.

Different strokes, I guess.

[Rick 'Kook Aid' K's Dog]

Woof woof, wooof woof bark woof

Dog Language Translation: 'Rick, please open the door. I'm hungry, you haven't fed me in days because all you do is blog. An owner shouldn't ignore his dog like this. Shut off the computer and play fetch with me.'

Sincerely,

Rick 'Kook Aid' K's dog

[Rick K in reply to a Truly Concerned]

A TrulyConcerned.

You are apparently confused.

1. My name is not Ricky. You must have me confused with someone else.

2. My posts are filled with rational and logical thought. You must have me confused with Don Mott, Thomas, or 1962.

3. Your post at 12:04AM 8/7/07, which you describe as "The post (by you) on this thread which specifically outlined your (meaning mine, Rick's) ABSOLUTE LIES and other distortions, does not live up to the billing you just gave it. You failed, in that post, to point out a single lie or distortion made by me. All the claims you falsely call lies are truths.

4. Your claims that you have studied the actual benefits from pro sports teams and sports venues as have I is a bald faced lie that you can not back up. Please tell us how many graduate level courses you have taken focusing specifically on this issue. How many studies you have read (from both schools of thought). How many of these neighborhoods you have visited (with a critical eye intent on adding to your professional study) before and after new sports stadia have been constructed, and also tell us how many academic papers you have authored on these subjects. Otherwise, please don't confuse the fact that you scanned a few studies without actually understanding them with having devoted decades to the field.

5. When you say, "Obviously I can make the same claim," you seem to be ignoring the most important distinction. Your claims would be untrue. That is what matters. I know you want us to live in a world where true is false. But that is just silly.

6. You assert that you "feel VERY SECURE in the amount and QUALITY
of research I have performed on stadium studies." Unfortunately for you, how secure you FEEL has nothing to do with the validity of your assertions. A crazy man is often convinced of his rightness. Big deal. You hold up the unsupported and unsupportable claims of quacks and assert they are valuable. This makes you little more than one who has been fooled.

7. That fact that you are joined in your embrace of the unproven quackery by the plagiarist Thomas and the delusional Don Mott apparently comforts you. It does little to convince anyone seeking the truth. On "your" side of this important debate, you have you, Don Mott, Thomas, and a few dozen others from POWW and their like-minded folks, who all embrace quackery and lies dismissed by courts all across the land and disputed by upwards of 90% of economists.

8. When you say, I "fail to recognize that we are talking about the very soul of St. Pete," you are engaging in unsupportable, unprovable (and rather juvenile) guessing. You are also overreaching in a rather shrill and pathetic manner.

9. When you say, "Will we honor our ancestors and keep the waterfront clear of commercial development," you completely misinterpret the intent of our ancestors. There is little doubt in the mind of most who have read the words of the City fathers who first conceived of creating a one of a kind jewel on the City's waterfront that they would support the Rays' proposed stadium.

10. You say, I am "simply out of synch with what the vast majority of our city's residents wish." (sic) You are engaging in fantasy. Which, in no case, has ANYTHING to do with facts. My post in this thread was about the attempts by some (Don Mott and Thomas, now joined by you) to convince people by LYING.

11. Your personal attack on the unnamed City staffer is misplaced and foolish. I value it with as much seriousness as the rest of your wildly speculative claims, unsupportable claims.

In closing, I will offer a test to demonstrate the depths of your unreasonableness.

Do you fail to acknowledge that so far, there have been two studies made available to the public (well, the overall results have been cited in the press) which were performed by people interested in doing what is best for this Region, both of which studies concluded that the Rays contribute millions upon millions of dollars to the local economy? And, meanwhile, there has yet to be a single credible study released to the public (or had its general findings shared in the press) which finds the opposite?

Can you admit that?

[Rick K in reply to a Truly Concerned]

I should have worded the discussion of the two studies more carefully.

There have been two studies discussed in the media.

1. The Pinellas County Tourism Development Council, who is interested in promoting tourism in the County, had a staff study performed. That study indicated that the Rays make sifnificant contributions to tourism.

2. The St. Pete Chamber of Commerce, who is interested in promotion commerce in the Greater St. Pete area, paid PriceWaterhouse Coopers to perform a study of the economic impact of the Rays. That study indicated that the Rays contribute upwards of $100,000,000 annually to the local economy.

And, to date, there are no credible studies we know of which either attack those two studies or provide justification for the claim that the first two studies findings are invalid.

Do you dispute this?

[Rick K's dog]

Rick K has no dog. I am a figment of the ANTI's imagination.

Like the millions of dollars it will take to clean up the Trop Field site;

And, like the Red signs that were "everwhere";

And, like "all" the economists in the world who "universally agree" that sports stadiums produce negative economic benefits for their areas;

And, like a single, rational, factually true claim by the ANTI's.

We're all like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and "safe" female interns in the Clinton White House....

We don't EXIST!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Ricky you spinmeister...you are a trip..

You say...
"PriceWaterhouse Coopers performed a professional unbiased study"

"UNBIASED"!!! Who paid for that study Rick? Can you say the Chamber of Commerce..a group with a very specific agenda who squelched EVERY BIT OF DISSENT from within their OWN group.
The Chamber had an answer before that study was ever commissioned. Chambers nationwide notoriously have BAD reputations with these types of studies.
Here goes Ricky...
Conflict of Interest-Situation in which a person is faced with a possible decision in an official or fiduciary capacity from which he or she (or group of people) stands to benefit personally because of another relationship.
In addition Rick this once again is a PROJECTION...it's not based on historical data or it's absolute BS!!!
With an average attendance of 1,500,000 over the past ten years that means EVERY PERSON WHO ATTENDED a game would have to be responible for a $66 per person multiplier. Did EVERY PERSON stay in a hotel or eat a meal at one of our restaurants? Did those high paying concession stand jobs multiply at $66 per person attending?
You add..
"Accepted by reasonable men.
Dismissed by unreasonable ones."

This is again illustrative of the absurdity of your posts. You try to act as if there is some economic science behind them when they are full of YOUR OPINIONS.

Then you say...
"Rays and the City Staff announced publicly (i.e, they "published") that they fully expected that lease terms for a new stadium (if built) would closely mirror the terms of the existing lease."
This is a lease in which the city..we taxpayers..have LOST money. The schedule of compensation for the naming rights was heavily "front loaded" with the vast majority of money to this point going to the team..NOT SPLIT FAIRLY. And so in your opinion will any new lease simply pick up another horrible deal for the taxpayers like the last? Will our deal look anything like Bud Selig's numbers in Milwaukee?
After all the COMMISSIONER OF THE MLB's oft stated remarks about how we NEED a new stadium have been quoted frequently. Selig should be the poster boy for your side...see his numbers...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9123FF932A15751C1A9659C8B63
And please Rick spare us the stupidity of a Pinellas county wannabe econcomist from dismissing this article because it was written by NATIONALLY known Andrew Zimbalist. Forget the author Ricky...
Tell us which of his NUMBERS ARE MISTAKEN. TELL US WHICH OF HIS QUOTES FROM WISCONSIN POLITICIANS ARE MISQUOTED.

Then come another Rick K. gem of complete ignorance...
"Second, I pointed out that the expected terms of that lease would result in the Rays spending BILLIONS of dollars, 1. An upfront payment of at least $150,000,000.
2. The Rays spending tens of millions of dollars each year to operate their team, including playing home games in the stadium.

OK IT'S TIME RICK...PUT UP OR SHUT UP..
TELL ME HOW THIS IS NOT HYPERBOLE OF THE WORST KIND.
Billion(S)..has to mean at least 2 Billion...Take your 150 million...and the Rays would have to spend over 50 million a year for 30 years to reach billions. Now are you talking about making Carl Crawford, Scott Kazmir, Evan Longoria incredibly wealthy?
Explain with your voodoo economics how paying a couple of dozen people, most of whom do not even live here..the tens of millions you describe could possibly benefit St. Petersburg Taxpayers.
Can you provide the NAIC OR SIC numbers that illustrate THAT MULTIPLIER?

Then you say..
"contrary to your incorrect assertion, neither the Rays nor the City staff proposed giving the current Al Lang site away. The proposal was to enhance the site by spending about $500 million there, increasing it's value, economically and in other ways."

First of all 450 million minus 150 million is a 300 million dollar gift!!!
We haven't even addressed infrastructure costs which in New York are now beyond 100 million for the new Yankee stadium..another fine Michael Kalt production.
A lease that provides negative net cash flow...see the present lease...is a gift of however many dollars are represented in that negative cash flow.

And yes Ricky spending 500 million dollars on the SITE WILL DEFINITELY INCREASE IT'S VALUE...FOR THE RAYS YOU MORON!!!! If history is any indication..see Baltimore..Texas..Cleveland..Milwaukee etc...The Rays will pick up a quick quarter of a billion dollars in net increase in their equity position. Nobody ever denied this was a GREAT DEAL FOR THE RAYS...IT'S THE CITIZENS WHO GET THE SHAFT!

Rick you are an absolute huckster and shill with such little credibility that you either represent that man in city government who got us in the mess to begin with...or perhaps are him...is that you Rick?

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

BTW..

If you're not Rick from the city or a friend of his...could your initials be P.C.? I shall not attempt to blow your cover since I believe everyone deserves some right to privacy.

I must confess to curiosity since P.C. is the only other fellow I have ever met who has combined your particular lack of critical thinking and a totally biased approach with some obvious education.

[Thomas]

Hey Kool Aid, did you hurt yourself with that mega-spin?

You still cant get away from it. You just conjured up "Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year". No hacky excuse is going to change it.

The Rays aren't paying any "hundreds of millions" just to "LEASE the park for 81 days a year."

It is very entertaining watching you try to talk your way out of it though.

[Rick 'Kook Aid' K's Dog]

woof woof bark, wooof!

Dog language translation: 'See what I'm talking about? Its darn hot our here and he doesn't even put out a bowl of water for me. Blog, blog, blog, that's all he does. By the way, you do realize how hard it is for me to type all this with paws?. Oh sure he can talk baseball all day, but you think he could play fetch with me? Nope.'

Thirsty and lonely,

Rick 'Kool Aid' K's Dog

[John D]

Aaron? Are you there? Please, Aaron.
Think of the historical value. Think of the generations to come who will be able to read this thread and see exactly what "flame war" means!
This thread could become a meme, right up there with "numa numa dance," or "chocolate rain," or even Weezer's "Pork & Beans".

[Thomas]

(I was laughing so hard I accidently posted this on the ABC thread also)

Kool Aid, the Super Economist, is counting the Rays payroll as part of the lease.

Thomas: "So we're not talking about how much the Rays pay in player salaries. You specifically said the team would pay 'hundreds of millions of monies' to 'LEASE' the park."

Rick: "Of course that is PRECISELY what I was talking about."

That is the most awful spin job I've seen yet.

The Rays might want to think twice about resigning Crawford. According to Rick, their lease payments will go up if they do!

Really Kool Aid - counting the payroll as part of the lease? Is that the best you can do?

[Rick K to Truly Nuts]

ATrulyConcerned, you may have lost it! Besides your delusional wonderings about whether my initials are "P.C." (no, stupid, they are "R.K."), your post at 10:49 is simply too much. You are now coming awfully close to a good impersonation of a raving lunatic.

Consider:

You open with, "Ricky you spinmeister...you are a trip.."

I JUST explained to you that my name is not Ricky. I have never posted as Ricky. On the one hand you wonder if my name is really PC, and on the other you get confused over my name, which is Rick or Rick K, but never Ricky.

Are you hearing voices in your head? I see no posts in this thread from a Ricky. Why do you respond to Ricky?

Are you mad?

I assert that the PWC study was unbiased. First, because ALL the available evidence says so. And Second because the data they gathered and presented is not biased.

You, on the other hand, offer wild, unsupportable accusations without a single shred of evidence to back up your crazy claim.

I clearly indicated that the Chamber of Commerce PAID for the study.

Just as you might pay for an appraisal of real estate or art. Or like we might pay someone to determine the feasibility of anything. Nearly everyone who hires a professional to perform an economic impact study PAYS for it. The person doing the paying seeks to have an unbiased professional apply their considerable expertise to render a professional opinion about the economic impact of the subject being investigated.

There is no evidence (zero, zip, nada, none) that PriceWaterhouse Coopers, whose employees would have violated civil and criminal laws (resulting in fines, imprisonement and professional ruination) had they lied, performed anything other than a completely unbiased report.

[Summary of the report can be found here: http://business.stpete.com/Resources/files/RaysEconomicFiscalImpacts.pdf) ]

This is your main problem, ATrulyConcerned.

You refuse to accept that there might be any facts in the world that disagree with anything you think.

You are convinced that it is impossible that this world includes any factual truths that you are unaware of or do not accept.

And you think that your conviction equates to reasonable evidence for sane people who don't live inside your head, with Ricky and P.C.

The Chamber of Commerce did not squash dissent. I know SEVERAL people in the Chamber who dissent from many positions taken by the membership.

You are making up a lie from whole cloth, without any evidence to support your wild, outlandish claim.

Proof of dissent in the Chamber's membership disproves your bogus claim.

You also say that Chambers "notoriously have bad reputations with these studies."

I imagine in your fantasy world that is true. Chambers all over America often step up to the plate and offer to pay for studies to measure the economic impact of something. Often times, it is Chambers who seek to hire professionals to examine the question of just how much something (a university, community college, night school, musuem, sports team, arts institution, tourist attraction, public festival, or single event) creates in economic impact.

They often are the players who are best positioned to pool monies to hire professionals to answer these sorts of questions.

That you wish to imagine that because Chambers seek independent professional opinions, that makes them "bad," doesn't mean the rest of us believe your loony claims.

There is no conflict of interest situation here. The Chamber sought answers. They hired a professional independent firm to answer the question. There was no pressure to return a predetermined answer.

That is as good as it gets.

Now, even though your wild lie has no basis in fact. It is interesting. Because, for it to be true, then the underlying POINT I am making would have to be true.

If, as you say, the Chamber of Commerce membership KNOWS their business incomes are larger because of the Rays presence in St. Pete.... and IF they somehow worked a highly illegal (and so far completely undetected) arrangement and convinced the World's most respected professional Accounting and Counsulting firm to risk collapse of their entire business, in order to return a report that says the Rays provide a positive economic impact to the community....

(the above is not true, of course)..

But if that were true... than all that means is that St. Pete area businesses are better off because of the Rays!

Ta da!

You've offered fabricated lies without any evidence, and all you have done is create a juvenile circular proposition which would prove the exact opposite of which you seek to prove.

As for your assertions about the PWC study being all about projections, you are, again, wrong. Everyone is invited to read the brief summary which has been made available to the public and make their own conclusions as to how much of it is projection and how much is measurement of the recent past/present.

The study is completely based on historical data.

Your assertion to the contrary are lies. Notably, at the point in your rambling post when you are talking about the "historical data," you seem to be calling me Rick, I guess your meds kicked in.

I presented a fair layman's explanation of the study in a different thread.

[That post can be found here: http://blogs.tampabay.com/ballpark/2008/07/comment-124425726 ]

Everyone is welcome to read either my post or the few page summary of the Economic Impact study. All who do so will see (within seconds) that ATrulyConcerned is lying shamelessly.

The Independent PWC economic impact study uses EXTREMELY conservative assumptions to intentionally under estimate actual economic impact from the Rays. They use an EXTREMELY low multiplier, also.

ATrulyConcerned would have us believe he has found the time, in recent months, to become more educated on these topics than people who have spent more than 20 years studying and working in the field of economic impact. Yet he can't even accurately report what is contained in a six page summary.

ATrulyConcerned would have us believe he as expertise in critically reviewing economic impact studies, yet he childishly asks, "Did EVERY PERSON stay in a hotel or eat a meal at one of our restaurants? Did those high paying concession stand jobs multiply at $66 per person attending?"

Obviously, the answer is no. Anyone who is familiar with competently performed economic impact studies knows this.

ATrulyConcerned, yes, I add the phases, "Accepted by reasonable men," and "Dismissed by unreasonable ones."

And if someone is standing on the sideliens wondering who to believe, consider this. Professionals like the ones working for PWC who completed the Economic Impact study for the St. Pete Chamber of Commerce have been called as Expert Witnesses in more than 100 court cases in the United States in the last 25 years. In each case, they have provided expert testimony about the economic impact of various sports teams or sports facilities. There has never yet been a US Court that did not accept the professional opinons of these experts.

On the other hand, the quacks that ATrulyConcerns pretends are the mainstream equals of the first group of experts (like those who work at PWC) have, in every court case decided so far, had their "opinions" dismissed by the Courts. In other words, judges and juries do not believe the quacks.

No reasonable people do.

Some people WANT to.

But you cannot agree with unsupportable conclusions that lack even the most basic evidentiary support.

ATrulyConcerned, never quite content to quit with the unsupportable claims, offers up this gem, "This (the Rays lease for the Trop) is a lease in which the city..we taxpayers..have LOST money."

There is NO evidence whatsoever that we have lost money. ALL the available evidence which you and I know about concludes EXACTLY the opposite.

If the total cost of the public subsidies of the Trop are around $20 to $30 million a year, and the Rays produce $100 million or more a year in economic benefits, we are all MAKING money on the exchange.

There has not been a single study by a competent professional which concludes that we have lost money via the Trop.

Not content with his usual lies, fabrications and ridiculous assertions, ATrulyMad goes after a devoted, competent public servant.

In this case, ATrulyConcerned is going after a Pinellas Tourism Development Council staffer when he says, "And please Rick spare us the stupidity of a Pinellas county wannabe econcomist."

How rich is that? ATrulyConcerned, who has no advanced education in economics, who does not work in the area of measuring economic development, and who cannot even read a simple study and correctly interpret its findings, calls a professional who has worked for the TDC for many years a "wannabe economist."

No proof.

Just dismissive criticism.

As though ATrulyConcerned's wishes equate to facts. Since ATrulyConcerned wants to believe he knows a lot about how to perform Economic Impact studies, he wishes we would all believe him and ignore the only experts who have worked on the question so far.

Interestingly, two more economic impact studies are on their way.

One is being PAID for by the TDC and will be conducted by Walter Klages and his company, Research Data Services Inc. The other is being PAID for by the Rays and will be conducted by Arduin Laffer & Moore, the Talahassee based economics consulting firm. (Probably the best Florida-based economic impact consultants.)

NOTICE this about ATrulyConcerned, he cannot tell us in advance which of the four reports will have the least or most reliable numbers. He will not tell us that we should dismiss all the studies except for the Research Data Services report. He won't do so because he wants to wait and see how the reports come out.

If the Rays study came back saying that the team only has a $2 million annual economic impact, ATrulyConcerned would RUSH to champion that study. All concerns about imagined conflicts of interest would be swept away. ATrulyConcerned would scream and yell from every hilltop, singing the praises of the Rays study.

Because that is what he does.

He selects data and evidence he likes.

And dismisses the rest.

Most of us don't do that.

But ATrulyConcerned does.

Sadly, he appears to be little more than a delusional fool.

[Thomas]

Kool Aid,

Did PWC count the Rays payroll as a lease payment - or are you the only one who does that?

[Rick K to Thomas]

Simple.

The PURPOSE of the lease is/will be for the Rays to play Major League Baseball games in the stadium.

To do this, they will spend tens of millions each year.

No one other than the foolish Thomas has implied that anyone has confused money spent operating an MLB franchise with actual rent payments due to the City from the team.

Does Thomas think people who read these threads are seven years old?

[Thomas]

Kool Aid - you are just embarrassing yourself now:

"Rick K August 08, 2008 at 05:41 PM -Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year "

When asked to clarify exactly where the "hundreds of millions" were coming from to "LEASE" the park - you offered this:

"Rick K August 11, 2008 at 09:11 AM - So it is obvious I am talking about "operating the team's business in the ballpark"

1 - You state that the Rays are paying "Hundreds of millions... to LEASE the park"

2 - You say "I am talking about operationg the teams business in the ballpark"

3 - You claim "No one has confused money spent operating an MLB franchise with actual rent payments due to the City from the team."

During your laughable attempt to talk your way out of the "hundreds of millions" spent to "lease" the park you dug yourself even deeper. That's the problem with lying Ricky.

Click, Click, Click - BOOM Outta Here.

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Rick K.,

Let's clear some things up. Apologies for calling you Ricky...I suspect I have allowed your "Thug" "Cheaters" "Quacks" comments drag me down into the blogswamp with you. I'm going to try to rise above it.

Now some corrections please...the Pinellas County wannabe economist was YOU! Not somebody with the Pinellas Tourism Council. I could simply rebut any LOCAL report you supply with the CONA report. That comes from a non partisan, INDEPENDENT group. At least one of the member of that study group has literally been FAR more influential than you in terms of the city's land development after a long career with the city.

As for the infallibility of Price Waterhouse I laugh Rick. Try
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/online/1_1/31218-1.html
It states..IBM, PriceWaterhouse pay fines for alleged kickbacks. IBM Corp. will pay $2.97 million, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers will pay $2.32 million, to settle allegations that the companies made improper payments in connection with federal IT contracts, the Justice Department announced today.

Or maybe you'd like the state of New York's take on the company which USED to handle the state's drivers license database....."He said he could not understand why the state had failed to take Price Waterhouse to court over the problems with the computer system that the New York-based accounting concern installed in 1985 under a no-bid state contract. The program selected by the company was not equal to the task, and division employees had to work nights and weekends putting information into the slow-responding system while falling further and further behind the workload. Mr. Karcher said that the state should sue Price Waterhouse to recover for the overtime costs and the public inconvenience. Mr. Edwards said that the state had withheld about $1 million still owed Price Waterhouse under its contract and was still negotiating a final settlement with the company, which has had to revamp the system."

Or perhaps you prefer the view of the SEC from the premerger days of PW...
The SEC alleged that Price Waterhouse, the fifth-largest U.S. public accounting firm, had failed to note discrepancies in AM financial statements and thus was "materially false and misleading." As a result, the SEC said, AM was able to report inflated revenues and profits."

Am I alleging that PW are crooks? No just that unlike you they are not infallible!!!

Now you have called my sources "Quacks"
Let's just let everyone know who Rick K regards as a "Quack" or an institute of higher learning that promotes "Quackery"

Let's begin with Roger Noll Professor of Economics at Stanford University. (Stanford has a bad rep don't they Rick?)
Andrew Zimbalist PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS and Rick's favorite from Smith College
Robert Baade..Professor of Economics and Chair of the Economics and Business Department Lake Forest College, Chicago
Of course we could add many studies from Universities like John Hopkins, Holy Cross School of Economics...toss in Professor Phil Porter for local flavor from USF.
We could add studies from think tanks as diverse as the CATO Institute, the Brookings Institute, or the Indiana Policy Review or perhaps the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics...AGAIN ALL QUACKERY..
Perhaps we should toss in the investigative reports from such FRINGE publications as "US News and World Report" "Newsweek" "Time" "Forbes" again all by "quack" journalists.
But for those who really want to see the wrong headedness of Rick's arguments simply try this link...
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/madness.pdf
Or perhaps this one from that famous consumer quack Ralph Nader..
http://www.commondreams.org/views/032700-101.htm

To get a real idea of your credibility Rick K. you have called ALL OF THESE PEOPLE QUACKS!!! Do you really expect us to believe some blogger from Pinellas County is more informed than ALL of these learned men, institutions,publications? Especially given the fact that you can't even admit you are out of synch with your fellow citizens. The St. Pete Times who you praise for objectivity...printed the 69% against figure. That was followed by a sea of red signs! Which was then followed by the Rays pulling this proposal off of the table. Do you REALLY BELIEVE the Rays bailed on more than a quarter of billion dollars of future profit without realizing where the community's sentiments lie?

[since1962]

Rickeeeeee

Got a copy of Walter Klages letter explaining 'study' methods via BOCC chair Stewart.

It began specifically with'10 home games representing 1700 interviews' then devolved into vague 'time series statistics obtained from travelers throughout 'the' destination'
Why so specific re baseball yet so vague re OUR TOURISM ECONOMY?

The question of MLB POTENTIAL impact is no longer a/the QUESTION as it was in original study.They're here and have impact.
So do MANY other unstudied COMPETING intrests.

ALL NEEDS and economic REALITIES considered...

WHAT CAN PINELLAS AFFORD TO CONTRIBUE?

That is the question!

[atrulyconcernedcitizen]

Since 1962,

That is the best, succinct synopsis of a question since Shakespeare's famous.."To be..or not to be".

[Don Mott]

I really liked this quote from Ralph Nader, who might know just a 'tad' more than Rick about economics. "If it were a good investment, the team owners and their financiers, like FleetBoston Bank, would not be seeking these outrageous subsidies. They'd bankroll the stadium themselves". I won't take the time to sit here and type a one or two hundred word reply to Rick's obviously befuddled comments. Let's just leave it to say he might of had a KoolAid overdose.

[Don Mott]

1962, I got that letter from Klage via Mr. Stewart as well. Did you notice in the last paragraph he said, "the growth of the economy". Not quite sure what data he is reading but I think the economy has been in a decline for a while now! Of course I'm not an ECONOMIST of Rick K's stature so maybe I just don't understand or maybe I'm just ignorant and stupid.

[Don Mott]

"The PURPOSE of the lease is/will be for the Rays to play Major League Baseball games in the stadium".

According to our Master Economist"To do this, they will spend tens of millions each year".

"No one other than the foolish Thomas has implied that anyone has confused money spent operating an MLB franchise with actual rent payments due to the City from the team." Might you elaborate on just where these "tens of millions" are GOING? Could it be to Administration and Player salaries which provide little to no benefit to the public at large? Get Real!

[Hello?]

I am convinced that Don Mott, Thomas, Truly, Since 1962 are not being real. Their posts in this thread over those names cannot have been written by adults who are serious. Rick K has so thorougly trounced you in this thread as to make it painful to read. You offer no valid points in this discussion. Who are you kidding?

[Duh]

I will repeat Rick's question. Does ANYONE believe that the Rays will not spend tens of millions of dollars in operating an MLB team? Does anyone believe Thomas is an adult? You people have now moved beyond your paranoid obsession with Rick K. You are not making ANY sense.

[Thomas]

Kool Aid, you're posting under fake names again. It's not very becoming; especially when you're accusing other people of being children. Tisk Tisk Rick.

Anyway, try to stay focused buddy.

On August 08, 2008 at 05:41 PM, you said, very clearly: "Hundreds of millions of monies from the Rays check book to LEASE the park for 81 days a year"

Nothing in there about operating the team or payroll. Just "LEASE" in big bold letters.

Then when you got caught in that lie, you started babbling on and on about 'payroll' and 'operating costs'.

Everyone knows you're lying Rick. Posting under a fake name isn't going help.

Heeere com